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 bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions 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-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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-theory subobject 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 topicdefinite description
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by David_Corfield
- Comments 3
- Last comment by David_Corfield
- Last Active Sep 23rd 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicsuperconformal symmetry -- table
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 6
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 23rd 2019

this table used to be hidden at

*supersymmetry*, but it really ought to cross-link its entries. Therefore here its stand-alone version, for !inclusion

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicD=5 supergravity
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 23rd 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicorbifold
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 31
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 22nd 2019

I am moving the following old query box exchange from orbifold to here.

old query box discussion:

I am confused by this page. It starts out by boldly declaring that “An orbifold is a differentiable stack which may be presented by a proper étale Lie groupoid” but then it goes on to talk about the “traditional” definition. The traditional definition definitely

**does not**view orbifolds as stacks. Neither does Moerdijk’s paper referenced below — there orbifolds form a 1-category.Personally I am not completely convinced that orbifolds are differentiable stacks. Would it not be better to start out by saying that there is no consensus on what orbifolds “really are” and lay out three points of view: traditional, Moerdijk’s “orbifolds as groupoids” (called “modern” by Adem and Ruan in their book) and orbifolds as stacks?

Urs Schreiber: please, go ahead. It would be appreciated.

end of old query box discussion

- Discussion Type
- discussion topictwistor space
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Guest
- Last Active Sep 22nd 2019

started something at

*twistor space*

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicgroupoid
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 8
- Last comment by Richard Williamson
- Last Active Sep 20th 2019

added to groupoid a section on the description in terms of 2-coskeletal Kan complexes.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicDirac distribution
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by nLab edit announcer
- Comments 1
- Last comment by nLab edit announcer
- Last Active Sep 20th 2019

Added redirect for missing link at Banach algebra section “2. Examples”.

Anonymous

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicquaternion group
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 13
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 20th 2019

added the statement (here) that of all finite subgroups of $SU(2)$, $Q_8$ is a proper subgroup of the three exceptional ones.

Checking normality of this subgroup, I noticed that there is an issue with another item of the entry here, where it used to claim that a finite group is Hamiltonian precisely of it “contains a copy of $Q_8$”. But this can’t be, can it. I changed it to saying that every Hamiltonian group contains $Q_8$ as a subgroup, which I suppose is what was meant.

[edit: I see now that the statement that I changed back to was made already by Thomas Holder in rev 3, while the statement I removed was made by Thomas in rev 4. Thomas, if you see this, please let me know. ]

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicform factor
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 20th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicfibration
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 6
- Last comment by David_Corfield
- Last Active Sep 20th 2019

I have edited fibration

promted by an email question I have added more information on when the pullback of a fibration is a homotopy pullback;

in the discussion of “transport” in topological spaces I added a pointer to Flat ∞-parallel transport in Top which gives details;

I fixed a mistake where quasifibration was mentioned and pointed to, but, fibration in the Joyal model structure was meant (despite the previous warning of exactly this trap…)

I added a subsection “Related concepts”

I added loads and loads of hyperlinks to the keywords.

FInally, I noticed that the following old discussion was sitting there, which hereby I move fromthere to here

begin forwarded discussion

+–{.query} Tim: I do not quite agree with ’transport’ as being the main point of fibrations. Rather ’lifting’ is the main point, in particular lifting of homotopies, at least in topological situations. For transport, one needs connections of some sort to get things working well, but in many cases there is only a very weak notion of action, so perhaps that should be derived as a property rather than taken as a ’defining property’ in some sense.

Perhaps a reference to Stasheff and Wirth

James Wirth & Jim Stasheff

*Homotopy Transition Cocycles*math.AT/0609220.

and the discussion

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/09/wirth_and_stasheff_on_homotopy.html

on the cafe would be a good idea to add.

*Urs:*In situations where one wants to talk of transport, the fibration usually arises as the pullback of some “universal fibration”, a generalized universal bundle. For instance (split op-)fibrations of categories are precisely the pullbacks of the universal $Cat$-bundle $Cat_* \to Cat$ along a functor $F : C \to Cat$.If one looks at this kind of situation where we do have an established notion of

*(parallel) transport*one sees:- it is the classifying functor $F : C \to Cat$ which should be addressed as the “(parallel) transport”, while the corresponding fibration is its “action object” as in action groupoid, i.e. the thing whose objects are all possible things that the parallel transport can transport and whose morphisms take these things to the image of that transport. So it’s a subtle difference, but an important one.

For instance, to make this more concrete, consider the category of smooth groupoids (which is a category of fibrant objects), let for any manifold $X$ the groupoid $P_1(X)$ be the groupoid of smooth thin-homotopy classes of paths in $X$, let $G$ be any Lie group, $\mathbf{B} G$ the corresponding one-object Lie groupoid and consider the _universal fibration _ $\mathbf{E} G \to \mathbf{B}G$ – the groupoid incarnation of the universal $G$-bundle as described at generalized universal bundle. Then

Theorem: $G$-bundles with connection on $X$ are equivalent to functors $tra : \widehat{P_1(X)} \to \mathbf{B}G$ out of acyclic fibrations $\widehat{P_1(X)} \to P_1(X)$ over $P_1(X)$ (i.e. smooth anafunctors $P_1(X) \to \mathbf{B}G$). These functors are literally the corresponding “parallel transport”: indeed, evaluated on a path $\gamma$ in $X$ there is locally a 1-form $A \in \Omega^1(X, Lie(G))$ such that the group element $tra(\gamma)$ is the traditional parallel transport of that 1-form, $tra(\gamma) = P exp(\int_\gamma A)$.

