Fukaya categories of Coulomb branches as unique deformations

As a first step, we show that every x ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k M_ħ can be written in the form x = \sum a_i φ^{-1} (v_i) + y with a_i ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k and y ∈ \mathfrak{m}^{k+1} M_ħ. Indeed, we have φ(x) ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k \widehat{\otimes} M. Since v_1, …, v_k generate M, we can write φ(x) = \sum a_i v_i + y where a_i ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k and y ∈ \mathfrak{m}^{k+1} \widehat{\otimes} M.

As a second step, start with arbitrary z_0 ∈ M_ħ. Applying the first step, write z_0 = \sum a_i φ^{-1} (v_i) + z_1 with a_i ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k and z_1 ∈ \mathfrak{m}^1 M_ħ. Continuing this way, we obtain a presentation of z_0 as a linear series combination of the φ^{-1} (v_i).

We divide the proof into two parts. In the first part, we show that for every x ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(f) there exists a deformation x + x' ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) with x' ∈ \mathfrak{m} A_ħ^{⊕k}. In the second part, we show that \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) ∩ \mathfrak{m} A^{⊕k} ⊂ \mathfrak{m} \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ). We start by writing f_ħ (e_i) = a_i + b_i with a_i ∈ A^{⊕l} and b_i ∈ \mathfrak{m} A^{⊕l}.

For the first part, let x = (x_1, …, x_l) ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(f). Since 0 = f(x) = \sum x_i a_i, we have

By assumption we conclude f_ħ (x) ∈ \mathfrak{m} \operatorname{Im}(f_ħ) = f_ħ (\mathfrak{m} A^{⊕l}). Therefore there exists x' ∈ \mathfrak{m} A^{⊕l} such that f_ħ (x + x') = 0.

For the second part, let x ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) ∩ \mathfrak{m} A^{⊕k}. We assume for simplicity that the deformation base is B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧. The case of general B is more complicated and can be solved by means of techniques similar to those in [Paper-III, section 2.3]. We shall therefore assume that B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧ and thus x ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ is of the form x = ħx', thus 0 = f_ħ (x) = ħ f_ħ (x'). Since A_ħ^{⊕l} is flat, we conclude f_ħ (x') = 0. This shows x = ħx' ∈ ħ\operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) and finishes the proof.

For simplicity we assume B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧. For the first part, let x ∈ A_ħ^{⊕k} ∩ (ħ). Write x = ħ y. Then x = π_{P_ħ} (x) + π_{P'_ħ} (x) = ħ π_{P_ħ} (y) + ħ π_{P'_ħ} (y). For the second part, let x ∈ P_ħ ∩ (ħ). Using the first part, we conclude x ∈ (ħ P_ħ ⊕ ħ P'_ħ) ∩ P_ħ = ħ P_ħ. This finishes the proof.

For simplicity we assume B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧. Regard any p_ħ ∈ P_ħ ∩ ħ A_ħ^{⊕k}. Then we can write p_ħ = ħ p'_ħ and thus p_ħ = π_{P_ħ} (p_ħ) = ħ π_{P_ħ} (p'_ħ) ∈ ħ P_ħ. We conclude P_ħ ∩ ħ A_ħ^{⊕k} ⊂ ħ P_ħ as desired.

For simplicity we assume B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧. Let v ∈ V and regard (v, 0) ∈ V ⊕ P'. There exists (v_ħ, p'_ħ) ∈ V_ħ ⊕ P'_ħ such that (v_ħ, p'_ħ) - (v, 0) ∈ A_ħ^{⊕k} ∩ (ħ) = ħ P_ħ ⊕ ħ P'_ħ. Therefore v - v_ħ ∈ ħ P_ħ ⊂ ħ A_ħ^{⊕k}.

Second, let v ∈ V_ħ ∩ (ħ). Regard (v, 0) ∈ (V_ħ ⊕ P'_ħ) ∩ (ħ). By assumption, we can write (v, 0) = ħ (v', p') with v' ∈ V_ħ and p' ∈ P'_ħ. This implies v = ħv' ∈ ħ V_ħ and finishes the proof.

