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-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.

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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019
    • (edited Sep 15th 2019)

    for the equivariant+twisted version I added further pointer to

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019
    • (edited Sep 15th 2019)

    I have reservations about that paper of Moutuou.

    In this paper it is pointed out in footnote 1 on page 5 that the concrete examples therein

    …seem to be at odds with the results of [7] if their correspondence between Real continuous trace C *C^*-algebras and Real bundle gerbes is a straightforward generalisation of the complex case.

    where the paper [7] (here) says “Moutuou’s classification of possible twists of KR coincides with ours”, and cite his paper in #1. It is my understanding that the quote above is very carefully phrased.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019
    • (edited Sep 15th 2019)

    Thanks for highlighting. Yes, it has been the comment in [7] that led me to Moutuou.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019
    • (edited Sep 15th 2019)

    I’m not sure, but Richard Szabo or Pedram Hekmati might know. (Edit this was in response to a now-deleted reference request)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019
    • (edited Sep 15th 2019)

    Thanks, yeah, after writing it I saw how they did it.

    I may sure contact the authors, but maybe you know sbout the following already: In the intro they recall the open problems with O-plane charge in KR. Do they then claim to solve these or just to clarify the issues?

    I still need to read in more detail…

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019

    I think the idea was really to make some concrete calculations to clarify the situation about the possible twists of KR-theory, following up on this paper, given the confusion around the existing literature. This earlier paper is more theory-oriented.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019

    Thanks, I have read it now. I see.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019

    Hm, few of these and related articles seem to have been published. (?)

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2019

    As far as the Hekmati et al papers go, the first is to appear in ATMP, the second still under consideration at a journal. Or are you talking about the papers in #1?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2019

    Thanks, I’ll put “to appear in ATMP” then.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)