Unknottedness of real Lagrangian tori in
Abstract
We prove the Hamiltonian unknottedness of real Lagrangian tori in the monotone , namely any real Lagrangian torus in is Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus. The proof is based on a neck-stretching argument, Gromov’s foliation theorem, and the Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer criterion.
Mathematics Subject Classification (2000) 53D12, 53D35, 54H25
1 Introduction
An even dimensional smooth manifold equipped with a closed non-degenerate 2-form is a symplectic manifold. By Darboux’s theorem [34, Theorem 3.2.2], symplectic manifolds are locally standard, and hence only global properties in symplectic topology are interesting; in particular, the study of middle dimensional submanifolds along which the symplectic form vanishes, namely Lagrangian submanifolds.
In 1986, as one of the first steps in symplectic topology [1, Section 6], Arnold proposed the Lagrangian knot problem asking whether two given Lagrangians are isotopic. As formulated in a survey of Eliashberg–Polterovich [22], there are different flavors of isotopy, namely smooth, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian. Hamiltonian isotopies are Lagrangian, and Lagrangian isotopies are smooth. Two Lagrangians are said to be unknotted if they are isotopic to each other in one of these three ways.
A remarkable result of Gromov [25] says that there are no closed exact Lagrangians in , and hence the extensive study of Lagrangian tori in has been made for a long time. Chekanov [9] first constructed a monotone Lagrangian torus in for , which is Lagrangian isotopic while not Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus , i.e., products of circles in of equal radius. This exhibits that a Lagrangian isotopy cannot be in general deformed into a Hamiltonian isotopy. His result is even more interesting since the classical invariants cannot detect this phenomenon. Indeed, the Audin conjecture [2, Section 6.4], which is proved by Polterovich [37] and Viterbo [40] in dimension 4 and Cieliebak–Mohnke [11] in any dimension, says that the minimal Maslov number (one of the classical invariants) of any Lagrangian torus in is always two, so exotic monotone Lagrangian tori are hard to discover. Auroux [3] constructed infinitely many monotone Lagrangian tori in up to Hamiltonian isotopy, while all of them are Lagrangian isotopic. We refer to the work of Dimitroglou Rizell–Evans [17, Corollary C] about the smooth unknottedness of monotone Lagrangian tori inside for odd.
Since Lagrangian 2-planes in that are asymptotically linear are trivial by Eliashberg–Polterovich [21] (see also [20]), one may expect reasonable unknottedness results in symplectic 4-manifolds. Symplectic Field Theory developed by Eliashberg–Givental–Hofer [19] has become a core technique to address the Lagrangian unknottedness problems. By a neck-stretching argument [5], Hind [26] showed the Hamiltonian unknottedness of spheres in .
In contrast to spheres, the Hamiltonian unknottedness of monotone Lagrangian tori in fails. Chekanov–Schlenk [8] found a monotone Lagrangian torus in which is not Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus , defined as the product of the equators. This torus, in another description, was also found by Entov–Polterovich [23, Example 1.22]. Vianna [39] showed that there are infinitely many Hamiltonian isotopy classes of monotone Lagrangian tori in . Dimitroglou Rizell–Goodman–Ivrii [18, Theorem A] established the Lagrangian unknottedness of tori in , namely Lagrangian tori in are unique up to Lagrangian isotopy. As a result, infinitely many monotone Lagrangian tori in are Hamiltonianly knotted.
In this paper, we are interested in a class more rigid than monotone Lagrangian tori, namely real Lagrangian tori. By a real Lagrangian submanifold in a symplectic manifold we mean a Lagrangian submanifold that is the fixed point set of an antisymplectic involution of , i.e., and . The fixed point set of an antisymplectic involution of a symplectic manifold is Lagrangian if it is nonempty. If is monotone, then every real Lagrangian of is monotone, see Lemma 2.1. Recall that the Clifford torus is a real Lagrangian torus in whose antisymplectic involution is given by the product of the reflection of fixing the equator.
The main result of this paper is to prove the Hamiltonian unknottedness of real Lagrangian tori in in contrast to the monotone case.
Main Theorem.
Any real Lagrangian torus in is Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus .
As we discussed, being real plays a key role, and the result shows a non-trivial phenomenon of Hamiltonian unknottedness. An immediate consequence of the main theorem together with a known result [30, Proposition B] is the complete classification of real Lagrangian submanifolds in .
