Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor 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 limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object 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 stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI slightly expanded [[unitary morphism]]. In particular I added the example of [[unitary operator]]s. Then at [[unitary operator]] I in turn added the definition in terms of unitary morphisms. I also changed the former link to [[adjoint]] to a link to [[Hilbert space adjoint]] (since the former points to the categorical notion of adjoint). Also I changed the sentence saying that the unitary operators are the automorphisms in $Hilb$ to one saying that they are the isomorphisms.

   I slightly expanded unitary morphism. In particular I added the example of unitary operators.

   Then at unitary operator I in turn added the definition in terms of unitary morphisms. I also changed the former link to adjoint to a link to Hilbert space adjoint (since the former points to the categorical notion of adjoint). Also I changed the sentence saying that the unitary operators are the automorphisms in $Hilb$ to one saying that they are the isomorphisms.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexalso added to [[dagger-category]] in the section where the definition of unitary morphism had already been given, a link to the new dedicated entry [[unitary morphism]].

   also added to dagger-category in the section where the definition of unitary morphism had already been given, a link to the new dedicated entry unitary morphism.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Also I changed the sentence saying that the unitary operators are the automorphisms in Hilb to one saying that they are the isomorphisms. But do we want to actually say that? Do we really generally take Hilb to have only isometries as morphisms? Isn't rather the dagger-structure there to take care of that?

   Also I changed the sentence saying that the unitary operators are the automorphisms in Hilb to one saying that they are the isomorphisms.

   But do we want to actually say that? Do we really generally take Hilb to have only isometries as morphisms? Isn’t rather the dagger-structure there to take care of that?