Symplectisation as a functor between appropriate categoriesflexibility of almost contact ``Reeb'' vector fieldsWhen does a hypersurface have contact-type?'Contactization' and SymplectizationSpaces of symplectic embeddings: Bundle? Smoothness?Is there a Legendrian Neighbourhood Theorem also for non-cooriented contact manifolds?Boundary geometry of a contact manifoldWhat is the mirror of symplectic field theory?Gluing symplectic manifoldsThe isotopy class of a Boothby-Wang contact structurePhysical intuition behind prequantization spaces

Symplectisation as a functor between appropriate categories


flexibility of almost contact ``Reeb'' vector fieldsWhen does a hypersurface have contact-type?'Contactization' and SymplectizationSpaces of symplectic embeddings: Bundle? Smoothness?Is there a Legendrian Neighbourhood Theorem also for non-cooriented contact manifolds?Boundary geometry of a contact manifoldWhat is the mirror of symplectic field theory?Gluing symplectic manifoldsThe isotopy class of a Boothby-Wang contact structurePhysical intuition behind prequantization spaces













3












$begingroup$


Let $(M,xi)$ be a transversally orientable contact manifold, that is, there exists a form $alpha in Omega^1(M)$ such that $xi = ker alpha$. Then we can associate to $(M,xi)$ its symplectisation $(mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha))$, a symplectic manifold. I wondered, if there is a categorical setting for this process. I mean, naively, we could consider symplectisation as a map on objects $$S colon mathsfTOCont to mathsfSymp$$ where $mathsfTOCont$ denotes the category of transversally orientable contact manifolds as objects and maps $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ such that there exists a nowhere vanishing function $f in C^infty(M)$ with $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$ as morphisms $F colon (M,xi = ker alpha) to (widetildeM,widetildexi = ker widetildealpha)$. Likewise, $mathsfSymp$ denotes the category with objects symplectic manifolds and morphisms $F colon (M,omega) to (widetildeM,widetildeomega)$ such that $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ with $F^*widetildeomega = omega$.



Now the problem I am facing is the following: I would define $S$ on morphisms
$$S(F) colon (mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha)) to (mathbbR times widetildeM,d(e^twidetildealpha))$$ by
$$S(F) := operatornameid_mathbbR times F.$$ But then, if $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$, we compute $$S(F)^* d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^tfalpha),$$ that is, $S(F)$ is not a morphism in $mathsfSymp$. If $f > 0$, we could use the definition
$$S(F)(t,x) := (t - log(f(x)),F(x))$$ and things would work out fine. However, this would impose a restriction on orientation.



I think everything boils down to the fact that if $(M,xi = ker alpha)$ is a contact manifold, then also $xi = ker falpha$ for every nowhere vanishing smooth function $f$. But I guess the symplectisations are not symplectomorphic in general in this case, that is, a single t.o. contact manifolds admits different non-symplectomorphic symplectisations. Is that right? Do you have any idea how to turn symplectisation into a functor between appropriate categories?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    3












    $begingroup$


    Let $(M,xi)$ be a transversally orientable contact manifold, that is, there exists a form $alpha in Omega^1(M)$ such that $xi = ker alpha$. Then we can associate to $(M,xi)$ its symplectisation $(mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha))$, a symplectic manifold. I wondered, if there is a categorical setting for this process. I mean, naively, we could consider symplectisation as a map on objects $$S colon mathsfTOCont to mathsfSymp$$ where $mathsfTOCont$ denotes the category of transversally orientable contact manifolds as objects and maps $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ such that there exists a nowhere vanishing function $f in C^infty(M)$ with $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$ as morphisms $F colon (M,xi = ker alpha) to (widetildeM,widetildexi = ker widetildealpha)$. Likewise, $mathsfSymp$ denotes the category with objects symplectic manifolds and morphisms $F colon (M,omega) to (widetildeM,widetildeomega)$ such that $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ with $F^*widetildeomega = omega$.



    Now the problem I am facing is the following: I would define $S$ on morphisms
    $$S(F) colon (mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha)) to (mathbbR times widetildeM,d(e^twidetildealpha))$$ by
    $$S(F) := operatornameid_mathbbR times F.$$ But then, if $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$, we compute $$S(F)^* d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^tfalpha),$$ that is, $S(F)$ is not a morphism in $mathsfSymp$. If $f > 0$, we could use the definition
    $$S(F)(t,x) := (t - log(f(x)),F(x))$$ and things would work out fine. However, this would impose a restriction on orientation.



