I am in a reading group studying Seidel's book (Fukaya Categories and Picard-Lefschetz Theory). All of the participants have backgrounds in symplectic topology/pseudoholomorphic curve methods. We are stuck in trying to understand the chapter presenting the algebraic background for Fukaya Categories.

Seidel makes the following claim: Non-unital $A_\infty$ functors $\mathcal F: \mathcal A \rightarrow \mathcal B$ are themselves the objects of a non-unital $A_\infty$ category. The morphisms $\mathrm{hom}( \mathcal F_0, \mathcal F_1)$ are something he calls (following Fukaya) pre-natural transformations. (The morphisms $T$ for which $\mu_1(T) = 0$ are the natural transformations.) Seidel then provides the formulae for the compositions $\mu_d$. (This is discussed in Section (1d) of the book [page 10].)

In our working group, we tried to check that these formulae for the compositions satisfied the $A_\infty$ associativity equations, but were unable to do so beyond $\mu_1$.

I have two questions (that may be the same question):

Why do these composition maps satisfy the $A_\infty$ associativity equations? Is there a way of understanding this geometrically?

  • $\begingroup$ I wasn't sure which tags to put. Apologies if I put the wrong ones. $\endgroup$ – Sam Lisi Mar 11 '11 at 15:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Probably you already know this reference: arxiv.org/abs/math/0310337 $\endgroup$ – Fernando Muro Mar 11 '11 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Fernando. I had not seen that reference before. I am trying to digest his explanation. $\endgroup$ – Sam Lisi Mar 12 '11 at 11:18

I can explain the pictures I usually draw to think of $A_\infty$ functors, but I don't know if they're standard. Anyway, I'll describe what is just a rubric for ingesting the long formulas, nothing more.

Let's consider first the Yoneda embedding $Y$, which re-thinks an object $L$ in an $A_\infty$-category $A$ as an $A$-module, or functor from $A^{op}$ to chain complexes. So $Y_L(M) = hom_A(M,L).$

I confess that when I confront these formulas/concepts, I always think in terms of the Fukaya category, which is very amenable to pictures and for which the $A_\infty$ structures are geometric.

So I draw a curve on a piece of paper and label it $L$. (The curve is literally a Lagrangian submanifold of my ${\mathbb R}^2$ piece of paper.) When I want to think of $L$ in terms of its Yoneda image, I draw the SAME curve, but as a squiggly line.

So what is the data that the squiggly line gives us? For each object $M$ (a regular curve on my paper), we have the intersection points, which form a graded vector space $hom_A^*(M,L).$ This vector space has the structure of a chain complex (Floer), with differential given by football-shaped bi-gons with one regular side and one squiggly side. For a pair of other objects, $M_1, M_2,$ we get a map $$\mu^2: hom_A(M_2,L)\otimes hom_A(M_1,M_2) \rightarrow hom_A(M_1,L),$$ and so on for all the structure of a module (section 1j, p. 19).

For the Fukaya category, the equations 1.19 follow (for non-squiggly lines) from studying degenerations of 1-parameter families of holomorphic polygons. Now squigglifying those same pictures gives 1.19 for an arbitrary module, and the equations are similar for not just modules but arbitrary functor between two $A_\infty$-categories.

What data do we have if we have two squiggly lines $L_1$ and $L_2$? They should intersect at a morphism between functors (and it should have a degree). This morphism of functores gives more data, using the Fukaya perspective. If we added one normal line $M$, we'd have the spaces $Y_{L_1}(M)$ and $Y_{_2}(M)$, and have a triangle which is a map between them. Higher polygons and the relations between them (by considering one-parameter families) should give you all the equations and give you a hint as to verify them. (But no promises!)

Hope that lengthy and pretty vague description was worth our time. (Oh, geez, this was a March 11 question? Probably stale by now!)

  • $\begingroup$ @Eric, thank you for this answer! The question is most definitely not stale. Our working group decided to move on in the book and come back to this point later. If I understand correctly, this explains why the functors that are in the image of the Yoneda embedding have the $A_\infty$ structure. Is it clear that these are all of them or that at the very least it suffices to check it for these? Of course, I was mostly looking for a heuristic idea, and this provides it. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Sam Lisi Apr 14 '11 at 15:03

The reference that I know, which goes through the algebraic details, is by V. Lyubashenko: http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0210047.

The geometric interpretation is very interesting but I don't think all the details have been written down yet. In the $A_{\infty}$-algebra case, i.e. an $A_{\infty}$-category with one object, we have the following interpretation: an $A_{\infty}$-structure on a graded vector space $A$ is equivalent to a coderivation $Q$ on the coalgebra $T^c(A[1]):=\bigoplus_{n\geq 0} A[1]^{\otimes n}$. In geometric language, $T^c(A[1])$ is called a non-commutative thin scheme and the coderivation $Q$ is a homological vector field. To see this equivalent to an $A_{\infty}$-algebra you just expand $Q=Q_1+Q_2+\cdots$ and use that $Q^2=0$. The functor from algebras to sets given by $$ A\mapsto Hom_{Coalg}(A^*\otimes T^c(B),T^c(C)) $$ is representable by a non-commutative thin scheme which clearly has a coderivation. The corresponding non-commutative thin scheme is denoted by $Maps(B,C)$ and every point of $Map(B,C)$ corresponds to an $A_{\infty}$-morphism. One now needs to take some sort of completion along the subscheme of these points to get the $A_{\infty}$-category structure. This is about as far as I understand the geometric interpretation of $A_{\infty}$-categories. The details about geometric interpretations of $A_{\infty}$-algebras are in Kontsevich and Soibelman's book "Deformation Theory" but such a description for $A_{\infty}$-categories has not appeared (to the best of my knowledge), but it would be very nice to have.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Jeremy. Can you expand a bit more on the $A_\infty$ algebra case? I would be happy to understand that instead of the more general one. $\endgroup$ – Sam Lisi Apr 14 '11 at 15:06

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.