Let A_ħ^{⊕k} = P_ħ ⊕ P'_ħ and A_ħ^{⊕l} = Q_ħ ⊕ Q'_ħ. We regard the map \bar{f} = f ∘ π_P: A^{⊕k} → A^{⊕l} and \bar{f}_ħ = f_ħ ∘ π_{P_ħ} : A_ħ^{⊕k} → A_ħ^{⊕l}. The image of \bar{f}_ħ is equal to \operatorname{Im}(f_ħ) and thus a flat deformation of \operatorname{Im}(f), equivalently the image of \bar{f}. By Lemma 2.5, we have \operatorname{Ker}(\bar{f_ħ}) being a flat deformation of \operatorname{Ker}(\bar{f}). Finally, our goal is to relate these kernels to \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) and \operatorname{Ker}(f), respectively. We have \operatorname{Ker}(\bar{f_ħ}) = \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) ⊕ P'_ħ and \operatorname{Ker}(\bar{f}) = \operatorname{Ker}(f) ⊕ P'. By Lemma 2.8, we conclude that \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) is a flat deformation of \operatorname{Ker}(f). This proves the claim.

For simplicity we assume B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧. We start by showing that \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) is a deformation of \operatorname{Ker}(f) as submodules of P_ħ. Let x ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(f). Then f_ħ (x) = ħ y. Since y ∈ \operatorname{Im}(f_ħ), we can write y = f_ħ (x'). Therefore f_ħ (x - ħx') = ħ y - ħ y = 0. This shows that \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) is a deformation of \operatorname{Ker}(f) as submodules of P_ħ.

We continue by showing that \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) is a flat deformation. Let x ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) ∩ ħP_ħ. We can write x = ħ x' with x' ∈ P_ħ. We have 0 = f_ħ (x) = ħ f_ħ (x') and since M_ħ is flat we conclude f_ħ (x') = 0. Therefore x ∈ ħ \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ). We conclude \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ) ∩ ħ P_ħ ⊂ ħ \operatorname{Ker}(f_ħ). This finishes the proof.

In case B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧ this is obvious. In the other cases, this is classic but a bit more tedious to spell out.

Let us write A^{⊕k} = P ⊕ Q and A_ħ^{⊕k} = P_ħ ⊕ Q_ħ. Now define the map ψ: B \widehat{\otimes} \operatorname{Hom}_A (P, M) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{A_ħ} (P_ħ, M_ħ) as the continuous B-linear extension of the following assignment: An element f \in Hom_A (P, M) is sent to ψ(f)(e_i) = f(e_i) \in M. Note that the resulting ψ(f) is automatically an A_ħ-module morphism.

We claim that ψ is surjective. It suffices to show that any morphism f_ħ \in \operatorname{Hom}_{A_ħ} (P_ħ, M_ħ) agrees with an element in the image of ψ up to pointwise terms in \mathfrak{m}. Let π: M_ħ \to M be the standard projection and define f(e_i) = π(f_ħ (e_i)) for i = 1, …, k. We then have that ψ(f)(e_i) - f_ħ (e_i) = π(f_ħ (e_i)) - f_ħ (e_i) \in \mathfrak{m} \widehat{\otimes} M. By an adoption of Lemma 2.2, we conclude that ψ is surjective.

We claim that ψ is injective. For simplicity we assume B = ℂ⟦ħ⟧. Regard an element of the form f = \sum b_i ħ^i f_i ∈ B \widehat{\otimes} \operatorname{Hom}_A (P, M) and assume ψ(f) = 0. We show that b_0 f_0 = 0. Pick any p ∈ P and a p_ħ ∈ P_ħ such that p - p_ħ ∈ ħ A_ħ^{⊕k}. Since ψ(\sum b_i ħ^i f_i)(p_ħ) = 0, we conclude \sum b_i ħ^i f_i (p) ∈ ħ M_ħ. Since p is arbitrary, we conclude b_0 f_0 = 0. Therefore we can write f = ħ f' and 0 = ψ(f) = ħ ψ(f'), thus ψ(f') = 0. Continuing this way we conclude f = 0. Thus ψ is injective and we finish the proof.