    I think everything boils down to the fact that if $(M,xi = ker alpha)$ is a contact manifold, then also $xi = ker falpha$ for every nowhere vanishing smooth function $f$. But I guess the symplectisations are not symplectomorphic in general in this case, that is, a single t.o. contact manifolds admits different non-symplectomorphic symplectisations. Is that right? Do you have any idea how to turn symplectisation into a functor between appropriate categories?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      Let $(M,xi)$ be a transversally orientable contact manifold, that is, there exists a form $alpha in Omega^1(M)$ such that $xi = ker alpha$. Then we can associate to $(M,xi)$ its symplectisation $(mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha))$, a symplectic manifold. I wondered, if there is a categorical setting for this process. I mean, naively, we could consider symplectisation as a map on objects $$S colon mathsfTOCont to mathsfSymp$$ where $mathsfTOCont$ denotes the category of transversally orientable contact manifolds as objects and maps $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ such that there exists a nowhere vanishing function $f in C^infty(M)$ with $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$ as morphisms $F colon (M,xi = ker alpha) to (widetildeM,widetildexi = ker widetildealpha)$. Likewise, $mathsfSymp$ denotes the category with objects symplectic manifolds and morphisms $F colon (M,omega) to (widetildeM,widetildeomega)$ such that $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ with $F^*widetildeomega = omega$.



      Now the problem I am facing is the following: I would define $S$ on morphisms
      $$S(F) colon (mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha)) to (mathbbR times widetildeM,d(e^twidetildealpha))$$ by
      $$S(F) := operatornameid_mathbbR times F.$$ But then, if $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$, we compute $$S(F)^* d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^tfalpha),$$ that is, $S(F)$ is not a morphism in $mathsfSymp$. If $f > 0$, we could use the definition
      $$S(F)(t,x) := (t - log(f(x)),F(x))$$ and things would work out fine. However, this would impose a restriction on orientation.



      I think everything boils down to the fact that if $(M,xi = ker alpha)$ is a contact manifold, then also $xi = ker falpha$ for every nowhere vanishing smooth function $f$. But I guess the symplectisations are not symplectomorphic in general in this case, that is, a single t.o. contact manifolds admits different non-symplectomorphic symplectisations. Is that right? Do you have any idea how to turn symplectisation into a functor between appropriate categories?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $(M,xi)$ be a transversally orientable contact manifold, that is, there exists a form $alpha in Omega^1(M)$ such that $xi = ker alpha$. Then we can associate to $(M,xi)$ its symplectisation $(mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha))$, a symplectic manifold. I wondered, if there is a categorical setting for this process. I mean, naively, we could consider symplectisation as a map on objects $$S colon mathsfTOCont to mathsfSymp$$ where $mathsfTOCont$ denotes the category of transversally orientable contact manifolds as objects and maps $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ such that there exists a nowhere vanishing function $f in C^infty(M)$ with $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$ as morphisms $F colon (M,xi = ker alpha) to (widetildeM,widetildexi = ker widetildealpha)$. Likewise, $mathsfSymp$ denotes the category with objects symplectic manifolds and morphisms $F colon (M,omega) to (widetildeM,widetildeomega)$ such that $F in C^infty(M,widetildeM)$ with $F^*widetildeomega = omega$.



      Now the problem I am facing is the following: I would define $S$ on morphisms
      $$S(F) colon (mathbbR times M,d(e^talpha)) to (mathbbR times widetildeM,d(e^twidetildealpha))$$ by
      $$S(F) := operatornameid_mathbbR times F.$$ But then, if $F^* widetildealpha = falpha$, we compute $$S(F)^* d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^tfalpha),$$ that is, $S(F)$ is not a morphism in $mathsfSymp$. If $f > 0$, we could use the definition
      $$S(F)(t,x) := (t - log(f(x)),F(x))$$ and things would work out fine. However, this would impose a restriction on orientation.



      I think everything boils down to the fact that if $(M,xi = ker alpha)$ is a contact manifold, then also $xi = ker falpha$ for every nowhere vanishing smooth function $f$. But I guess the symplectisations are not symplectomorphic in general in this case, that is, a single t.o. contact manifolds admits different non-symplectomorphic symplectisations. Is that right? Do you have any idea how to turn symplectisation into a functor between appropriate categories?







      dg.differential-geometry ct.category-theory sg.symplectic-geometry contact-geometry






