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.
created fivebrane 6-group with the idea
By dimensional reasons it’s natural to speculate that killing the next non-torsion homotopy group gives “ninebrane structure” (Sati: arXiv:1405.7686). But there remains little known for sure on the physics side about the would-be nine-brane that one can compare the resulting structure to.
To some extent this problem was already the case for the fivebrane structures. Just to note in this case that – under “Hypothesis H” – we gave a rigorous proof that fivebrane structure cancels an M5-brane anomaly: see Ex. 3.2 and Rem. 4.3 in “Twisted Cohomotopy implies M5 WZ term level quantization”.
Since this discussion ultimately rests all on the quaternionic Hopf fibration , it is natural to speculate that a variant based instead on the octonionic Hopf fibration would give an analogous rigorous statement about 9-brane structure. But this would remain to be worked out.
Is the title of fivebrane 6-group supposed to be small, when that of Fivebrane group is not?
Edit: I just looked at the pages for ninebrane 10-group and ninebrane group, where both titles are small.
Edit: string 2-group and string group are also both small.
never made up my mind on this. The issue starts with “spin group”.
Let’s agree on a convention and then try to harmonize the entry titles.
1 to 5 of 5