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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 6th 2010
   • (edited Sep 6th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexthere is a bunch of things on my to-do list concerning write-up of stuff on the nLab in the big context of my "diff cohomology in an (oo,1)-topos"-writeup. I am lagging behind. I could use some more help! Of course you all are busy with your own stuff. But maybe there is a tiny chance somebody reads this here, maybe somebody who has been lurking all along, somebody who would enjoy helping out. I could say: I offer 60 reputation points! More seriously, this might be a chance to dip your feet into the water and join in to some interesting research. Here is the deal: I have a LaTeX writeup of a fairly long proof that establishes the weak equivalence of 3 different strict 2-group models of the [[string 2-group]]. It appears as the proof of <a href="http://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/home/schreiber/nactwist.pdf#page=94">prop. 5.25 on p. 94 of these notes here</a>. The trouble (for me) is that this proof involves some diagrams that would require code-cogs for implementation on the nLab. I want these diagrams on the nLab! I have the LaTeX source code, of course, so it's not much work to make this run on the nLab! But a bit of work. A tad more work than I find leisure for right now. Let me know if you are interested and I'll send you the LaTeX source! Best, Urs

   there is a bunch of things on my to-do list concerning write-up of stuff on the nLab in the big context of my “diff cohomology in an (oo,1)-topos”-writeup. I am lagging behind. I could use some more help!

   Of course you all are busy with your own stuff. But maybe there is a tiny chance somebody reads this here, maybe somebody who has been lurking all along, somebody who would enjoy helping out. I could say: I offer 60 reputation points! More seriously, this might be a chance to dip your feet into the water and join in to some interesting research. Here is the deal:

   I have a LaTeX writeup of a fairly long proof that establishes the weak equivalence of 3 different strict 2-group models of the string 2-group. It appears as the proof of prop. 5.25 on p. 94 of these notes here. The trouble (for me) is that this proof involves some diagrams that would require code-cogs for implementation on the nLab. I want these diagrams on the nLab!

   I have the LaTeX source code, of course, so it’s not much work to make this run on the nLab! But a bit of work. A tad more work than I find leisure for right now.

   Let me know if you are interested and I’ll send you the LaTeX source!

   Best, Urs

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeSep 6th 2010
   • (edited Sep 6th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItexA cheesy way to get figures on the nLab I've used before (e.g. [[cosmic cube]]) is to just capture a jpeg from a pdf. If you sent me a pdf, I could upload a figure or two to the nLab. Edit: Strike the "send me". I see the link now.

   A cheesy way to get figures on the nLab I’ve used before (e.g. cosmic cube) is to just capture a jpeg from a pdf. If you sent me a pdf, I could upload a figure or two to the nLab.

   Edit: Strike the “send me”. I see the link now.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeSep 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItex![Alt text](http://ncatlab.org/ericforgy/files/prop5.25.jpg) Also at [[ericforgy:Sandbox]]

   

   Also at Sandbox (ericforgy)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, I see. By the way, these rectangular diagrams can be done by arrays's fairly well. What i am after are those globular diagrams that appear in the proof of that proposition 5.25!

   Okay, I see. By the way, these rectangular diagrams can be done by arrays’s fairly well. What i am after are those globular diagrams that appear in the proof of that proposition 5.25!