I am now reading Feix's paper Hyperkahler metrics on cotangent bundles
and I have a technical question to ask.
In his paper, for an analytic Kähler manifold (X,J,ω), Feix considered its complexification Xc which in my understanding can be thought of as a neighborhood of the diagonal in X×ˉX, where ˉX is the complex manifold X with complex structure −J. One can extend ω analytically to a holomorphic symplectic form ωc on Xc. This ωc determines two natural holomorphic Lagrangian foliations L+ and L−. Let zi and z′j be local holomorphic coordinates of X and ˉX respectively, then the leaves of L+ and L− are given by zi≡const and z′j≡const.
As the diagonal intersects each leaf at exactly one point, one may identify the space of leaves of L+ with X and the space of leaves of L− with ˉX respectively.
From now on let us focus on L+ exclusively. By shrinking Xc if necessary, one may assume that Λx is simply connected for any x∈X= "space of leaves of L+", where Λx is the leaf corresponding to x. As a consequence of Lagrangian foliation, each Λx has a natural affine structure, so it makes sense to write Vx to be the space of affine functions on Λx. By 1-connectedness of Λx, each Vx is a vector space of complex dimension n+1, where n is the complex dimension of X. These Vx patch up to a complex vector bundle V→X.
Feix claims without further explanation that this bundle is holomorphic. I really would like to know the description of the holomorphic structure here. It occurs to me that the most natural frames one can think of actually have anti-holomorphic transition functions as follows:
Let zi,z′j be local coordinates for Xc, the leaves of L+ are zi≡const.
Fix a leaf Λx, it intersects the diagonal at the point whose coordinate is z=x,z′=ˉx. One can find parallel 1-forms θi on Λx by parallel transport with respect to the flat connection with initial value specified by θi|(x,ˉx)=dz′i|(x,ˉx). These θi must be a closed form and their primitives fi along with the constant function 1 form a basis of Vx. However, if you work with this particular frame, then under holomorphic coordinate change of X, the transition matrix of these frame depends anti-holomorphically on X.
Surely one can switch L+ and L− to solve the holomorphicity problem here. But I think a bigger trouble is then introduced since in that case the map ϕ defined by Feix loses its holomorphicity.
Thank you!
This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-11-11 12:31 (UTC), posted by SE-user Piojo