Not signed in (Sign In)

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

  • 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 bundle bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics planar 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 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 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).
    • An attempt to create this page was made by Paulo Perrone, but the creation was not successful. Am creating the page without any content beyond ’TODO’ now as a test.

      v1, current

    • I fixed a broken link to Guy Moore’s lectures

      diff, v9, current

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

      v1, current

    • stub entry, for the moment just so as to satisfy links

      v1, current

    • at internal hom the following discussion was sitting. I hereby move it from there to here

      Here's some discussion on notation:

      Ronnie: I have found it convenient in a number of categories to use the convention that if say the set of morphisms is hom(x,y)hom(x,y) then the internal hom when it exists is HOM(x,y)HOM(x,y). In particular we have the exponential law for categories

      Cat(x×y,z)Cat(x,CAT(y,z)).Cat(x \times y,z) \cong Cat(x,CAT(y,z)).

      Then one can get versions such as CAT a(y,z)CAT_a(y,z) if y,zy,z are objects over aa.

      Of course to use this the name of the category needs more than one letter. Also it obviates the use of those fonts which do not have upper and lower case, so I have tended to use mathsf, which does not work here!

      How do people like this? Of course, panaceas do not exist.

      Toby: I see, that fits with using CAT\CAT as the 22-category of categories but Cat\Cat as the category of categories. (But I'm not sure if that's a good thing, since I never liked that convention much.) I only used ’Hom’ for the external hom here since Urs had already used ’hom’ for the internal hom.

      Most of the time, I would actually use the same symbol for both, just as I use the same symbol for both a group and its underlying set. Every closed category is a concrete category (represented by II), and the underlying set of the internal hom is the external hom. So I would distinguish them only when looking at the theorems that relate them, much as I would bother parenthesising an expression like abca b c only when stating the associative law.

      Ronnie: In the case of crossed complexes it would be possible to use Crs *(B,C)Crs_*(B,C) for the internal hom and then Crs 0(B,C)Crs_0(B,C) is the actual set of morphisms, with Crs 1(B,C)Crs_1(B,C) being the (left 1-) homotopies.

      But if GG is a groupoid does xGx \in G mean xx is an arrow or an object? The group example is special because a group has only one object.

      If GG is a group I like to distinguish between the group Aut(G)Aut(G) of automorphisms, and the crossed module AUT(G)AUT(G), some people call it the actor, which is given by the inner automorphism map GAut(G)G \to Aut(G), and this seems convenient. Similarly if GG is a groupoid we have a group Aut(G)Aut(G) of automorphisms but also a group groupoid, and so crossed module, AUT(G)AUT(G), which can be described as the maximal subgroup object of the monoid object GPD(G,G)GPD(G,G) in the cartesian closed closed category of groupoids.

      Toby: ’But if GG is a groupoid does xGx \in G mean xx is an arrow or an object?’: I would take it to mean that xx is an object, but I also use BG\mathbf{B}G for the pointed connected groupoid associated to a group GG; I know that groupoid theorists descended from Brandt wouldn't like that. I would use xArr(G)x \in \Arr(G), where Arr(G)\Arr(G) is the arrow category (also a groupoid now) of GG, if you want xx to be an arrow. (Actually I don't like to use \in at all to introduce a variable, preferring the type theorist's colon. Then x:Gx: G introduces xx as an object of the known groupoid GG, f:xyf: x \to y introduces ff as a morphism between the known objects xx and yy, and f:xy:Gf: x \to y: G introduces all three variables. This generalises consistently to higher morphisms, and of course it invites a new notation for a hom-set: xyx \to y.)

      continued in next comment…

    • added a graphics showing length scales of fundamental physics in the observable universe

      diff, v4, current

    • A stub for M-theory. What’s supposed to be so mysterious about it? Is it that people don’t even know what form it would take?

    • added English translation of this bit

      PN§260 Der Raum ist in sich selbst der Widerspruch des gleichgültigen Auseinanderseins und der unterschiedlosen Kontinuität, die reine Negativität seiner selbst und das Übergehen zunächst in die Zeit. Ebenso ist die Zeit, da deren in Eins zusammengehaltene entgegengesetzte Momente sich unmittelbar aufheben, das unmittelbare Zusammenfallen in die Indifferenz, in das ununterschiedene Außereinander oder den Raum.

      Space is in itself the contradiction of the indifferent being-apart and of the difference-less continuity, the pure negativity of itself and the transformation, first of all, to time. In the same manner time – since its opposite moments, held together in unity, immeditely sublate themselves – is the undifferentiated being-apart or: space.

      And polished a little around and following this bit.

      diff, v269, current

    • some bare minimum, for the moment just a glorified list of references

      v1, current

    • added to quantum anomaly

      • an uncommented link to Liouville cocycle

      • a paragraph with the basic idea of fermioninc anomalies

      • the missing reference to Witten’s old article on spin structures and fermioninc anomalies.

      The entry is still way, way, stubby. But now a little bit less than a minute ago ;-

    • Todd points out elsewhere that there is a problem with the following sentence in the section Smallness in the context of universes:

      CC is essentially UU-small if there is a bijection from its set of morphisms to an element of UU (the same for the set of objects follows); this condition is non-evil.

      (introduced in revision 11).

      It looks to me that first of all this is not the right condition – the right condition must mention equivalence of categories to a U-small category.

      diff, v31, current

    • Correct the characterization of nerves of groupoids.

      diff, v54, current

    • starting something – not done yet

      v1, current

    • I have expanded the Idea section at state on a star-algebra and added a bunch of references.

      The entry used to be called “state on an operator algebra”, but I renamed it (keeping the redirect) because part of the whole point of the definition is that it makes sense without necessarily having represented the “abstract” star-algebra as a C*-algebra of linear operators.

    • I came to think that the term geometric type theory for the type theory internal toi sheaf toposes should exists. Thanks to Bas Spitter for pointing out that Steve Vickers had already had the same idea (now linked to at the above entry).

      Also created geometric homotopy type theory in this vein, with some evident comments.

    • This is a base topic of my contribution. It introduces a new function that gives series whose coefficients are powers of fine structure constant. Furthermore each member represents natural physical interaction. It can be treated as natural physics that introduces natural particles.

      May be I made a lot of mistakes. I will correct them.

      v1, current

    • added a further quote from

      interview with Mike Duff by Graham Fermelo, The universe speaks in numbers – Interview 14 (web):

      (7:04) The problem we face is that we have a patchwork understanding of M-theory, like a quilt. We understand this corner and that corner, but what’s lacking is the overarching big picture. So directly or indirectly, my research hopes to explain what M-theory really is. We don’t know what it is.

      In a certain sense, and this is not a popular statement, I think it’s premature to be asking: “What are the empirical consequences”, because it’s not yet in a mature enough state, where we can sensibly make falsifiable prediction.

      diff, v13, current