Theorem A.
Any real Lagrangian submanifold in is Hamiltonian isotopic to either the antidiagonal sphere or the Clifford torus .
From a real symplectic perspective, the study of real Lagrangian tori in is the simplest non-trivial case in dimension 4. For topological reasons, there is no closed real Lagrangian in at all. Known monotone symplectic 4-manifolds containing real Lagrangian tori are and the three-fold monotone blow-up of , see [7, Theorem D]. In [29], it was proved that the Chekanov–Schlenk torus in is not real, from which we believed that our main result holds. We refer to a recent work of Brendel [6] that extends the result in [29].
In order to prove the main theorem, we employ Gromov’s foliation theorem (Section 2.2) together with the Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer criterion (Section 2.4). Gromov’s strategy was to foliate the monotone symplectic manifold by a family of -holomorphic spheres of minimal symplectic area, and hence to reduce symplectic questions to two dimensional fibered versions. In particular, when one deforms the split complex structure on to any tame almost complex structure , two transversal foliations by -holomorphic spheres still exist (even smoothly depending on ), and yield a symplectic -fibration of over . In the case of studying a monotone Lagrangian torus, the nicest situation is when a fiber symplectic sphere intersects the torus along a circle or does not intersect at all. Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer provided a criterion for the Hamiltonian unknottedness of tori in by means of this fibered structure. In particular, the existence of two suitable symplectic sections of the fibration is the precise condition for a given monotone Lagrangian torus being Hamiltonianly deformable into the Clifford torus . In general, one symplectic section always exists (essentially by an SFT argument, see Proposition 2.6), but the second symplectic section may be missing. For real Lagrangian tori, an antisymplectic involution will provide the second symplectic section as desired. To realize this heuristic argument precisely, we should deal with an almost complex structure that is compatible with an antisymplectic involution.
It might be interesting to mention interactions between real symplectic topology and real algebraic varieties. We refer to [14, 16, 28] for expositions about the topology of real algebraic varieties. Inspired by the notion of quasi-simplicity for real algebraic varieties [28], we formulate a counterpart in symplectic topology. A closed monotone symplectic manifold is called symplectically quasi-simple if the diffeomorphism type of connected real Lagrangian submanifolds of uniquely determines its Hamiltonian isotopy class.
Problem.
Show that symplectic del Pezzo surfaces are symplectically quasi-simple.
Notice that one has to impose a condition on the homology classes of real Lagrangians if necessary. It is known that the problem is true for [30, Proposition A] and (Theorem A). Note that quasi-simplicity in real algebraic varieties is known for all real del Pezzo surfaces by Degtyarev–Itenberg–Kharlamov [14, 15]. Together with Brendel and Moon [7, Theorem D], we obtain the complete list of diffeomorphism types of connected real Lagrangians in toric symplectic del Pezzo surfaces. For symplectic results, we refer to the works of Evans [24] and Seidel [38], which deal with the (un)knotting problems of Lagrangian spheres in del Pezzo surfaces. See also the work of Borman–Li–Wu [4]. Finally, we mention a work of Welschinger [41] which might be related to the problem. In that paper, he defines an invariant under deformation of real symplectic 4-manifolds, called Welschinger invariant.
2 Structural results for real Lagrangian tori in
Recall that a symplectic manifold is monotone if there exists such that and that a Lagrangian submanifold in is monotone if there exists such that for all , where denotes the Maslov class of , see [34, Definition 3.4.4].
Lemma 2.1.
Every real Lagrangian in a monotone symplectic manifold is monotone.
Proof.
Let be a real Lagrangian in for an antisymplectic involution . Note that is the union of two closed discs and such that , where is an orientation reversing involution of whose fixed point set is . For a smooth map , its double is defined by
Then one can check that and . Since is monotone, is monotone as well. ∎
Throughout this paper, the symplectic manifold is equipped with the split symplectic form , where is a Euclidean area form on . This symplectic form is monotone, and hence every real Lagrangian in is monotone.
2.1 Topology of antisymplectic involutions of
We fix generators of ,
The following simple topological result plays a crucial role. This result says that any antisymplectic involution of with fixed point set is homologically the standard antisymplectic involution for the Clifford torus .
Lemma 2.2.
