Timeline for Quantum cohomology rings as invariants
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2010 at 14:53 | comment | added | Barbara | I think I mostly think not of symplectic structures but of almost complex ones (reliable friends tell me they are related). Sorry about the confusion. | |
| Nov 30, 2010 at 6:03 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | Thanks, Arend. But I still wonder what notion of "deformation" or "family" for compact symplectic manifolds Barbara has in mind here... | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 17:00 | comment | added | Arend Bayer | I tried to explain the $\pi_1$-action in my reply to the same question that you are referring to: mathoverflow.net/questions/2269/ubiquitous-quantum-cohomology/… It indeed comes from the Gauss-Manin connection (i.e. the Gauss-Manin connection gives an action on the cohomology, and GW-invariants are invariant under this action). | |
| Nov 26, 2010 at 7:25 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | I once wrote something on MO similar to what you are saying... mathoverflow.net/questions/2269/ubiquitous-quantum-cohomology/… | |
| Nov 25, 2010 at 21:13 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | Also, I don't see how you're getting your action of $\pi_1$. Are you thinking of the Gauss-Manin connection? | |
| Nov 25, 2010 at 20:06 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | Presumably GW invariants of smooth projective varieties are invariant under deformation in the sense of algebraic geometry. But GW invariants of compact symplectic manifolds are invariant under deformation in the sense of ... ? | |
| Nov 25, 2010 at 14:55 | history | answered | Barbara | CC BY-SA 2.5 |