arXiv:1202.4685v4 [math.SG] 21 Dec 2013

arXiv:1202.4685v4 [math.SG] 21 Dec 2013

CONTACTHYPERSURFACESINUNIRULED

SYMPLECTICMANIFOLDSALWAYSSEPARATE

CHRISWENDL

Abstrat.WeobservethatnonzeroGromov-Witteninvariantswith

markedpointonstraintsinalosedsympletimanifoldimplyrestri-

tionsonthehomologylassesthatanberepresentedbyontathyper-

surfaes.Asaspeialase,ontathypersurfaesmustalwaysseparate

ifthesympletimanifoldisuniruled.Thisremovesasuperuousas-

sumptioninaresultofG.Lu[Lu00 ℄,thusimplyingthatallontat

manifoldsthatembedasontattypehypersurfaesintouniruledsym-

pletimanifoldssatisfytheWeinsteinonjeture. Weprovethemain

resultusingtheCieliebak-MohnkeapproahtodeningGromov-Witten

invariantsviaDonaldsonhypersurfaes,thusnosemipositivityorvirtual

moduliylesarerequired.

Contents

1. Thestatement 1

1.1. Mainresultandonsequenes 1

1.2. ReolletionsonGromov-Wittentheory 3

1.3. Disussion 5

1.4. Aknowledgments 6

2. Somepreparations 6

2.1. DeningtheGromov-Wittenpseudoyle 6

2.2. Donaldsonhypersurfaestransversetoaontathypersurfae 12

3. Theproof 16

AppendixA. Theforgetfulmapisapseudoyle 20

Referenes 23

1. Thestatement

1.1. Mainresultandonsequenes. Inthisnote,weprovethefollowing.

Maintheorem.Suppose(M;!)isalosedsympletimanifoldandV

Misarealhypersurfaethatispseudoonvexforsomehoieof!-ompatible

almostomplexstrutureonM. ThentherationalGromov-Witteninvari-

antsof(M;!),denedinthesenseof[CM07℄(seex2.1.1andx2.1.2 ),satisfy

GW (M;!)

0;m;A

(PD [V℄[1;2;:::;m;)=0

forallm3,A2H

2 (M),

1

;:::;

m 2H

(M;Q)and2H

(M

0;m

;Q).

2010MathematisSubjetClassiation.Primary57R17;Seondary53D45,53D35.

ResearhsupportedbyaRoyalSoietyUniversityResearhFellowship.

ReallthatarealhypersurfaeV inanalmostomplexmanifold(M;J)

ispseudoonvex (also sometimesalledJ-onvex)if themaximal J-

invariantsubbundle TV isaontatstruturewhoseanonialon-

formallassofsympletistruturestamesJj

. Asanimportantspeial

ase,when(M;!)isasympletimanifold,wesayV M isaontat

typehypersurfaeif!anbewritteninaneighborhoodofV asdfor

some1-formwhoserestritiontoV isaontatform. Inthatase,V

isJ-onvexforanyhoieof!-tamealmostomplexstrutureJthatpre-

servestheontatstrutureonV,andwithoutlossofgeneralityonean

alsoarrangeJtobe!-ompatible.

Wewillshowinx1.2 belowthat themaintheoremhas thefollowing

immediateonsequene:

Corollary1.1.Suppose(M;!)isalosedsympletimanifoldthatissym-

pletiallyuniruled(seeDenition1.5).Theneveryontattypehypersur-

faein(M;!)isseparating.

SomemotivationtoprovesuharesultomesfromtheWeinsteinonje-

ture,whihassertsthatanylosedontattypehypersurfaeinasympleti

manifoldhasalosedorbitofitsharateristilineeld. Thereisalong

historyofresultsthatprovethisonjetureundervariousassumptionson

theexisteneofholomorphiurvesintheambientsympletimanifold,

f.[HV92 ,LT00 ,Lu00℄. However,suhresultshaveoftenbeenprovedonly

forseparatingontathypersurfaes,leavingthequestionwithoutthisex-

traassumptionopen.Ourtheoremthusshowsthattheextraassumptionis

superuous,e.g.ombiningitwithGuangunLu'sresult,weobtain:

Corollary1.2(via[Lu00℄).If(V;)isaontatmanifoldthatembedsintoa

sympletiallyuniruledsympletimanifoldasaontattypehypersurfae,

thenevery ontatformfor (V;) admits a periodiReeb orbit,i.e.the

Weinsteinonjetureholdsfor(V;).

Formoreonsympletimanifoldstowhihthisresultapplies,see[Hyv12 ℄

andthereferenestherein.

Remark 1.3.OuruseofthetehniqueofCieliebakandMohnke[CM07 ℄

fordeningtheGromov-WitteninvariantsviaDonaldsonhypersurfaesim-

posesertaintehnialrestritionsonthesopeoftheaboveresults:(1)The

setupin[CM07 ℄onlyhandlessympletimanifoldswithintegralohomol-

ogy,i.e.[!℄2 H 2

(M;Z),duetotheneedforasympletihypersurfae

Poinaredualtoalargemultipleof[!℄. Oneanobviouslygeneralizethis

totheassumptionthat[!℄isanyrealmultipleofanintegrallass,andof

ourseeverysympletiformadmitsasmallperturbationthathasthisprop-

erty.Itislikelymoreoverthattherestritiontointegrallassesanbelifted

entirelybyhoosingsympletihypersurfaesthatapproximatetherelevant

homologylasses,andindeed,thereentpreprintofIonelandParker[IP℄

laimstodenefullydeformation-invariantGromov-Witteninvariantsfor

arbitrary[!℄2H 2

dR

(M)usingsimilartehniques. Forsimpliity,weshall

nonethelessassumewhereverneessarythat[!℄isintegral,inordertore-

mainfullyonsistentwith[CM07 ℄.(2)Following[MNW13℄,oneandene

arealhypersurfaeV inasympletimanifold(M;!)tobeweaklyon-

tatifthereexistsan!-tamealmostomplexstrutureJforwhihV is

J-onvex.Thisisequivalenttotheonditionrequiredinourmaintheorem

ifdimV =3,butinhigherdimensionsitappearstobemoregeneral.Itis

verylikelythatourmaintheoremholdsunderthisweakerassumptionas

well,andtheproofgivenherewillimplythisatleastinthesemipositive

asewithoutouplingtogravity(usingthestandardsetupfrom[MS04 ℄).A

moregeneralproofwillprobablybepossibleinthefutureusingpolyfolds

(f.Remark1.6 ). Inthenon-semipositivease,ourrelianeontheDon-

aldsonhypersurfaeonstrution[Don96 ℄neessitatestheaddedrestrition

thatJisompatiblewith!,notjusttamed.

1.2. ReolletionsonGromov-Wittentheory. Inthisartile,were-

gardtheGromov-Witteninvariantsofasympletimanifold(M;!)asan

assoiationtoeahpairofintegersg;m0with2g+m3andeah

homologylassA2H

2

(M)ofahomomorphism

(1.1) GW

(M;!)

g;m;A :H

(M;Q) m

H

(M

g;m

;Q)!Q;

whereM

g;m

denotestheDeligne-Mumfordompatiationofthemoduli

spaeofRiemannsurfaeswithgenusgandmmarkedpoints.Let

PD:H

(M;Q)!H

(M;Q)

denotethePoinaredualityisomorphism,oritsinversewhenonvenient.

Intheabseneoftransversalityproblems,GW (M;!)

g;m;A

(1;:::;m;)isinter-

pretedasaountofrigidunparametrizedJ-holomorphiurvesofgenusg,

forageneri!-tamealmostomplexstrutureJ,withmmarkedpointssuh

thatfori=1;:::;m,theithmarkedpointismappedtoagenerismooth

representativeofPD (i)2H(M),andtheunderlyingonformalstruture

ofthedomainliesinagenerismoothrepresentativeof2H(Mg;m).In

pratie,thetransversalityproblemsthatariseinthisdenitionrequireon-

siderableeorttooverome,andtheliteratureontainsvariousapproahes

(e.g.[FO99,LT98,Rua99 ,Sie,CM07,HWZ℄)whihmayormaynotalldene

thesameinvariants.

Inordertobeonreteandalsominimizethetehnialapparatusneeded,

inthispaperweshallworkwiththedenitionprovidedbyCieliebakand

Mohnke[CM07 ℄fortheg=0ase,whihusesaDonaldsonhypersurfaeas

auxiliarydataandthusrequiresthesympletiformtorepresentaninte-

gralohomologylass.Theessentialdetailsofthissetupwillbereviewedin

x2.1.2,thoughweshallalsoattempttoexpressthemainargumentinterms

thatdonotdependonthesedetails. Inpartiular,thereaderwhowould

prefertoavoidserioustehnialissuesbyassuming(M;!)issemipositive

maydosobyskippingfromx2.1.1(wherewereviewthemaindenitionsin

thesemipositivease)straighttox3 .Ineitherase,thetheoryisdenedes-

sentiallybyonstrutingasuitablyompatiedmodulispaeM A

0;m (M;J)

ofstablenodalpseudoholomorphisphereshomologoustoA,withmmarked

points,suhthatthenaturalevaluation/forgetfulmap

(1.2) (ev;)=(ev

1

;:::;ev

m

;):M A

0;m

(M;J)!M m

M

0;m

denesarationalpseudoyle inthesenseof[MS04 ,x6.5℄,meaningthat

rationalintersetionnumberswithhomologylassesinM m

M anbe

dened. Thehomomorphism(1.1 )isthendened,uptoaombinatorial

onstant(see(2.4 ) ),by

(1.3) GW (M;!)

