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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite 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 limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology natural 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 string string-theory subobject 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).
    • at principle of equivalence I have restructured the Examples-section: added new subsections in “In physics” on gauge transformations and on general covariance (just pointers so far, no text), and then I moved the section that used to be called “In quantum mechanics” to “Examples-In category theory” and renamed it to “In the definition of \dagger-categories” (for that is really what these paragraphs discuss, not any notion of equivalence in quantum mechanics, the application of \dagger-categories in that context notwithstanding)

    • Deleted a space from the name for consistency.

      diff, v4, current

    • Deleted a space from the name for consistency.

      diff, v5, current

    • Corrected error in examples of nilpotent completions (claims only apply to connective spectra). Also, the parser complained about “Invalid LaTeX block: X^{\hat}_p” (which is a piece of TeX that was already present in the article, I didn’t add it), so I changed that too.

      diff, v9, current

    • added to equalizer statement and proof that a category has equalizers if it has pullbcks and products

    • I have added to coequalizer basic statements about its relation to pushouts.

      In the course of this I brought the whole entry into better shape.

    • added to polynomial monad the article by Batanin-Berger on homotopy theory of algebras over polynomial monads.

    • Following discussion in some other threads, I thought one should make it explicit and so I created an entry

      Currently this contains some (hopefully) evident remarks of what “dependent linear type theory” reasonably should be at least, namely a hyperdoctrine with values in linear type theories.

      The entry keeps saying “should”. I’d ask readers to please either point to previous proposals for what “linear dependent type theory” is/should be, or criticise or else further expand/refine what hopefully are the obvious definitions.

      This is hopefully uncontroversial and should be regarded an obvious triviality. But it seems it might be one of those hidden trivialities which deserve to be highlighted a bit more. I am getting the impression that there is a big story hiding here.

      Thanks for whatever input you might have.

    • started to add to internalization a list of links to examples. Probably we have much more.

    • I found the definition of a scheme to be slightly unclear/insufficiently precise at one point, so I have tweaked things slightly, and added more details. Indeed, it is quite common to find a formulation similar to ’every point has an open neighbourhood isomorphic to an affine scheme’, whereas I think it important to be clear that one does not have the freedom to choose the sheaf of rings on the local neighbourhood, it must be the restriction of the structure sheaf on XX.

      diff, v30, current

    • I added the description of lax (co)limits of Cat-valued functors via (co)ends and ordinary (co)limits. I should probably flesh this out more.

      I’ve adopted the convention on twisted arrows at twisted arrow category, which is opposite of that in GNN.

      In the case of ordinary 2-category, when the diagram category is a 1-category, is the expression of lax (co)limits via ordinary weighted (co)limits really as simple as taking the weights C /C_{\bullet/} or C /C_{/\bullet}? I can’t find a reference that spells that out clearly; if there really is such a simple description it should be put on the lax (co)limit page.

      diff, v2, current

    • I’m having trouble understanding the relationship between what is described in the page generalized algebraic theory and what is in the referenced article by Cartmell.

      For example, the nLab page seems to contemplate three levels of symbols—“supersort”, “sort”, and “operation”—while if I understand correctly, Cartmell’s GATs only have symbols at two levels, for sorts and operations. Also, I would only expect a GAT’s sort symbols to be applied to terms, not types as the nLab page seems to contemplate. (The nLab page speaks of “derived operations in the theory of sorts” rather than types, but I believe the same concept is intended.) My intuition is that the world of GATs in Cartmell’s sense more or less corresponds to a certain sublanguage of LF (rather than F ωF_\omega), so there shouldn’t be anything like a symbol that is applied to arguments that are types and yields a type.

    • started some minimum at exceptional field theory (the formulation of 11d supergravity that makes the exceptional U-duality symmetry manifest)

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • for each pair x,yD 0x,y \in D_0 an object D(x,y)CD(x,y) \in C and not D(x,y)C 0D(x,y) \in C_0 as C 0C_0 is not defined


      diff, v7, current

    • I dropped a query box over at Hurewicz fibration about a small difference of definition between the Lab and May's Concise Topology (in May, one only needs to have the RLP with respect to inclusions of CGWH spaces (into their cylinder objects at 0), while on the Lab, it says it must hold for all topological spaces.