We split the proof into four parts. In the first part, we construct the map f_ħ. In the second part, we show that f_ħ is a deformation of f. In the third part, we prove that any x ∈ ħ^k I_ħ can be written in the form x = x' + x'' with x' ∈ ħ^k \operatorname{Im}(f_ħ) and x'' ∈ ħ^{k+1} I_ħ. In the fourth part, we conclude that \operatorname{Im}(f_ħ) = I_ħ.

For the first part, regard the map \bar{f} = f ∘ π_P: A^{⊕k} → I. Define v_i = \bar{f} (e_i) for i = 1, …, k. By assumption that I_ħ is a deformation of I, there exist elements w_i ∈ \mathfrak{m} A_ħ^{⊕l} such that v_i + w_i ∈ I_ħ for all i. Now define the map \bar{f}_ħ: A_ħ^{⊕k} → I_ħ given by \bar{f}_ħ (e_i) = v_i + w_i ∈ I_ħ. Define the map f_ħ = \bar{f}_ħ |_{P_ħ}: P_ħ → Q_ħ. By construction we have \operatorname{Im}(f_ħ) ⊂ I_ħ.

For the second part, pick any p ∈ P and p' ∈ \mathfrak{m} A_ħ^{⊕k} such that p + p' ∈ P_ħ. Then we indeed obtain

For the third part, start by writing x = ħ^k x_0 with x_0 ∈ I_ħ. Then we can write x_0 = f(p) + y with p ∈ P and y ∈ ħ A_ħ^{⊕l}. Pick p' ∈ ħ A_ħ^{⊕k} such that p + p' ∈ P_ħ. We have

We observe that this difference lies in I_ħ as well and by flatness of I_ħ we conclude that the difference is of the form ħ z with z ∈ I_ħ. We conclude the claim by observing

For the fourth part, let x ∈ I_ħ. Then through inductive applications of the third part we can write x = \sum x_i with x_i ∈ ħ^i \operatorname{Im}(f_ħ). Since P_ħ is complete, this proves the claim.

We start by picking lifts P_ħ^i of P^i for every i ∈ ℕ. By Lemma 2.12, we can pick a lift d_ħ^0: P_ħ^0 → M_ħ which is automatically surjective. By Lemma 2.10, we have that \operatorname{Ker}(d_ħ^0) ⊂ P_ħ^0 is a flat deformation of \operatorname{Ker}(d^0) ⊂ P^0. Since \operatorname{Ker}(d^0) = \operatorname{Im}(d^1), by Lemma 2.14 there exists a lift d^1_ħ: P_ħ^1 → P_ħ^0 with \operatorname{Im}(d^1_ħ) = \operatorname{Ker}(d^0_ħ). The desired projective resolution is obtained by continuing this way inductively.

Regard the projection π_i (b) ∈ B/\mathfrak{m}^i and write π_i (b) = \sum_{j = 1}^N c_j where c_j ∈ B / \mathfrak{m}^i are homogeneous of pairwise different degrees. Now choose any lifts b_j of c_j such that π_i (b_j) = c_j. Putting m = b - \sum_{j = 1}^N b_j, we have π_i (m) = 0 thus m ∈ \mathfrak{m}^i. Finally, regard the sum π_k (b) = \sum_{j = 1}^N π_k (b_j) + π_k (m). Since π_k (b) = π_k (m) = 0 and each element b_j ∈ B / \mathfrak{m}^k is homogeneous of different degree, we conclude that each π_k (b_j) is homogeneous of different degree and thus π_k (b_j) = 0 for all j. This shows b_j ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k and finishes the proof.

