Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • am starting something; not done yet

      v1, current

    • starting something, not done yet

      v1, current

    • for ease of hyperlinking I am giving this a small category:category-entry

      v1, current

    • With Igor Khavkine we finally have a polished version of what is now “Part I” of a theory of variational calculus in a differentially cohesive \infty-topos. It’s now called:

      Synthetic geometry of differential equations

      • Part I. Jets and comonad structure

      We keep our latest version of the file here.

      Comments are most welcome.

      Abstract:

      We give an abstract (synthetic) formulation of the formal theory of partial differential equations (PDEs) in synthetic differential geometry, one that would seamlessly generalize the traditional theory to a range of enhanced contexts, such as super-geometry, higher (stacky) differential geometry, or even a combination of both. A motivation for such a level of generality is the eventual goal of solving the open problem of covariant geometric pre-quantization of locally variational field theories, which may include fermions and (higher) gauge fields.

      A remarkable observation of Marvan 86 is that the jet bundle construction in ordinary differential geometry has the structure of a comonad, whose (Eilenberg-Moore) category of coalgebras is equivalent to Vinogradov’s category of PDEs. We give a synthetic generalization of the jet bundle construction and exhibit it as the base change comonad along the unit of the “infinitesimal shape” functor, the differential geometric analog of Simpson’s “de Rham shape” operation in algebraic geometry. This comonad structure coincides with Marvan’s on ordinary manifolds. This suggests to consider PDE theory in the more general context of any topos equipped with an “infinitesimal shape” monad (a “differentially cohesive” topos).

      We give a new natural definition of a category of formally integrable PDEs at this level of generality and prove that it is always equivalent to the Eilenberg-Moore category over the synthetic jet comonad. When restricted to ordinary manifolds, Marvan’s result shows that our definition of the category of PDEs coincides with Vinogradov’s, meaning that it is a sensible generalization in the synthetic context.

      Finally we observe that whenever the unit of the “infinitesimal shape” ℑ\Im operation is epimorphic, which it is in examples of interest, the category of formally integrable PDEs with independent variables ranging in Σ is also equivalent simply to the slice category over ℑΣ. This yields in particular a convenient site presentation of the categories of PDEs in general contexts.

    • this evident concept maybe deserves an entry of its own, for ease of linking.

      v1, current

    • this wasn’t pointing anywhere. Made a minimum disambiguation page.

      v1, current

    • Changed the page name because a name was misspelled.

      diff, v2, current

    • Added link and short description of contents of Essays on the Theory of Numbers

      diff, v2, current

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • I’ve started sufficiently cohesive topos. Here are a couple of remarks and questions:

      1. The corresponding terminology in def. 2.13 at cohesive topos strikes me as odd: p !(Ω)=1p_!(\Omega)=1 is connectedness not contractability.

      2. It isn’t quite clear to me yet at which level of generality to optimally state the definition of ’sufficient cohesion’. It seems that what one wants to get here are the minimal assumptions ensuring that the connectedness of Ω\Omega is equivalent to its contractibility and this presumably requires only preservation of finite products by p !p_! and not the Nullstellensatz (nor even the existence of p !p^! !?).

      3. Since the entry so far lives on the (0,1)Lab maybe somebody here has an idea what to say for the (\infty,1)-case e.g. assuming connectedness of the (higher) object classifier !?

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • added pointer to the preprint Scharf 13, which is apparently what that unexpected extra chapter 6 in the latest edition of the book is based on.

      diff, v5, current

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • The name “Bishop-compact” is a coinage for “compact and totally bounded”, in constructive mathematics where it is used as a notion of compactness (not equivalent there to the usual notions).

      v1, current

    • I am giving this its own little page, for ease of hyperlinking.

      v1, current

    • his website produces Seite nicht erreichbar

      Die Webpräsenz des Institutes für Mathematik hat sich geändert. Sie hatten sich Lesezeichen auf bisherige Inhalte gesetzt? Unter www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de finden Sie die entsprechenden neuen Seiten, um sich Ihre Lesezeichen neu zu setzen. Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis. Sie haben Links auf bisherige Inhalte, zum Beispiel in Ihren Printmedien, veröffentlicht und benötigen nun eine Umleitung auf die entsprechenden Seiten im aktuellen Webauftritt? Bitte setzen Sie sich mit der Onlineredaktion in Verbindung. Vielen Dank!

      diff, v8, current

    • created a bare minimum, and informally only. Just so as to ungray links, for the moment.

      v1, current

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • am starting something here. not done yet, but need to save

      v1, current

    • I am splitting off from the geometry of physics cluster a chapter geometry of physics – homotopy types.

