Not signed in (Sign In)

A discussion forum about contributions to the nLab wiki and related areas of mathematics, physics, and philosophy.

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

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 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds 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 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.

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).

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictriangulable spaces
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Todd_Trimble
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Todd_Trimble
- Last Active May 24th 2010

I added a section on triangulable spaces and PL structures to simplicial complex, but this is the type of thing which gets beyond my ken pretty quickly. My real motivation is to convince myself that a space is homeomorphic to the realization of a simplicial complex (in short, is triangulable) if and only if it is homeomorphic to the realization of a simplicial set – perhaps this seems intuitively obvious, but it should be given a careful proof, and I want such a proof to have a home in the Lab. (Tim Porter said in a related discussion that there was a relevant article by Curtis in some early issue of Adv. Math., but I am not near a university library to investigate this.)

I’ll put down some preliminary discussion here. Let $P_{fin}(X)$ denote the poset of finite

*nonempty*subsets of $X$. A simplicial complex consists of a set $V$ and a down-closed subset $\Sigma \subseteq P_{fin}(V)$ such that every singleton $\{v\}$ belongs to $\Sigma$. Thus $\Sigma$ is itself a poset, and we can take its nerve as a simplicial set. The first claim is that the realization of this nerve is homeomorphic to the realization of the simplicial complex. This I believe is or should be a basic result in the technique of subdivision. Hence realizations of simplicial sets subsume triangulable spaces.For the other (harder) direction, showing that realizations of simplicial sets are triangulable, I want a lemma: that the realization of a nerve of a poset is triangulable. Basically the idea is that we use the simplicial complex whose vertices are elements of the poset and whose simplices are subsets $\{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n\}$ for which we have a strictly increasing chain $x_1 \lt x_2 \lt \ldots \lt x_n$. Then, the next step would use the following construction: given a simplicial set $X$, construct the poset whose elements are

*nondegenerate*simplices (elements) of $X$, ordered $x \lt y$ if $x$ is some face of $y$. The claim would be that the realization of $X$ is homeomorphic to the realization of the nerve of this poset.All of this could very well be completely standard, but it’s hard for me to find an account of this in one place. Alternatively, my intuitions might be wrong here. Or, perhaps I’m going about it in a clumsy way.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicVistoli, Notes on Grothendieck topologies, fibered categories and descent theory
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Eric
- Comments 32
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 24th 2010

I started adding some illustrations to my personal web related to Vistoli’s paper on descent. If you like them or have suggestions to improve them, I can maybe migrate some to nLab pages:

Notes on Grothendieck Topologies, Fibered Categories and Descent Theory (ericforgy)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicCurrying
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by TobyBartels
- Comments 17
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active May 24th 2010

Todd Trimble requested currying (on the Sandbox, of all places), and I wrote it (also linking to it from closed monoidal category).

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicOperad
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Harry Gindi
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Harry Gindi
- Last Active May 23rd 2010

So, I have some pending changes on operad that I made in the sandbox and am waiting for a go-ahead to post from the interested parties, but I was also wondering if someone would be willing to write up a follow-up to the very nice definition of an operad as a monoid in the blah blah monoidal category. That is, it seems like this should give us a very nice way to define an algebra, but I don't know how one would actually go about doing it.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccategory theory - contents
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 22nd 2010

rearranged a bit and expanded category theory - contents. In particular I added a list with central theorems of category theory.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicrepresentable presheaf
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 22nd 2010

added Eric’s illustrations to the Idea-section at representable presheaf. Also added a stub-section on Definition in higher category theory.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topickinds of morphisms in 2-categories
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 5
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active May 21st 2010

Created faithful morphism, conservative morphism, pseudomonic morphism, and discrete morphism, and added to fully faithful morphism.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicMore fun with functional analysis: complete and normable
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Andrew Stacey
- Comments 21
- Last comment by Andrew Stacey
- Last Active May 21st 2010

Added complete topological vector space including various variants (quasi-complete, sequentially complete, and some others). Hopefully got all the redirects right!