Denote by a ∈ A the degree of b and recall that b is nonzero by assumption of homogeneity. Let \tilde b ∈ B be any lift of b. By Lemma 2.19 we can write \tilde b = \sum_{j = 1}^N b_j + m where π_{i+1} (b_j) are homogeneous elements of pairwise distinct degrees d_j and m ∈ \mathfrak{m}^{i+1}. Regard the sum

Since b is homogeneous of degree d and π_i (m) = 0, we that for all j with d_j ≠ d we have π_i (b_j) = 0, thus b_j ∈ \mathfrak{m}^i. Now define

We have

and

The result of this sum is at most one element of the form π_{i+1} (b_j) that is of degree d. This finishes the proof.

We divide the proof into three parts. In the first part, we construct auxiliary data. In the second part, we construct the desired data b_j. In the third part, we comment on the second statement.

For the first part of the proof, we construct the following data by induction over i ≥ 1: a sequence (N_i)_{i ≥ 1} together with elements b_{i, j}^{(t)} ∈ \mathfrak{m}^t for j = 1, …, N_t and t = 0, …, i-1 and elements m_i ∈ \mathfrak{m}^i such that π_i (b_{i,j}^{(t)}) ∈ B / \mathfrak{m}^i is homogeneous, the difference b_{i, j}^{(t)} - b_{i+1, j}^{(t)} lies in \mathfrak{m}^i and the following decomposition holds:

For i = 1, split π_1 (b) = \sum_{j = 1}^{N_0} π_1 (b_{1,j}^{(0)}) where π_1 (b_{1,j}^{(0)}) is homogeneous. Then define m_1 = b - \sum_{j = 1}^{N_0} b_{1,j}^{(0)}.

Assume now that the data has been constructed up to index i. For every 0 ≤ s ≤ i-1 and every j = 1, …, N_s recall that π_i (b_{i,j}^{(s)}) is homogeneous and by Lemma 2.20 there exists an element b_{i+1,j}^{(s)} such that π_{i+1} (b_{i+1,j}^{(s)}) is homogeneous of the same degree and π_i (b_{i+1,j}^{(s)}) = π_i (b_{i,j}^{(s)}). Define

We conclude that

Now regard m' ∈ \mathfrak{m}^i and decompose π_{i+1} (m') = \sum_{j = 1}^{N_i} π_{i+1} (b_{i+1,j}^{(i)}) with π_{i+1} (b_{i+1,j}^{(i)}) ∈ B / \mathfrak{m}^{i+1} homogeneous of pairwise distinct degrees. Now write m_{i+1} = m' - \sum b_{i+1,j}^{(i)} and deduce b_{i+1,j}^{(i)} ∈ \mathfrak{m}^i and m_{i+1} ∈ \mathfrak{m}^{i+1}. We further have

This decomposition satisfies the requirements of the induction statement for i+1. This finishes the induction argument.

For the second part of the proof, we shall finish the construction of the sequence b_j for a given element b. Pick the data (N_s), (b_{i,j}^{(s)}) constructed in the first part of the proof. For s ≥ 0 and j = 1, …, N_s define b_{s, j} = \lim_{i → ∞} b_{i,j}. This limit exists and is homogeneous by construction. We have

In this sum, the elements b_{s, j} are homogeneous and we have b_{s, j} ∈ \mathfrak{m}^s. This finishes the second part of the proof.

For the third part of the proof, assume that b ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k for some k ≥ 0. Then by [lemma] the construction of the elements b_{i, j}^{(s)} can be carried out from the beginning with elements that lie purely in powers of \mathfrak{m} of order at least k. This finishes the proof.

As a first step, we prove that for pure tensors of the form m ¤ v where m ∈ \mathfrak{m}^k and v ∈ V, the statement holds with the additional data that b_i ∈ \mathfrak{≥k, → ∞}. Write m = \sum m_j where m_j ∈ \mathfrak{m}^{≥k, → ∞} are homogeneous elements and write v = \sum v_l where v_l ∈ V are homogeneous elements. Then we have m ¤ v = \sum_j \sum_l m_j ¤ v_l.

