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 definitions 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 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 simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological 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).
    • creating a stub entry, for now just to make the link work, and to have a home for references specific to abelian CS

      v1, current

    • basic definition and reference to Mellies’ survey

      v1, current

    • Hello,

      I’m new here and a bit unsure on whether this be the right place to post my question and ask for advice. I have found many useful hints on the nlab so I decided to give a try to the nforum as well.

      I have posted a detailed question on math.stackexchange. The URL is https://math.stackexchange.com/q/5062099/350024. There, the question got two edits; originally it was:


      Consider a mathematical model for physical space, let’s say a (static) 2-dimensional plane. Such a model may start from a given set (of points) with some algebraic structure over it. Usually, as a minimum, this structure is assumed to be an Affine Space; then, once a point is chosen as the “origin” (which amounts to placing an “observer” somewhere in the physical plane), the points of the affine space are mapped to vectors in the associated Vector Space.

      This works if it is assumed that the observer may measure distances between any two points. But let’s assume that it is only possible to know how distant a point is from the origin (and in which direction) - think of the observer as a “radar”. At this point it doesn’t make sense to add vectors (and also, I’d say, to multiply them by negative numbers). Basically we have a vector space structure stripped off of the sum operation, and having + as the “field” of scalars.

      I know that if we remove the product a vector space becomes a group, but what does it become if we remove the sum? I was thinking about a Cone, but such a concept is defined as a subset of a vector space, so with a concept of sum actually.


      This is a tentative starting point for constructing an algebraic model for Special Relativity from elementary “physical” principles. After some discussions with other users and some thinking, I have posted this tentative answer:


      The construction of a cone is indeed eye-catching, but the problem there is defining the “base” set. If we start with a metric, such a set may simply be the unit circle; however, as I also explained in my edits to my original question, I want to deal with the scenario before introducing a metric.

      I have been elaborating on the first comment by @psl2Z:

      You would have an action of the monoid (K,) on a set V, where (K,+,) is the field.

      Let us indeed start from a bare set V, whose elements are thought to represent (relative) positions (with respect to a chosen spatial point, i.e. to an “observer”). Instead of a generic field, I want to consider from the outset; more precisely, let us assume that we can multiply any element of V by any positive real number and obtain an element of V. (The heuristic idea is that space extends indefinitely in each direction.)

      We are then given an operation from +×V into V. In other words, if α+ and xV then αxV. Of course, we want 1x=x and β(αx)=(βα)x. Since (+,) is a group (and not only a monoid), this defines a group action. Further, if α1 we want αxx for all xV, so the action is free. It is not transitive (heuristically, positions in different directions are not proportional to each other).

      Let us introduce an equivalence relation in V by yx iff y=αx for some α>0. The equivalence classes are the (oriented) directions. We may even use × (={0}) for the group, so that each direction has its opposite-oriented one.

      I would like now to introduce a concept of dimension and a concept of isotropy. For the former, the problem is that I don’t have the sum in V (to form linear combinations); for the latter, I need to introduce rotations, but I don’t have a metric (to define them as isometries).


      Does this make any sense?

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • a brief entry for recording the existence of the QBricks language (alongside existing entries for QWIRE, etc.)

      v1, current

    • Clarify that the impredicative definition only quantifies over truth values.

      diff, v18, current

    • also created axiom UIP, just for completeness. But the entry still needs some reference or else some further details.

    • Added more lowbrow, quicker-to-understand definition of “coherent ring”.

      diff, v3, current

    • added brief definition/characterization to Chern class

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • starting something – remains a stub for the moment, to be continued

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • a bare list of references, to be !include-ed into the references lists of relevant entries

      v1, current

    • absorption monoids, monoids that have an absorbing element that behaves like zero in the multiplicative monoid of the natural numbers

      Anonymous

      v1, current

    • creating article on tensor product of commutative monoids

      Anonymous

      v1, current

    • Just noticed that we have a duplicate page Jon Sterling.

      I have now moved the (little but relevant) content (including redirects) from there to here.

      Unfortunately, the page rename mechanism seems to be broken until further notice, therefore I am hesitant to clear the page Jon Sterling completely, for the time being.

      diff, v3, current

    • I have created a stub for dependent type theory.

      This used to redirect to just type theory, but in that entry it is being escaped to Martin-Löf type theory, so clearly either it should redirect there or have a separate entry. I guess a separate entry is better, since there is dependent type theory that is not of Martin-Löf “type”.

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references

      v1, current

    • a bare list of references, to be !include-ed into the References-lists of relevant entries (such as at anyon and quantum Hall effect) for ease of updating and synchronizing

      v1, current

    • starting disambiguation page for “evil” in mathematics

      Abe

      v1, current

    • created computational trinitarianism, combining a pointer to an exposition by Bob Harper (thanks to David Corfield) with my table logic/category-theory/type-theory.

    • I added to walking structure a 2-categorical theorem that implies that usually “the underlying X of the walking X is the initial X”. This fact seems like it should be well-known, but I don’t offhand know a reference for it, can anyone give a pointer?

    • polished a bit and expanded a bit at interval category (nothing deep, just so that it looks better)

    • Created a stub for referencing purposes.

      v1, current

    • starting page on the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

      Abe

      v1, current

    • I just see that in this entry it said

      Classically, 1 was also counted as a prime number, …

      If this is really true, it would be good to see a historic reference. But I’d rather the entry wouldn’t push this, since it seems misguided and, judging from web discussion one sees, is a tar pit for laymen to fall into.

      The sentence continued with

      [ the number 1 is ] too prime to be prime.

      and that does seem like a nice point to make. So I have edited the entry to now read as follows, but please everyone feel invited to have a go at it:


      A prime number is a natural number which cannot be written as a product of two smaller numbers, hence a natural number greater than 1, which is divisible only by 1 and by itself.

      This means that every natural number n is, up to re-ordering of factors, uniquely expressed as a product of a tuple of prime numbers:

      n=2n13n25n37n411n5

      This is called the prime factorization of n.

      Notice that while the number 1 is, clearly, only divisible by one and by itself, hence might look like it deserves to be counted as a prime number, too, this would break the uniqueness of this prime factorization. In view of the general phenomenon in classifications in mathematics of objects being too simple to be simple one might say that 1 is “too prime to be prime”.


      diff, v13, current

    • starting page on evil numbers in number theory

      Abe

      v1, current

    • starting page on Elwyn Berlekamp for the sake of a reference at evil number

      Abe

      v1, current

    • starting page on odious numbers in number theory

      Abe

      v1, current

    • I am back to working on geometry of physics. I’ll be out-sourcing new paragraphs there to their own nLab entries as much as possible (because the length of the page makes saving and hence previewing it take many minutes, so I need to work in smaller sub-entries and then copy-and-paste).

      In this context I now started an entry prequantum field theory. To be further expanded.

      This comes with a table of related concepts extended prequantum field theory - table:

      extended prequantum field theory

      0kn transgression to dimension k
      0 extended Lagrangian, universal characteristic map
      k (off-shell) prequantum (n-k)-bundle
      n1 (off-shell) prequantum circle bundle
      n action functional = prequantum 0-bundle
    • starting page on the Thue–Morse sequence from number theory

      Abe

      v1, current

    • I’ve added Peter May’s Galois theory example to M-category in a section “Applications”.