Timeline for Why should I care about Heegaard-Floer theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2012 at 15:21 | comment | added | Tim Perutz | Actually, I think the recent work of Kutluhan-Lee-Taubes on SW vs. Heegaard Floer implies that the d-invariant really is the Froyshov invariant. | |
| Feb 17, 2012 at 15:18 | comment | added | Tim Perutz | May I put in a word for Kim Froyshov? He used Seiberg-Witten theory, in the days before either SW Floer or Heegaard Floer theory, to define an invariant of homology 3-spheres, and gave applications to 4-manifold topology. [The Seiberg-Witten equations and four-manifolds with boundary, Math. Res. Lett. 3 (1996), no. 3, 373–390.] Ozsvath-Szabo's d-invariant was inspired by the Froyshov invariant, and is conjecturally equal to it. Of course, the big Heegaard Floer package helps one use this invariant to full advantage. | |
| Feb 17, 2012 at 7:11 | history | answered | Ryan Budney | CC BY-SA 3.0 |