Let be an antisymplectic involution on whose fixed point set is diffeomorphic to . Then the map induced in homology is given by for .
Proof.
Write for the induced map of on . It satisfies and
The second condition holds since is antisymplectic. Since is orientation-preserving, preserves the intersection form of . In particular, for we obtain
Hence, must be either or , and the same result holds for . The Lefschetz fixed point theorem [14, Section 1.3] implies that
Since , the lemma follows. ∎
Remark 2.3.
By the above proof, for given antisymplectic involution of with possibly empty fixed point set, the induced map on is either
It is known that any real Lagrangian in is diffeomorphic to either or , see [30, Proposition B]. Hence, if is nonempty we obtain
-
•
is diffeomorphic to if and only if .
-
•
is diffeomorphic to if and only if .
2.2 Gromov’s foliation theorem
We recall the celebrated Gromov foliation theorem in , see [25, Theorem 2.4.]. Let denote the space of compatible almost complex structures on . We emphasize that for the following result it is crucial that the symplectic form is monotone.
Theorem 2.4 (Gromov).
For every there exist two transversal foliations and of whose leaves are (unparametrized) embedded -holomorphic spheres in the homology class and , respectively.
Here, by transversal foliations and , we mean that any two leaves of and are transverse. By positivity of intersections [33, Section 2.6], the two leaves intersects transversely at a single point.
Remark 2.5.
2.3 The neck-stretching for a real Lagrangian torus
Let be an antisymplectic involution of . A compatible almost complex structure on is called -anti-invariant if . We abbreviate by the space of -anti-invariant compatible almost complex structures on , which is nonempty and contractible, see [41, Proposition 1.1].
The following is an application of a neck-stretching argument combined with Gromov’s theorem, which is a version of Dimitroglou Rizell–Goodman–Ivrii [18, Theorem C]. See also a related result of Welschinger [42, Theorem 1.3].
Proposition 2.6.
Let be a real Lagrangian torus in for an antisymplectic involution . Then there exists and a -holomorphic sphere in which represents the homology class and is disjoint from .
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this statement. Below, we mainly follow the descriptions given in [18, Sections 2, 3, and 4].
The real splitting construction.
We explain the splitting construction for a real Lagrangian torus in , which matches well with the antisymplectic involution . We refer to [18, Section 2], [11, Example 2.5] or [19, Example 1.3.1] for the split construction for a Lagrangian.
Fix a flat metric on the torus and write for the coordinates. Let be the Liouville form on . The cotangent bundle carries the canonical antisymplectic involution , which is exact, i.e., , and is an isometry. This map restricts to the (strict) anticontact involution on the unit cotangent bundle equipped with the contact form . This involution extends to the exact antisymplectic involution on the symplectization by
For we let . By the equivariant Weinstein neighborhood theorem [35, Theorem 2], there exists a symplectic embedding
(2.1) |
such that and . Together with the exact symplectomorphism
(2.2) |
which identifies the antisymplectic involutions and , we see that and have a cylindrical end over the real contact manifold . Therefore, we obtain the real split symplectic manifold consisting of
(2.3) |
endowed with the -anti-invariant almost complex structures , , and , which are explained below.
A neck-stretching family of -anti-invariant almost complex structures.
A compatible almost complex structure on the symplectization is called cylindrical if is -translation invariant, , and . Here, is the Reeb vector field on uniquely determined by the equations and . We recall the construction in [18, Section 4] of the specific almost complex structures on the split symplectic manifold (2.3). We refer to [18, Lemma 4.1] for details.
Using the identification (2.2), we define the cylindrical compatible almost complex structure on by
We consider the tame almost complex structure on given by | ||||
where is a smooth function such that
-
•
for ,
-
•
for , and
-
•
for .
Here, is chosen such that (2.1) exists. On , the almost complex structure agrees with the cylindrical almost complex structure . We can readily check that and are -anti-invariant, i.e.,
Take the neighborhood of in , where is the symplectic embedding from (2.1). Let be the space of -anti-invariant compatible almost complex structures on . The set
is nonempty and contractible.
Suppose that we are given . A neck-stretching family in [18, Section 2.5] of -anti-invariant tame almost complex structures on is defined by
where
-
•
The map is a diffeomorphism
induced by an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism
- •
Remark 2.7.