I only have Schaefer’s book at home so couldn’t check “locally complete” - I know that Jarchow deals with this in his book. Kriegl and Michor naturally only consider it in the context of smootheology so I’m not sure what the “best” characterisation is. There’s also a notational conflict with “convenient” versus “locally complete”. As Greg Kuperberg pointed out, in some places “convenient” means “locally complete and bornological” whereas in others it means just “locally complete” (in the contexts where convenient is used the distinction is immaterial as the topology is not considered an integral part of the structure).

I added these whilst working on the expansion of the TVS relationships diagram. That brought up a question on terminology. In the diagram, we have entries “Banach space” and “Hilbert space” (and “normed space” and “inner product space”). These don’t quite work, though, as for a topological vector space the correct notion of a normed space should be

*normable*space as the actual choice of norm is immaterial for the TVS properties. I’m wondering whether or not this is something to worry about. Here’s an example of where it may be an issue: a nuclear Banach space is automatically finite dimensional. That implies that its topology can be given by a Hilbert structure. However, the Hilbertian norm may not be the one that was first thought of. But that’s a subtlety that’s tricky to convey on a simple diagram. So I’d rather have “normable” than “normed”. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?If “normable” is fine, then the important question is: what’s a better way of saying “Hilbertisable”, or “Banachable”? Length doesn’t matter here, as I’m putting the expanded names in tooltips and only using abbreviations in the diagram.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicrational homotopy theory in an (oo,1)-topos
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 20th 2010

started rational homotopy theory in an (infinity,1)-topos

With just slightly more it could also be called "Lie theory in an oo,1-topos" I suppose.

if you looked at this yesterday, as it was under construction, maybe have another look: I believe I could clarify the global story a bit better.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicQuery about finite dimensional Banach spaces
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Andrew Stacey
- Comments 12
- Last comment by Todd_Trimble
- Last Active May 20th 2010

Looking at the entry Banach spaces, I found the following in the introduction:

So every $n$-dimensional real Banach space may be described (up to linear isometry, the usual sort of isomorphism) as the Cartesian space $\mathbb{R}^n$ equipped with the $p$-norm for $1 \leq p \leq \infty$

which seems to imply that every norm on a finite dimensional Banach space is a $p$-norm for some $p$. That feels to me like a load of dingo’s kidneys. To define a norm on some $\mathbb{R}^n$ I just need a nice convex set, and there’s lots more of these than the balls of $p$-norms, surely.

Am I missing something?

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicMoonshine
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 25
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active May 20th 2010

Moonshine, intentionally with capital M as most people do follow this convention for the Monster and (Monstrous) Moonshine VOA.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicspecial relativity
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Ian_Durham
- Last Active May 19th 2010

somebody signing as “Anonymous Coward” had created special relativity and typed in a confused paragraph (the smallest confusion being that the paragraph concerned not special but general relativity).

I removed that paragraph and quickly wrote a brief “Idea”-section . But have no time to do this justice now.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topic(oo,1)-site
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 19th 2010

created (infinity,1)-site

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfinite limit
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active May 19th 2010

created finite limit (this was previously a redirect to finitely complete category)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicSimple groups
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by TobyBartels
- Comments 1
- Last comment by TobyBartels
- Last Active May 19th 2010

It got announced in another category, but here it is in Latest Changes:

Todd began (and then I edited) simple group.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicconformal group
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 1
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active May 19th 2010

I wrote a quick entry conformal group, just from memory. Somebody could check and expand. In fact it would not be bad to have also a separate entry on conformal and on quasiconformal mappings.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicchiral algebra
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 1
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active May 19th 2010

chiral algebra and improvements to vertex operator algebra

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicduplicate page compact operators
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_van_Beek
- Comments 8
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active May 18th 2010

somehow I missed that there already is a page compact operator and created compact operators. The plural is another error :-) the unsatisfied link that I used to create the page was “compact operators”. When I tried to rename it to the singular term it failed, of course. Now the page compact operators is simply superfluous, but as a non-administrator I cannot delete it…

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicsequential compactness
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Andrew Stacey
- Comments 31
- Last comment by Andrew Stacey
- Last Active May 18th 2010

Created sequential compactness, should probably link to all these compactness variations from compact space. Not sure if I got the “iff” bit right in the relationship with compactness itself; will check it myself if no-one fixes it in the meantime.

I decided that this was the key property in manifolds of mapping spaces and to stop trying to figure out a Froelicher version of sequentially compact for the time-being.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictwist
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active May 17th 2010

the term “twist” or “twisted” is one of those insanely ambiguous terms in math. Trying to follow our recent agreement on how to deal with ambiguous page names, I tried to indicate this at twist .

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicLax-idempotent monads
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by FinnLawler
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active May 17th 2010

Created lax-idempotent 2-monad, with some definitions from Kelly–Lack. I think Kock has a couple of others. I’ll add more, like proofs of the equivalence of the definitions, and more on the cocompletion example, later (next week, probably).

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicFinal version of thesis
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by DavidRoberts
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Harry Gindi
- Last Active May 17th 2010

The final copy of my thesis is up on the lab. Available from Fundamental Bigroupoids and 2-Covering Spaces. I’ve fixed the typo in definition 5.1 that made it into the print copy ;)

Thus I’ve updated the links at David Roberts, the above linked page, and on my private web home page. If anyone knows of any other places it is linked, please let me know, or update the link to point to DMRthesis_final.pdf, instead of DMR_thesis.pdf.

Now to all the other projects that are on the back burner, time permitting…

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicIntroductions to category theory in physics
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 37
- Last comment by Ian_Durham
- Last Active May 17th 2010

started a section Introductions to category theory in physics at the woefully imperfect entry higher category theory and physics. So far this contains mostly th expository articles by Bob Coecke.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicpresheaves and overcategories
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 25
- Last comment by DavidRoberts
- Last Active May 16th 2010

I put the theorem about presheaves on overcategories and overcategories of presheaves that had its own page at functors and comma categories into the Properties-section at category of presheaves: Presheaves on over-categories and over-categories of presheaves.

Then I added the analogous proposition for (oo,1)-presheaves at (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-presheaves -- Interaction with overcategories

Incidentally, there is some bug on the nLab that might be related to the one Toby just pointed out in the thread on scrollboxes: Trying to put links to subsections of nLab entries into nLab entries is often troublesome. The Markup-code for links gets mixed up by the hash-sign, usually. Then usually the html-code will work. But at the moment at category of presheaves I cant get that to work either...

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicmonoidal categories sidebar
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 16th 2010

Prompted by Peter Selinger’s recent email on the catlist, I created a floating TOC for monoidal categories, added it to a lot of pages, created a couple of stubs for ribbon category and pivotal category, and corrected the redirect for autonomous category to point to rigid monoidal category rather than compact closed category. We are still missing stubs for balanced monoidal category and traced monoidal category and dagger monoidal category – anyone want to fill them in?

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictoc for topos theory
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 14th 2010

started a floating toc for topos theory. See at the right of topos.

Please feel encouraged to expand and improve the structure.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topic[functional]
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by DavidRoberts
- Comments 32
- Last comment by zskoda
- Last Active May 14th 2010

Added functional. A bit sketchy.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topic(oo,1)-sheaf
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 14th 2010

finally noticed that (infinity,1)-sheaf was hardly even a stub. Have now filled some genuine content in there.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfree monad
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active May 13th 2010

Created free monad with a discussion of some of the subtleties and the notion of “algebraically-free”.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicdifferential topology of mapping spaces
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Andrew Stacey
- Comments 28
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 13th 2010

I’ve started porting my notes “differential topology of loop spaces” over to the nlab, starting at differential topology of mapping spaces. As part of the transfer, I intend to map out the theory for general mapping spaces, not just loop spaces (that’ll give me a bit more motivation to do the transfer since just cut-and-paste is boring!). I’ve just copied over the contents and the introduction so far and haven’t edited them as yet. In particular, although I’ve wikilinked all the original section names, these will get changed as they currently focus on loop spaces.

The introduction to the original document ended as follows (not copied over to the new version):

This document began life as notes from talks given at NTNU and at Sheffield so I would like to thank the topologists at those institutions, and in particular Nils Baas, for letting me talk about my favourite mathematical subject. I would also like to thank Ralph Cohen and the “loop group” at Stanford.

This is by no means a ﬁnished document, as an example it is somewhat sparse on references. Any comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism will be welcomed.

The second paragraph is sort-of stating the obvious as it holds to some extent for any nLab page! And I would love to be able to add some more names to the list in the first paragraph. Again, I hope it goes without saying but I’ll say it anyway: although I anticipate being the main contributor to these pages, it is not

*my*project! I would love it if people read it, add comments, add other stuff, write (constructive) graffiti, link it to other stuff.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicmapping space
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 13th 2010

Currently mapping space redirects to internal hom.

I have now at least added a link to Andrew’s recent manifold structure of mapping spaces to the list of examples there, but it wouldn’t hurt if someone wrote a bit more about mapping spaces in topology etc.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccover
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 4
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 12th 2010

The entry cover was in a pitiful state. I tried to brush it up a bit. But I am afraid I am still not doing it justice. But also I don’t quite have the leisure for a good exposition right now. What I really want is to create an entry good cover in a moment…

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicSullivan construction
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 5
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 12th 2010

stub for Sullivan construction (I got annoyed that the entry didn’t exist, but also don’t feel like doing it justice right now)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topick-tuply monoidal n-category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 4
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 11th 2010

Because I want to point to it in a reply to the current discussion on the Category Theory Mailing list, I tried to brush up the entry k-tuply monoidal n-category a bit.

In particular I

expanded the Idea section and added some statements that had been missing there;

reacted to the old query box discussion there and moved the query box to the very bottom;

added a section on k-tuply monoidal $\infty$-groupoids and $\infty$-stacks here.

added a section on k-tuply monoidal $(n,1)$-categories here

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicAT category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Todd_Trimble
- Comments 7
- Last comment by Todd_Trimble
- Last Active May 11th 2010

I had started an article on AT category (which I originally mis-titled as “AT categories” – thank you Toby for fixing this!), but getting a little stuck here and there. I’m using the exchange between Freyd and Pratt on the categories mailing list (what else is there?) as my reference, but as is so often the case, Freyd’s discussion is a little too snappy and terse for me to follow it down to all the nitty-gritty details.

There’s a minor point I’m having trouble verifying: that coproducts are disjoint (as a consequence of the AT axioms that Freyd had enunciated thus far where he made that claim, in his main post), particularly that the coprojections are monic. Presumably this isn’t too hard and I’m just being dense. A slightly less than minor point: I’m having trouble verifying Ab-enrichment of the category of type A objects. I believe Freyd as abelian-categories-guru implicitly – I don’t doubt him. Can anyone help?

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicinvariant polynomial
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 10th 2010

created invariant polynomial

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicNoncommutative geometry and stochastic calculus
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Eric
- Comments 6
- Last comment by Todd_Trimble
- Last Active May 8th 2010

Todd is helping me understand opposite categories beginning with $FinSet^{op}$ here.

This discussion helped prompt some improvement of the page opposite category. When I look at that page now, I see the statement:

The idea of noncommutative geometry is essentially to define a category of

*spaces*as the opposite category of a category of algebras.This reminded me of a remark I made in the “Forward” to a paper I wrote back in 2002, so I’ve now itexified that “Foreward” here:

Noncommutative Geometry and Stochastic Calculus

By the way, this also suggests that the category $FinSet$ is the category of

*spaces*opposite to the category of finite Boolean algebras in the sense of space and quantity.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicspinors in Yang-Mills theory
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Tim_van_Beek
- Last Active May 7th 2010

I noticed that recently Konrad Waldorf created a very nice article

I went through it and added definition/theorem/proof-environments and lots of hyperlinks. Some of them are unsaturated. Maybe somebody feels inspired to create corresponding entries.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicessential geometric morphism
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 7th 2010

started essential geometric morphism

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictrig & pi
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Michael Hardy
- Comments 7
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 6th 2010

- trigonometric identities and the irrationality of pi

I created this new page. I'm new here and I have no idea whether this sort of thing belongs in a place like this.

