Diffeomorphism of simply connected algebraic surfaces

Surfaces of general type (14J29) Automorphisms of surfaces and higher-dimensional varieties (14J50) Topology of surfaces (Donaldson polynomials, Seiberg-Witten invariants) (14J80) Differential topological aspects of diffeomorphisms (57R50)

Abstract: In this paper we show that even in the case of simply connected minimal algebraic surfaces of general type, deformation and differentiable equivalence do not coincide. Exhibiting several simple families of surfaces which are not deformation equivalent, and proving their diffeomorphism, we give a counterexample to a weaker form of the speculation DEF = DIFF of R. Friedman and J. Morgan, i.e., in the case where (by M. Freedman's theorem) the topological type is completely determined by the numerical invariants of the surface. We hope that the methods of proof may turn out to be quite useful to show diffeomorphism and indeed symplectic equivalence for many important classes of algebraic surfaces and symplectic 4-manifolds.

Review text

In the paper under review it is shown that even in the case of simply connected algebraic surfaces, deformation and differentiable equivalence do not coincide. The first counterexample to Morgan-Friedman's [\textit{R. Friedman} and \textit{J. W. Morgan}, Bull. Am. Math. Soc., New Ser. 18, No. 1, 1--19 (1988; Zbl 0662.57016)] ``DIF=DEFF speculation (are orientedly diffeomorphic algebraic surfaces equivalent by deformation?) was given by \textit{R. Friedman} and \textit{John W. Morgan} [``Smooth four-manifolds and complex surfaces (Ergebn. Math. Grenzgeb. 3. Folge. 27. Berlin) (1994; Zbl 0817.14017)] constructing elliptic surfaces not deformation equivalent to their complex conjugate. All these surfaces have infinite fundamental group. \textit{M. Manetti} [Invent. Math. 143, No. 1, 29--76 (2001; Zbl 1060.14520)] gave the first counterexample for surfaces of general type. Other counterexamples were later given by \textit{F. Catanese} [Ann. Math. (2) 158, No. 2, 577--592 (2003; Zbl 1042.14011)] and by \textit{Vik. S. Kulikov} and \textit{V. M. Kharlamov} [Izv. Math. 66, No. 1, 133--150 (2002; Zbl 1055.14060)]. This paper gives the first simply connected counterexamples. More precisely the authors construct, for each positive integers \(h\), \(h\) simply connected surfaces of general type that are all diffeomorphic but pairwise not deformation equivalent. Since by Seiberg-Witten theory any diffeomorphism \(X \rightarrow X'\) carries \(c_1(K_X)\) either in \(c_1(K_{X'})\) or in \(-c_1(K_{X'})\), this implies that the same statement holds if we require the diffeomorphism to preserve the canonical class (something that does not happen for most of the previous examples, since obtained by taking pairs of complex conjugated surfaces). The construction is surprisingly simple, since all surfaces are obtained as simple bidouble covers of \({\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P^1}\). The bulk of the paper is in showing that the given surfaces are diffeomorphic. The techniques introduced should also allow to investigate is the surfaces are symplectomorphic.

Recommendations

Cited in

(20)

This page was built for publication: Diffeomorphism of simply connected algebraic surfaces

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2373557)