We are now in position to prove Proposition 2.6. The SFT analysis that we will use is carried out in [18, Sections 2 and 3] and we closely follow their arguments adapted to our purpose.
Proof of Proposition 2.6.
Pick a regular as in Lemma 2.8 and consider the associated neck-stretching family of -anti-invariant tame almost complex structures on .
It follows from Gromov’s result together with positivity of intersections that for any there exists a unique embedded -holomorphic sphere in the homology class passing through any given point in .
We can therefore apply the SFT compactness theorem [18, Theorem 2.2] or [5, 10] to these spheres to obtain a limit holomorphic building in the real split symplectic manifold given in (2.3).
Note that the limit holomorphic building possibly consists of components in the middle levels .
By convexity and exactness of and , the limit holomorphic building must contain at least one component in the top level .
Claim. If a limit holomorphic building is broken, then its top level consists of two simple -holomorphic planes in of index 1.
In [18, Proposition 3.5], a similar version of the claim is obtained under the choice of a regular for all simple punctured -holomorphic spheres in , where is not necessarily monotone.
The generic choice of was crucially required to guarantee the index non-negativity result for punctured spheres in .
In our case, the monotonicity of controls the index of punctured spheres.
Step 1. Any punctured -holomorphic sphere in satisfies .
Fixing a symplectic trivialization of the contact structure on , we denote by the Conley–Zehnder index of a Morse–Bott manifold of periodic Reeb orbits in and by the relative first Chern number, see [18, Section 3.1]. By [18, Equations (1) and (2) in Section 3.1], the index of a punctured -holomorphic sphere in having negative punctures asymptotic to periodic orbits in Morse–Bott manifolds is given by
where is a surface in with boundary on which is the boundary compactification of obtained by adding (geodesic) circles in corresponding to the asymptotic orbits. Since is orientable, has Maslov number . By the monotonicity of together with the fact that is non-constant, we have . Hence, we deduce that
which completes Step 1.
Step 2. Proof of the claim.
This essentially follows from the proof of [18, Proposition 3.5]. Indeed, that proof yields the identity
where and denote the components of the limit holomorphic building in the top level and the remaining levels, respectively. Here, is the Euler characteristic of the domain of . Since there are no contractible periodic orbits in , a pseudoholomorphic plane in or asymptotic to a periodic orbit cannot exist, which shows . By Step 1, we know that . Since the components of the limit holomorphic building in the split symplectic manifold glue together to form a sphere, we conclude that the top level of the limit holomorphic building consists of two planes of index 1. The simplicity of the plane follows from [18, Lemmata 3.3 and 3.4]. Hence, the claim follows.
We now crucially use that our is regular. By the claim, if the limit building is broken, then its top level consists of two simple -holomorphic planes in of index 1. Such planes are contained in the moduli space of index 1 simple -holomorphic planes in , which is a smooth manifold of dimension 1. Since the total collection of components of broken limit buildings in the top level forms a subset of dimension at most 3 in , we conclude that there must be a non-broken limit building, that is an embedded -holomorphic sphere in whose homology class represents . It remains to show that can be seen as a -holomorphic sphere in for some . Since the image of is a compact set in , we can choose an -invariant neighborhood of in which is disjoint from . We then modify on this neighborhood so that the resulting one can be extended to an -anti-invariant compatible almost complex structure defined on , namely . This completes the proof. ∎
Following ideas of [29, Section 3], we show the equivariant transversality for simple pseudoholomorphic planes in asymptotic to a periodic orbit.
Lemma 2.8.
There exists a Baire subset which has the property that every is regular for simple -holomorphic planes in asymptotic to a periodic orbit in .
Proof.
We first observe that every simple -holomorphic plane is not -invariant for topological reasons, namely . Assume to the contrary that . Let be an antiholomorphic involution on leaving invariant. Since and are simple -holomorphic planes whose images coincide, there exists such that and
(2.4) |
see [36, Theorem 3.7] and [33, Corollary 2.5.4]. By applying (2.4) twice, we obtain that . Since is simple, is an involution of and hence has a fixed point, say . We then see that , which is a contradiction. Since -holomorphic planes (asymptotic to periodic orbits) are not -invariant and are proper, the lemma follows almost verbatim from the proof of [29, Theorem 3.9]. We emphasize that our is required to satisfy on , but this is not problematic. By convexity, cannot be entirely contained in a cylindrical end since otherwise it violates the maximum principle. Therefore, the transversality argument works by perturbing outside of . ∎
Remark 2.9.