0;m;A (

1

;:::;

m

;)=[(ev;)℄( PD(

1

):::PD(

m )):

Remark 1.4.TheGromov-Witteninvariantsdenedin[CM07 ℄donotin-

volve\ouplingtogravity,"i.e.theyrelyonthefatthatev:M A

0;m (M;J)!

M m

isapseudoyle,butdonotdealatallwiththeforgetfulmap:

M A

0;m

(M;J)!M

0;m

,assoiatingtoaJ-holomorphiurveitsunderlying

onformalstruture. Itisnonethelesstrueintheontextof[CM07℄that

(ev;)isapseudoyleandhene(1.3)iswelldened;theproofofthisfat

isalmostalreadyimpliitinthatpaper,andweshallspelloutthemissing

ingredientsinAppendixA.Notethatinthesemipositivease,thestandard

approahviadomain-dependentalmostomplexstruturessuÆestoprove

thattheevaluationmapisapseudoyle,butnottheforgetfulmap|see

[MS04 ,pp.184{186℄.Thusthesimpliedversionofourarguments(avoiding

Donaldsonhypersurfaes)forthesemipositiveasewillbevalidonlyforthe

simpliedinvariantsGW (M;!)

0;m;A :H

(M;Q) m

!Z,whihmath(1.1 )if

isdenedasthefundamentallassofM

0;m .

Wenowreallthefollowingstandarddenition.

Denition1.5.Alosedsympletimanifold(M;!)issaidtobesym-

pletiallyuniruledifithasanonzerorationalGromov-Witteninvariant

withatleastonepointwiseonstraint,i.e.thereexistA2H2(M),aninteger

m3andlasses2;:::;m2H

(M;Q) ,2H(M0;m;Q)suhthat

(1.4) GW

(M;!)

0;m;A (PD [pt℄;

2

;:::;

m

;)6=0;

where[pt℄2H0(M)denotesthehomologylassofapoint.

Morally,beingsympletiallyuniruledmeansoneanndasetofon-

straintssothatthereisalwaysanonzeroountofonstrainedholomorphi

spherespassingthroughageneripoint.

ProofofCorollary1.1 .IfV M is anonseparatinghypersurfae,then

[V℄6=02H

(M;Q)andoneanthereforendaohomologylass

1 2

H

(M;Q)withh1;[V℄i=1.Hene

PD [V℄[1=PD [pt℄:

NowifV isalsopseudoonvexforsomeompatiblealmostomplexstru-

ture,thenthemaintheoremimpliesthat(1.4)annotbesatisedforany

hoies2;:::;m;,hene(M;!)isnotuniruled.

Remark 1.6.Anearlierversionofthepresentpapermadetheoptimisti

laimthattheargumentsgivenhereanbearriedoutusingthepolyfold

theoryofHofer-Wysoki-Zehnder[HWZ ℄.Whilethatisprobablytrue,sub-

sequentdisussionswithHoferhaveledtotheonlusionthatitisnotfully

provableusingthetehnologyinitspresentstate: inpartiular,homologi-

alintersetiontheoryandPoinaredualityarenoturrentlywellenough

understoodinthepolyfoldontexttojustifyanythinganalogoustoEqua-

tion(3.2 ). IwouldliketothankJoelFishandHelmutHoferforhelping

larifythispoint.

1.3. Disussion.Wenowaddafewmoreremarksontheontextofthe

maintheoremanditsorollaries.

1.3.1. Nonseparatinghypersurfaes. Nonseparatingontattypehypersur-

faesdoexistingeneral,thoughtheyareusuallynoteasytond. Aon-

strutionindimension4wassuggestedbyEtnyreandoutlinedin[ABW10,

Example1.3℄:theideaistostartfromasympletillingwithtwoboundary

omponents,attahaWeinstein1-handletoformtheboundaryonneted

sumandthenattahasympletiaptoformalosedsympletimanifold,

whihontainsbothboundaryomponentsoftheoriginalsympletilling

asnonseparatingontathypersurfaes.Atthetime[ABW10℄waswritten,

examplesofsympletillingswithdisonnetedboundarywereknownonly

uptodimension6(duetoMDu[MD91℄,Geiges[Gei95 ,Gei94℄andMit-

sumatsu[Mit95 ℄),butreentlyaonstrutioninalldimensionsappeared

inworkoftheauthorwithMassotandNiederkruger[MNW13℄. Itseems

likelythattheseexamplesanbeombinedwiththesympletiapping

resultofLisaandMati[LM97,Theorem3.2℄forSteinllableontat

manifoldstoonstrutexamplesofnonseparatingontathypersurfaesin

alldimensions,butwewillnotpursuethisanyfurtherhere.

Notethatitissomewhateasiertondexamplesofweaklyontathy-

persurfaesthat donotseparate: forinstane,onsideringthestandard

sympletiT 4

asaprodutoftwosympleti2-tori,foranynonseparating

loopT 2

thehypersurfaeT 2

T 4

admitsanobviousfoliationby

sympleti2-tori,andthisfoliationanbeperturbedtoanyofthetight

ontatstruturesonT 3

(f.[Gir94 ℄).Notiethatoneannotusethesame

triktoprodueanonseparatingweaklyontathypersurfaeinT 2

S 2

withanyprodutsympletistruture,asthelatterisuniruled.

1

Thisim-

pliesthewellknownfat(see[ET98 ℄)thattheobviousfoliationbyspheres

onS 1

S 2

annotbeperturbedtoaontatstruture.

1.3.2. Highergenus.ThetheoremofLu[Lu00℄alsoestablishestheWein-

steinonjetureforseparatingontattypehypersurfaesunderthemore

generalassumption

(1.5) GW

(M;!)

g;m;A

(PD([pt ℄);

2

;:::;

m

;)6=0;

i.e.oneneednotassumeg=0.Infat,usingthemorereenttehnologyof

\strethingthenek"[BEH +

03 ℄,oneangiveastraightforwardalternative

proofofLu'sresultwhihalsoshowsthatanynonseparating ontathy-

persurfaeinamanifoldsatisfying(1.5 )musthavealosedharateristi.

2

Notehoweverthatinthegenuszeroase,thisisaweakerstatementthan

Corollary1.2 : itassertsthatapartiularontatformon(V;)(M;!)

admitsalosedReeborbit,butnotthatthisistrueforeverypossiblehoie

ofontatform.Theobviousstrethingargumentdoesnotappeartoimply

thisstrongerstatementingeneralexeptwhenV separatesM.

1

Atually,thestatementofourmaintheoremforT 2

S 2

anbeprovedbymoreelemen-

tarymeanswithoutmentioningGromov-Witteninvariants,f.[ABW10 ,Theorem1.15℄.

2

Forthisheuristidisussionweareignoringtheusualanalytialissuesofhowtodene

thehighergenusGromov-Witteninvariants;denitionsusingtheDonaldsonhypersurfae

Itseemsunlikelymoreoverthatourmainresultwouldholdunderthe

moregeneralassumption(1.5 ) |ertainlythemethodofproofgivenbe-

lowdoesnotwork,as itrequiresthefat thattherelevantholomorphi

urvesinManalwaysbeliftedtoaover(sineS 2

issimplyonneted).

However,itwaspointedouttomebyGuangunLuthatduetorelations

amongGromov-Witteninvariants(see[Lu06, x7℄),ertain onditionson

highergenusinvariantswillimplythat(M;!)isalsouniruled,e.g.thisis

theasewheneverthereisanontrivialinvariantoftheform

GW (M;!)

g;m;A

(PD ([pt℄);2;:::;m;[pt ℄)6=0:

Thereasonisthatthisinvariantountsurveswithaxedonformalstru-

tureonthedomain,sooneanderiveholomorphispheresfromthemby

degeneratingtheonformalstrutureto\pinhaway"thegenus.

Remark1.7.NotethatintheaboveformulationoftheWeinsteinonjeture

forlosedontathypersurfaes,theambientsympletimanifoldneednot

belosed,e.g.everyontatmanifoldisaontathypersurfaeinitsown

(nonompat)sympletization.Aswasshownin[ABW10℄,therearemany

ontatmanifoldsthatdonotadmitanyontattypeembeddingsintoany

losedsympletimanifold|asfaras Iamaware, allontatmanifolds

thatareurrentlyknowntoadmitsuhembeddingsarealsosympletially

llable.