      For the moment I have there mostly section outline as well as some material copied over from my homological algebra lecture notes. My aim is now to put in a gentle discussion of Dold-Kan that leads an audience familiar with chain complexes from homological algebra to simplicial homotopy theory.

      I’ll be touching a bunch of related entries in the process.

    • It’s still not quite right, is it? (here) After

      Moreover, up to equivalence, every Grothendieck topos arises this way:

      isn’t there the clause of accessible embedding missing? I.e. instead of

      the equivalence classes of left exact reflective subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

      it should have

      the equivalence classes of left exact reflective and accessivley embedded subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

      Or else, by the prop that follows, it should say

      the equivalence classes of left exact reflective and locally presentable subcategories PSh(𝒞)\mathcal{E} \hookrightarrow PSh(\mathcal{C}) of the category of presheaves

      No?

      (This is just a question. I didn’t make an edit. Yet.)

      diff, v3, current

    • For ease of hyperlinking, I am giving this concept its own little entry.

      v1, current

    • I have started a (stubby) entry on multiagent systems, to link into certain of the modal logic entries.

    • I started putting down some thoughts at theory (physics). Not meant to be comprehensive or anything, but just a quick note. I am not claiming that the state the entry is in is the state it should remain in at all. But maybe it’s a start that helps to develop something.

    • Do you want something startup new? Take a look at this site. Only here the choice of wettest pussies for every unique guy and completely free! They are wettest slaves, they will and want perform anything you say ! http://gov.shortcm.li/kings#O53

      Dovemiz

      v1, current

    • Added to global element, which seems not to have had a Latest Changes-thread so far (hence this newly created one), a remark on a formalization of “name of a morphism” which I just stumbled upon and find a noteworthy thing.

      Perhaps this should go somewhere on the nLab, but to me global element seemed the most fitting place.

      I had always thought something like, “Well, if one really has to be careful and formal about the distinction between names or morphisms and morphisms per se, then the protocategories and protomorphisms in the sense of Freyd and Scedrov give one way to do so, and there is an introduction to this in the Elephant.” I was surprised to find someone connecting this to internal homs, hence made this note in global element.

      If there are some “situating comments” on this that can conveniently be made, I would be happy to read them here.

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • renamed entry to include accent on last letter

      diff, v2, current

    • I moved various subsections (Monoidal structure, closed structure, Adjunctions) on properties of sSet from the entry simplicial set to sSet.

    • Added some more intuition for duploids now that I understand them and cbpv better. Duploids only axiomatize effectful morphisms, whereas an adjunction (CBPV) axiomatizes pure morphisms (as homomorphisms) and effectful morphisms (as heteromorphisms). Then thunkable and linear are the maximal way to recover pure morphisms from effectful morphisms. I.e., we should think of duploids as presenting a kind of “Morita equivalence” of adjunctions where we only care about the equivalence of the notion of heteromorphism.

      diff, v9, current

    • Added date of Jan-Erik’s death. (I did not see his date of birth in the source I saw.)

      diff, v3, current

    • Do you! want something extremely new? Take a look at this page. Only there the choice of online jobs for every unique and completely free! They are really good ways to make money for anything you want ! http://gov.shortcm.li/ez#I29

      Bovemiz

      v1, current

    • I copied over Pavlovic’s definition. Is there are better way to speak of his E opE^{op}?

      v1, current

    • am beginning something here. not done yet, but I need to save and preview, and hence to announce…

      v1, current