As a second step, let x ∈ B \widehat{\otimes} V be an arbitrary element. Write x = \sum b_j ¤ v_j where b_j ∈ \mathfrak{m}^{→ ∞} and v_j ∈ V. Now decompose b_j ¤ v_j following the first step and reorder the sum. The result is a presentation of x as a countable sum of the desired form.

Regard the first statement. Define \operatorname{H} L to be the standard minimal model for L following the Kadeishvili construction, as in [Kontsevich-Soibelman, Chapter 6, 3.3.2], [Bocklandt-book, Section 3.2] and [Paper-IIA]. Since the differential d_L is A-homogeneous, the cohomology of L in every degree is an A-graded vector space. The codifferential h can be chosen to be A-homogeneous, and the homological decomposition H ⊕ I ⊕ R is then A-homogeneous as well. The expression for the higher products l^k_{\operatorname{H} L} by means of trees is A-homogeneous, and the maps π: L → \operatorname{H} L and i: \operatorname{H} L → L as well. This proves the first statement.

Regard the second statement. It is a standard fact that φ^{\operatorname{MC}} (ν) is a Maurer-Cartan element. We have

Since ν is A-homogeneous of degree zero as element of B \widehat{\otimes} L and each φ^j is A-homogeneous, we conclude that φ^{\operatorname{MC}} (ν) is A-homogeneous of degree zero in B \widehat{\otimes} L'. This finishes the proof.

We start by noting F^1 is bijective as explained in [Paper-IIA]. We define ν_ψ ∈ \mathfrak{m} \widehat{\otimes} \operatorname{HC}^1 (\mathcal{C}) via the following rule:

Let now b_1 ¤ v_1, …, b_k ¤ v_k be elements where b_i ∈ B and v_i ∈ \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}} (X_i, X_{i+1}). We have

Since ψ is an algebra morphism, these two are equal. We conclude that F = F^1 is a morphism of A_∞-categories. Finally, we observe that F^1 is indeed A-homogeneous as claimed. This finishes the proof.

We comment on all three statements individually. For the first statement, note that δ_n is Σ-homogeneous, γ_{n-1} is Σ-homogeneous and thus inductively also ∂_n and ρ_{n-1} are Σ-homogeneous. For the second statement, we regard the comparison maps F_{•}: (P_{•}, ∂_{•}) → (\operatorname{Bar}_{•}, d_{•}) and G_{•}: (\operatorname{Bar}_{•}, d_{•}) → (P_{•}, ∂_{•}) from [Barmeier-Wang, section 5.1]. These comparison maps are defined in terms of the maps \varOmega_n which are Σ-homogeneous, and thus F and G are Σ-homogeneous as well. The maps of chain complexes F^{•}: \operatorname{HC}(A) → P^{•}[1] and G^{•}: P^{•}[1] → \operatorname{HC}(A) in [Barmeier-Wang, section 7.2] and therefore Σ-homogeneous as well. In [Barmeier-Wang, Theorem 7.10], the L_∞-structure on P^{•}[1] and the L_∞-quasi-isomorphism φ: P^{•}[1] → \operatorname{HC}(A) are defined explicitly in terms of F^{•} and G^{•}. Both are evidently Σ-homogeneous. We finish the proof.

The ungraded statement is due to Barmeier and Wang. The graded version is an immediate consequence of Lemma 2.24.

At any point (u, y) ∈ (ℂ^*)^k × ℂ^k \setminus π^{-1} (U), the Liouville field is given by

For any point (u, y) that lies in the boundary with respect to any of the k+1 boundary conditions, we shall check that X_λ is outward-pointing with respect to that boundary condition.

We start by regarding the case that (u, y) lies in the boundary of the annulus A_{r_1, r_2} with respect to coordinate u_j, that is, |u_j| ∈ \{r_1, r_2\}. If |u_j| = r_1, then the vector \log{|u_j|} u_j ∂_{u_j} is outward-pointing at the inner boundary of the annulus since |u_j| = r_1 is a small positive number. If |u_j| = r_2, then the vector \log{|u_j|} u_j ∂_{u_j} is outward-pointing at the outer boundary of the annulus since |u_j| = r_2 is a large positive number.