1.4. Aknowledgments.IwouldliketothankGuangunLuforomments

onapreliminaryversionofthispaper,KaiCieliebakforfeedbakontheap-

pendix,andPatrikMassot,HelmutHofer,JoelFishandJean-PaulMohsen

forusefulonversations.Thequestiononsideredherewasoriginallybrought

tomyattentionbyatalkofClementHyvrierabouthispaper[Hyv12 ℄at

theSixthWorkshoponSympletiGeometry,ContatGeometryandIn-

terationsinMadrid,February2{4,2012,fundedbytheESF'sCASTpro-

gramme. Myapproahtotheproofowesaslightdebttoanobservation

madebyananonymousrefereeforthepaper[ABW10℄. Likewise,myun-

derstandingofCieliebak-Mohnketransversalityowesasubstantialdebtto

theCNRS-fundedSummerShoolonDonaldsonHypersurfaesthattook

plaeinLaLlagonne,June17{21,2013.

2.Somepreparations

Inthissetion,weshallreviewsomeruialdenitions,startinginx2.1

withtheonstrutionoftheGromov-Wittenpseudoyleinboththesemi-

positiveandgeneralases.Inx2.2 ,wewillalsoproveasimpleresultabout

Donaldsonhypersurfaesthatisneededtoarryoutourappliationtoon-

tathypersurfaesinthenon-semipositivease.

2.1. DeningtheGromov-Wittenpseudoyle. Wewillnowreview

thedenitionsofthemodulispaesthatdeterminethepseudoyle(1.2 ).

Webeginwiththesemipositiveaseinx2.1.1beforeaddressingthegeneral

2.1.1. Thesemipositivease.Reallthatalosed2n-dimensionalsympleti

manifold(M;!)isalledsemipositiveiftherearenospherialhomology

lassesA22(M)satisfying

!(A)>0 and 3 n

1 (A)<0:

Inpartiular,thisisalwayssatisedifn=2or3.Underthisondition,one

andeneinteger-valuedGromov-Witteninvariants

GW (M;!)

0;m;A :H

(M;Q) m

!Z

foranym 3andA2 H

2

(M) bythefollowingpresriptionexplained

in[MS04 ℄. (The originalonstrutionoftheseinvariantsisduetoRuan

[Rua96 ℄.)

LetJ

(M;!)denotethespaeofsmooth!-tamealmostomplexstru-

turesonM,anddene

J

S 2

:=

J2 (pr

2 End

R

(TM))jJ(z;)2J

(M;!)forallz2S 2

;

wherepr

2 :S

2

M!M denotestheprojetion. WeallJ

S

2 thespae

ofsmooth!-tamedomain-dependentalmostomplexstrutures(wherethe

\domain"isS 2

). GivenJ2J

S

2,asmoothmapu:S 2

!M issaidtobe

J-holomorphiifforallz2S 2

,

(2.1) du(z)+J(z;u(z))Ædu(z)Æi=0;

whereiisthestandardomplexstrutureonS 2

=C[f1g.Foranym3

andA2H

2

(M),weanthendenethemodulispae

M A

0;m

(M;J)=f (u;z)g;

where u : S 2

! M isa J-holomorphimap with[u℄ = A, and z =

(z

4

;:::;z

m

)isanordered(m 3)-tupleofpairwisedistintpointsinS 2

n

f0;1;1g. Setting(z

1

;z

2

;z

3

):= (0;1;1),theevaluation mapisthen

denedby

ev=(ev

1

;:::;ev

m ):M

A

0;m

(M;J)!M m

;

ev

j

(u;z)=u(z

j

) forj=1;:::;m:

Theforgetfulmap:M A

0;m

(M;J)!M0;mislikewisedenedbyasso-

iatingto(u;z)theequivalenelassofonformalstruturesonS 2

withm

markedpointspositionedat(0;1;1;z

4

;:::;z

m

). Notethatsinewehave

xedthepositionsoftherstthreemarkedpoints,thereisnoneedtodivide

outreparametrizations.

Underthesemipositivityondition,oneanshowusingstandardindex

omputations(see[MS04 ℄)thatev:M A

0;m

(M;J)!M m

isapseudoyle

ofdimension2(n 3)+21(A)+2mforgenerihoiesofJ2J

S 2,andfor

suhhoies,theorrespondingGromov-Witteninvariant(withoutoupling

togravity)anbeomputedfor

1

;:::;

m 2H

(M;Z)as

(2.2) GW (M;!)

0;m;A

(1;:::;m)=[ev℄(PD (1):::PD (m))2Z:

AsmentionedalreadyinRemark1.4 ,theforgetfulmapisgenerallynota

pseudoyleforthisdenitionofthemodulispae,andweshalltherefore

Thegeneriityrequirement in(2.2) impliesthat oneannotgenerally

assumeJtobedomain-independent.Itwillbeimportantforourappliation

howeverthatoneandothenextbestthing:xanyJ12J(M;!),whih

weshallrefertoheneforwardasthereferenealmostomplexstruture.

WeanregardJ1asanelementofJ

S

2withonstantdependeneonz2S 2

,

andthetangentspaeatJ

1

totheFrehetmanifoldJ

S 2isthen

T

J1 J

S 2=

Y 2 (pr

2 End

R

(TM))jY(z;p)J

1 (p)+J

1

(p)Y(z;p)=0

forall(z;p)2S 2

M :

Afterhoosingasmooth familyofmetrison themanifoldsofomplex

struturesatpointsinM, weanwriteanyJ 2 J

S

2 insomeC 0

-small

neighborhoodofJ

1

asJ(z;p)=exp

J1(p)

Y(z;p)forsomeC 0

-smallsetion

Y2T

J1 J

S

2.Generiitythenallowsustoonludethefollowing:

Lemma2.1.ThereexistsasequeneY

k 2T

J1 J

S

2 onvergingto0inC 1

suhthat(2.2 )holdswiththeGromov-Wittenpseudoyleev:M A

0;m (M;J)!

M m

denedforanyJ=exp

J1 Y

k

.

2.1.2. TheCieliebak-Mohnkeapproah.Wenowonsider(M;!)tobean

arbitrarylosed2n-dimensional sympletimanifoldthat satises[!℄ 2

H 2

(M;Z)butisnotneessarilysemipositive. Thepurposeofthissetion

istosummarizetherelevantdetailsofthereipefrom[CM07 ℄fordening

theGromov-Witteninvariants.

Asauxiliarydata,wehoosean!-ompatiblealmostomplexstruture

J

0

,andaso-alledDonaldsonhypersurfaeofdegreeD2N:

Z

D

(M;!)sympleti,suhthat PD[Z

D

℄=D[!℄:

TheexisteneofZDforlargeD 0 isprovidedbyadeeptheoremof

Donaldson[Don96℄,andweanassumemoreoverthat Z

D

isnearly J

0 -

holomorphi,inthesensethatits Kahlerangle (see[Don96 ,p.669℄)is

arbitrarilysmallifDissuÆientlylarge. Itfollowsinpartiularthatfor

any>0,ifD>0issuÆientlylarge,oneanndJ

1 2J

(M;!)with

kJ1 J0k

C

0 <suhthatZDisJ1-holomorphi. Weshallassumeinthe

followingthatsuhaJ

1 2J

(M;!)hasbeenhosenandisxed.

Foranintegerk0,supposeTisak-labelledtree,i.e.atreetogether

withapartitionoff1;:::;kgassigningsomesubsettoeahvertex2T.

WeshallwriteEwheneverT ontainsanedgeonnetingtheverties

;2T,anddenotebyj2T thevertexassoiatedtoj2f1;:::;kgby

thelabelling.ThenifS

denotesaopyofS 2

foreah2T,weanregard

anodalurvewithkmarkedpointsmodelledonT asatuple

z= fz

2S

g

E

;fz

j 2S

j g

j2f1;:::;kg

suhthatforeah2T,allthepointsinthistuplelyingonS

(thespeial

points)aredistint.WeassoiatetozthenodalRiemannsurfae

z :=

a

2T S

z

z

;

whereeahomponentSisassumedtoarrythestandardomplexstru-

turei.Thenodalurvez(orequivalentlythenodalRiemannsurfae

z )

points;notethatthisisatuallyapropertyofthelabelledtreeT,sowean

equivalentlysayzisstableifitismodelledonastablek-labelledtree.In

thisase,zrepresentsanelement[z℄oftheDeligne-MumfordspaeM0;k.

Thereisanaturalstabilizationmapz7!st(z)thatmakesanynodalurve

zintoastablenodalurvest(z)byremovingvertieswithfewerthanthree

speialpointsandplaingmarkedpointsonneighboringvertiesasnees-

sary;thisdeterminesaholomorphisurjetionontheorrespondingnodal

Riemannsurfaes

st:

z

!

st(z) :

For eah 2 T, denotebyJS aopyofthespaeJ

S

2 ofdomain-

dependentalmostomplexstruturesdenedintheprevioussetion,and

let

JT:=

Y

2T JS:

ForJ2JT,anodal J-holomorphimapwithk marked pointsis

apair(z;u),wherezisanodalurvewithkmarkedpointsmodelledon

T,andu:

z

!Misaontinuousmapwhoserestritiontoeahsphere

SzissmoothandJ-holomorphi(inthesenseof(2.1 ) )withrespet

totheS

-dependentalmostomplexstruturedeterminedbyJ.

