The positive equivariant symplectic homology as an invariant for some contact manifolds
By Jean Gutt. 2015
61 citations recorded by the source corpus.
We show that positive $S^1$-equivariant symplectic homology is a contact invariant for a subclass of contact manifolds which are boundaries of Liouville domains. In nice cases, when the set of Conley-Zehnder indices of all good periodic Reeb orbits on the boundary of the Liouville domain is lacunary, the positive $S^1$-equivariant symplectic homology can be computed; it is generated by those orbits. We prove a "Viterbo functoriality" property: when one Liouville domain is embedded into an other one, there is a morphism (reversing arrows) between their positive $S^1$-equivariant symplectic homologies and morphisms compose nicely. These properties allow us to give a proof of Ustilovsky's result on the number of non isomorphic contact structures on the spheres $S^{4m+1}$. They also give a new proof of a Theorem by Ekeland and Lasry on the minimal number of periodic Reeb orbits on some hypersurfaces in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$. We extend this result to some hypersurfaces in some negative line bundles.
Subfields: Geometry and Topology, Mathematical Physics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a39c50f3749b5c96616fe6ed53314bbca94f3540
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Geometry and Topology
- A. Oancea
- Otto van Koert
- Myeonggi Kwon
- Kai Cieliebak
- Mark McLean
- M. Abouzaid
- Alexander F. Ritter
- Frederick J. Bourgeois III
In Mathematical Physics
- A. Oancea
- Otto van Koert
- Myeonggi Kwon
- Kai Cieliebak
- Mark McLean
- Alexander F. Ritter
- Frederick J. Bourgeois III
- P. Seidel
Citations in the corpus
- Brieskorn manifolds in contact topology (2013, background): “Prior to Gutt’s result, Fauck was able to distinguish Ustilovsky’s spheres using Rabinowitz–Floer homology [26].”
- Symplectic homology and the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms (2015, background): “For another instance in the S(1)-equivariant case see [48].”