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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2014
    • (edited May 16th 2014)

    created a table-for-inclusion

    and included it into relevant entries

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014

    Slide 68 of Riccioni’s talk E11 and M-theory also has a 10A row. Should there be one in your table?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014
    • (edited May 17th 2014)

    And do you mean to have SL(5,)SL(5, \mathbb{R}) for 6d supergravity instead of his SO(5,5)SO(5, 5), and Spin(5,5)Spin(5, 5) for 7d supergravity instead of his SL(5,)SL(5, \mathbb{R})?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014

    So those entries should be swapped, right? People seem to differ between SO(5,5)SO(5, 5) and Spin(5,5)Spin(5,5) for 6d.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014

    Thanks. Yes. And yes.

    I noticed this last night before going to bed: this is a typo in the original Hull-Townsend 95, table 1?! (Or I am mixed up.)

    I am editing now.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2014
    • (edited May 17th 2014)

    Okay, I have fixed that.

    So this is striking, that the only other entry besides 10B10B with SL(2,)SL(2,\mathbb{Z}) whose U-duality might be related to automorphic forms (I mean SL-equivariant) is 7d7d.

    In the other thread we are discussing how quantization of the 7d theory should involve the “CY3CY3-generalization” of K3-cohomology