      By the way, I like that page a lot, since it doesn't have an excessively long idea section (actually, there isn't any idea section, but I like that). It's written so it's easy to find the definition without wading through all of the clutter.

      I was wondering if it would be possible to swap the idea section and definition section around in a few articles and see if it makes them more readable. There's nothing more irritating than skipping the idea section only to find that the definition references the concepts introduced there. A definition should be readable entirely without having to read the idea section.

    • Created opetopic type theory with a bit of explanation based on what I understood based on what Eric Finster explained and demonstrated to me today.

      This is the most remarkable thing.

      I have added pointers to his talk slides and to his online opetopic type system, but I am afraid unguided exposition to either does not reveal at all the utmost profoundness of what Eric made me see when he explained and demonstrated OTT to me on his notebook. I hope he finds time and a way to communicate this insight.

    • Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

      v1, current

    • Added the original reference by Tyutin (the T in BRST).

      diff, v4, current

    • Gave this entry a little Idea-section and added mentioning that only numerable topological fiber bundles are guaranteed to be Serre fibrations.

      Also I changed plain “bundle” to “fiber bundle” everywhere, including the title

      diff, v2, current

    • tried to polish a bit the matrial at Chern-Weil theory.

      (not that there is much, yet, but still)

    • have expanded the single sentence at differential geometry to something like a paragraph, indicating how differential geometry is the “higher geometry modeled on the pre-geometry 𝒢=CartSp\mathcal{G} = CartSp

    • Added direct descriptions of the various universal fibrations.

      diff, v12, current

    • added hyperlinks to some more of the keywords (such as Giraud theorem).

      I see lots of room to clean up this old entry, but will leave it at that for the moment.

      diff, v27, current

    • Added a bit more detail about the Doplicher-Roberts theorem.

      diff, v7, current

    • added more complete publication data nd added DOI-s for Volumes 1 and 2. Couldn’t find DOI for vol 3 yet (?)

      diff, v12, current

    • I have added to M5-brane a fairly detailed discussion of the issue with the fractional quadratic form on differential cohomology for the dual 7d-Chern-Simons theory action (from Witten (1996) with help of Hopkins-Singer (2005)).

      In the new section Conformal blocks and 7d Chern-Simons dual.

    • I have been further working on the entry higher category theory and physics. There is still a huge gap between the current state of the entry and the situation that I am hoping to eventually reach, but at least now I have a version that I no longer feel ashamed of.

      Here is what i did:

      • Partitioned the entry in two pieces: 1. “Survey”, and 2. “More details”.

        • The survey bit is supposed to give a quick idea of what the set of the scene of fundamental physics is. It starts with a kind of creation story of physics from \infty-topos theory, which – I think – serves to provide a solid route from just the general abstract concept of space and process to the existence and nature of all σ\sigma-model quantum field theories of “\infty-Chern-Simons theory”-type (which includes quite a few) and moreover – by invoking the “holographic principle of higher category theory” – all their boundary theories, which includes all classical phase space physics.

          The Survey-bit continues with indicating the formalization of the result of quantizing all these to full extended quantum field theories. It ends with a section meant to indicate what is and what is not yet known about the quantization step itself. This is currently the largest gap in the mathematical (and necessarily higher categorical) formalization of physics: we have a fairly good idea of the mathematics that describes geometric background structure for physics and a fairly good idea of the axioms satisfied by the quantum theories obtained from these, but the step which takes the former to the latter is not yet well understood.

        • The “More details”-bit is stubby. I mainly added one fairly long subsection on the topic of “Gauge theory”, where I roughly follow the historical route that eventually led to the understanding that gauge fields are modeled by cocycles in higher (nonabelian) differential cohomology.

      • Apart from this I added more references and some cross-links.

      I know that the entry is still very imperfect. If you feel like pointing out all the stuff that is still missing, consider adding at least some keywords directly into the entry.

    • created at internal logic an Examples-subsection and spelled out at Internal logic in Set how by turning the abstract-nonsense crank on the topos Set, one does reproduce the standard logic.