Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2011
    • (edited Feb 27th 2011)

    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 Ω cl 1()\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

    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

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

    Enjoyably ambitious.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011

    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

    Enjoyably ambitious.

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

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011

    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

    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×DU \times D for DD an infinitesmal thickening are the UU-plots of \mathbb{R}. Then the pullback in question is that of SS along *\mathbb{R}^* \to \mathbb{R}:

    its plots are those U×DCU \times D \to C such that the postcomposition U×DCSU \times D \to C \stackrel{S}{\to} \mathbb{R} factors through the projection U×DUU \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)

    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)

    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

    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

    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)

    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:

    The link to the file works from Joel Robbin but not from the nnForum. How to change the syntax for file call to nnLab from nnForum ?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2011

    Thanks, Zoran, for the the useful links.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)