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago









      YCor

      30.4k4 gold badges91 silver badges146 bronze badges




      30.4k4 gold badges91 silver badges146 bronze badges










      asked 8 hours ago









      TheGeekGreekTheGeekGreek

      1368 bronze badges




      1368 bronze badges




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          first of all I think your $S(F)$ can be modified into
          beginalign*
          S(F)(t,x)=(t-log(|f(x)|), F(x))
          endalign*

          since $f$ is non-vanishing, this is always smooth. Nevertheless, there is a more conceptual way to see the symplectization:
          the symplectization $S$ is a functor from contact manifolds into homogeneous symplectic manifolds. The latter is the category of pairs $(P,omega)$ consisting of a $mathbbR^times$-principal bundle
          $P$ and a symplectic structure $omegain Omega^2(P)$, such that
          beginalign*
          h_r^*omega=romega
          endalign*

          for the principal action $hcolon mathbbR^timestimes Pto P$.
          The morphisms are equivariant symplectomorphisms. This functor is even an equivalence of categories and
          does not work just for co-orientable contact structures. Everything what I said is (more or less) done in https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05405.



          HD






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I think it's friendlier to link to the abstract instead of (or as well as) the PDF. People are sometimes on slow connections and they may wish to see what the paper is about before downloading.
            $endgroup$
            – José Figueroa-O'Farrill
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I also thought about modifying the $S(F)$ in the way you did, but unfortunately, at least as far as I can tell, it doesn't work since $$S(F)^*d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^t operatornamesgn(f) alpha) neq d(e^talpha)$$ in general. Thank you for the suggested paper! I will check it out.
            $endgroup$
            – TheGeekGreek
            5 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill thanks for the suggestion, I already edited my post.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek I think you made a mistake. Note that you have $dlog(|f|)=fracdff$ for all non-vanishing functions $f$.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek You are right. I see now, where the sign issue arises. Take a contact manifold $(M,alpha)$, then $d(talpha)$ is a symplectic structure on $MtimesmathbbR^times $. For a contactopmorphism $Fcolon Mtotilde M$ ($F^*tildealpha=f alpha$ ), then the map $S(F)(x,t)=(F(x),fractf)$ is a symplectomorphism. "Your" symplectization basically chooses the open subset with positive reals, but a morphism with with negative $f$ doesn't preserve this choice.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            3 hours ago














          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337138%2fsymplectisation-as-a-functor-between-appropriate-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4












          $begingroup$

          first of all I think your $S(F)$ can be modified into
          beginalign*
          S(F)(t,x)=(t-log(|f(x)|), F(x))
          endalign*

          since $f$ is non-vanishing, this is always smooth. Nevertheless, there is a more conceptual way to see the symplectization:
          the symplectization $S$ is a functor from contact manifolds into homogeneous symplectic manifolds. The latter is the category of pairs $(P,omega)$ consisting of a $mathbbR^times$-principal bundle
          $P$ and a symplectic structure $omegain Omega^2(P)$, such that
          beginalign*
          h_r^*omega=romega
          endalign*

          for the principal action $hcolon mathbbR^timestimes Pto P$.
          The morphisms are equivariant symplectomorphisms. This functor is even an equivalence of categories and
          does not work just for co-orientable contact structures. Everything what I said is (more or less) done in https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05405.



          HD






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I think it's friendlier to link to the abstract instead of (or as well as) the PDF. People are sometimes on slow connections and they may wish to see what the paper is about before downloading.
            $endgroup$
            – José Figueroa-O'Farrill
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I also thought about modifying the $S(F)$ in the way you did, but unfortunately, at least as far as I can tell, it doesn't work since $$S(F)^*d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^t operatornamesgn(f) alpha) neq d(e^talpha)$$ in general. Thank you for the suggested paper! I will check it out.
            $endgroup$
            – TheGeekGreek
            5 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill thanks for the suggestion, I already edited my post.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek I think you made a mistake. Note that you have $dlog(|f|)=fracdff$ for all non-vanishing functions $f$.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek You are right. I see now, where the sign issue arises. Take a contact manifold $(M,alpha)$, then $d(talpha)$ is a symplectic structure on $MtimesmathbbR^times $. For a contactopmorphism $Fcolon Mtotilde M$ ($F^*tildealpha=f alpha$ ), then the map $S(F)(x,t)=(F(x),fractf)$ is a symplectomorphism. "Your" symplectization basically chooses the open subset with positive reals, but a morphism with with negative $f$ doesn't preserve this choice.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            3 hours ago
















          4












          $begingroup$

          first of all I think your $S(F)$ can be modified into
          beginalign*
          S(F)(t,x)=(t-log(|f(x)|), F(x))
          endalign*

          since $f$ is non-vanishing, this is always smooth. Nevertheless, there is a more conceptual way to see the symplectization:
          the symplectization $S$ is a functor from contact manifolds into homogeneous symplectic manifolds. The latter is the category of pairs $(P,omega)$ consisting of a $mathbbR^times$-principal bundle
          $P$ and a symplectic structure $omegain Omega^2(P)$, such that
          beginalign*
          h_r^*omega=romega
          endalign*

          for the principal action $hcolon mathbbR^timestimes Pto P$.
          The morphisms are equivariant symplectomorphisms. This functor is even an equivalence of categories and
          does not work just for co-orientable contact structures. Everything what I said is (more or less) done in https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05405.



          HD






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I think it's friendlier to link to the abstract instead of (or as well as) the PDF. People are sometimes on slow connections and they may wish to see what the paper is about before downloading.
            $endgroup$
            – José Figueroa-O'Farrill
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I also thought about modifying the $S(F)$ in the way you did, but unfortunately, at least as far as I can tell, it doesn't work since $$S(F)^*d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^t operatornamesgn(f) alpha) neq d(e^talpha)$$ in general. Thank you for the suggested paper! I will check it out.
            $endgroup$
            – TheGeekGreek
            5 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill thanks for the suggestion, I already edited my post.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek I think you made a mistake. Note that you have $dlog(|f|)=fracdff$ for all non-vanishing functions $f$.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek You are right. I see now, where the sign issue arises. Take a contact manifold $(M,alpha)$, then $d(talpha)$ is a symplectic structure on $MtimesmathbbR^times $. For a contactopmorphism $Fcolon Mtotilde M$ ($F^*tildealpha=f alpha$ ), then the map $S(F)(x,t)=(F(x),fractf)$ is a symplectomorphism. "Your" symplectization basically chooses the open subset with positive reals, but a morphism with with negative $f$ doesn't preserve this choice.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            3 hours ago














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          first of all I think your $S(F)$ can be modified into
          beginalign*
          S(F)(t,x)=(t-log(|f(x)|), F(x))
          endalign*

          since $f$ is non-vanishing, this is always smooth. Nevertheless, there is a more conceptual way to see the symplectization:
          the symplectization $S$ is a functor from contact manifolds into homogeneous symplectic manifolds. The latter is the category of pairs $(P,omega)$ consisting of a $mathbbR^times$-principal bundle
          $P$ and a symplectic structure $omegain Omega^2(P)$, such that
          beginalign*
          h_r^*omega=romega
          endalign*

          for the principal action $hcolon mathbbR^timestimes Pto P$.
          The morphisms are equivariant symplectomorphisms. This functor is even an equivalence of categories and
          does not work just for co-orientable contact structures. Everything what I said is (more or less) done in https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05405.



          HD






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          first of all I think your $S(F)$ can be modified into
          beginalign*
          S(F)(t,x)=(t-log(|f(x)|), F(x))
          endalign*

          since $f$ is non-vanishing, this is always smooth. Nevertheless, there is a more conceptual way to see the symplectization:
          the symplectization $S$ is a functor from contact manifolds into homogeneous symplectic manifolds. The latter is the category of pairs $(P,omega)$ consisting of a $mathbbR^times$-principal bundle
          $P$ and a symplectic structure $omegain Omega^2(P)$, such that
          beginalign*
          h_r^*omega=romega
          endalign*

          for the principal action $hcolon mathbbR^timestimes Pto P$.
          The morphisms are equivariant symplectomorphisms. This functor is even an equivalence of categories and
          does not work just for co-orientable contact structures. Everything what I said is (more or less) done in https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05405.



          HD







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 5 hours ago

























          answered 7 hours ago









          Heinz DoofenschmirtzHeinz Doofenschmirtz

          1085 bronze badges




          1085 bronze badges











          • $begingroup$
            I think it's friendlier to link to the abstract instead of (or as well as) the PDF. People are sometimes on slow connections and they may wish to see what the paper is about before downloading.
            $endgroup$
            – José Figueroa-O'Farrill
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I also thought about modifying the $S(F)$ in the way you did, but unfortunately, at least as far as I can tell, it doesn't work since $$S(F)^*d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^t operatornamesgn(f) alpha) neq d(e^talpha)$$ in general. Thank you for the suggested paper! I will check it out.
            $endgroup$
            – TheGeekGreek
            5 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill thanks for the suggestion, I already edited my post.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek I think you made a mistake. Note that you have $dlog(|f|)=fracdff$ for all non-vanishing functions $f$.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek You are right. I see now, where the sign issue arises. Take a contact manifold $(M,alpha)$, then $d(talpha)$ is a symplectic structure on $MtimesmathbbR^times $. For a contactopmorphism $Fcolon Mtotilde M$ ($F^*tildealpha=f alpha$ ), then the map $S(F)(x,t)=(F(x),fractf)$ is a symplectomorphism. "Your" symplectization basically chooses the open subset with positive reals, but a morphism with with negative $f$ doesn't preserve this choice.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            3 hours ago

