Since is closed in (in the -topology), the Baire category theorem and Lemma 2.8 imply that is dense in , and hence not empty.
2.4 Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer’s criterion
We give a review on the Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer criterion [12, Theorem 1.1] when a monotone Lagrangian torus in is Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus . A monotone Lagrangian torus in is called fibered if there exist a foliation of by symplectic 2-spheres in the homology class and a symplectic 2-sphere in the homology class such that
-
•
is transverse to the leaves of .
-
•
is disjoint from .
-
•
The leaves of intersect in a circle or not at all.
In this case, we say that is fibered by and . It is a highly non-trivial result that any monotone Lagrangian torus in is fibered. This result, which originally goes back to Ivrii’s thesis [27], is proved by Dimitroglou Rizell–Goodman–Ivrii [18, Theorem D] based on the neck-stretching argument [5].
Consider a monotone Lagrangian torus in which is fibered by and . Each leaf of the foliation intersecting is written as a union of two closed discs glued along the embedded loop given by the intersection of and the leaf. Hence, the discs intersecting form a solid torus with boundary . Note that the discs which do not intersect also define a solid torus with .
Example 2.10 (Clifford torus).
Let be the split complex structure on . Gromov’s foliations are given by and whose leaves are the holomorphic spheres for and for , respectively. The associated symplectic -fibration is defined as follows. Fix one leaf of . Since each leaf of intersects transversely at a unique point , we can define a symplectic -fibration of by sending to . In this case, this is the projection of onto the first -factor. One checks that the Clifford torus is fibered by and . Each fiber intersecting is a union of two holomorphic discs of Maslov index 2 with boundary on . The -family of the discs intersecting forms a solid torus with . It is worth noting that we can find another symplectic section for some (for example, the antipodal point of ) which does not intersect the solid torus .
The criterion of Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer says that the existence of the second nice symplectic 2-sphere in the homology class guarantees that a given monotone Lagrangian torus in is Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus.
Theorem 2.11 (Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer).
Let be a monotone Lagrangian torus in which is fibered by and . Suppose that there exists a second symplectic 2-sphere of in the homology class such that
-
•
is transverse to the leaves of ,
-
•
is disjoint from and the solid torus .
Then is Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus .
The proof is based on a sophisticated version of the Lalonde–Mcduff inflation procedure [31].
Remark 2.12.
The converse of Theorem 2.11 obviously holds, namely if a monotone Lagrangian torus in is Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus , then is fibered by some , , and the second symplectic 2-sphere as well.
3 Proof of the Main Theorem
Throughout this section, we let be a real Lagrangian torus in for some antisymplectic involution of . Recall that every -holomorphic sphere of in the homology class for is embedded, see Remark 2.5. We start with the following simple observation.
Lemma 3.1.
Let and . Suppose that is a -holomorphic sphere in the homology class . If intersects , then the embedded 2-sphere is -invariant and is diffeomorphic to .
Proof.
Consider the -holomorphic sphere in given by
where denotes the antiholomorphic involution of with . Here, is -holomorphic since is -anti-invariant. By Lemma 2.2, represents the homology class . By positivity of intersections, must be one leaf of Gromov’s foliation associated to as in Theorem 2.4. Pick any . Since for some , we see that
which shows that passes through . This implies that , and hence is -invariant as desired. Recalling that is embedded, the antisymplectic involution of restricts to a smooth involution of the sphere . Since by Lemma 2.2, the involution is orientation-reversing. Recall that every smooth involution of is conjugated to a map in , see [13, Theorem 4.1]. Hence is conjugated to either the reflection or the antipodal map on . Since and, in particular, is nonempty, is conjugated to the reflection, and hence . ∎
Remark 3.2.
We notice that any smooth involution of with fixed point set must interchange the two discs obtained by cutting along the embedded loop . This again follows from the fact that is conjugated to a map . Since , we deduce that is a reflection. Hence, must interchange the two discs as desired.
An immediate consequence of Lemma 3.1 together with Proposition 2.6 is that the real Lagrangian torus is fibered by Gromov’s foliations and associated to some . More precisely, we have the following.
Corollary 3.3.
