# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

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

## Site Tag Cloud

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

• Have fixed a typo in the wording of the proof of this Prop, which was kinldy pointed out in another thread (here).

• At closed subspace, I added some material on the 14 operations derivable from closures and complements. For no particularly great reason except that it’s a curiosity I’d never bothered to work through until now.

• started some minimum, prodded by the suggestion in today’s replacement

• Bhavesh Chauhan, Subhendra Mohanty, A common leptoquark solution of flavor and ANITA anomalies (arXiv:1812.00919)

that leptoquarks could not only explain the flavour anomalies but also the anomalous events seen last year by the ANITA experiment

• brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

• starting something

• brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

• I corrected an apparent typo:

A 2-monad $T$ as above is lax-idempotent if and only if for any $T$-algebra $a \colon T A \to A$ there is a 2-cell $\theta_a \colon 1 \Rightarrow \eta \circ a$

to

A 2-monad $T$ as above is lax-idempotent if and only if for any $T$-algebra $a \colon T A \to A$ there is a 2-cell $\theta_a \colon 1 \Rightarrow \eta_A \circ a$

It might be nice to say $\eta_A$ is the unit of the algebra….

• I did not change anything, I would not like to do it without Urs’s consent and some opinion. The entry AQFT equates algebraic QFT and axiomatic QFT. In the traditional circle, algebraic quantum field theory meant being based on local nets – local approach of Haag and Araki. This is what the entry now describes. The Weightman axioms are somewhat different, they are based on fields belonging some spaces of distributions, and 30 years ago it was called field axiomatics, unlike the algebraic axiomatics. But these differences are not that important for the main entry on AQFT. What is a bigger drawback is that the third approach to axiomatic QFT if very different and was very strong few decades ago and still has some followers. That is the S-matrix axiomatics which does not believe in physical existence of observables at finite distance, but only in the asymptotic values given by the S-matrix. The first such axiomatics was due Bogoliubov, I think. (Of course he later worked on other approaches, especially on Wightman’s. Both the Wightman’s and Bogoliubov’s formalisms are earlier than the algebraic QFT.)

I would like to say that axiomatic QFT has 3 groups of approaches, and especially to distinguish S-matrix axiomatics from the “algebraic QFT”. Is this disputable ?

• am starting something, not done yet, nothing to be seen here for the moment…

• for hyperlinking references

• am starting some minimum here. Have been trying to read up on this topic. This will likely become huge towards beginning of next year

• I added a bunch of things to connected space: stuff on the path components functor, an example of a countable connected Hausdorff space, and the observation that the quasi-components functor is left adjoint to the discrete space functor $Set \to Top$ (Wikipedia reports that the connected components functor is left adjoint to the discrete space functor, but that’s wrong).

This bit about quasi-components functor had never occurred to me before, although it seems to be true. I’m having difficulty getting much information on this functor. For example, does it preserve finite products? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Does anyone reading this know?

• starting something

• a stub, in order to record references and satisfy links

• added pointer to the article introducing the Dieudonné determinant under “Selected writings”.

Now it looks funny that no other of his references are listed here. Hopefully somebody feels awkward enough about this to go ahead and add something.

• a stub, for the moment just so as to make links work