Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Site Tag Cloud

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: variational calculus on diffeological spaces

Bottom of Page

1 to 13 of 13

- CommentRowNumber1.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeFeb 27th 2011
- (edited Feb 27th 2011)
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexI have added to [[variational calculus]] a definition of critical loci of functionals, hence a definition of Euler-Lagrange equations, in terms of diffeological spaces. It's a very natural definition which is _almost_ explicit in Patrick Iglesias-Zemmour's book, only that he cannot make it fully explicit since the natural formulation involves the sheaf of forms $\Omega^1_{cl}(-)$ which is not concrete and hence not considered in that book. I was hoping I would find in his book the proof that the critical locus of a function on a diffeological space defined this was coincides with the "EL-locus" -- it certainly contains it, but maybe there is some discussion necessary to show that it is not any larger -- but on second reading it seems to me that the book also only observes the inclusion.

I have added to variational calculus a definition of critical loci of functionals, hence a definition of Euler-Lagrange equations, in terms of diffeological spaces. It’s a very natural definition which is almost explicit in Patrick Iglesias-Zemmour’s book, only that he cannot make it fully explicit since the natural formulation involves the sheaf of forms $\Omega^1_{cl}(-)$ which is not concrete and hence not considered in that book.

I was hoping I would find in his book the proof that the critical locus of a function on a diffeological space defined this was coincides with the “EL-locus” – it certainly contains it, but maybe there is some discussion necessary to show that it is not any larger – but on second reading it seems to me that the book also only observes the inclusion.
- CommentRowNumber2.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeFeb 27th 2011
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexah, exactly this point of view is made pretty much explicit in <a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1010/1010.3210v2.pdf#page=14">section 2.4</a> of the recent * Frédéric Paugam, _Histories and observables in covariant field theory_ from last december. Interesting, I hadn't seen this article before. It's a big advertizement for the use of sheaves in general and diffeological spaces in particular for applications in physics.
ah, exactly this point of view is made pretty much explicit in section 2.4 of the recent
- Frédéric Paugam, Histories and observables in covariant field theory
from last december. Interesting, I hadn’t seen this article before. It’s a big advertizement for the use of sheaves in general and diffeological spaces in particular for applications in physics.
- CommentRowNumber3.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeFeb 27th 2011
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexapparently Paugam's article draws from his book/lecture notes <a href="http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~fpaugam/documents/enseignement/master-mathematical-physics.pdf">Towards the mathematics of quantum field theory</a>. Enjoyably ambitious.

apparently Paugam’s article draws from his book/lecture notes Towards the mathematics of quantum field theory.

Enjoyably ambitious.
- CommentRowNumber4.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexwait, that pullback defintion that I gave is not quite right. It produces too many low-dimensional plots. I need to think.

wait, that pullback defintion that I gave is not quite right. It produces too many low-dimensional plots. I need to think.
- CommentRowNumber5.
- CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- PermaLink
Author: David_Corfield
Format: MarkdownItex>Enjoyably ambitious. Is there anything in Paugam's work you find unexpected?

Enjoyably ambitious.

Is there anything in Paugam’s work you find unexpected?
- CommentRowNumber6.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItex> Is there anything in Paugam's work you find unexpected? I haven't seen anything unexpected yet, but I think he does a good job at trying to bring together modern developments into a coherent story on mathematical physics. For instance his description of variational calculus in the Beilinson-Drinfeld language of D-modules is laudable, I think.

Is there anything in Paugam’s work you find unexpected?

I haven’t seen anything unexpected yet, but I think he does a good job at trying to bring together modern developments into a coherent story on mathematical physics. For instance his description of variational calculus in the Beilinson-Drinfeld language of D-modules is laudable, I think.
- CommentRowNumber7.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexI wrote: > wait, that pullback defintion that I gave is not quite right. It produces too many low-dimensional plots. I need to think. Sorry, one has to do this in the synthetic differential topos. Let $\mathbb{R}^*$ be the object whose plots on $U \times D$ for $D$ an infinitesmal thickening are the $U$-plots of $\mathbb{R}$. Then the pullback in question is that of $S$ along $\mathbb{R}^* \to \mathbb{R}$: its plots are those $U \times D \to C$ such that the postcomposition $U \times D \to C \stackrel{S}{\to} \mathbb{R}$ factors through the projection $U \times D \to U$ (is constant in the infinitesimal directions). I'll write this out properly now.

I wrote:

wait, that pullback defintion that I gave is not quite right. It produces too many low-dimensional plots. I need to think.

Sorry, one has to do this in the synthetic differential topos.

Let $\mathbb{R}^*$ be the object whose plots on $U \times D$ for $D$ an infinitesmal thickening are the $U$ -plots of $\mathbb{R}$ . Then the pullback in question is that of $S$ along $\mathbb{R}^* \to \mathbb{R}$ :

its plots are those $U \times D \to C$ such that the postcomposition $U \times D \to C \stackrel{S}{\to} \mathbb{R}$ factors through the projection $U \times D \to U$ (is constant in the infinitesimal directions).

I’ll write this out properly now.
- CommentRowNumber8.
- CommentAuthorzskoda
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- (edited Mar 3rd 2011)
- PermaLink
Author: zskoda
Format: MarkdownItex> For instance his description of variational calculus in the Beilinson-Drinfeld language of D-modules is laudable, I think. Tamarkin was showing some bits of this in 2004, but, as I said my notes are very incomplete (at the moment I do not know where they are but most of those written down are preserved somewhere). We asked him why he did not write this into intro of his abandoned article on renormalization and he responded that Drinfeld-Beilinson do the job better. But the wisdom is too much hidden in the latter which is very dense. Paugam's notes are very useful exposition.