Let be a real Lagrangian torus in for an antisymplectic involution . Then there exist and a leaf such that is fibered by and , that is,
-
•
is transverse to the leaves of .
-
•
is disjoint from .
-
•
The leaves of intersect in a circle or not at all.
Here, and denote Gromov’s foliations associated to .
Proof.
By Proposition 2.6, we can choose an embedded -holomorphic sphere which represents the homology class and is disjoint from . It follows from positivity of intersections that is transverse to the leaves of . By Lemma 3.1, we see that the leaves of intersect in a circle or not at all. Since -holomorphic spheres are symplectic, the corollary follows. ∎
We are now in position to prove the main theorem.
Proof of the Main Theorem.
Applying Corollary 3.3, choose and a leaf such that the real Lagrangian torus is fibered by and . We parametrize by an embedded -holomorphic sphere in the homology class . Consider another embedded -holomorphic sphere which is disjoint from as well. By Lemma 2.2, also represents the homology class . We write for its image. By positivity of intersections, we know that
-
•
is transverse to the leaves of .
-
•
We have or .
For each leaf of intersecting , the antisymplectic involution of restricts to the orientation-reversing involution on the leaf with fixed point set . The embedded loop cuts into two closed discs glued along . Since must interchange the two discs by Remark 3.2, we deduce that and are disjoint. Hence, and must be disjoint. Moreover, the second symplectic sphere is disjoint from the solid torus which is the union of one of the two discs of each leaf intersecting . Now we can apply the Cieliebak–Schwingenheuer criterion (Theorem 2.11) to complete the proof. ∎
Acknowledgement
This paper came out of ideas I learned from Kai Cieliebak. The author cordially thanks Kai Cieliebak for invaluable comments, and Felix Schlenk and Urs Frauenfelder for fruitful discussions. The author also deeply thanks the anonymous referee who pointed out a mistake in the original proof of the main theorem. This work is supported by Samsung Science and Technology Foundation under Project Number SSTF-BA1901-01. Finally, the author always thanks KIAS for providing a great place to conduct research.
References
- [1] V. I. Arnol’d. The first steps of symplectic topology. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 41(6(252)):3–18, 229, 1986.
- [2] M. Audin. Fibrés normaux d’immersions en dimension double, points doubles d’immersions lagragiennes et plongements totalement réels. Comment. Math. Helv., 63(4):593–623, 1988.
- [3] D. Auroux. Infinitely many monotone Lagrangian tori in . Invent. Math., 201(3):909–924, 2015.
- [4] M. S. Borman, T.-J. Li, and W. Wu. Spherical Lagrangians via ball packings and symplectic cutting. Selecta Math. (N.S.), 20(1):261–283, 2014.
- [5] F. Bourgeois, Y. Eliashberg, H. Hofer, K. Wysocki, and E. Zehnder. Compactness results in symplectic field theory. Geom. Topol., 7:799–888, 2003.
- [6] J. Brendel. Real Lagrangian Tori and Versal Deformations. arXiv:2002.03696, 2020.
- [7] J. Brendel, J. Kim, and J. Moon. On the topology of real Lagrangians in toric symplectic manifolds. arXiv:1912.10470, 2019.
- [8] Y. Chekanov and F. Schlenk. Notes on monotone Lagrangian twist tori. Electron. Res. Announc. Math. Sci., 17:104–121, 2010.
- [9] Y. V. Chekanov. Lagrangian tori in a symplectic vector space and global symplectomorphisms. Math. Z., 223(4):547–559, 1996.
- [10] K. Cieliebak and K. Mohnke. Compactness for punctured holomorphic curves. J. Symplectic Geom., 3(4):589–654, 2005. Conference on Symplectic Topology.
- [11] K. Cieliebak and K. Mohnke. Punctured holomorphic curves and Lagrangian embeddings. Invent. Math., 212(1):213–295, 2018.
- [12] K. Cieliebak and M. Schwingenheuer. Hamiltonian unknottedness of certain monotone Lagrangian tori in . Pacific J. Math., 299(2):427–468, 2019.
- [13] A. Constantin and B. Kolev. The theorem of Kerékjártó on periodic homeomorphisms of the disc and the sphere. Enseign. Math. (2), 40(3-4):193–204, 1994.