-- naively.....

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicobject
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 6th 2010

expanded object

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicnew and revised pages on logic stuff
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Todd_Trimble
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active May 6th 2010

- Recently have been adding to or creating various pages like essentially algebraic theory, Lawvere theory, Horn theory, signature, theory, and there may be others.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicEilenberg-Zilber theorem
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 5th 2010

added the cosimplicial version of the statement to Eilenberg-Zilber theorem and included a reference that gives a proof

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicClosed functors
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by TobyBartels
- Comments 18
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 4th 2010

Eric wanted to know about closed functors, so we started a page. Probably somebody has written about these before, so references would be nice, if anybody knows them. (Google gives some hits that look promising, but I can’t read them now.)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicHousekeeping at Frolicher spaces
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Andrew Stacey
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Andrew Stacey
- Last Active May 4th 2010

I’ve done a bit of housekeeping at Froelicher space. I’ve split the page into pieces, putting each major section into its own section.

(This will necessitate a little reference chasing at manifolds of mapping spaces, and I need to put in some redirects)

I’ve put in a definition of curvaceous compactness at topological notions of Frölicher spaces. It works, but I’m not sure if it’s the right one yet.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicexponential law
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 8
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active May 4th 2010

It seems to me that despite so lenghty discussions and entry related to the mapping space-hm adjunction, only the ideal situations are treated (convenient categories of spaces). For this reason, I have created a new entry exponential law for spaces containing the conditions usually used in the category of ALL topological spaces, as well as few remarks about the pointed spaces.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccircle bundle
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 3rd 2010

created stub for circle bundle

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccircle group
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Andrew Stacey
- Last Active May 3rd 2010

proudly presenting the circle group ;-)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicsmooth (oo,1)-algebra
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active May 2nd 2010

split off smooth (infinity,1)-algebra from derived smooth manifold and (infinity,1)-algebraic theory

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccategorification and groupoidification
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by bwebster
- Comments 10
- Last comment by bwebster
- Last Active May 2nd 2010

Taking the advice that if I write something on the internet, it should be stuck on the n-Lab, I've converted my recent comments in the n-category cafe and some old blog posts into a new page on the relationship between categorification and groupoidification: categorification via groupoid schemes

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicmanifolds of mapping spaces
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Andrew Stacey
- Comments 21
- Last comment by Eric
- Last Active May 1st 2010

Split off the mapping spaces stuff from local addition into manifolds of mapping spaces. Still plenty to do and things to check (particularly on the linear stuff, and particularly figuring out what “compact” means). Haven’t actually deleted the relevant bit from local addition yet. Also, haven’t put a table of contents at manifolds of mapping spaces since I’ve learnt that the best way to get Urs to read something is to

*not*put a toc in.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicsub-quasi-category
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 8
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Apr 29th 2010

created sub-quasi-category

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicinner fibration
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Apr 29th 2010

split off inner fibration from fibrations of quasi-categories and added remarks on how it models the (oo,1)-version of the notion of cograph of a profunctor

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicCasson invariant
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 4
- Last comment by DavidRoberts
- Last Active Apr 29th 2010

Casson invariant count SU(2) local systems of integral homology spheres. Thomas considered its holomorphic counterpart which is ultimately related to counting BPS states on Calabi-Yau 3-folds.

P.S. Hmm. Tags. New option. Great. Is there a list of tags ?

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicmicrolocal analysis, D-modules, crystals
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 17
- Last comment by Tim_van_Beek
- Last Active Apr 28th 2010

I am in a small wave of activity along one of my principal lonegr goals in nlab: the connection between the operator theory and geometry. This is of extreme importance for physics if we ever want to go beyond the TQFTs in quantization program. As Tom Leinster has in his work seen, there are heat-kernel like expansions involved all around the place even when one takes categorical approach and the first terms are of topological nature. This is exactly so in the WKB-expansions where the zeroth term is often the exact value for topological or more general integrable models. Witten's calculation of Witten's index (related to tmf) is an example where such WKB aprpoximations are evaluated and in presence of supersymmetry there are no other terms. Thus I believe that the kantization preferred in nlab is limited to work exactly in simiklar cases and that in general we will have more terms of WKB-like nature involved. We need to develop a categorified WKB method which will unify both.