ReallnextthatsineM

0;k+1

isasmoothmanifoldforanyk2,wean

onsiderM

0;k+1

-dependentalmostomplexstrutures

J2 (pr

2

EndR(TM)) suhthat J([z℄;)2J(M;!);

whereasusualwedenotetheprojetionpr

2 :M

0;k+1

M!M.Fork3,

thishasaonvenientinterpretationusingtheanonialprojetion

:M

0;k+1

!M

0;k

whihforgetsthelastmarkedpointandstabilizestheresult.Namely,forany

nodalurvezwithkmarkedpoints, 1

([st (z)℄)anbeidentiedanonially

withthenodalurve

st(z)

,i.e.weparametrize 1

([st (z)℄)viatheposition

oftheextramarkedpoint.Thusifzismodelledonthek-labelledtreeT,we

anassoiatetozandthefamilyJabovea

z

-dependentalmostomplex

struture

J

z 2J

T

; J

z

(z;):=J([st (z);st(z)℄;);

whereweuse[st (z);st(z)℄asshorthandfortheelementof 1

([st (z)℄)2

Mk+1orrespondingtost (z)2

st(z)

undertheaboveidentiation. For

tehnialreasons,itisimportanttoonsideronlyfamiliesJthatareo-

herentinthesensedenedin[CM07 ,x3℄,andweshalldenotethespae

ofsmoothM0;k+1-dependent!-tamealmostomplexstruturessatisfying

thisonditionby

Jk+1=

J:M0;k+1!J(M;!)jJisoherent :

Forourpurposes,allthatwewillneedtoknowabouttheohereneondi-

tionisstatedinthefollowinglemma,whihfollowsimmediatelyfromthe

denitionin[CM07 ,x3℄.

Lemma 2.2.Forany J 2 J

k+1

, ifzisa nodal urvemodelled onthe

k-labelledtreeT,thenforeah2T,therestritionofthefamily

z

!J

(M;!):z7!J

z (z;)

toS

dependsonlyonz2S

andthespeialpointsofzonS

.

Wean nowdene themodulispaesneededfortheGromov-Witten

invariants.Givenanintegerm0andA2H

2 (M),let

`:=A[Z

D

℄=D!(A)2N:

Wemayeasilyassume`>3bymakingD2N suÆientlylarge(ingeneral

itwillbemuhlarger).ChooseJ2J

`+1

withthepropertythat

J([z℄;)J

1

inaneighborhoodofZ

D

,forall[z℄2M

0;`+1 :

Usingtheanonialprojetion

m :M

0;m+`+1

!M

0;`+1

thatforgetsthe

rstmmarkedpointsandthenstabilizes,weanassoiatetoJaoherent

M

0;m+`+1

-dependentalmostomplexstruture

m

J. Thenforanynodal

urvezmodelledonan(m+`)-labelledtreeT,weregardamapu:z!M

asJ-holomorphiifitsatisestheCauhy-Riemannequation(2.1 )forthe

z-dependentalmostomplexstruture(

m

J)z.Givenhomologylasses

fA2H2(M)g2T suhthat X

2T A=A;

thepair(T;fA

g)isalledaweightedtree,anditisalledstableifevery

vertex2TwithA=0hasatleastthreespeialpoints,i.e.markedpoints

plusadjaentverties.Wedene f

M fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D

)tobethespaeofpairs

(z;u)asabovesuhthat[ ujS℄=Aforeah2T andumapseahof

thelast`markedpointsintoZ

D

.NotethatsineZ

D

isJ-holomorphi(as

JmathesJ1nearZD),allisolatedintersetionsofuwithZDarepositive;

inpartiular,wheneverzhasnonodesandA6=0,therelation`=A[Z

D

℄

impliesthateithertheimageofuisontainedinZ

D

ortheintersetionsof

uwithZDouronlyatthelast`markedpoints. Theformerisexluded

undersuitableassumptionsonJandforsuÆientlylargeD2N,dueto

[CM07 ,Propositions8.13and8.14℄.

Remark2.3.Thelassofholomorphiurvesdenedabovehastheruial

propertythatallisolatedintersetionswithZDarepositive,notonlythe

guaranteedintersetionsatthelast`markedpoints.Sinetheountofthese

intersetions isontrolled topologially,positivityprovides theneessary

lowerboundonthenumberofmarkedpointsonomponentsofnodalurves,

guaranteeingthatsuhurveshavestabledomains(see[CM07 ℄fordetails).

Wewrite(z;u)(z 0

;u 0

)ifthereexistsabiholomorphiisomorphism

between thenodal urvesz andz 0

suhthat uand u 0

are orrespond-

inglyrelatedbyreparametrization. Wethendenethemodulispaeof

J-holomorphiurvesmodelledon(T;fAg)as

M fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D )=

f

M fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D )

Æ

;

alongwiththeevaluationmap,

ev=(ev

1

;:::;ev

m ):M

fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D )!M

m

;

whihevaluatesuatitsrstmmarkedpoints.Ifm3,weanalsodene

theforgetfulmap

:M fAg

(M;J;Z

D )!M

0;m

;

whihforgetsboththemapuandthelast`markedpointsofz,andthen

stabilizestheresultingnodalurvewithmmarkedpoints.Thetopstratum

istheomponent

M A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D ):=M

fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D

);wherejTj=1 ;

onsistingofequivalenelasses[(z;u)℄suhthatzhasnonodes;inthis

aseu:S 2

!M issimplyapseudoholomorphisphere,forsomedomain-

dependentalmostomplexstruturedeterminedbyJandthepositionsof

itslast`markedpoints.TheunionofthespaesM fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D )forall

stableweightedtrees(T;fA

g)with

P

A

=Aarriesanaturaltopology

asametrizableHausdorspae,theGromovtopology,andwedenoteby

M A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D )

[

(T;fAg)stable M

fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D )

thelosureofM A

0;m+`

(M;J;ZD)inthisspae.

Ifm3,thenforsuitablehoiesofJ2J`+1mathingthereferene

strutureJ

1 nearZ

D ,

(2.3) (ev;):M A

0;m+`

(M;J;ZD)!M m

M0;m

isapseudoyleofdimension

dimM A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D

)=2(n 3)+2

1 (A)+2m;

andtheresultingrationalGromov-Witteninvariants

GW (M;!)

0;m;A :H

(M;Q) m

H(M0;m;Q)!Q;

GW (M;!)

0;m;A (

1

;:::;

m

;)=

1

`!

[(ev;)℄(PD (

1

):::PD (

m )) (2.4)

areindependentofallhoies. Ifoneexludestheforgetfulmapand2

H

M

0;m

fromthisstatement,thenitissimplythemainresultof[CM07 ℄

(andisalsovalidforanym0). WewillexplaininAppendixAhowthe

argumentsofCieliebakandMohnkeanbemodiedtoinludetheforgetful

mapinthedisussion.

Asalludedtoabove,theonstrutionsin[CM07 ℄requiresomeextraas-

sumptionsonJ2J

`+1

inordertodenetheGromov-Witteninvariants,but

thedetailsoftheseassumptionswillnotonernusbeyondthefollowing

analogueofLemma2.1.Reallthatwehavexedareferenealmostomplex

strutureJ1forwhihtheDonaldsonhypersurfaeZDisJ1-holomorphi.

WeantriviallyregardJ

1

asanelementofJ

`+1

withonstantdependene

onM

0;`+1

. ThenanyotherelementofJ

`+1 thatisC

0

-losetoJ

1 anbe

writtenas

J=exp

J

1 Y

forsomeY2T

J1 J

`+1

,wherethelatteristheFrehetspaeofoherent(see

[CM07 ,x3℄)smoothsetionsofpr

2 End

R

(TM)!M

0;`+1

Msatisfying

Y([z℄;p)J1(p)+J1(p)Y([z℄;p)=0 forall([z℄;p)2M0;`+1M:

Lemma2.4.ThereexistsasequeneY

k 2T

J1 J

`+1

onvergingto0inC 1

suhthat(2.4 )holdswiththeGromov-Wittenpseudoyle(2.3)denedfor

anyJ=exp

J1

Yk.

2.2. Donaldsonhypersurfaestransversetoaontathypersurfae.

InordertoapplytheGromov-Witteninvariantsof[CM07 ℄toasituation

involvingpseudoonvexhypersurfaes,weneedthefollowingadditionalfat

aboutDonaldsonhypersurfaes.

Proposition 2.5. Suppose(M;!) isa losed 2n-dimensional sympleti

manifoldwith[!℄2H 2

(M;Z),J

0

isan!-ompatiblealmostomplexstru-

ture,andV M isalosed(2n 1)-dimensionalJ0-onvexhypersurfae

withinduedontatstruture

=TV\J0(TV)TV:

ThenforallD2NsuÆientlylarge,thereexistsaDonaldsonhypersurfae

Z

D

(M;!)ofdegreeDthatintersetsV transverselyinaontatsub-

manifoldof(V;). Moreover,forany>0,ifD2NissuÆientlylarge,

thenoneanndZ

D

withtheabovepropertyandan!-tamealmostomplex

strutureJ

1

onMsuhthat

(1)Z

D isJ

1

-holomorphi;

(2)V isJ

1

-onvexwith=TV\J

1 (TV);

(3)kJ1 J0k

C 0<.

ThepropositionisastraightforwardappliationofMohsen'srelativever-

sion[Moh ℄ofanestimatedtransversalityresultofDonaldsonandAuroux

[Don96 ,Aur97℄. To explain this, we must reallsome detailsfromthe

asymptotiallyholomorphimethodsofDonaldsonandAuroux, asused

byMohsen.