- [14] A. Degtyarev, I. Itenberg, and V. Kharlamov. Real Enriques surfaces, volume 1746 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
- [15] A. Degtyarev and V. Kharlamov. Real rational surfaces are quasi-simple. J. Reine Angew. Math., 551:87–99, 2002.
- [16] A. I. Degtyarev and V. M. Kharlamov. Topological properties of real algebraic varieties: Rokhlin’s way. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 55(4(334)):129–212, 2000.
- [17] G. Dimitroglou Rizell and J. D. Evans. Unlinking and unknottedness of monotone Lagrangian submanifolds. Geom. Topol., 18(2):997–1034, 2014.
- [18] G. Dimitroglou Rizell, E. Goodman, and A. Ivrii. Lagrangian isotopy of tori in and . Geom. Funct. Anal., 26(5):1297–1358, 2016.
- [19] Y. Eliashberg, A. Givental, and H. Hofer. Introduction to symplectic field theory. Number Special Volume, Part II, pages 560–673. 2000. GAFA 2000 (Tel Aviv, 1999).
- [20] Y. Eliashberg and L. Polterovich. Unknottedness of Lagrangian surfaces in symplectic -manifolds. Internat. Math. Res. Notices, (11):295–301, 1993.
- [21] Y. Eliashberg and L. Polterovich. Local Lagrangian -knots are trivial. Ann. of Math. (2), 144(1):61–76, 1996.
- [22] Y. Eliashberg and L. Polterovich. The problem of Lagrangian knots in four-manifolds. In Geometric topology (Athens, GA, 1993), volume 2 of AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., pages 313–327. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
- [23] M. Entov and L. Polterovich. Rigid subsets of symplectic manifolds. Compos. Math., 145(3):773–826, 2009.
- [24] J. D. Evans. Lagrangian spheres in del Pezzo surfaces. J. Topol., 3(1):181–227, 2010.
- [25] M. Gromov. Pseudo holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds. Invent. Math., 82(2):307–347, 1985.
- [26] R. Hind. Lagrangian spheres in . Geom. Funct. Anal., 14(2):303–318, 2004.
- [27] A. Ivrii. Lagrangian unknottedness of tori in certain symplectic 4-manifolds. 2003. Thesis (Ph.D.)–Stanford University.
- [28] V. Kharlamov. Topology, moduli and automorphisms of real algebraic surfaces. Milan J. Math., 70:25–37, 2002.
- [29] J. Kim. The Chekanov torus in is not real. to appear in J. Symplectic Geom.
- [30] J. Kim. Uniqueness of Real Lagrangians up to Cobordism. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, online ready. rnz345.
- [31] F. Lalonde and D. McDuff. The classification of ruled symplectic -manifolds. Math. Res. Lett., 3(6):769–778, 1996.
- [32] D. McDuff. The structure of rational and ruled symplectic -manifolds. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 3(3):679–712, 1990.
- [33] D. McDuff and D. Salamon. -holomorphic curves and symplectic topology, volume 52 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2012.
- [34] D. McDuff and D. Salamon. Introduction to symplectic topology. Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, third edition, 2017.
- [35] K. R. Meyer. Hamiltonian systems with a discrete symmetry. J. Differential Equations, 41(2):228–238, 1981.
- [36] J. Nelson. Automatic transversality in contact homology I: regularity. Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg., 85(2):125–179, 2015.
- [37] L. V. Polterovich. The Maslov class of the Lagrange surfaces and Gromov’s pseudo-holomorphic curves. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 325(1):241–248, 1991.
- [38] P. Seidel. Lectures on four-dimensional Dehn twists. In Symplectic 4-manifolds and algebraic surfaces, volume 1938 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 231–267. Springer, Berlin, 2008.
- [39] R. Vianna. Infinitely many monotone Lagrangian tori in del Pezzo surfaces. Selecta Math. (N.S.), 23(3):1955–1996, 2017.
- [40] C. Viterbo. A new obstruction to embedding Lagrangian tori. Invent. Math., 100(2):301–320, 1990.
- [41] J.-Y. Welschinger. Invariants of real symplectic 4-manifolds and lower bounds in real enumerative geometry. Invent. Math., 162(1):195–234, 2005.
- [42] J.-Y. Welschinger. Effective classes and Lagrangian tori in symplectic four-manifolds. J. Symplectic Geom., 5(1):9–18, 2007.