Skip to main content
Corrected spelling of Ozsváth
Link
Robert Furber
  • 3.8k
  • 1
  • 23
  • 34

On OszváthOzsváth and Szabó's branched covering description of holomorphic disks in symmetric products

Source Link

On Oszváth and Szabó's branched covering description of holomorphic disks in symmetric products

On page 25 of Holomorphic Disks and Topological Invariants for 3-manifolds (https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0101206.pdf), the following lemma appears.

Given any holomorphic disk $u \in M(x,y)$, there is a g-fold branched covering space $p: \hat{\mathbb{D}} \rightarrow \mathbb{D}$ and a holomorphic map $\hat{u}: \hat{\mathbb{D}} \rightarrow \Sigma$, with the property that for each $z \in \mathbb{D}$, $u(z) = \hat{u}(p^{-1}(z))$.

What am I missing here? Obviously $u: \mathbb{D} \rightarrow \text{Sym}_g(\Sigma)$, and $\hat{u}: \hat{\mathbb{D}} \rightarrow \Sigma$, have different codomains. The only way I know to fit $\Sigma$ in $\text{Sym}_g(\Sigma)$ is via the diagonal embedding, but in the proof of the lemma, they exclude the case that the image of $u$ is contained in the diagonal.

What's really going on with the statement that $u(z)$ and $\hat{u}(p^{-1}(z))$ agree?