We now regard the case that (u, y) lies on the boundary with respect to U, that is, f(y) = ε. Regard the Liouville vector component v = \sum_{j = 1}^k y_j ∂_{y_j}. We have f(y + tv) = (1+t)^2 f(y) and conclude df (v) = 2f(y) > 0, thus X_λ is outward-pointing at (u, y). This finishes the proof.

It suffices to observe that the reduction relations σ_i^2 = 0, X_i X_j = X_j X_i, σ_i X_i = X_{i+1} σ_i + ħ, σ_i X_{i+1} = X_i σ_i - ħ and σ_i σ_{i+1} σ_i = σ_{i+1} σ_i σ_{i+1} are ℤ^2-homogeneous.

We start by observing that \operatorname{relFuk}(Y_W, (f_q, f_ħ))_L is indeed a ℤ^2-graded deformation over ℂ⟦q, ħ⟧_{(1, 0), (0, 1)}. After taking the quotient by q, the ℤ^2-grading survives while the deformation base reduces from ℂ⟦q, ħ⟧_{(1, 0), (0, 1)} to ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)}. Therefore \operatorname{relFuk}(Y_W)_L is a ℤ^2-graded deformation over ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)}. It remains to comment on the base category of \operatorname{relFuk}(Y_W)_L. As discussed in Remark 2.60, the base category is not in general obvious, however in the present case of Y_W, the Liouville sector Y_{O, W} is the desired incarnation of \mathring{X}. We finish the proof.

We start by observing that the standard Lagrangian and its wrappings by construction do not intersect the preimage π^{-1} (Δ) of the big diagonal. In particular, they do not touch the zero locus of f_q and f_ħ and we can use the u_i coordinates to express f_q:

The degrees can now be read off graphically, depicted in ?.

We shall ignore the overall signs of ∂^2 for this proof. The element ∂^2 (ν) ∈ \operatorname{Map}(S_3, A)_{(0, -1)} is determined by the following equation for w ∈ S_3:

We shall now calculate ν(∂_3 (1 ¤ w ¤ 1)) in terms of A_i, B_i, C_{i,j} for all w ∈ S_3. For j < i we have

For j < i we have

For j ≠ i,i+1 and l < j we have

For all i we have

For all i we have

For j ≠ i,i+1 we have

For all i we have

For all i we have

For j ≠ i,i+1 we have

For j ≤ i-2 we have

For j ≤ i-2 we have

For j ≤ i-2, l ≠ j,j+1 we have

Assuming that ν ∈ \operatorname{Ker}(∂^2) yields that C_{i,j} = 0 for all i ∈ \{1, …, k-1\} and j ≠ i,i+1, and further A_i = - B_i = A_0 for all i ∈ \{1, …, k\} for a certain scalar A_0. Finally, we have that ν = A_0 ν_0 where ν_0 ∈ \operatorname{Map}(S_2, A) is the map given by sending σ_i X_i to 1, σ_i X_{i+1} to -1 and all other elements to zero.

Let ν ∈ \operatorname{MC}(\operatorname{HH}(\operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0}), ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)})_0. By Lemma 2.22, we can have a decomposition

Since \operatorname{HH}^1 (\operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0})_{(0, -i)} is \operatorname{span}(ν_0) in case i = 1 and zero otherwise, we finish the proof.

