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 galois-theory 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 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 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).
    • Is a generalized Eilenberg-MacLane space really, as the page says, a smash product of Eilenberg-MacLane spectra and not a wedge/cartesian product? In particular, in their appearance in the motivation of the Adams spectral sequence, it seems that from a finite number of cohomology classes XΣ n iH𝔽 2X\to \Sigma^{n_i}H \mathbb{F}_2 one naturally obtains a map X iΣ n iH𝔽 2X\to \prod_i \Sigma^{n_i}H \mathbb{F}_2, not X iΣ n iH𝔽 2X\to \bigwedge_i \Sigma^{n_i}H \mathbb{F}_2.

    • Hi all, i have included a new entry on generalized global analytic geometry.

      I discuss there Arakelov compactifications of strict global analytic spaces and the
      adelic interpretation of moduli spaces of bundles.
    • Added Qing Liu’s Algebraic Geometry and Arithmetic Curves - which is almost entirely self contained and which Werner Kleinert considers “the most comprehensive and detailed elaboration of the theory of algebraic schemes available in (text-)book form [after Grothendieck’s EGA]” - to the references of the arithmetic geometry page. On a trivial note: I didn’t forget the apostrophe in “Grothendieck’s”… it for some reason appears on the edit page but not on the actual nlab page.

    • have added to regular epimorphism the statement (here) that a pullback square of regular epis is also a pushout.

      This must be true for effective epimorphisms in an \infty-topos, too. What’s the proof?

    • It may be silly, I know, but I wound up writing Pythagorean theorem. It’s not exactly “nPOV”. I did it to un-gray a link.

    • am starting an entry on extended affine symplectic group, the restriction of the quantomorphism group of a symplectic vector space to elements that cover elements of the affine symplectic group.

      (The name is not great, as the “extended” is too unspecific, but this seems to be close to standard in the literature – or else “extended inhomogeneous symplectic group”, which is not any better.)

    • Why have all the orgins of changes suddenly become i.e. local?

    • An extensive person entry Victor Snaith having some description of his 1979 Memoirs article (with a link to extended Russian translation). One of the aspects is an early version of an algebraic cobordism theory there, quite different both from Levine-Morel and from Voevodsky approach to alegbraic cobordism, and in a way to large. But the same construction is a special case of a more general metod in stable homotopy theory which may be of interest. Few words at algebraic cobordism as well. It would be nice to have more on Conner-Floyd isomorphism.

    • The reflection on the nnLab of the the topic cluster of tame geometric stacks – such as effective étale stacks, orbifolds/Deligne-Mumford stacks, their relation to pseudogroups, etc. – is still somewhat subotpimal. I’ll try to be editing a little in this direction.

      For instance at proper geometric morphism there was no pointer to what is probably the main and original example, namely properness of diagonals for orbifold/DM-stacks. I have added at least one paragraph with pointers here. But eventually there should be some actual discussion.

    • I’ve added the below to the Idea section of action#idea as a simpler intro before jumping into delooping. Maybe some of the text in the footnote should be incorporated into the body, and I haven’t changed anything that follows to jibe with it.

      The simplest notion of action involves one set, XX, acting on another YY as a the function act:X×YYact\colon X \times Y \to Y. This can be curried as act^:YY X \hat{act}\colon Y \to Y ^ X where Y XY ^ X is the (monoidal) set of functions from XX to YY.1

      Generalized notions of action use entities from categories other than SetSet and involve an exponential object such as Y XY ^ X.

      1. In the category Set there is no difference between the above left action and the right action actR:Y×XYactR\colon Y \times X \to Y because the product commutes. However for the action of a monoid on a set (sometimes called M-set or M-act) the product of a monoid and a set does not commute so the left and right actions are different. The action of a set on a set is the same as an arrow labeled directed graph arrows:vertices×labelsverticesarrows\colon vertices \times labels \to vertices which specifies that each vertex must have a set of arrows leaving it with one arrow per label, and is also the same as a simple (non halting) deterministic automaton transition:inputs×statesstatestransition\colon inputs \times states \to states

    • That’s not well put at flag variety, is it?

      More generally, the generalized flag variety is the complex projective variety obtained as the coset space G/TG /BG/T\cong G^{\mathbb{C}}/B where GG is a compact Lie group, TT its maximal torus, G G^{\mathbb{C}} the complexification of GG, which is a complex semisimple group, and BG B\subset G^{\mathbb{C}} is the Borel subgroup. It has a structure of a compact Kähler manifold. It is a special case of the larger family of coset spaces of semisimple groups modulo parabolics which includes, for example, Grassmannians.

      The ’larger family’ are the generalized flag varieties, no?

    • I created a stub for stabilizer subgroup as it was needed by orbit.

      This could do with a nPOV section, but I am not sure what to say for that. (I am still not sure how to ‘do’ an nPOV version of all the stuff around group actions. I would love to have it clear in my head as then a straightforward nPOV adaption of Grothendieck in SGA1 would be feasible. The treatment of SGA1 in the nLab still has some holes in it… e.g. the transition from the prorepresenting PP to the profinite group Aut(P)Aut(P). I hope to sketch a bit more detail there soon. In fact a lot of the detail is skated over in the original SGA1. Any thoughts anyone?)

    • Someone (anonymous) has raised a query at quality type. They say:

      (Is “consists entirely of idempotents” correct?)

