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 nforum 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorKevin Lin
   • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Kevin Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded stub for [[Kontsevich formality]]. Also added some comments to the [[HKR]] page.

   Added stub for Kontsevich formality.

   Also added some comments to the HKR page.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks!! I added some links to [[Kontsevich formality]].

   Thanks!! I added some links to Kontsevich formality.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 8th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI have opened a new stub [[formality]] and removed the (improper) redirect formality at the more specialized entry [[Kontsevich formality]]. More references at [[Kontsevich formality]].

   I have opened a new stub formality and removed the (improper) redirect formality at the more specialized entry Kontsevich formality. More references at Kontsevich formality.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 8th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexMore material both at [[formality]] and at [[Kontsevich formality]].

   More material both at formality and at Kontsevich formality.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexat _[[Kontsevich formality]]_ it used to say that "therefore every Poisson manifold has a canonical formal deformation quantization". This is not really true, the quantization is canonical only up to an action of the [[Grothendieck-Teichmüller group]]. I have now added a super-brief remark on this, and then added a super-brief remark on formality of the $E_n$-operad in char 0 for all $n$, which makes an analogous statement for the deformation quantization of higher dimensional quantum field theories. I don't have time right now to do this justice at all. What is in the entry now is really just a reminder note for myself to come back to later. Of course if it inspires anyone to add more discussion, I won't complain.

   at Kontsevich formality it used to say that “therefore every Poisson manifold has a canonical formal deformation quantization”.

   This is not really true, the quantization is canonical only up to an action of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group.

   I have now added a super-brief remark on this, and then added a super-brief remark on formality of the $E_n$-operad in char 0 for all $n$, which makes an analogous statement for the deformation quantization of higher dimensional quantum field theories.

   I don’t have time right now to do this justice at all. What is in the entry now is really just a reminder note for myself to come back to later. Of course if it inspires anyone to add more discussion, I won’t complain.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAlso a corresponding lightning-brief remark at [Poisson n-algebra -- Relation to En algebra](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Poisson+n-algebra#RelationToEnAlgebras)

   Also a corresponding lightning-brief remark at Poisson n-algebra – Relation to En algebra

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
   • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: jim_stasheff
   Format: TextIt would be better if this were named Kontsevich formality theorem the notion of formality is not modified by maxim

   It would be better if this were named
   Kontsevich formality theorem
   
   the notion of formality is not modified by maxim