4
$\begingroup$

Recall the adjunction formula $$ g(\alpha) = 1 + \frac{1}{2}\left( \alpha^2 -c_1(X)\cdot \alpha \right)$$ where $g(\alpha)$ is the genus of a pseudoholomorphic representative of the Poincaré dual of $\alpha$, $A=PD(\alpha)\in H^2(X;\Bbb Z)$, for a symplectic $4$-manifold $(X,\omega, J)$. The expected dimension of the space of such surfaces representing $\alpha$ is $$d(\alpha)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha^2+c_1(X)\cdot \alpha\right) $$

In a survey of M. Usher on the Gromov-Taubes invariants, I read the following sentence:

from these formulas, one can verify that, for generic $J$, the only source of noncompactness of the moduli space arises from the fact that, for some $T=H_2(X;\Bbb Z)$ and $m>1$, a sequence of embedded square-zero tori representing a class $mT$ might converge to a double cover of a torus in class $T$.

so here's my question for you: I don't quite see why this statement is a consequence of the adjunction formula: I can see that a square-zero ($\alpha^2=0$) torus must satisfy $c_1(X)\cdot \alpha=0$. Therefore $d(\alpha)=0$. Moreover I'm aware that a multiple cover of a torus must be a torus by looking at the Euler characteristics. Why is this the only possible source of non-compactness in our moduli space? why in other cases (other genus for example) the adjunction formula implies compactness?

I originally posted this question on math.stackexchange but got no answer there so I moved it here.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Assume your 4-manifold is minimal (otherwise there are multiply covered exceptional spheres which potentially give noncompactness). Then it's a computational check to see that: If $d(\alpha)=0$ with $\alpha=k[C]$ represented by a $J$-curve that is a $k$-fold cover of the underlying $J$-curve $C$ (assume connected for simplicity), then $k=1$ unless $C$ is a square-zero torus. Indeed, $d(k[C])=k\cdot d([C])+(k^2-k)[C]^2$ and note that $d([C])\ge0$ for generic $J$.

Now we can invoke some Gromov compactness. [And requiring that if $k>1$ and $J$ generic then the unbranched multiple covers of the square-zero tori are cut out transversally.]

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Chris, thanks a lot! can I ask you why exceptional spheres might cause a problem? they are not $J$-hol since by definition they have negative self-intersection, how do they arise in this context? $\endgroup$
    – Luigi M
    Commented Mar 17, 2021 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ They can certainly be J-holomorphic (your comment about forbidding negative self-intersection is false), consider the blowup of CP2 with standard complex structure and the exceptional divisor. Anyway, multiple covers will have negative virtual dimension. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17, 2021 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ I see, thanks a lot for the clarification Chris. but then in your answer, how do you exclude the case $[C]^2 <0$ (which I think is the reason why you can conclude that either $k=1$ or is a square zero torus) $\endgroup$
    – Luigi M
    Commented Mar 17, 2021 at 16:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Because I’m assuming the manifold is not a blowup. Use adjunction inequality to see that $\chi(C) + 2[C]^2 \ge0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17, 2021 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ thanks a lot! everything makes much more sense now! $\endgroup$
    – Luigi M
    Commented Mar 17, 2021 at 16:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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