Werstneedto deneaquantitativemeasurementofthedistaneof

arealsubspaeofaomplexvetorspaefrombeingomplex. Suppose

(E;J)isanite-dimensionalomplexvetorspaewithHermitianinner

produtg,andwritejvj:=

p

g(v;v)forv2E. Thenforanyreal-linear

subspaeE 0

Eofevendimension,dene

g (E

0

;E;J):= max

v2E 0

;jvj=1 dist Jv;E

0

= max

v2E 0

;jvj=1

min

w2E 0

jJv wj

:

ItwillbeusefultonotethatthisdenitiondependsontheHermitianmetri

onlyuptopositiveresaling,i.e.

(2.5)

g (E

0

;E;J)=

g (E

0

;E;J) forall>0:

Italsodependsontinuouslyonallthedata,thusifBisaompatspae

and(E;J)!BisaomplexvetorbundleofniterankwithHermitian

bundlemetrig,thenforanyrealsubbundleE 0

Eofevenrank,wean

similarlydene

g (E

0

;E;J):=max

g (E

0

p

;E

p

;J)0:

Observethatif!isanysympletistrutureon(E;J)thattamesJ,then

anysuÆientlysmallperturbationofaomplexsubbundleisautomatially

alsoasympletisubbundle,thuswehavethefollowing.

Lemma2.6.SupposeBisaompatspaeand(E;J)!Bisaomplex

vetorbundleofniterank,equippedwithaHermitianbundlemetrig.In

eahofthefollowingstatements,assumeE 0

Eisarealsubbundleofeven

rank.

(a)E 0

isaomplexsubbundleof(E;J)ifandonlyifg(E 0

;E;J)=0.

(b)ForanyC 0

-openneighborhoodU

J

ofJinthespaeofsmoothom-

plexstruturesonE,thereexistsanumber>0suhthatevery

E 0

Ewithg(E 0

;E;J)<isaomplexsubbundleof(E;J 0

)for

someJ 0

2U

J .

()Foranysympletistruture!onE!BthattamesJ,thereexists

anumber 0

>0suhthateveryE 0

Esatisfying

g (E

0

;E;J)<

0

isasympletisubbundleof(E;!).

Inordertorelatetheabovedenitiontoquestionsofestimatedtransver-

sality,wedene (following[Moh ℄)foranyreal-linearmapA :V !W

betweennite-dimensionalEulideanvetorspaes,thesurjetivitymod-

ulus

Surj(A):= min

2W

nf0g kÆAk

kk 0:

Lemma2.7.Thesurjetivitymodulushasthefollowingproperties.

(a)Surj(A)>0ifandonlyifAissurjetive,andinthisase

Surj(A)sup

1

kBk

B:W!V isarightinverseofA

:

(b)Foranytworeal-linearmapsA;B:V!W,

Surj(A+B)Surj(A) kBk:

()Suppose(V;J;g) and (V 0

;J 0

;g 0

) are nite-dimensional Hermitian

vetorspaesandA=A 1;0

+A 0;1

:V !V 0

isreal-linear,where

A 1;0

andA 0;1

denotetheomplexlinearandantilinearpartsrespe-

tively.Then

(2.6)

g

(kerA;V;J)2 kA

0;1

k

Surj(A) :

Proof.Thersttwopropertiesareprovedbystraightforwardomputations.

ThefollowingproofofthethirdpropertywasexplainedtomebyJean-Paul

Mohsen.

LetV

kerA

=f2V

jj

kerA

=0g ,whihispreiselythespaeofdual

vetorsonVoftheformf=ÆA2V

j2W

g.Nowsupposev2kerA

undertheorthogonaldeompositionV=(kerA)(kerA)

?

,hene

dist(Jv;kerA)= max

w2(kerA)

?

nf0g jhw;Jvij

jwj

= max

2V

kerA nf0g

j(Jv)j

kk

= max

2W

nf0g

jÆA(Jv)j

kÆAk :

Now,usingthefatthatAv=0andthatA 1;0

ommuteswhileA 0;1

anti-

ommuteswiththeomplexstrutures,wehave

A(Jv)=A 1;0

Jv+A 0;1

Jv=J 0

A 1;0

v J 0

A 0;1

v= 2J 0

A 0;1

v;

henejA(Jv)j2kA 0;1

k,implying

dist(Jv;kerA) max

2W

nf0g 2kkkA

0;1

k

kÆAk

=2 kA

0;1

k

Surj(A) :

Next,assume(M;!)isalosedsympletimanifoldwith[!℄2H 2

(M;Z),

andJ

0

isan!-ompatiblealmostomplexstruture. Thisdeterminesthe

sequeneofRiemannianmetris

g:=!(;J); gD:=DgforD2N

onM.LetL!Mdenoteaomplexlinebundlewith

1

(L)=[!℄,equipped

withaHermitianmetrih;iandaHermitianonnetionrwhoseurvature

2-formis 2i!. ForD2 N, wealsoonsidertheD-foldtensor power

L D

!M,withitsinduedHermitianmetriandHermitianonnetion,

alsodenotedbyh;iandrrespetively;thelatterhasurvature 2iD!.

Forsetionss:M!L D

,wedenotebysand

srespetivelytheomplex

linearandantilinearpartsoftheovariantderivativers. Wewillalways

deneC 0

-normsofrsandrelatedtensorswithrespettothemetrisg

D

onTMandh; ionL D

,e.g.

krs(p)kgD:= max

X2TpMnf0g jr

X sj

jXjg

D

forp2M;

krsk

gD :=sup

p2M krs(p)k

gD

;

wherejXj

gD :=

p

g

D

(X;X)forX2T

p

Xandjvj:=

p

hv;viforv2L D

p .

Thesurjetivitymodulusofrs(p)atpointsp2M willalsobedened

relativetothishoieofmetris,whihweshallindiateviathenotation

Surj

gD

(rs(p)):= min

06=2HomR(L D

p

;R)

kÆrs(p)k

gD

kk :

ThismeansSurj

gD (rs(p))=

1

p

D Surj

g (rs(p)).

ThenexttwodenitionsareessentiallyduetoAuroux[Aur97℄,though

Denition2.8.GivenonstantsC>0andr2N,wesaythatasequene

ofsetionss

D :M!L

D

(forlargeD2N)isC-asymptotiallyholo-

morphiuptoorderr2NifforallDsuÆientlylarge,

ks

D k

gD

C ; kr m

s

D k

gD

C ; kr

m 1

s

D k

gD

C

p

D

foreahm=1;:::;r:

(2.7)

Denition2.9.Givenaonstant>0andasubmanifoldVM,wesay

thatasequeneofsetionssD:M!L D

(forlargeD2N)is-transverse

alongV ifforallsuÆientlylargeD,

js

D

(p)j< ) Surj

gD rs

D (p)j

TpV

forallp2V.

For any(M;!) andJ

0

as above, Donaldson[Don96 ℄onstrutsa se-

quene ofsetions s

D

: M ! L D

that are, for someK ; > 0, K-

asymptotiallyholomorphiuptoorder2andglobally-transverse(i.e.-

transversealongM). Itfollowsvia(2.5 )andLemma2.7()thatforsuÆ-

ientlylargeD2N,Z

D :=s

1

D

(0)Maresmoothsubmanifoldswith

g(TZD;TMjZ

D

;J0)=g

D

(TZD;TMjZ

D

;J0)

max

p2ZD 2k

sD(p)kg

D

Surj

gD (rs(p))

2 K =

p

D

!0 asD!1:

ThusbyLemma2.6 , thesubmanifoldsZ

D

(M;!)aresympletiand

uniformlylosetobeingJ0-holomorphiforsuÆientlylargeD.Theseare

theDonaldsonhypersurfaesthatwemadeuseofintheprevioussetion;

indeed,theysatisfyPD [ZD℄=1(L D

)=D1(L)=D[!℄2H 2

(M).

Forourpurposes,therelevantaseofMohsen'sextensionoftheDonaldson-

Aurouxtransversalitytheoremannowbestatedasfollows.

Proposition2.10([Moh ,Theoreme2.2℄).Assume(M;!)isalosed2n-

dimensionalsympletimanifoldwithan!-ompatiblealmostomplexstru-

tureJ0,V M isalosedsubmanifoldofdimension2n 1,andTV

denotestheJ

0

-omplexsubbundle

:=TV\J

0 (TV):

ThengivenanyK>0,>0andm

max

2N,thereexistD

0

2Nand>0

suhthatthefollowingholds. ForanysequeneofsetionssD:M!L D

(forlargeD)whihareK-asymptotiallyholomorphiuptoorder2,there

existsasequene(forlargeD)ofsetionst

D :M!L

D

suhthat,forall

DD0,thesequenetDis-asymptotiallyholomorphiuptoordermmax,

andthesequenes 0

D :=s

D +t

D

is-transversealongV,andalsosatises

p2V andjs 0

D

(p)j< ) Surj

gD rs

0

D (p)jp

:

ProofofProposition2.5 .AssumeV M isJ

0

-onvex,andlets

D :M!

