7
$\begingroup$

I'm reading Osváth-Szabó's notes on Heegard Floer homology, in particular about the surgery exact triangle.

On page 14 (numbered 42 on the document), they describe an isomorphism between the space of homology classes of Whitney triangles $\pi_2(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})$ in $\mbox{Sym}^g(\Sigma)$ and $\mathbb{Z} \times \mathcal{P} $, where $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the group of periodic domains in $\Sigma$.

I'm not sure if I understand this isomorphism correctly, or if there are some typos, or both. Here is how I understand the isomorphism works:

Given two elements $\psi, \psi_0 \in \pi_2(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z})$, we can associate domains $\mathcal{D}(\psi), \mathcal{D}(\psi_0)$, by taking $$\mathcal{D}(\psi) = \sum n_{z_i}(\psi) D_i,$$

where $D_i$ are the components of $\Sigma - \{\mathbf{\alpha} \cup \mathbf{\beta}\cup\mathbf{\gamma}\}$, and $z_i \in D_i$; and $n_{z_i}(\psi)$ is the algebraic intersection of $\psi$ with $z_i \times \mbox{sym}^{g-1}(\Sigma)$.

It follows that if $n_z(\psi) = n_z(\psi_0)$, the domain $E = \mathcal{D}(\psi) - \mathcal{D}(\psi_0)$ is periodic: i.e. it satisfies $n_z(E) = 0$ (here, $n_z(E)$ denotes the coefficient of the component of $\Sigma - \{\mathbf{\alpha} \cup \mathbf{\beta}\cup\mathbf{\gamma}\}$ containing $z$ in $E$).

So all we have to do to define the isomorphism is pick a $\psi_0$ such that $n_z(\psi_0) = 1$: then we can subtract off $n \mathcal{D}(\psi_0)$ from $\mathcal{D}(\psi)$ to get a periodic domain. Given a fixed $\psi_0$, the isomorphism is then given by

$$\psi \mapsto (n, \mathcal{D}(\psi) - n\mathcal{D}(\psi_0)).$$

The inverse of the isomorphism should then be given by sending $(n, E)$ to something like $n \psi_0 + \phi$, where $\mathcal{D}(\phi) = E$; but this seems dependent on choice and I'm not entirely sure how to make sense of $n$ times a holomorphic triangle.

Is this right? How do I fix the last part?

Thanks very much.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

If I had to guess, I'd go for the typo and a small misunderstanding.

I think that the isomorphism should indeed depend on the choice of a triangle $\psi_0$ with $n_z(\psi_0) = 0$ (careful here: this has to be 0 and not 1, as you wrote above), but that it should be defined as

$$\psi\mapsto (n_z(\psi), \mathcal{D}(\psi)-\mathcal{D}(\psi_0)-n_z(\psi)\cdot\Sigma)$$

whose inverse is given by (notice that now you only sum a triangle and some periodic domain, plus multiples of the Heegaard surface)

$$(n,P)\mapsto \psi_0 + P + n\Sigma$$

The isomorphism I gave above agrees with the isomorphism in the notes only for domains with $n_z = 0$ (which are the only ones you consider in the hat version).


I don't think that you need a canonical choice for $\psi_0$ (hence for the isomorphism), nor that it's possible to have one.

One final remark: here you're not really summing holomorphic triangles, but rather domains, so you shouldn't worry about the "holomorphic meaning" of the sum of domains.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this. I knew there was something fishy going on with $n_z(\psi)$ not being one, but not how to fix it. With regards to your final remark, I understand what you're saying: I suppose what I'm wondering is how one goes from domain to holomorphic triangle: i.e. is there an easy way to see that every domain can be realised as $\mathcal{D}(\psi)$ for some $\psi$? For instance, what is $\psi$ for $n \Sigma$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 15:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, there's no easy way to do that in general. I think that for the hat version you can reduce everything to combinatorics (at the cost of increasing dramatically the number of generators) -- this is surely the case if you care about discs instead of triangles. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ I can post a separate question, but why is the difference $E=\mathcal{D}(\psi)-\mathcal{D}(\psi_0)-n_z(\psi)\cdot \Sigma$ periodic? I see why $n_z(E)=0$, but why is $\partial E$ a sum of the attaching circles (and not just partial segments of them)? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2015 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ Look at the $\alpha$-boundary $\partial_\alpha E$ of $E$, i.e. the boundary of the $\alpha$ portion of the boundary of $E$; $\partial_\alpha$ is linear, hence $\partial_\alpha E$ is the sum of the $\alpha$-boundaries of the three summands. The first two summands have opposite $\partial_\alpha$ by definition, and the third has no $\alpha$-boundary. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2015 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\psi$ and $\psi_0$ both live in $\pi_2(x,y,z)$, hence they have the same $\alpha$-boundary (as well as $\beta$- and $\gamma$-). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 5, 2015 at 7:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .