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.
   • CommentAuthorcfgauss
   • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2010
   • (edited Aug 2nd 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: cfgauss
   Format: MarkdownItexI'm a physics grad student and I've been looking through Daniel Freed's lectures in QFT and strings: a course for mathematicians, and had some notation questions. Trying to google to find help seems to only lead me to an n-lab page (http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/curvature+characteristic+form), and Daniel Freeds web page and papers, which didn't really help me, so I thought this would be a good place to ask! In his lectures on classical field theories, he gives the example of a lagrangian of classical mechanics, and writes the symplectic 2-form we get out of the action as $\omega = \delta \gamma = \langle \delta x' \wedge \delta x \rangle$ where $\gamma = \langlex' , \delta x \rangle$ and $\langle .,. \rangle$ is the inner product. But I do not understand what the notation $\langle A \wedge A \rangle$ could mean? If I vary gamma I would think I should get: $\langle \delta x', \delta x \rangle + \langle x', \delta^2 x \rangle = \langle \delta x', \delta x \rangle$ which looks almost like the \omega above except for a wedge instead of a comma! But this notation is used again later several times, e.g., in defining the chern-simons action as $S = \int \langle A \wedge F \rangle - \frac{1}{6} \langle A \wedge [A \wedge A] \rangle$ when the usual form looks similar but with a $+\frac{2}{3}$ and a trace instead of the brackets. It also seems that $1/2 [A\wedge A] = [A,A]$? Where does this come from? I don't see any explanation of either of these notations and don't recall seeing it in any of my differential geometry books. The link above claims <.> is used for the "curvature characteristic form" but that's not something I've ever heard of, and it doesn't seem to really define it... So does anyone know of any texts / resources where this is defined? Or is there a simple definition in terms of the inner product as the notation would indicate?

   I’m a physics grad student and I’ve been looking through Daniel Freed’s lectures in QFT and strings: a course for mathematicians, and had some notation questions. Trying to google to find help seems to only lead me to an n-lab page (http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/curvature+characteristic+form), and Daniel Freeds web page and papers, which didn’t really help me, so I thought this would be a good place to ask!

   In his lectures on classical field theories, he gives the example of a lagrangian of classical mechanics, and writes the symplectic 2-form we get out of the action as where and is the inner product.

   But I do not understand what the notation could mean? If I vary gamma I would think I should get: which looks almost like the \omega above except for a wedge instead of a comma!

   But this notation is used again later several times, e.g., in defining the chern-simons action as when the usual form looks similar but with a and a trace instead of the brackets. It also seems that ? Where does this come from?

   I don’t see any explanation of either of these notations and don’t recall seeing it in any of my differential geometry books.

   The link above claims <.> is used for the “curvature characteristic form” but that’s not something I’ve ever heard of, and it doesn’t seem to really define it… So does anyone know of any texts / resources where this is defined? Or is there a simple definition in terms of the inner product as the notation would indicate?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeAug 2nd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItexHi cfgauss, I don't have an immediate answer to your question, just a note about formatting. If you edit your comment, throw some dollar signs around your tex commands and click "Markdown+Itex", it should render as math. Gotta run for now!

   Hi cfgauss,

   I don’t have an immediate answer to your question, just a note about formatting.

   If you edit your comment, throw some dollar signs around your tex commands and click “Markdown+Itex”, it should render as math.

   Gotta run for now!