          • $begingroup$
            I think it's friendlier to link to the abstract instead of (or as well as) the PDF. People are sometimes on slow connections and they may wish to see what the paper is about before downloading.
            $endgroup$
            – José Figueroa-O'Farrill
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I also thought about modifying the $S(F)$ in the way you did, but unfortunately, at least as far as I can tell, it doesn't work since $$S(F)^*d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^t operatornamesgn(f) alpha) neq d(e^talpha)$$ in general. Thank you for the suggested paper! I will check it out.
            $endgroup$
            – TheGeekGreek
            5 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill thanks for the suggestion, I already edited my post.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek I think you made a mistake. Note that you have $dlog(|f|)=fracdff$ for all non-vanishing functions $f$.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            4 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @TheGeekGreek You are right. I see now, where the sign issue arises. Take a contact manifold $(M,alpha)$, then $d(talpha)$ is a symplectic structure on $MtimesmathbbR^times $. For a contactopmorphism $Fcolon Mtotilde M$ ($F^*tildealpha=f alpha$ ), then the map $S(F)(x,t)=(F(x),fractf)$ is a symplectomorphism. "Your" symplectization basically chooses the open subset with positive reals, but a morphism with with negative $f$ doesn't preserve this choice.
            $endgroup$
            – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
            3 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          I think it's friendlier to link to the abstract instead of (or as well as) the PDF. People are sometimes on slow connections and they may wish to see what the paper is about before downloading.
          $endgroup$
          – José Figueroa-O'Farrill
          5 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          I think it's friendlier to link to the abstract instead of (or as well as) the PDF. People are sometimes on slow connections and they may wish to see what the paper is about before downloading.
          $endgroup$
          – José Figueroa-O'Farrill
          5 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          I also thought about modifying the $S(F)$ in the way you did, but unfortunately, at least as far as I can tell, it doesn't work since $$S(F)^*d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^t operatornamesgn(f) alpha) neq d(e^talpha)$$ in general. Thank you for the suggested paper! I will check it out.
          $endgroup$
          – TheGeekGreek
          5 hours ago





          $begingroup$
          I also thought about modifying the $S(F)$ in the way you did, but unfortunately, at least as far as I can tell, it doesn't work since $$S(F)^*d(e^twidetildealpha) = d(e^t operatornamesgn(f) alpha) neq d(e^talpha)$$ in general. Thank you for the suggested paper! I will check it out.
          $endgroup$
          – TheGeekGreek
          5 hours ago













          $begingroup$
          @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill thanks for the suggestion, I already edited my post.
          $endgroup$
          – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @JoséFigueroa-O'Farrill thanks for the suggestion, I already edited my post.
          $endgroup$
          – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
          4 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @TheGeekGreek I think you made a mistake. Note that you have $dlog(|f|)=fracdff$ for all non-vanishing functions $f$.
          $endgroup$
          – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @TheGeekGreek I think you made a mistake. Note that you have $dlog(|f|)=fracdff$ for all non-vanishing functions $f$.
          $endgroup$
          – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
          4 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @TheGeekGreek You are right. I see now, where the sign issue arises. Take a contact manifold $(M,alpha)$, then $d(talpha)$ is a symplectic structure on $MtimesmathbbR^times $. For a contactopmorphism $Fcolon Mtotilde M$ ($F^*tildealpha=f alpha$ ), then the map $S(F)(x,t)=(F(x),fractf)$ is a symplectomorphism. "Your" symplectization basically chooses the open subset with positive reals, but a morphism with with negative $f$ doesn't preserve this choice.
          $endgroup$
          – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
          3 hours ago





          $begingroup$
          @TheGeekGreek You are right. I see now, where the sign issue arises. Take a contact manifold $(M,alpha)$, then $d(talpha)$ is a symplectic structure on $MtimesmathbbR^times $. For a contactopmorphism $Fcolon Mtotilde M$ ($F^*tildealpha=f alpha$ ), then the map $S(F)(x,t)=(F(x),fractf)$ is a symplectomorphism. "Your" symplectization basically chooses the open subset with positive reals, but a morphism with with negative $f$ doesn't preserve this choice.
          $endgroup$
          – Heinz Doofenschmirtz
          3 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337138%2fsymplectisation-as-a-functor-between-appropriate-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

          Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

          199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單