L D

denotetheK-asymptotiallyholomorphiandglobally-transverse

sequeneofsetionsprovidedby[Don96℄. Pik2 (0;), andlett

D :

D

Proposition2.10,givingrisetotheperturbedsetionss 0

D :=s

D +t

D and

zero-setsZ

D := (s

0

D )

1

(0) M. UsingLemma2.7 (b),wemayassume

s 0

D

isalsoK-asymptotiallyholomorphiand-transverseaftermakingthe

substitutionsK7!K+>0and7! >0,andbyshrinking>0

furtherifneessary,Proposition2.10alsoguarantees

Surj

gD rs

0

D (p)j

p

forallp2ZD\V.ThisimpliesthatforsuÆientlylargeD,ZD(M;!)is

asympletisubmanifoldandintersetsbothVandthedistributionTV

transversely,henethesubmanifold

D :=Z

D

\VV

inheritsasmoothorientedhyperplanebundle

D :=TZ

D

\T

D :

Regarding

D

asarealsubbundleoftheomplexvetorbundle(j

D

;J

0 ),

Lemma2.7()and(2.5 )nowimply

g (

D

;j

D

;J

0 )max

p2D 2k

s 0

D (p)j

p k

gD

Surj

g

D rs

0

D (p)j

p

2K

p

D

!0

asD !1. SineV isJ0-onvex, thereexistsaontat formonV

suhthat=keranddj

isasympletivetorbundlestruturethat

tamesJ

0

.ApplyingLemma2.6 ,wethereforeonludefromtheabovethat

(

D

;d)is asympletisubbundleof(j

D

;d) forsuÆientlylarge D,

implyingthatj

TD

isontat,so

D

(V;)isaontatsubmanifold.

Moreover,theomplexstrutureJ0j

alongDadmitsaC 0

-smallpertur-

bationtoaomplexstrutureJ

1

onalong

D

forwhih

D isJ

1 -invariant.

Followingtheextensionproedureof[CM07 ,x8℄,J

1

anthenbeextended

toanalmostomplexstrutureonMthatpreservesalongV,preserves

TZ

D andisC

0

-losetoJ

0

forsuÆientlylargeD. NotethathavingJ

1

beC 0

-losetoJ0impliesthatJ1jisalsotamedbydjwithoutlossof

generality,thusV isJ

1

-onvex.

3. Theproof

Wenowproeedtotheproofofthemaintheorem.

Suppose(M;!)isalosedandonnetedsympletimanifoldwithan

almostomplexstrutureJsuhthateitherofthefollowingonditionsare

satised:

(M;!)issemipositiveandJis!-tame;

[!℄2H 2

(M;Z)andJis!-ompatible.

WewillassumetheGromov-Witteninvariantstobedenedviathepre-

sriptionsinx2.1.1orx2.1.2aordingly. SupposeV M isaJ-onvex

hypersurfae. Arguingbyontradition, weassumethereisanontrivial

Gromov-Witteninvariantoftheform

(3.1) GW

(M;!)

0;m;A

(PD[V℄[1;2;:::;m;)6=0

forsomem3,A2H

2 (M),

1

;:::;

m 2H

(M;Q)and2H

(M

0;m

;Q) .

ofapseudoholomorphispherethattouhesVtangentiallyfromthewrong

side,thusontraditingpseudoonvexity.

Remark 3.1.Inthefollowingwewillgiveauniedargumentthatapplies

toboththesemipositiveandnon-semipositiveases,referringasneessary

totheslightlydierent setsofdenitionsinx2.1.1andx2.1.2. Forthe

semipositivease,somestatementswouldneedtobemodiedinobvious

waysbyremovingallreferenesto2H

(M

0;m

)andtheforgetfulmap

(seeRemark1.4 ).

WemustnowhooseaperturbedalmostomplexstrutureJ

1 thatis

suitablyadaptedtothedenitionoftheGromov-Witteninvariants.Inthe

semipositivease,itsuÆestosetJ1=J. If(M;!)isnotsemipositive,

thenwehaveassumed[!℄2H 2

(M;Z)andanthereforendasequeneof

DonaldsonhypersurfaesZDoflargedegreesD2Nasdesribedinx2.1.2.

ByProposition2.5,aftermakingthedegreesuÆientlylarge,weannda

smooth!-tamealmostomplexstrutureJ

1

thatisarbitrarilyC 0

-loseto

JwhilemakingZ

D aJ

1

-holomorphihypersurfaeandV simultaneouslya

J

1

-onvexhypersurfae.WeshalltreatJ

1

asthereferenealmostomplex

strutureusedinLemmas2.1and2.4 .

LetJ 0

denoteageneridomain-dependentorM

`+1

-dependentpertur-

bationofJ1asdesribedinx2.1.1orx2.1.2respetively,givingrisetothe

modulispaeM A

0;m (M;J

0

)ofJ 0

-holomorphisphereshomologoustoA,with

theassoiatedevaluation/forgetfulpseudoyle

(ev;)=(ev1;:::;evm;):M A

0;m (M;J

0

)!M m

M0;m:

Inthenon-semipositivease,weareassumingasinx2.1.2thatJ 0

mathes

J

1 nearZ

D

andtheelements ofM A

0;m (M;J

0

) haveextramarkedpoints

onstrainedtolieinZDunderevaluation,butthesedetailswillplaynorole

inwhatfollowsandwewillthereforesuppresstheminthenotation. The

ondition(3.1 )nowmeans

[(ev;)℄

([V℄PD(1))PD(2):::PD(m)

6=0:

Lemma3.2.Thereexistsasmoothloop

`:S 1

!M

A

0;m (M;J

0

)

suhthat(ev

1 Æ`)

[S

1

℄[V℄6=0.

Proof.Welosenogeneralitybysupposingthat thelasses1;:::;m 2

H

(M;Q)and2H

M

0;m

areeahhomogeneous,i.e.theyhavewell-

deneddegrees.ByatheoremofThom[Tho54℄,therearerationalnumbers

0

;:::;

m

6=0andsmoothsubmanifolds

1

;:::;

m M and

M

0;m

suhthat

0[

℄=2H(M0;m;Q);

i [

i

℄=PD (

i )2H

(M;Q) fori=1;:::;m:

Welaimthataftergenerismoothperturbationsofthesesubmanifolds,we

mayassumethepseudoyle(ev;)isweaklytransverseto :::

inthesenseof[MS04 ,Denition6.5.10℄. Indeed,weanperturb

1 suh

thatev

1

isweaklytransverseto

1

,soby[MS04 ,Lemma6.5.14℄,

ev

2 j

ev 1

1 (1)

:ev 1

1 (

1 )!M

isapseudoyleofdimensiondimM A

0;m (M;J

0

) deg

1

.Afterperturbing

2,wemayalsoassumethisnewpseudoyleisweaklytransverseto2,

whihmeans(ev

1

;ev

2

)isnowweaklytransverseto

1

2

.Repeatingthis

proedurem+1timesprovesthelaim.Withthisestablished,weandene

theonstrainedmodulispae

M 0

:=(ev;) 1

(

1 :::

m

);

sothat (ev;)j

M

0 is a1-dimensionalpseudoyle,whihmeansM 0

isa

ompat1-dimensionalsubmanifoldofM A

0;m (M;J

0

).Nowhooseageneri

smoothperturbationV 0

ofV Msuhthat

1 tV

0

and ev

1 j

M 0tV

0

:

Wethenhave

0::: m

(ev1)[M 0

℄[V℄

=

[(ev;)℄

( [V℄PD(

1 ))PD(

2

):::PD(

m )

6=0:

(3.2)

AnyonnetedomponentofM 0

onwhihtheaboveintersetionnumber

isnonzeroisthenasmoothloopwiththestatedproperty.

Inordertoapplythislemmainprovingthemainresult,weshallborrow

anideafrom[ABW10℄. Observethatby(3.1 ),[V℄2H

(M;Q)mustbe

nontrivial,soV isnonseparating.Oneanthereforeonstrutaonneted

inniteoverofM,denedbyuttingMopenalongV toprodueaobor-

dismwithboundary VtV,andthengluingtogetheraninnitehainof

opiesfM

n g

n2Z

ofthisobordism.Denoteforeahn2Ztheboundaryof

theobordismM

n by

M

n

= V

n tV

+

n

;

theneahV

n

hasaneighborhoodinM

n

naturallyidentiedwithasuit-

ablehalf-neighborhoodofV inM,andweusetheseidentiationstoglue

MntoMn+1 alongV +

n

=V

n+1

. Thisproduesasmooth,onnetedand

nonompatmanifold(seeFigure1 )

f

M= [

n2Z M

n

;

whihhasanaturalsmoothoveringprojetion

: f

M!M

andisseparatedbyinnitelymanyopiesofthehypersurfaeV,whihwe

shalldenoteby

Vn:=V +

n

f

M:

Let

e

J

1 :=

J

1

denotethenaturalliftofthereferenealmostomplexstrutureJ

1 tothe

over f

M,forwhihthehypersurfaesV areall e

J-onvex.

PSfragreplaements

M f

M

V V1

V0

V

1

V

2 M

0 M

1

M

1

Figure1. Theover: f

M!Mdenedforanonseparat-

inghypersurfaeV M.