We start with the first statement. Pick any sequence of ℤ^2-homogeneous elements a_1, …, a_m ∈ \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0}. Let us write the element ν(a_m, …, a_1) ∈ ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)} \widehat{\otimes} \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0} in the form

The elements c_i are not a priori homogeneous. Let us write c_i = \sum_{a ∈ ℤ^2} c_i^a where \deg(c_i^a) = a. Since ν is homogeneous and a_1, …, a_m are homogeneous, the right-hand side of the equation is homogeneous of degree D = \deg ν + \deg a_1 + … + \deg a_m. In terms of the c_i^a elements, the component of this degree is

Since \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0} is concentrated in nonnegative ħ-degrees, the inner sum is empty for i > D_2. Since ν(a_m, …, a_1) is exactly this sum, we conclude that ν(a_1, …, a_1) ∈ ℂ[ħ] ¤ \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0}. This finishes the first statement. The second statement is proven in an analogous fashion. This finishes the proof.

We can write π^{\operatorname{MC}} (ν) = A ħ ν_0 for some scalar A. Denote by ν' ∈ \operatorname{MC}(\operatorname{HH}(\operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0}), ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)})_0 the Maurer-Cartan element associated with the standard deformation \operatorname{NH}_k of \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0} and write π^{\operatorname{MC}} (ν') = A' ħ ν_0. Define the automorphism of deformation bases ψ: ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)} → ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)} given by the natural substitution ψ(A ħ) = A' ħ. By Lemma 2.30 we have have a ℤ^2-homogeneous isomorphism F^1: i^{\operatorname{MC}} (A ħ ν_0) → i^{\operatorname{MC}} (A' ħ ν_0).

By Lemma 2.28, there are ℤ^2-homogeneous isomorphisms ν → i^{\operatorname{MC}} (A ħ ν_0) and ν' → i^{\operatorname{MC}} (A' ħ ν_0). The curvature of these functors is of the form F^0 = ħ F^0_1 + ħ^2 F^0_2 + … and is a ℤ^2-homogeneous element of degree zero in ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)} \widehat{\otimes} \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0}. In consequence, the curvature vanishes. Finally combining all three A_∞-isomorphisms into a diagram, we obtain

All three maps are ℤ^2-homogeneous. This finishes the proof.

We start with the observation that ν(X_i, σ_i) and ν(σ_i, X_{i+1}) have degree (0, 1). Therefore both are scalar multiples of ħ. Let now F: ν → ν' be a ℤ^2-graded gauge-equivalence. Since \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0} is an ordinary algebra, F is a strict unital functor and an ordinary morphism of algebra deformations. We have

We conclude that A = A'. The converse statement follows from Lemma 2.28. This finishes the proof.

Regard the deformation ν = i^{\operatorname{MC}} (A ħ ν_0). Then ν can be determined explicitly according to [Barmeier-Wang] or alternatively its shape up to ħ^2 terms can be determined via the first components of the L_∞-morphisms i' and φ. We arrive at

Recalling that ν_0 (X_i σ_i) = 1, we conclude that the scalar associated with ν is A.

Write π^{\operatorname{MC}} (ν) = A ħ ν_0. Then the scalar associated with i^{\operatorname{MC}} (π^{\operatorname{MC}} (ν)) is A and simultaneously there is a ℤ^2-graded gauge-equivalence with ν which has scalar 1. Thanks to Lemma 4.10 we conclude A = 1.

Let ν be any ℤ^2-graded deformation. Write π^{\operatorname{MC}} (ν) = A ħ. Since ν_A has scalar A by definition, the scalars of ν and ν_A agree and by Lemma 4.10 we conclude that ν and ν_A are ℤ^2-graded gauge equivalent. Conversely, we recall that the elements A ħ are not gauge-equivalent in \operatorname{MC}(\operatorname{HH}(\operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0}), ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)})_0.

We recall from [ADLSZ] that the deformation \operatorname{relFuk}(Y_W)_L has nonzero A scalar and is thus a non-trivial deformation of \operatorname{Fuk}(Y_{O, W})_L over ℂ⟦ħ⟧_{(0, 1)}. Along the standard identification \operatorname{Fuk}(Y_{O, W})_L of ?, this constitutes a non-trivial deformation of \operatorname{NH}_{k, ħ=0}. Due to Proposition 4.9 we conclude that there is an A_∞-isomorphism \operatorname{relFuk}(Y_W)_L → \operatorname{NH}_k.