2
$\begingroup$

Let $(L,\omega_L) \to (M,\omega_M)$ be a symplectic line bundle (symplectic line=real dimension 2) over a symplectic manifold $M$. Each of these objects can be equipped with an almost complex structure ($J_L$ and $J_M$, respectively) such that $g_L=\omega_L(\cdot,J_L\cdot)$ and $g_M=\omega_M(\cdot,J_M\cdot)$ are hermitian metrics on the $L$ and $TM$ respectively.

Fora given pair $(J_L,J_M)$ consider a hermitian connection $\nabla$for $g_L$ (i.e. $\nabla g_L=0$, $\nabla J_L=0$), and for a local section $s\in \Gamma(L)$ define $$ \nabla^{0,1} s= \frac{\nabla s + J_L (\nabla s) \circ J_M}{2}, $$ i.e. $$ \nabla^{0,1}_v s= \frac{\nabla_v s + J_L \nabla_{J_M(v)} s}{2}. $$ We say $s$ is holomorphic if $\nabla^{0,1} s=0$.

We say $(J_L,J_M)$ is an almost holomorphic structure on $L\to M$, if non-zero local holomorphic sections exit everywhere.

Question: What are the obstructions on $L\to M$ toward the existence of an almost holomorphic structure?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I think you actually have to define the triple $(J_L,J_M,\nabla)$ to be an almost holomorphic structure on $L\to M$ if there are local nonzero holomorphic sections everywhere, since the definition of 'holomorphic section' depends on $\nabla$ as well as the choice of $J_L$ and $J_M$.

Also, your choice of $J_L$ on the 'symplectic' bundle $L\to M$ reduces its structure to an $\mathrm{SO}(2)$-structure, so the $2$-plane bundle $L$ with this structure is just an oriented Euclidean $2$-plane bundle. Any two reductions of structure of an oriented $2$-plane bundle from $\mathrm{GL}_+(2,\mathbb{R})$ to $\mathrm{SO}(2)$ are equivalent, so there's really no information in that. It's the $\mathrm{SO}(2)$-connection $\nabla$ and the almost complex structure $J_M$ that carry all of the geometry, so you really should be defining your 'almost holomorphic structure in terms of the pair $(J_M,\nabla)$.

Now, when the dimension of $M$ is greater than $2$ and $J_M$ is generic, then there are no nonconstant local holomorphic functions on $M$. This means that, if you have two nonvanishing 'holomorphic' sections of $(L,\nabla)$, then, on overlaps, the ratio of the two (which must be a local holomorphic function), will have to be constant, and hence the bundle $L$ will have a flat connection. This will imply that the Euler class of the $2$-plane bundle is zero, so that $L$ will be a trivial bundle if $M$ is simply connected.

In special cases, when $(M, J_M)$ admits nonconstant local holomorphic functions, you can get nontrivial bundles $L$, but that's rare.

This isn't a complete answer, but it gives you an idea of what to look for and how you might think about modifying your question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with the first paragraph on how the question can be stated. Then in fact, my question is about the existence of a good J_M; generic J_M does not have this property for sure. I am looking for topological or symplectic obstructions against the existence of such J_M. For example, chern class of L is a well-defined 2-form no matter what J is. Then what does the existence of such J impose on this class; if J_M is good, can we conclude that c_1(L) would be (1,1) with respect to J_M? and similar. $\endgroup$ – Mohammad F. Tehrani Mar 9 '14 at 1:39
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, no. The Chern class of $L$ is only a cohomology class in $H^2(M)$; even a choice of $J_L$ does not yield a well-defined $2$-form until one chooses a compatible connection and computes its curvature. Without a more precise definition of what you mean by 'good', I don't think that your question is really answerable. $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Mar 10 '14 at 14:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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