For instance his description of variational calculus in the Beilinson-Drinfeld language of D-modules is laudable, I think.

Tamarkin was showing some bits of this in 2004, but, as I said my notes are very incomplete (at the moment I do not know where they are but most of those written down are preserved somewhere). We asked him why he did not write this into intro of his abandoned article on renormalization and he responded that Drinfeld-Beilinson do the job better. But the wisdom is too much hidden in the latter which is very dense. Paugam’s notes are very useful exposition.
- CommentRowNumber9.
- CommentAuthorzskoda
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- (edited Mar 3rd 2011)
- PermaLink
Author: zskoda
Format: MarkdownItexPaugam also tries to connect to the language of Vinogradov's "[[diffiety]] school" (which was entirely very much motivated by variational calculus and conservation laws). This is more or less the nonlinear analogue of [[D-module]]s, namely D-schemes (roughly the difference between [[crystal]]s of quasicoherent modules and crystals of schemes, cf. Lurie's notes [here](http://www.math.harvard.edu/~gaitsgde/grad_2009/SeminarNotes/Nov17-19%28Crystals%29.pdf)) from Gaitsgory's seminar. BD say A-D-modules for the nonlinear/global version.

Paugam also tries to connect to the language of Vinogradov’s “diffiety school” (which was entirely very much motivated by variational calculus and conservation laws). This is more or less the nonlinear analogue of D-modules, namely D-schemes (roughly the difference between crystals of quasicoherent modules and crystals of schemes, cf. Lurie’s notes here) from Gaitsgory’s seminar. BD say A-D-modules for the nonlinear/global version.
- CommentRowNumber10.
- CommentAuthorzskoda
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- PermaLink
Author: zskoda
Format: MarkdownItexI updated [[diffiety]] (links and text formulation). I choped out the old discussion. It is here: > (Zoran: I object. There may be one idea, but as variety and scheme are not the same, the level of generality should be in mathematics precisely distinguished. D-schemes for example are not necessarily in characteristics zero. Michael: I agree that I was sloppy and should spell out the precise relation between the different definitions, but your remark about characteristic zero is not an objection. If you read Vinogradov he emphazises that everything should be expressed algebraically, and there is no problem in defining diffieties over characteristic p Zoran: but it is still a field: when we work with general rings and schemes, than unlike for varieties over a field, the residue fields vary from a point to a point, this is what I meant as a complication in taking equation approach, but I hope you will clear this out later.)

I updated diffiety (links and text formulation). I choped out the old discussion. It is here:

(Zoran: I object. There may be one idea, but as variety and scheme are not the same, the level of generality should be in mathematics precisely distinguished. D-schemes for example are not necessarily in characteristics zero. Michael: I agree that I was sloppy and should spell out the precise relation between the different definitions, but your remark about characteristic zero is not an objection. If you read Vinogradov he emphazises that everything should be expressed algebraically, and there is no problem in defining diffieties over characteristic p Zoran: but it is still a field: when we work with general rings and schemes, than unlike for varieties over a field, the residue fields vary from a point to a point, this is what I meant as a complication in taking equation approach, but I hope you will clear this out later.)
- CommentRowNumber11.
- CommentAuthorzskoda
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- PermaLink
Author: zskoda
Format: MarkdownItex<http://gdeq.org> has various related materials, from the diffiety school. Yet more references and links at [[diffiety]].

http://gdeq.org has various related materials, from the diffiety school. Yet more references and links at diffiety.
- CommentRowNumber12.
- CommentAuthorzskoda
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- (edited Mar 3rd 2011)
- PermaLink
Author: zskoda
Format: MarkdownItexWhat is eventually of interest is the connection between the geometry of variational calculus and path integral quantization. Nontrivial corrections to naive Feynman's picture are of geometric nature. My Ph.D. advisor [[Joel Robbin]] has also written two articles on the subject with Dietmar: * Joel W. Robbin, [[Dietmar A. Salamon]], _Feynman path integrals and the metaplectic representation_, Math. Z. __221__ (1996), no. 2, 307–-335, [MR98f:58051](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=98f:58051), [doi](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02622118) * [[Joel W. Robbin]], Dietmar A. Salamon, _Phase functions and path integrals_, Symplectic geometry (Proc., ed. D. Salamon), 203–-226, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. __192__, Cambridge Univ. Press 1993, [[RobbinSalamonPhaseFunctionsPathIntegrals.djvu:file]]. The link to the file works from [[Joel Robbin]] but not from the $n$Forum. How to change the syntax for file call to $n$Lab from $n$Forum ?
What is eventually of interest is the connection between the geometry of variational calculus and path integral quantization. Nontrivial corrections to naive Feynman’s picture are of geometric nature. My Ph.D. advisor Joel Robbin has also written two articles on the subject with Dietmar:
- Joel W. Robbin, Dietmar A. Salamon, Feynman path integrals and the metaplectic representation, Math. Z. 221 (1996), no. 2, 307–-335, MR98f:58051, doi
- Joel W. Robbin, Dietmar A. Salamon, Phase functions and path integrals, Symplectic geometry (Proc., ed. D. Salamon), 203–-226, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 192, Cambridge Univ. Press 1993, RobbinSalamonPhaseFunctionsPathIntegrals.djvu:file.
The link to the file works from Joel Robbin but not from the $n$ Forum. How to change the syntax for file call to $n$ Lab from $n$ Forum ?
- CommentRowNumber13.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Zoran, for the the useful links.

Thanks, Zoran, for the the useful links.

1 to 13 of 13

nForum

Discussion Feed

Not signed in

Site Tag Cloud

nLab > Latest Changes: variational calculus on diffeological spaces