ByLemma2.1or2.4,weanndasequeneJ k

ofgeneristruturesfor

whihLemma3.2holdswithJ 0

:=J k

,produingloops

`k:S 1

!M

A

0;m (M;J

k

) with (ev1Æ`k)[S 1

℄[V℄6=0forallk;

andwemayassumemoreoverthatJ k

onvergesinC 1

ask!1tothe

domain-independentalmostomplexstrutureJ1. For eahk and eah

2S 1

,`

k ()2M

A

0;m (M;J

k

)isanequivalenelassofspheresu:S 2

!

M satisfyingadomain-dependentCauhy-Riemannequationasin(2.1 ).

SineS 2

issimplyonneted,eahoftheloops`kanbeliftedto f

M as

aontinuousfamilyofholomorphispheresfu k

g

2R

, andthenontrivial

intersetionofev

1 Æ`

k

withV impliesthatevaluationofu k

at therst

markedpointtraesanonompatpathin f

M intersetingM

n forevery

n2Z.Itfollowsthatforeahk,thereexistsaparametervalue k

2Rfor

whihtheimageofu k

k

touhesV0butnottheinteriorofM1.

Wenowhavea sequene ofurvesu k

:= u k

k

2M

A

0;m (M;J

k

)whih

admitliftsto f

M thattouhV

0

butnottheinteriorofM

1

. Thisisnot

u k

involvesadomain-dependentalmostomplexstruture. Ask !1,

however,Gromovompatnessgivesasubsequeneofu k

onvergingtoa

nodalJ1-holomorphisphere,andatleastoneomponentofthisnodalurve

liftstoanontrivial e

J

1

-holomorphispherein f

MthattouhesV

0

tangentially

frombelow.SineV0isa e

J1-onvexhypersurfae,thisisaontraditionand

thusonludestheproof.

AppendixA.Theforgetfulmapisapseudoyle

Thepurposeofthisappendixistojustifythestatement,madeinx2.1.2,

thatforsuitablyhosendata,theevaluation/forgetfulmap

(ev;):M A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D )!M

m

M

0;m

asdenedinthesettingofCieliebakandMohnke[CM07 ℄isapseudoyle,

andits rationalobordismlass (afterdividingby`!)is independentof

thehoies. Thisisprovedin[CM07 ℄forev:M A

0;m+`

(M;J;ZD)!M m

,

withoutaountingfortheforgetfulmap,thoughtheargumentsneessary

forprovingthemoregeneralstatementarealmostalreadypresentin[CM07 ℄,

soweshallmerelyskeththeneessarymodiations.

Inthefollowing,wewilloftenrefertoholomorphiurvesthatarrydis-

tintsetsofordinaryandextramarkedpoints;forurvesinthespae

M A

0;m+`

(M;J;ZD),thismeanstherstmandlast`markedpointsrespe-

tively. Reallthattheforgetfulmap:M0;m+`(M;J;ZD) !M0;mis

denedbyforgettingnotonlythemapintoMbutalsotheextramarked

points,andthenstabilizing.

Remark A.1. Althoughmapsthetop stratumM A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D )into

thetopstratumM

0;m ofM

0;m

,itwillnotgenerallydeneapseudoyle

M A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D )!M

0;m

,mainlybeauseM

0;m

itselfisnotompat.

Weassumeasinx2.1.2thatJ

0

isaompatiblealmostomplexstruture

onthelosedandonneted2n-dimensionalsympletimanifold(M;!),

andZ

D

M isanearlyJ

0

-holomorphiDonaldsonhypersurfaeoflarge

degreeD2N.IfDissuÆientlylargeandJ2J`+1ishosenappropriately

(e.g.itmustbeC 0

-losetoJ

0

andmathareferenedomain-independent

strutureJ1nearZD,whoserestritiontoZDisgeneri),then[CM07℄shows

thatthenaturalompatiationM A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D )ofM

A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D )

onsistsofstrataM fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D

)modelledonweighted(m+`)-labelled

trees(T;fAg)thatare`-stable,i.e.theyarestableevenafterremoving

themordinary(butkeepingthe`extra)markedpoints. Moreover,none

ofthenononstantomponentsofsuhnodalurvesareontainedinZD.

Thepseudoylepropertyfor(ev;)isbasedontheobservationthaton

anystratumM fAg

T

(M;J;ZD)M A

0;m+`

(M;J;ZD)forwhihThasmore

thanonevertex,therestritionof(ev;)fatorsasaomposition

(A.1) M

fAg

T

(M;J;ZD)!M fAg

T 0

(M;J;ZD)!M m

M0;m;

wherethespaeinthemiddleisasmoothmanifoldthateitherhasdimen-

sionatmostdimM A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D

) 2orfatorsthroughanothermanifold

M fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D

)itselfisthatthelattersometimeshasartiiallylargedi-

mension,duetothepreseneofmultipleextramarkedpointsinthesame

onstantomponent. Butsinetheseextramarkedpointsplaynorolein

deningtheevaluationandforgetfulmap,weanxthisproblembyre-

movingthem,whihleadstothefatorizationabove.Theremainderofthis

appendixwillbeonernedwiththedenitionandessentialpropertiesof

M fAg

T 0

(M;J;Z

D ).

Asin[CM07 ℄,wewillusethetermghosttreetomeanamaximalsubtree

T 00

ofaweightedtree(T;fAg)withthepropertythatA=0forall2

T 00

. Similarly,aghostbubbleonanodalJ-holomorphiurve[(z;u)℄2

M fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D

)istheonstantholomorphiurveobtainedbyrestriting

utoanyomponentSzwithA=0. Weshalldenethemanifold

M fAg

T 0

(M;J;Z

D

)roughlyasthespaeofnodalurvesthatoneobtainsfrom

elementsofM fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D

)byforgettingallbutoneoftheextramarked

pointsoneahghosttreeandstabilizingasneessary,butkeepingallother

information,inludingtheonformalstruturesontheghostbubbleswith

theirordinarymarkedpoints.Thisanbedenedmoreformallyasfollows.

Suppose` 0

`isthenumberofextramarkedpointsonverties2Twith

A6=0plusthenumberofghosttreesinT thathaveatleastoneextra

markedpoint.ThenweassoiatetoTastable(m+` 0

)-labelledtreeT 0

via

thefollowingproedure:

(1)OneahghosttreeinT,keepallordinarymarkedpointsandthe

rstextramarkedpoint(ifany)butremoveallotherextramarked

points;

(2)Stabilizebyremovinganyvertiesthatnowhavefewerthan3speial

pointsandadjustingneighboringedgesaordingly.(Notethatsine

Tisstable,thisstepanonlyaetverties2TwithA

=0.)

ByLemma2.2 ,anyoherentalmostomplexstrutureJ2J

`+1

determines

foreverynodalurvez modelled onT a

z

-dependentalmostomplex

strutureJzwhoserestritiontoeahomponentSzdependsonly

onthespeialpointsonS

. ItfollowsthatifzismodelledonT 0

,thenJ

uniquelydeterminesadomaindependentalmostomplexstrutureonany

omponentS

z withA

6=0(f.thedisussionpreedingCorollary5.9

in[CM07 ℄).Weanextendthistoaz-dependentalmostomplexstruture

J

z 2J

T 0

bysettingJ

z j

S

foreah2T 0

withA

=0tomaththexeddomain-

independentreferenealmostomplexstrutureJ1. Inthisway,wean

speakofnodalJ-holomorphimaps(z;u)modelledontheweighted(m+`

0

)-

labelledtree(T 0

;fAg);notethatthedenitionofJzonomponentsS

withA

= 0playsnorolehere sineuis neessarilyonstanton suh

omponents.Denoteby f

M fAg

T 0

(M;J;ZD)thespaeofsuhmapsforwhih

the` 0

extramarkedpointsareallmappedintoZ

D

,anddenoteitsquotient

bythegroupofbiholomorphiisomorphismsby

M fAg

0 (M;J;Z

D ):=

f

M fAg

0 (M;J;Z

D )=:

Thereisanaturalprojetion

M fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D )!M

fAg

T 0

(M;J;Z

D )

denedbyforgetting` ` 0

oftheextramarkedpointsandthenollaps-

ing onstant omponentsas neessaryin orderto stabilize thedomain.

Sinealltheordinarymarkedpointsareretainedinthisproess,thefa-

torization(A.1 )of(ev;)iswelldened. Thepseudoylepropertynow

mostlyfollowsfromthefollowinglemma,whoseproofisexatlythesame

as[CM07 ,Lemma5.6,Prop.5.7andCor.5.8℄.

LemmaA.2.ForgeneriJ,ife(T 0

)denotesthenumberofedgesinthe

treeT 0

,thenM fAg

T 0

(M;J;Z

D

)isasmoothmanifoldwith

dimM fAg

T 0

(M;J;Z

D

)=2(n 3)+2

1

(A)+2m 2e(T 0

)

=dimM A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D ) 2e(T

0

):

WemuststilldealwiththepossibilitythatT hasmorethanonevertex

butT 0

hasonlyone,inwhihaseM fAg

T 0

(M;J;ZD)anberegardedasa

spaeofsmooth(non-nodal)urvesM A

0;m+`

0(M;J;Z

D

)onstrainedtosend

their` 0

extramarkedpointsintoZ

D .

