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

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• Created page, to fill a hole in the table.

• Created page, to fill a hole in the table.

• New page to fill out an entry in the table.

• Created table, to help group and interlink all these pages.

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

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

• a stub, as requested here

• have added a tad more content to Stein manifold and cross-linked a bit more

• It should be clarified that type checking is decidable, not e.g Type inhabitation or some other property.

Anonymous

• Add a note about “Daniel’s answer” to the semantics-structure question. The discussion on this page should really be merged into the main text and archived at the forum.

• Adding model structure from cubical type theory.

• To fulfil a link. Can’t seem to find a institutional website for him.

• Created page to record the definition.

• added references to Lean

• Created page, more content to be added.

• Added the contents of the canonical isomorphism induced by some non-canonical isomorphism as coming from Lack’s proof.

• I wanted to be able to use the link without it appearing in grey, so I created a stub for general relativity.

• A stub with a few references.

• I rewrote the few sentences at tangent (infinity,1)-category in an attempt to make it run more smoothly.

In any case, there is not much there yet...

• Falk Hassler added to the list of persons

Anonymous

• 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

• brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking a historical reference at gauge theory

(I made “Jean Iliopoulos” a redirect, I hope I got it right that both names are used by the same person)

• stub for flop transition (I mean the flop transition in terms of SCFTs. Maybe I should find a more specific title for that)

• Where the page has

The index theorem is supposed to have an interpretation in terms of the quantum field theory of the superparticle on the given space,

is the “is supposed to” necessary? Why not “has an interpretation”? Is it just the general issue of any translation from mathematics to physics?

• changed “an English mathematician of Egyptian origin” to “a British-Lebanese mathematician”.

In checking his “origin” on Wikipedia…

…I see that Wikipedia says that Sir Michael Atiyah has died. Today.

(!?)

• I fixed a link to a pdf file that was giving a general page, and not the file!