Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Rigidity of Lie affine foliations

Stephane Geudens

TL;DR

The paper analyzes rigidity of Lie foliations modeled on the non-abelian Lie algebra $\mathfrak{aff}(1)$ by linking deformation cohomology $H^{1}(\mathcal{A})$ to Morse–Novikov cohomology. It develops a precise description via a mapping-cone framework, and obtains explicit criteria for when $H^{1}(\mathcal{A})=0$, leading to rigidity results. A central tool is the computation of Morse–Novikov cohomology $H^{\bullet}_{\theta}(M)$ for nowhere-vanishing $\theta$ with discrete period group, reduced to Morse–Novikov data on mapping tori $\mathbb{T}_{\varphi}$ with $\theta=cdt$, yielding explicit kernels and cokernels of $[\varphi^{*}-e^{-c}\mathrm{Id}]$. The authors prove that any Lie affine foliation on a compact, connected, orientable 3- or 4-manifold is rigid when deformed as a Lie foliation, while higher-dimensional cases can fail to be rigid; model Lie affine foliations provide explicit, independent-cohomology criteria and illustrate the role of monodromy in rigidity.

Abstract

In previous work by El Kacimi Alaoui-Guasp-Nicolau, a cohomological criterion is given for a Lie $\mathfrak{g}$-foliation on a compact manifold to be rigid among nearby Lie foliations. Our aim is to look for examples of this rigidity statement in case the Lie foliation is modeled on the two-dimensional non-abelian Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{aff}(1)$. We study the relevant cohomology group in detail, showing that it can be expressed in terms of Morse-Novikov cohomology. We find the precise conditions under which it vanishes, which yields many examples of rigid Lie affine foliations. In particular, we show that any Lie affine foliation on a compact, connected, orientable manifold of dimension $3$ or $4$ is rigid when deformed as a Lie foliation. Our results rely on a computation of the Morse-Novikov cohomology groups associated with a nowhere-vanishing closed one-form with discrete period group, which may be of independent interest.

Rigidity of Lie affine foliations

TL;DR

The paper analyzes rigidity of Lie foliations modeled on the non-abelian Lie algebra by linking deformation cohomology to Morse–Novikov cohomology. It develops a precise description via a mapping-cone framework, and obtains explicit criteria for when , leading to rigidity results. A central tool is the computation of Morse–Novikov cohomology for nowhere-vanishing with discrete period group, reduced to Morse–Novikov data on mapping tori with , yielding explicit kernels and cokernels of . The authors prove that any Lie affine foliation on a compact, connected, orientable 3- or 4-manifold is rigid when deformed as a Lie foliation, while higher-dimensional cases can fail to be rigid; model Lie affine foliations provide explicit, independent-cohomology criteria and illustrate the role of monodromy in rigidity.

Abstract

In previous work by El Kacimi Alaoui-Guasp-Nicolau, a cohomological criterion is given for a Lie -foliation on a compact manifold to be rigid among nearby Lie foliations. Our aim is to look for examples of this rigidity statement in case the Lie foliation is modeled on the two-dimensional non-abelian Lie algebra . We study the relevant cohomology group in detail, showing that it can be expressed in terms of Morse-Novikov cohomology. We find the precise conditions under which it vanishes, which yields many examples of rigid Lie affine foliations. In particular, we show that any Lie affine foliation on a compact, connected, orientable manifold of dimension or is rigid when deformed as a Lie foliation. Our results rely on a computation of the Morse-Novikov cohomology groups associated with a nowhere-vanishing closed one-form with discrete period group, which may be of independent interest.
Paper Structure (17 sections, 29 theorems, 175 equations)

This paper contains 17 sections, 29 theorems, 175 equations.

Key Result

Proposition 1.2

$i)$ If $\theta'=\theta+df$ for some $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$, then we get a cochain isomorphism Hence, the cohomology $H^{\bullet}_{\theta}(M)$ only depends on the de Rham cohomology class $[\theta]\in H^{1}(M)$. $ii)$ If $M$ is connected and $\theta$ is not exact, then $H^{0}_{\theta}(M)$ vanishes.

Theorems & Definitions (57)

  • Definition 1.1
  • Proposition 1.2
  • Lemma 1.3
  • proof
  • Lemma 1.4
  • proof
  • Corollary 1.5
  • Lemma 1.6
  • proof
  • Corollary 1.7
  • ...and 47 more