6

I know sometimes they use advanced methods to prove a given 4-manifold is not symplectic. for instance by Seiberg-Witten theory. But for a manifold to be symplectic we just need to check that there is an element in the second cohomology which is closed and when we cup product with itself gives us a nonzero element. Isn't this easy to check by hand? for instance I guess connected sum of two copies of $CP^2$ is not symplectic, can't we check this by hand without using any S-W theory?

7779052
  • 963
  • From a more analytic perspective, you're asking for a global solution $\omega \in \Omega^2(M)$ to the differential equation $d\omega = 0$ on $M^{2n}$ which also satisfies $\omega^n \neq 0$. In general, I don't think it's easy to know when a differential equation has global solutions or not. – Jesse Madnick Apr 22 '15 at 20:38
  • Whether there exist non-degenerate $2$-forms (not necessarily closed) is a purely topological question; a complete characterization of such manifolds can be given in terms of characteristic classes. But it's not clear which of those also support a non-degenerate $2$-form which solves $d\omega = 0$. (Just as it is not clear, for example, which smooth manifolds admit integrable complex structures.) – Jesse Madnick Apr 22 '15 at 20:41
  • @JesseMadnick: I think what you're writing here deserves to be an answer. –  Apr 22 '15 at 20:44

2 Answers2

4

The simplest obstruction to a symplectic structure on a given closed manifold $M^{2n}$ is, as you say, the de Rham algebra $H^*_{dR}(M)$. If there is a symplectic structure on $M$, there must be an element $[\omega] \in H^2_{dR}(M)$ such that $[\omega^n]$ is a nonvanishing element in $H^{2n}_{dR}(M)$. This rules out that, say, spheres of dimension greater than two are symplectic.

But this is far from sufficient. We're not just looking for a closed 2-form whose highest exterior power is not exact, we're looking for a nondegenerate closed 2-form - something whose highest power is a volume form. That is to say, the form $\omega^n$ is nowhere zero, not just cohomologically nonzero. There's no reason to believe the existence of an $[\omega]$ as above is sufficient.

There are better obstructions than the cohomology ring alone. For instance, if I have a symplectic manifold $M$, it had better admit an almost-complex structure. Supposing $M$ is a 4-manifold, this existence question is just another homological criterion:

A closed 4-manifold $M$ admits an almost complex structure $J$ if and only if there exists $h \in H^2(M;\Bbb Z)$ such that $h^2 = 3\sigma(M) + 2\chi(M)$ and $h \equiv w_2(M) \mod 2$. Here $\sigma$ is the signature, $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic, and $w_2$ is the second Whitney class. Now we can verify that $\#_2 \Bbb{CP}^2$ does not support a symplectic structure by writing $H^2(M;\Bbb Z)$ as $\Bbb Z \oplus \Bbb Z$; $w_2 = (1,1)$; and so we must have $h^2 = 14$. But you can check by hand that $14$ cannot be written as the sum of two odd squares (or the sum of two squares, period). Using this theorem, one can actually show that a simply connected, closed 4-manifold supports an almost complex structure iff $b_2^+(M)$ is odd.

And then there are even better obstructions, though they're harder to use. As an example, $\#_3 \Bbb{CP}^2$ has a perfectly nice cohomology ring - three generators in degree 2 that all square to a positive form in top degree, and does support an almost complex structure. But its Seiberg-Witten invariants vanish because it can be written as a connected sum of a manifold with $b_2^+>0$ and another with $b_2^+ > 1$, so it cannot support a symplectic structure (as Taubes has proved that symplectic manifolds have nonvanishing Seiberg-Witten invariants when $b_2^+ \geq 3$.)

  • The final sentence of your penultimate paragraph is not correct. Consider $S^1\times S^3$ for example. Did you mean something else? – Michael Albanese Apr 28 '18 at 16:58
  • @MichaelAlbanese I probably wanted to say simply connected; I imagine I had in mind Exercise 1.4.16(a) of Gompf and Stipsicz. Thank you for correcting my mistake. One direction follows from Noether's formula, in the form of their Theorem 1.4.13 (when $b_1 = 0$, it says $b_2^+$ of an almost complex surface is odd). I think the other would follow from the classification of indefinite symmetric bilinear forms, but I did not check. –  Apr 28 '18 at 19:34
  • Taubes result requires that $b_2^+ \geq 2$ at least in his original paper. $S^2 \times S^2$ for instance is symplectic but has vanishing SW invariants. – PVAL-inactive Apr 29 '18 at 04:57
  • @PVAL Thanks for catching that. I wish I was more careful when I wrote this. –  Apr 29 '18 at 12:06
  • The SW invariants depend on a choice of "chamber" when $b^2_+=1$, and Taubes does show that symplectic manifolds have nonvanishing SW invariants (when $b^2_+=1$) in a chamber dictated by the symplectic form. – Chris Gerig Apr 29 '18 at 20:08
  • @MikeMiller: Your comment is correct. Your new version of the sentence is not quite correct though as you only need $b_2^+(M)$ odd, it doesn't need to be at least three (e.g. $\mathbb{CP}^2$). I think you added the restriction $b_2^+(M) \geq 3$ in response to PVAL's comment, but I think they were instead referring to the parenthetical remark in your final paragraph. – Michael Albanese Apr 29 '18 at 21:27
  • @MichaelA I think that the current version of the answer is correct, and that restriction showed up in the wrong part earlier. In any case, I am not going to make further edits; others can of course if they want. –  Apr 29 '18 at 21:30
3

On Mike Miller's suggestion, I've turned my comments into an answer:

From a more analytic perspective, you're asking for a global solution $\omega \in \Omega^2(M)$ to the differential equation $d\omega = 0$ on $M^{2n}$ which also satisfies $\omega^n \neq 0$. In general, I don't think it's easy to know when a differential equation has global solutions or not.

Whether there exist non-degenerate 2-forms (not necessarily closed) is a purely topological question; a complete characterization of such manifolds can be given in terms of characteristic classes. But it's not clear which of those also support a non-degenerate 2-form which solves $d\omega = 0$. (Just as it is not clear, for example, which smooth manifolds admit integrable complex structures.)

Jesse Madnick
  • 31,524
  • consider w as an element in second singular cohomology, isn't easy to verify which elements have coboundary zero? – 7779052 Apr 23 '15 at 02:43
  • @7779052 First, a symplectic form is an honest-to-God closed 2-form, not just an element of the second deRham cohomology. Second, we're not just looking for forms with $d\omega = 0$ (if we were, we could just calculate the second cohomology) - the stipulation on $\omega^n$ is a big deal. –  Apr 23 '15 at 04:05
  • First I meant $\omega$ is a cocycle not a coboundary. Also I am taking into account that n times cup product of $\omega $ is non zero, so once again $\omega\in H^2(X,Z)$ satisfies $\delta \omega=0$ and $\omega\cup...\cup\omega\neq0$. Why should it be difficult to check by hand whether such an element exists. – 7779052 Apr 23 '15 at 06:12