Not signed in (Sign In)

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 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 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds 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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2010
    • (edited Jun 7th 2010)

    I’d like to clean up some of the QM entries. In particular, Aleks Kissinger (Bob Coecke’s student) has not been very active since his first week or two and left a lot half-finished under quantum information.

    General question:

    • Since this is the nLab it seems like any “linear flow” in the QM entries ought to proceed through the categorical formulation of QM. Thus it seems like it would make sense to make quantum information more of an application and take a lot of the material there and put it under the main QM entry or the entry on quantum mechanics in terms of dagger-compact categories. In general, what do people think of this? I would really like the QM entries to flow more like the QFT entries and be a little less haphazard (at least they seem that way to me, but that may be just me).

    Specific questions I have:

    • As someone proposed in a query box, can we move the subsection on Hilbert space QM to the main quantum mechanics entry?

    • As per Zoran’s earlier suggestion, should we change “quantum mechanics” to “quantum physics” (or something)?

    • Under the graphical notation, Aleks suggested in a query box that the graphical notation sunsection be moved to the page on string diagrams. I know very little about the latter so I don’t know if this is appropriate. Please advise.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2010

    My suggesion was totally opposite: quantum mechanics is not the same as quantum physics. Quantum physics is a wide subject including also experimental phenomena, quantum statistical mechanics and so on. Quantum mechanics is just the fundamental theoretical framework for quantum mechanical systems.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2010

    Right. I guess that’s what I meant since I thought you originally wanted to change that entry’s name. But if you want to leave it, then that’s fine.

    What about the other stuff I mentioned?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 9th 2010


    Anyone? I don’t want to do something and get yelled at for it but I think those entries could use some work.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2010

    My suggestion:

    Try one idea, announce (here and in a new thread) what you did, gauge reactions.

    If reactions are positive, try some more.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2010

    Yep yep. Agree with Toby. The only thing that bugs me (not saying you do this, but just some info) is to see material REMOVED from the nLab. If someone takes the time to write something on the nLab, someone else should not come along later and remove it (unless it is incorrect, but even then I think the idea could remain visible somehow to help avoid future people making the same mistakes). Instead, there can always be a way to incorporate prior material into new material without deleting content.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2010
    Oh, definitely, I wouldn't remove anything. What I wanted to do was to make it flow better by shuffling things around a bit.

    But I could definitely use help on the strings thing since I don't have a handle on strings yet. In fact I'm not even close.
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2010

    Rule of thumb: if you think you know what you are doing, then do it. And announce it here. If you feel you might be out of your depth, then don’t write an entry, but ask a question.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2010
    Will do. I'm in meetings today (with BP! woohoo!) but will get to it this weekend.
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2010

    with BP

    What, the oil spill company?

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2010
    Indeed. I'm acting as an independent consultant on certain aspects of the cleanup effort (as an aside, there are some interesting applied math problems that cropped up in what I've been doing). I have all sorts of stories about BP but I suspect this is not the place for them.