3

Thisspaehasdimensionequalto

thatofM A

0;m+`

(M;J;ZD),butwelaimthatforgeneriJ,ifT hasmore

thanonevertex,thenurvesinM A

0;m+`

0 (M;J;Z

D

)thatariseinthisway

fromelementsofM fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D

)lieinasubsetofodimensionatleast2.

Theruialpointhereisthatsuhaurvewillneverbelongtotheopen

subset

M A;

0;m+`

0 (M;J;Z

D )M

A

0;m+`

0(M;J;Z

D )

onsistingofurveswhoseintersetionswithZD atthe` 0

extramarked

points arealltransverse, andforgeneri J,[CM07 , x6℄shows thatthe

omplementofthissubsetisa niteunionofsmoothsubmanifoldshav-

ingdimensionatmostdimM A

0;m+`

0(M;J;Z

D

) 2. Toseethaturvesin

M A;

0;m+`

0 (M;J;Z

D

)areexluded,observethattheurvesinquestionarise

preiselyinsituationswhereremovingtherelevantextramarkedpointsfrom

ghostbubblesinTmakesallofthemunstable|inpartiular,(T;fA

g)must

inthisaseonsistofthefollowing:

Auniquevertex0thathasallmoftheordinarymarkedpoints

andA

0

=A6=0;

Oneormoreghosttreesthateahhavenoordinarymarkedpoints

butatleasttwooftheextramarkedpoints.

TheresultingurveinM A

0;m+`

0(M;J;Z

D

)isnotontainedinZ

D buthas

` 0

markedpointsatwhihitmustintersetZ

D

,andifallofthese` 0

inter-

setionsaretransverse,thenthefatthatA[ZD℄=`>` 0

impliesthere

must beadditionalintersetionsseparate fromtheextramarkedpoints.

Butsinetheseurvesareassumedtoarisefromobjetsinthelosureof

3

SinetehniallyJbelongstoJ`+1andnotJ`0+1,thedenitionofJ-holomorphiity

forurvesinM A

0;m+`

0(M;J;ZD)isabitsubtleandmustbeunderstoodinthesamesense

asthepreedingdisussionofM fAg

0

(M;J;ZD).

M A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D

), thelatter implies(viapositivityofintersetions)the

existeneofurvesinM A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D

)thathaveintersetionswithZ

D

outsidetheirextramarkedpoints,andthatisimpossible.Thisproves:

LemmaA.3.ForgeneriJ,ifThasmorethanonevertexandT 0

hasonly

one,thentherestritionof(ev;)toM fAg

T

(M;J;ZD)fatorsas

M fAg

T

(M;J;Z

D )!M

A

0;m+`

0 (M;J;Z

D )nM

A;

0;m+`

0 (M;J;Z

D )

!M m

M

0;m

;

wherethespaeinthemiddleisaniteunionofmanifoldshavingdimension

atmostdimM A

0;m+`

(M;J;Z

D

) 2.

ItfollowsfromLemmasA.2andA.3thatforgeneriJ,(ev;)isapseudo-

yleaslaimed. Usingthesesamefatorizations,oneansimilarlyadapt

theproofof[CM07 ,Theorem1.3℄to showthattherationalpseudoyle

denedby 1

`!

(ev;)isindependentofthehoies(J

0

;Z

D

;J)uptoratio-

nalobordism. Thisinvolvesdeningorrespondingmodulispaesfor1-

parameterfamiliesofdata,aswellasmodulispaesofurveswithtwosets

ofextramarkedpointsonstrainedbytwoDonaldsonhypersurfaesofdif-

feringdegrees|theideaineahaseistofator(ev;)asabovethrough

modulispaesinwhiheahghosttreearriesatmostoneextramarked

point.Suhmodulispaesalwayshavesmallenoughdimensiontoestablish

thepseudoyleondition.

Referenes

[ABW10℄P.Albers,B.Bramham,andC.Wendl,Onnonseparatingontathypersurfaes

insympleti4-manifolds,Algebr.Geom.Topol.10(2010),no.2,697{737.

[Aur97℄D.Auroux,Asymptotiallyholomorphifamiliesofsympletisubmanifolds,

Geom.Funt.Anal.7(1997),no.6,971{995.

[BEH +

03℄F.Bourgeois,Y.Eliashberg,H.Hofer,K.Wysoki,andE.Zehnder,Compat-

nessresultsinsympletieldtheory,Geom.Topol.7(2003),799{888.

[CM07℄K.CieliebakandK.Mohnke,Sympletihypersurfaesandtransversalityin

Gromov-Wittentheory,J.SympletiGeom.5(2007),no.3,281{356.

[Don96℄S.K.Donaldson,Sympletisubmanifoldsandalmost-omplexgeometry,J.

DierentialGeom.44(1996),no.4,666{705.

[ET98℄Y.M.EliashbergandW.P.Thurston,Confoliations,UniversityLetureSeries,

vol.13,AmerianMathematialSoiety,Providene,RI,1998.

[FO99℄K.FukayaandK.Ono,ArnoldonjetureandGromov-Witteninvariant,Topol-

ogy38(1999),no.5,933{1048.

[Gei95℄H.Geiges,Examplesofsympleti4-manifoldswithdisonnetedboundaryof

ontattype,Bull.LondonMath.So.27(1995),no.3,278{280.

[Gei94℄ ,Sympletimanifoldswithdisonnetedboundaryofontattype,In-

ternat.Math.Res.Noties1(1994),23{30.

[Ger13℄A.Gerstenberger,UniversalmodulispaesinGromov-Wittentheory,Ph.D.

Thesis,Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitatMunih,2013.

[Gir94℄E.Giroux,Unestruturedeontat,m^emetendue,estplusoumoinstordue,

Ann.Si.

EoleNorm.Sup.(4)27(1994),no.6,697{705(Frenh,withEnglish

summary ).

[HV92℄H.HoferandC.Viterbo,TheWeinsteinonjetureinthepreseneofholomor-

phispheres,Comm.PureAppl.Math.45(1992),no.5,583{622.

[HWZ℄H.Hofer,K.Wysoki,andE.Zehnder,AppliationsofpolyfoldtheoryI:the

[Hyv12℄C.Hyvrier,OnsympletiunirulingofHamiltonianbrations,Algebr.Geom.

Topol.12(2012),1145{1163.

[IP℄E.-N.IonelandT.H.Parker,AnaturalGromov-Wittenvirtualfundamental

lass.PreprintarXiv:1302.3472.

[LM97℄P.LisaandG.Mati,TightontatstruturesandSeiberg-Witteninvariants,

Invent.Math.129(1997),no.3,509{525.

[LT98℄J.LiandG.Tian,VirtualmoduliylesandGromov-Witteninvariantsof

generalsympletimanifolds,Topisinsympleti4-manifolds(Irvine,CA,

1996),FirstInt.PressLet.Ser.,I,Int.Press,Cambridge,MA,1998,pp.47{

83.

[LT00℄G.LiuandG.Tian,WeinsteinonjetureandGW-invariants,Commun.Con-

temp.Math.2(2000),no.4,405{459.

[Lu00℄G.Lu,TheWeinsteinonjetureintheuniruledmanifolds,Math.Res.Lett.7

(2000),no.4,383{387.

[Lu06℄ ,Gromov-Witteninvariantsandpseudosympletiapaities,IsraelJ.

Math.156(2006),1{63.

[MNW13℄P.Massot,K.Niederkruger,andC.Wendl,Weakandstrongllabilityofhigher

dimensionalontatmanifolds,Invent.Math.192(2013),no.2,287{373.

[MD91℄D.MDu,Sympletimanifoldswithontattypeboundaries,Invent.Math.

103(1991),no.3,651{671.

[MS04℄D.MDuandD.Salamon,J-holomorphiurvesandsympletitopology,

AmerianMathematialSoiety,Providene,RI,2004.

[Mit95℄Y.Mitsumatsu,Anosovowsandnon-Steinsympletimanifolds,Ann.Inst.

Fourier(Grenoble)45(1995),no.5,1407{1421(English,withEnglishand

Frenhsummaries).

[Moh℄J.-P.Mohsen,Transversalitequantitativeengeometriesympletique:sous-

varietesethypersurfaes.PreprintarXiv:1307.0837.

[Rua96℄Y.Ruan,TopologialsigmamodelandDonaldson-typeinvariantsinGromov

theory,DukeMath.J.83(1996),no.2,461{500.

[Rua99℄ ,Virtualneighborhoodsandpseudo-holomorphiurves,Proeedingsof

6thGokovaGeometry-TopologyConferene,1999,pp.161{231.

[Sie℄B.Siebert,Gromov-Witteninvariantsofgeneralsympletimanifolds.Preprint

arXiv:9608005.

[Tho54℄R.Thom,Quelquesproprietesglobalesdesvarietesdierentiables,Comment.

Math.Helv.28(1954),17{86(Frenh).

DepartmentofMathematis,UniversityCollegeLondon,GowerStreet,

LondonWC1E6BT,UnitedKingdom

E-mailaddress:.wendlul.a.uk