    • Added pointers to Selberg zeta function for the fact that, under suitable conditions over a 3-manifold, the exponentiated eta function exp(iπη D(0))\exp(i \pi \, \eta_D(0)) equals the Selberg zeta function of odd type.

      Together with the fact at eta invariant – For manifolds with boundaries this says that the Selberg zeta function of odd type constitutes something like an Atiyah-style TQFT which assigns determinant lines to surfaces and Selberg zeta functions to 3-manifolds.

      This brings me back to that notorious issue of whether to think of arithmetic curves as “really” being 2-dimensional or “really” being 3-dimensional: what is actually more like a Dedekind zeta function: the Selberg zeta functions of even type or those of odd type?

    • added to the people-entry Maxim Kontsevich in the list of the four topics for which he received the Fields medal brief hyperlinked commented on what these keywords refer to.

    • created etale geometric morphism

      (david R.: can we count this as a belated reply to your recent question, which I can’t find anymore?)

    • I am writing some notes for a talk that I will give tomorrow:

      I thought this might serve also as an exposition for a certain topic cluster of nnLab entries, so I ended up typing it right into the nnLab.

      Notice that this is presently a super-rough version. At the moment this is mostly just personal jotted notes for myself. There will be an abundance of typos at the moment and at several points there are still certain jumps that in a more polished entry would be expanded on with more text.

      So don’t look at this just yet if you have energy only for passive reading.

    • This is failing to load (on Firefox). I have tried several times and the error message changes each time! The latest was:

      XML Parsing Error: no element found Location: Line Number 1350, Column 39: (N \mathbf{B}(-,G))_1 : U \mapsto C( ————————————–^

      I have also tried it in Safari and the page does not load beyond a certain point.

    • I think there was some terminological confusion, where the nLab defined Segal’s category Γ\Gamma to be a skeleton of finite pointed sets; I think it should be the category opposite to that. I’ve made edits at this article and at Gamma-space.

    • added a paragraph about passing from first-order logic to modal type theory to the entry on analytic philosophy.

    • I’ve made comments at Fivebrane, fivebrane 6-group, Fivebrane structure and differential fivebrane structure regarding the fact String(n)String(n) is not 6-connected for n6n \leq 6 (though trivially so for n=2n=2).

      There will be a bunch of interesting invariants for manifolds of dimensions 3-6. This includes, for instance, on 6-dimensional spin manifolds a non-torsion class corresponding to the obstruction to lifting the tangent bundle to the 6-connected group covering String(6)String(6) (here π 5(String(6))=\pi_5(String(6)) = \mathbb{Z}). This is the only non-torsion example, but should be given by a U(1)U(1)-4-gerbe, I think, which will have a 6-form curvature. Since H 6H^6 won’t be vanishing for oriented manifolds, one has some checking to do. For instance, the frame bundle of S 6S^6 lifted to a String(6)String(6)-bundle (I plan to write a paper on this 2-bundle) will not lift to a Fivebrane(6)Fivebrane(6)-bundle, because it won’t even lift to a String(6)˜\widetilde{String(6)}-bundle (i.e. the 6-connected cover of String(6)String(6)), since the transition function S 5BString(6)S^5 \to BString(6) is the generator. Thus the 6-form curvature of this 4-gerbe should be the volume form on the 6-sphere.

      Another point that occurs to me is that there are two copies of \mathbb{Z} to kill off in String(8)String(8) to get Fivebrane(8)Fivebrane(8), so one gets a U(1)×U(1)U(1)\times U(1) higher gerbe. I suspect this larger π 7\pi_7 is why there are so many more exotic spheres in dimension 15 than in neighbouring dimensions (16256 vs 2 in d=14 and 16); it’s certainly the case for exotic spheres in dimension 7 that π 3(SO(4))=×\pi_3(SO(4)) = \mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z} helps.

    • Here we are going to explain the application of Topology.

    • have highlighted a bit more the fact here that the atoms in a subtopos lattice are the 2-valued Boolean ones. Thanks to Thomas Holder for alerting me.

      And have added this as an example/proposition to atom and to Boolean topos, too.

    • I threw in some references to the early topos approach to set theory in ETCS. On this occasion I couldn’ t resist the temptation to rearrange somewhat the lay-out of the entry: actually I thought it better not to throw HOTT immediately at the reader and gave Palmgren’s ideas a proper subsection. I’ve also deflated a bit the foundational claims of ETCS sticking more to what appears to me to be Lawvere’s original intentions.

    • This comment is invalid XML; displaying source. <p>I created <a href="">synthetic differential geometry applied to algebraic geometry</a> which is supposed to host a question that I am going to post on <a href="">math Overflow</a> following the discussion we have of that <a href="">here at SBS</a>.</p> <p>In that context I also wrote a section at <a href="">algebraic geometry</a> intended to describe the general-nonsense perspective. But that didn't quite find the agreement with Zoran and while we are having some discussion about this in private, he has restructured that entry now.</p>
    • I've asked John Barrett recently and he agrees that the Yetter model and the Crane-Yetter model are two different things. I've written about that in a new article:
    • brief entry on Turaev-Viro model, an entry long overdue. But for the moment it just records some references.

      Bruce Bartlett has a comment on what is currently the last of these references and he will post it below in a moment…

    • am creating

      2d TQFT – table

      listing the statements of the classification results, for the various cases. As far as I am aware of them.