Now, we can form the fibration which is associated with this parallel transport, namely the pullback

$\array{ tra^* \mathbf{E} G &\to& \mathbf{E}G \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ \widehat{P_2(X)} &\stackrel{tra}{\to}& \mathbf{B}G \\ \downarrow \\ P_2(X) } \,.$This fibration $tra^* \mathbf{E}G \to \widehat{P_2(X)}$ is what is properly speaking the action groupoid of $tra$ acting on the fibers of the principal $G$-bundle.

*Mike*: Can you clarify the distinction between “lifting” and “transport”? In what way does the lifting of a path $f$ starting at a point $e$*not*transport $e$ along $f$? Certainly in geometric situations to get a*parallel*notion of transport, you need a connection, but I see that as a stronger requirement.

forwarded discussion continued in next entry

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicPoisson-Lie T-duality
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 15
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 20th 2019

started a bare minimum at

*Poisson-Lie T-duality*, for the moment just so as to have a place to record the two original references

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccoalgebra for an endofunctor
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 10
- Last comment by DavidRoberts
- Last Active Sep 19th 2019

added to coalgebra for an endofunctor the example of the real line as the terminal coalgebra for some endofunctor on Posets.

There are more such characterizations of the real line, and similar. I can't dig them out right now as I am on a shky connection. But maybe somebody else can. Or I'll do it later.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicpermutation representation
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by zskoda
- Comments 100
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 19th 2019

Unfortunately, I need to discuss with you another terminological problem. I am lightly doing a circle of entries related to combinatorial aspects of representation theory. I stumbled accross permutation representation entry. It says that the permutation representation is the representation in category $Set$. Well, nice but not that standard among representation theorists themselves. Over there one takes such a thing – representation by permutations of a

*finite*group $G$ on a set $X$, and looks what happens in the vector space of functions into a field $K$. As we know, for a group element $g$ the definition is, $(g f)(x) = f(g^{-1} x)$, for $f: X\to K$ is the way to induce a representation on the function space $K^X$. The latter representation is called the**permutation representation**in the standard representation theory books like in- Claudio Procesi,
*Lie groups, an approach through invariants and representations*, Universitext, Springer 2006, gBooks

I know what to do approximately, we should probably keep both notions in the entry (and be careful when refering to this page – do we mean representation by permutations, what is current content or permutation representation in the rep. theory on vector spaces sense). But maybe people (Todd?) have some experience with this terminology.

Edit: new (related) entries for Claudio Procesi and Arun Ram.

- Claudio Procesi,

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicbidirectional typechecking
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Mike Shulman
- Comments 45
- Last comment by atmacen
- Last Active Sep 17th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicstructure formation
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 8
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 17th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicWolfgang Lueck
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Tim_Porter
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Tim_Porter
- Last Active Sep 17th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicPavel Aleksandrov
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by Dmitri Pavlov
- Last Active Sep 16th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicduality in string theory -- contents
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 7
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 16th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicJán Pulmann
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 16th 2019

brief

`category:people`

-entry for hyperlinking references at*non-abelian T-duality*and elsewhere

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicFridrich Valach
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 16th 2019

brief

`category:people`

-entry for hyperlinking references at*non-abelian T-duality*and elsewhere

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicKR cohomology theory
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 10
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 16th 2019

for the equivariant+twisted version I added further pointer to

El-kaïoum M. Moutuou,

*Graded Brauer groups of a groupoid with involution*, J. Funct. Anal. 266 (2014), no.5 (arXiv:1202.2057)Daniel Freed, Gregory Moore, Section 7 of:

*Twisted equivariant matter*, Ann. Henri Poincaré (2013) 14: 1927 (arXiv:1208.5055)Kiyonori Gomi,

*Freed-Moore K-theory*(arXiv:1705.09134, spire:1601772)

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicEckmann-Hilton argument
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 67
- Last comment by DavidRoberts
- Last Active Sep 15th 2019

added to Eckmann-Hilton argument the formal proposition formulated in any 2-category.

BTW, doesn’t anyone have a gif with the nice picture proof?

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicirreducible element
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by TobyBartels
- Comments 4
- Last comment by RodMcGuire
- Last Active Sep 15th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicEl-kaïoum M. Moutuou
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 15th 2019

brief

`category:people`

-entry for hyperlinking references on twisted equivariant KR-theory of orbi- orientifolds

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicconvex space
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 2
- Last comment by nLab edit announcer
- Last Active Sep 14th 2019

Added cross-link with

*convex function*.Also hyperlinked various keywords as well as some author names in the list of references.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicMO5
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 3
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 14th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicEric Gimon
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 14th 2019

brief

`category:people`

-entry for hyperlinking references at*orientifold*,*O-plane*,*RR-field tadpole cancellation*and*MO5*

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicdifferentiable manifold
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 7
- Last comment by James Francese
- Last Active Sep 13th 2019

I have re-written the content at

*differentiable manifold*, trying to make it look a little nicer. Also gave*topological manifold*some minimum of content.

- Discussion Type
- discussion topicMetamath
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by nLab edit announcer
- Comments 4
- Last comment by Guest
- Last Active Sep 13th 2019

- Discussion Type
- discussion topiccomplex projective plane
- Category Latest Changes
- Started by Urs
- Comments 1
- Last comment by Urs
- Last Active Sep 13th 2019