Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
took the liberty of adding this pointer, at the end:
Interpretation of the hypergeometric construction as happening in twisted equivariant differential K-theory, showing that the K-theory classification of D-brane charge and the K-theory classification of topological phases of matter both reflect braid group representations as expected for defect branes and anyons/topological order, respectively:
added previously missing pointer to this original reference:
I have added the following pointers:
Discussion for the special case of level (cf. at logarithmic CFT – Examples):
Fedor A. Smirnov, Remarks on deformed and undeformed Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations, arXiv:hep-th/9210051
Fedor A. Smirnov, Form factors, deformed Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations and finite-gap integration, Communications in Mathematical Physics 155 (1993) 459–487 doi:10.1007/BF02096723
S. Pakuliak, A. Perelomov, Relation Between Hyperelliptic Integrals, Mod. Phys. Lett. 9 19 (1994) 1791-1798 doi:10.1142/S0217732394001647
In my memory, Varchenko’s book is not only a review, it has quite a few of new results and formulas (but I have to check when I will have time, now in the middle of a heavy exam grading season). Main emphasis in the book is on viewing hypergeometric pairing as relating quantum group (at root of unity) representations and affine Lie algebra representations. Regarding that there are some constructions (from the early days) of quantum groups from monodromies this is quite in accord with other intepretations,
Yes, maybe. Though there is certainly a lot of review in the book, even an attempt to be expository.
To some extent the book seems to be meant as filling in proofs that were left open in previous articles.
Concretely, I was told that the book (i.e. Varchenko 1995) contains the proof of Feigin, Schechtman & Varchenko’s 1994 Remark 3.4.3 (the one on p. 10).
But I haven’t found that proof yet. I have asked about it on MathOverflow (here), and others seem not to have found it either.
But if anyone knows where the proof of that Remark 3.4.3 is spelled out “in print”, I’d be most grateful.
I could ask somebody about it, I know somebody who traced their work when it was fresh.
I’d be interested in hearing what they may have to say!
added pointer to:
added pointer to:
added pointer to:
1 to 11 of 11