Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
felt like the nLab should have an entry fraction
I created an entry on Larry Lambe. I included a link to some (on line) notes of his on Symbolic Computation which includes discussion of the perturbation lemma from homological perturbation theory.
Unfortunately, there are two entries on the same topic, both created by Urs: quantum Hall effect (redirecting also fractional quantum Hall effect what should eventually split off) with some substance, and the microstub quantum hall effect. I would like to create quantum spin Hall effect and I think I should rename/reclaim the stub quantum hall effect for this. Do others agree ? Urs ?
As the action is now delayed I record here the reference which I wanted to put there
Somewhat surprisingly, the authors and roughly this work of them are mentioned (though not in the list of references) in a paper in algebraic geometry
which considers the mirror symmetry and topological states of matters (topological insulators in particular) as main applications.
am starting curvature characteristic form and Chern-Simons form.
But still working…
started some bare minimum at Spin Chern-Simons theory
pointer, concerning the so-called “negative branes” of e.g. DHJV ’18
I was involved in some discussion about where the word “intensional” as in “intensional equality” comes from and how it really differs from “intenTional” and what the point is of having such a trap of terms.
Somebody dug out Martin-Löf’s lecture notes “Intuitionistic type theory” from 1980 to check. Having it in front of me and so before I forget, I have now briefly made a note on some aspects at equality in the section Different kinds of equalits (below the first paragraph which was there before I arrived.)
Anyway, on p. 31 Martin-Löf has
intensional (sameness of meaning)
I have to say that the difference between “sameness of meaning” and “sameness of intenTion”, if that really is the difference one wants to make, is at best subtle.
added pointer to section 7.5 of
in analogy to what I just did at classical mechanics, I have now added some basic but central content to quantum mechanics:
Quantum mechanical systems
States and observables
Spaces of states
Flows and time evolution
Still incomplete and rough. But I have to quit now.
for discussion at geometry of physics I needed to be able to point to principle of extremal action, so I created a little entry.
There used to be a stub entry Lagrangian quantum field theory. I have now given it a bit more of an Idea-section.
Am starting a write-up (here) of how (programming languages for) quantum circuits “with classical control and/by measurement” have a rather natural and elegant formulation within the linear homotopy type theory of Riley 2022.
Aspects of this have a resemblance to some constructions considered in/with “Quipper”, but maybe it helps clarify some issues there, such as that of “dynamic lifting”.
The entry is currently written without TOC and without Idea-section etc, but rather as a single top-level section that could be !include-ed into relevant entries (such as at quantum circuit and at dependent linear type theory). But for the moment I haven’t included it anywhere yet, and maybe I’ll eventually change my mind about it.
a stub, for the moment just so as to make links work at differential category
added pointer to:
there is some confusion on this MO thread about sheafification, with the nLab entry sheafification somehow involved. I had a look at the entry and find that it can do with lots of polishing, but that the statement discussed over there is clearly right. (the misleading answer on MO that seems to claim a problem on the nLab page gets twice as many votes as the good answer by Clark Barwick, which confirms the statement) I have tried to edit it a bit to make things clearer, but don’t have the leisure for that now.
Given the recent success with the polishing of the entry on geometric realization, maybe I should announce that sheafification is going to be submitted for nJournal peer-review soon, so that everybody here will jump on it to brush it up ;-)
edited the entry orthogonality a bit, for instance indicated that there are other meanings of orthogonality. This should really be a disambiguation page.
And what makes the category-theoretic notion of orthogonality not be merged with weak factorization system? And why is orthogonal factorization system the first example at orthogonality if in fact that imposes unique lifts, while in orthogonality only existence of lifts is required?
I think the entry-situation here deserves to be further harmonized.
Added a section with a collection of references on intersection laws for black D-branes ending on black NS5-branes. Then I spelled out the case of D6-branes in some detail, collecting the relevant diagrams from the reference EGKRS00, and used this to identify the corresponding M-theory lift by the M5-brane near horizon ADE-orbifolds of the 4-sphere.
added pointer to:
a complete stub entry, for the moment just to make the link work (which has long been requested universality class)
I gave the book
a category:reference entry and linked to it from a few relevant entries.
(permutations of) this title used to redirect to closed monoidal category, but its useful to have a direct pointer for the symmetric monoidal closed case, and so I am splitting this off as a little entry
Mike Stay kindly added the standard QM story to path integral.
I changed the section titles a bit and added the reference to the Baer-Pfaeffle article on the QM path integral. Probably the best reference there is on this matter.
I created a short page for chord diagram, and also added a bit of relevant information to Vassiliev invariant.
I have added a reference to Cheng-Gurski-Riehl to two-variable adjunction, and some comments about the cyclic action.
Just a definition (hope I got it right) and a couple properties. I wasn’t sure how to set up the redirects; currently “modest set” redirects here while “PER” redirects to partial equivalence relation, but other suggestions are welcome.
Added a mention of the category of PERs.
following discussion here I am starting an entry with a bare list of references (sub-sectioned), to be !include-ed into the References sections of relevant entries (mainly at homotopy theory and at algebraic topology) for ease of updating and syncing these lists.
The organization of the subsections and their items here needs work, this is just a start. Let’s work on it.
I’ll just check now that I have all items copied, and then I will !include this entry here into homotopy theory and algebraic topology. It may best be viewed withing these entries, because there – but not here – will there be a table of contents showing the subsections here.
added the publication data for these items:
Stephen F. Sawin: Three-dimensional 2-framed TQFTS and surgery, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications 13 7 (2004) 947-996 [pdf, doi:10.1142/S0218216504003536]
Stephen F. Sawin: Invariants of Spin Three-Manifolds From Chern-Simons Theory and Finite-Dimensional Hopf Algebras, Advances in Mathematics 165 1 (2002) 35-70 [arXiv:math/9910106, doi:10.1006/aima.2000.1935]
Added another reference.
I was chatting with Robin Cockett yesterday at SYCO1. In a talk Robin claims to be after
The algebraic/categorical foundations for differential calculus and differential geometry.
It would be good to see how this approach compares with differential cohesive HoTT.
Changes made only to the Universal property of the 2-category of spans section. The citations by Urs lead to another citation which, in turn, leads to another citation. With a little effort, I tracked down the a full copy of said universal property, I’ve replicated it here, added the citation used, although I left the previous citations there for convenience; a more experienced editor can remove those if they would like.
I would like to note that the author whose work I have referenced, Hermida, also notes: “[this universal property] is folklore although we know no references for it.”
Please make any corrections needed and clean up the language here; this is a fairly direct copy of what is written, but I imagine somebody with more knowledge of all the language used here can rewrite this universal property stuff in a cleaner way.
Thanks!
Anonymous