Rigidity versus flexibility for tight confoliations

Details Rigidity versus flexibility for tight confoliations Rigidity versus flexibility for tight confoliations

2009-01-08

arxiv.org/abs/0901.1096v1

Mathematics

Geometric Topology

Scientific paper

In \cite{confol} Y. Eliashberg and W. Thurston gave a definition of tight confoliations. We give an example of a tight confoliation $\xi$ on $T^3$ violating the Thurston-Bennequin inequalities. This answers a question from \cite{confol} negatively. Although the tightness of a confoliation does not imply the Thurston-Bennequin inequalities, it is still possible to prove restrictions on homotopy classes of plane fields which contain tight confoliations. The failure of the Thurston-Bennequin inequalities for tight confoliations is due to the presence of overtwisted stars. Overtwisted stars are particular configurations of Legendrian curves which bound a disc with finitely many punctures on the boundary. We prove that the Thurston-Bennequin inequalities hold for tight confoliations without overtwisted stars and that symplectically fillable confoliations do not admit overtwisted stars.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Rigidity versus flexibility for tight confoliations does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Rigidity versus flexibility for tight confoliations, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Rigidity versus flexibility for tight confoliations will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-63016