22
$\begingroup$

Looking for an example of a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ that is not symplectomorphic to $(M,-\omega)$.

In particular this means that $M$ must be chiral (i.e. doesn't admit an orientation-reversing diffeomorphism).

For a topological obstruction, I think it would be enough to find $(M,\omega)$ such that $\mathrm{Diff}(M)$ acts trivially on $H^2(M)\neq0$.

A complex projective variety defined by real equations won't work, because the complex conjugation map is antisymplectic.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ For a related post please see math.stackexchange.com/questions/1292642/… $\endgroup$ Aug 24, 2017 at 11:04
  • $\begingroup$ In your second line of your question, I guess that you mean "In particular a chiral manifold of dimension $4n+2$ with a symplectic structure, would be a desired example. Yes? $\endgroup$ Aug 24, 2017 at 11:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AliTaghavi Isn't there an answer to your question, which therefore is also an answer to this question, at the linked post? So it's a little more than just related... $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Aug 29, 2017 at 18:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The answer to the question linked by @AliTaghavi gives an example when $M$ is a manifold with boundary. Namely a symplectic filling of a hyperbolic 3-manifold, $Y$, such that $b_1(Y)>0$ and all orientation-preserving self-homeomorphisms of Y induce the trivial map on $H^2(Y)$. That post doesn't have an answer for closed $M$ though... $\endgroup$
    – Emily Maw
    Mar 12, 2018 at 16:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I wasn't sure at the time how to get an example for closed $M$. I don't think the answer in that post can be modified to give such, at least not in an obvious way. $\endgroup$
    – mme
    Mar 12, 2018 at 18:03

2 Answers 2

17
$\begingroup$

Let $n \geq 2$ be a natural number and $M$ a torus of dimension $2n$. Then a generic element of $H^2(M, \mathbb R)$ comes from a symplectic form, because we can take a $2$-form invariant under the torus action representing it, and it is a symplectic, and a generic such form is nondegenerate.

Thus it is sufficient to show that for a generic $\omega \in H^2(M,\mathbb R)$, the diffeomorphism group does not send $\omega$ to $-\omega$.

The action of the diffeomorphism group factors through the representation $\wedge^2$ of $GL_{2n}(\mathbb Z)$. Because $2n>2$, no element acts as $-1$ on this representation: It would have to have the product of any two different eigenvalues be $-1$, but there cannot be $3$ or more numbers with this property.

For each $\sigma \in GL_{2n}(\mathbb Z)$, the $\omega$ that are sent to $-\omega$ by it form a proper subspace in $H^2(M, \mathbb R)$, and there are countably many such. Choosing $\omega$ outside all these subspaces gets you an example. For instance, a random $\omega$ succeeds with probability $1$.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

The following answer was a suggestion of Ivan Smith's. It seems like a very nice argument, although the proof is quite high-tech.

Suppose $X$ is a compact symplectic manifold. By adding a small generic 2-form, we can ensure that the coefficients of $\omega$ with respect to a basis of $H^2(X;\mathbb{Z})$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$. Any diffeomorphism that reverses $\omega$ then has to act as $-1$ on $H^2$.

The question now is to find an $X$ such that no element of $\mathrm{Diff}$ acts as $-1$ on $H^2$, and Ivan said that a K3 surface would work. $H^2$ has rank 22, and the signature of the intersection form is $(3, 19)$. Apparently Donaldson theory means that $\mathrm{Diff}$ preserves the orientation of a positive-definite 3-dimensional subspace of $H^2$, so in particular cannot act as $-1$. This is explained in Donaldson-Kronheimer (Corollary 9.1.4), but the basic idea is that a choice of such an orientation allows one to orient some gauge-theoretic moduli space. Reversing the orientation reverses the sign of a corresponding Donaldson invariant, but this invariant is non-zero so it's not equal to itself with sign reversed.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.