Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am a little muddled and am hoping I can get some clarification about forms in a complex manifold. Since I am only concerned with local issues, consider $M = \mathbb C^n$ as a complex manifold. So I have complex coordinates $z_1,\ldots,z_n$ and corresponding real coordinates $x_1, y_1,\ldots, x_n, y_n$ with $z_j = x_j + i y_j$. Now I have a canonical complex structure $J$ on $M$ given by $J \partial_{x_j} = \partial_{y_j}, J \partial_{y_j} = -\partial_{x_j}$. Then I have an isomorphism of the complex bundles between $TM$ and the holomorphic tangent bundle $T_{(1,0)} M = span_{\mathbb C} \{\partial_{z_j}\}$. This isomorphism is given by $$ (a+ib) \partial_{z_j} \mapsto a\partial_{x_j} + b\partial_{y_j}. $$ Now let $\omega = \sum_i dx_i \wedge dy_i$ be the standard symplectic form on $M$. What does this correspond to under the above isomorphism. At first glance it is $$ \tilde \omega = \frac{i}{2}\sum_j dz_j \wedge d\bar z_j $$ where $dz_j = dx_j + i dy_j, d\bar{z_j} = dx_j - i dy_j$. At second glance this can't be correct since this is zero on the holomorphic tangent bundle. On third glance, everything seems to work out if I think of $$ d\bar{z_j}(c\partial_{z_j}) = \bar c. $$ But this is unsettling to me. Is this the right way to think about it though? Can I get in any trouble by thinking of it this way?

The problem seems to be that the differentials of the real coordinates give real dual vectors, but the covectors $dz_j$, $d\bar z_j$ are inherently complex (their real span is not the real dual to $T_{(1,0)} M$ unless I interpret $d\bar z_j$ as mentioned above).

I believe what is usually done is $\tilde\omega$ is considered to be a form on $TM \otimes \mathbb C$ and is a real symplectic form on $$ \mathbb Rspan\{\partial_{x_j}, \partial_{z_j}\} = \mathbb Rspan\{\partial_{z_j} + \partial_{\bar z_j}, i(\partial_{z_j} - \partial_{\bar z_j})\} $$ but I'd prefer to not complexify if I don't have to (since I am just concerned with the symplectic geometry and thus the real bundle, but I would like the convenience of the complex notation).

share|improve this question
1  
Sorry, I'm confused by your definition of $\omega$, did you mean $\omega = \sum_{i} dx_i \wedge dy_i$ ? –  Tim van Beek Feb 27 '11 at 13:18
    
Thanks thats what i meant. I just edited it. –  Eric O. Korman Feb 27 '11 at 15:47
    
I'm a little confused as to what the actual question is. If all you care about is the the real symplectic form in complex notation, then your "at first glance" is correct---why does it matter that it vanishes on the (1,0)-part of the complexitied tangent bundle? Note that there is a difference between a real symplectic form on a complex manifold vs a holomorphic symplectic form: the latter are the things like $dz_1 \wedge dz_2$ on $\mathbb C^2$ for example, so are the correct analogs of sympletic forms in the complex world. –  Santiago Canez Feb 27 '11 at 16:01
    
@Santiago: I want to identify $T_{(1,0)} M$ with $TM$ in the way I mentioned. Then I want to know what the corresponding symplectic form looks like on $T_{(1,0)}$. It can only be $\frac{i}{2}\sum_j dz_j \wedge d\bar z_j$ if I interpret $d\bar z_j$ differently. So my basic question is if that is the right way to think about it. –  Eric O. Korman Feb 27 '11 at 16:26
add comment

1 Answer 1

Your bundle isomorphism isn't the tangent map of a diffeomorphism of the base. This makes all of the constructions come out wrong. The symplectic form under this identification is $$ \sum e_i \wedge f_i,$$ where $e_i( c \partial_z ) = c$ and $f_i( c \partial_z ) = \bar c$. If you understand $d \bar z$ as actually $\overline {dz}$, then your formula is fine.

I think it is somewhat easier to take the identification of the tangent space $\mathbb R^{2}$ with $\mathbb C$ by $(a+ib)\partial_x \mapsto a \partial_x + b \partial_y$. (i.e. use $\partial_x$ instead of $\partial_z$)

The other option, as you suggest, is to take the complexified tangent space, and work there. I think this latter is the most convenient for calculations... you just then need to be sure that you are only working with real objects. This is not a big deal, and imo, is a cleaner way of doing computations.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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