12.01.2013 Views

3. Postdoctoral Program - MSRI

3. Postdoctoral Program - MSRI

3. Postdoctoral Program - MSRI

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

WORKSHOP REPORT 3<br />

isotopic to each other, and which are all non-displaceable. Ono’s talk used<br />

the theory developed by Fukaya, Oh, Ohta and Ono; Cheol-Huyn Cho provided<br />

in his lecture a series of constructions of homological invariants which<br />

one can extract from their theory.<br />

The remaining talks on Lagrangian Floer homology focused on connections<br />

with mirror symmetry. Kenji Fukaya explained how to prove homological<br />

mirror symmetry for K3 surfaces by constructing the mirror as a<br />

moduli space of objects of the Fukaya category coming from the fibres of a<br />

Lagrangian torus fibration. Melissa Liu gave a proof of mirror symmetry for<br />

toric varieties and orbifolds using the correspondence between Lagrangians<br />

in the cotangent bundle of a torus and constructible sheaves on the base. Finally,<br />

Ivan Smith presented a new approach for using ideas from homological<br />

mirror symmetry to prove the faithfulness of the representation of the mapping<br />

class group into the symplectomorphism group of the representation<br />

variety.<br />

Besides talks, the workshop presented an opportunity for numerous group<br />

discussions which were very productive and led to new collaborations. In<br />

particular, one such group discussed different approaches for understanding<br />

the precise relation between Weinstein handlebodies and symplectic Lefschetz<br />

fibrations. Conjecturally these two structures are equivalent, but at<br />

the moment the details remain to be worked out. The discussion of this<br />

problem at <strong>MSRI</strong> yielded new ideas which should be useful for addressing<br />

this question. A solution would be relevant for many applications.<br />

The <strong>MSRI</strong> workshop was preceded a week earlier by a meeting at the<br />

American Institute of Mathematics (AIM), which was devoted specifically<br />

to the work of Bourgeois-Ekholm-Eliashberg and its ramifications. The two<br />

meetings were not conceived as continuations of each other; rather, the AIM<br />

workshop was more technical and specialized, while the <strong>MSRI</strong> workshop had<br />

a wider scope, with more diverse perspectives represented, and addressed itself<br />

to a broader audience. In our opinion, this was a successful combination<br />

which strengthened both workshops.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!