On the other hand, the WKB method is not just expansion like in quantum mechanics books, it does involve cocycles right away in usual symplectic geometry. There is so-called Maslov index related to the multidimensional WKB method which has been pioneered by V. Maslov. The quantity which is slowly changing is an analogue of the eikonal in geometric optics, so the whole thing is a generalization of the geometric optics approximation. One can see some aspects of that on (free online, on the AMS web site, under books, here) book on symplectic geometry by Guillemin and Sternberg.

Harmonic side of the stationary phase approximation (which is just a variant of WKB in fact) is studied for long under the name oscillatory integrals. This is studied especially by Lars Hörmander and the Japanese school of microlocal analysis (btw, that one is the number 3000 entry in nlab!); the differential equations are often decribed via D-modules and in nonlinear case D-schemes which Gorthendieck described via crystals.

Strangely enough Kashiwara who worked much in microlocal analysis and D-modules has created a notion of crystal bases and crystals of quantum groups but these are NOT related to crystals. Thus I created crystal basis to fix the opinions in the nlab before they go astray...

I created entry hyperfunction, one of the tools of microanalysis, by Japanese school, a neat version of generalized functions, more flexible than distributions of Laurent Schwarz. They are obtained as boundary values of holomorphic functions (reminds me of BV formalism :)).

- Discussion Type
- discussion topic(oo,1)Cat
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Apr 28th 2010

added a section about how to compute limits and colimits in (infinity,1)Cat and in Infinity-Grpd in terms of coCartesian fibrations to these entries.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicLocally convex space + private web
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by DavidRoberts
- Comments 2
- Last comment by DavidRoberts
- Last Active Apr 28th 2010

I added a bit in the functionals section of locally convex space about coordinate projections being continuous for LCTVSs, and that there are counterexamples to this fact without local convexity. This was from memory, I hope I got it right.

I hope it’s not a fluke that I can edit from home tonight.

I also hyperlinked my front page of my web a bit, as Urs does (like it’s going out of fashion :), so I can present our model to my company, as I (and some others to whom I have explained it) would like to implement the ’open lab book’ research model we have here. I would loove to be able to do it in instiki (by which I mean the technically minded people), but we may be stuck with an awful free wiki platform, chosen for its ’minimal advertising’ (and I quote!).

Anyway, as a result, there are a bunch of new stubby pages there, that probably aren’t worth looking at yet.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicLatest Changes: Todd
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Todd_Trimble
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Todd_Trimble
- Last Active Apr 27th 2010

Sharpened up some of the discussion at finitary monad (emphasizing equivalence with Lawvere theories), and added some technical applications to reflexive coequalizer. Both were used to support a detailed proof embedded at smooth algebra.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topic(n,1)-topos
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Apr 27th 2010

expanded the long-time stub entry (n,1)-topos a little more. Made Mike’s former query box an Example-section.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicAnswer to the query over at structured (infinity,1)-topos?
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Harry Gindi
- Comments 73
- Last comment by Mike Shulman
- Last Active Apr 27th 2010

Mike left a query box over at structured (infinity,1)-topos about admissibility structures. I am pretty sure that the admissibility structure is not, as the statement in the article says, a grothendieck topology. Rather, it is a class of morphisms that is in some way compatible with the grothendieck topology. At least looking at Toën's notes (which it seems are essentially a version of HAG II restricted to ordinary categories and ordinary stacks (I'm not positive that this is fully accurate, but I'm reasonably confident in the statement)), a geometric structure is a class of morphisms that is compatible with the grothendieck topology satisfying a number of conditions (that seem to match the axioms for an admissibility structure given here!). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that an admissibility structure is precisely the class of morphisms P in the definition of a geometric context (or maybe even the pair (τ,P)).

Here's the link. Anyway, if this is true, it appears to answer Mike's question (once suitably generalized to (∞,1)-categories).

If I'm mistaken, please let me know.

I've put this in the (Latest Changes) category because at the moment, there is no nLab general category.