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
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexcreated an entry [[Bohrification]]

   created an entry Bohrification

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • (edited Mar 16th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexAre you getting closer now to my question how far is the thing from faithful ? Unless one has an equivalence of categories (what I doubt) I would not call a construction of non-faithful functor a "generalization" of Gel'fand-Neimark theorem. (Generalization includes a full statement in the special case.) The entry looks neat and interesting but the above questions bother me. There are lots of non-faithful spectra-like functors in the history of noncommutative geometry, and the fact that one looses significant information most of the time is a source of frustration of practioners, including me.

   Are you getting closer now to my question how far is the thing from faithful ? Unless one has an equivalence of categories (what I doubt) I would not call a construction of non-faithful functor a “generalization” of Gel’fand-Neimark theorem. (Generalization includes a full statement in the special case.)

   The entry looks neat and interesting but the above questions bother me. There are lots of non-faithful spectra-like functors in the history of noncommutative geometry, and the fact that one looses significant information most of the time is a source of frustration of practioners, including me.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • (edited Mar 16th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHi Zoran, I was planning to add this anyway, now I have: what is currently proposition 3 in the entry states a result of Bas Spitters', that if instead of the presheaf topos over commutative subalgebras one uses the sheaf topos with respect to th double negation topology, then Bohrification coincides with Gelfand duality on commutative $C^\ast$-algebras.

   Hi Zoran,

   I was planning to add this anyway, now I have:

   what is currently proposition 3 in the entry states a result of Bas Spitters’, that if instead of the presheaf topos over commutative subalgebras one uses the sheaf topos with respect to th double negation topology, then Bohrification coincides with Gelfand duality on commutative $C^\ast$-algebras.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • (edited Mar 16th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexUrs, it seems you misunderstood me. For usual C-star algebras, noncommutative, there is a Gelfand transform which nevertheless gives a commutative space. But it can not be called duality as it is not an equivalence of categories. The fact that in commutative case one has a Gelfand-Neimark theorem is not generalizing to the Gelfand transform in general. Generalizing the map is in that classical situation easy, generalizing the duality/theorem is difficult. You talk generalizing the duality but you just quote a result on generalizing the map, just in a different way. When we specialize the theorem that there is such a construction we do not get a statement that in fact we have a duality -- for this one needs also to generalize the inverse, as the duality has two sides. I understand that internalization gives more, but I suspect it does not give a generalization of Gelfand-Neimark duality but only of a map in one direction. It is confusing saying that one has a generalization of a duality if one generalizes just the functor (for what there are so many ways to do), not the whole duality/theorem.

   Urs, it seems you misunderstood me.

   For usual C-star algebras, noncommutative, there is a Gelfand transform which nevertheless gives a commutative space. But it can not be called duality as it is not an equivalence of categories. The fact that in commutative case one has a Gelfand-Neimark theorem is not generalizing to the Gelfand transform in general. Generalizing the map is in that classical situation easy, generalizing the duality/theorem is difficult. You talk generalizing the duality but you just quote a result on generalizing the map, just in a different way. When we specialize the theorem that there is such a construction we do not get a statement that in fact we have a duality – for this one needs also to generalize the inverse, as the duality has two sides. I understand that internalization gives more, but I suspect it does not give a generalization of Gelfand-Neimark duality but only of a map in one direction. It is confusing saying that one has a generalization of a duality if one generalizes just the functor (for what there are so many ways to do), not the whole duality/theorem.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexIt would be good to say "constructive Gelfand transform", not constructive Gelfand duality (unnless I am wrong). In operator algebras term Gelfand transform is used widely in noncommutative case, while duality is used in commutatiive as there is a true duality/antiequivalence of categories. Otherwise the terminology is misleading.

   It would be good to say “constructive Gelfand transform”, not constructive Gelfand duality (unnless I am wrong). In operator algebras term Gelfand transform is used widely in noncommutative case, while duality is used in commutatiive as there is a true duality/antiequivalence of categories. Otherwise the terminology is misleading.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHi Zoran, okay, I have changed the first sentence of the entry to > The construction called _Bohrification_ by some authors is a generalization of the [[Gelfand spectrum]] for commutative [[C-star algebra]]s to a context of _noncommutative_ $C^*$-algebras. Is that better? On the other hand, where I say "constructive Gelfand duality" I really mean the duality between commutative $C^\ast$-algebras and suitable locales, only that in the discussion it appears internally in some topos other than $Set$.

   Hi Zoran,

   okay, I have changed the first sentence of the entry to

   The construction called Bohrification by some authors is a generalization of the Gelfand spectrum for commutative C-star algebras to a context of noncommutative $C^*$-algebras.

   Is that better?

   On the other hand, where I say “constructive Gelfand duality” I really mean the duality between commutative $C^\ast$-algebras and suitable locales, only that in the discussion it appears internally in some topos other than $Set$.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexAha, then constructive is really duality, unlike the Bohrification in general. Thanks.

   Aha, then constructive is really duality, unlike the Bohrification in general. Thanks.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI was suspecting optimistically that if one would look at many different internal commutative shadows of a single noncommutative operator algebra, and having a commutative duality for each of them, then all the shadows together could maybe give a faithful information. This was my first impression of this whole work. That is why I search for precise statement, to see if this is eventually possible or targetted.

   I was suspecting optimistically that if one would look at many different internal commutative shadows of a single noncommutative operator algebra, and having a commutative duality for each of them, then all the shadows together could maybe give a faithful information. This was my first impression of this whole work. That is why I search for precise statement, to see if this is eventually possible or targetted.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
   • (edited Mar 16th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexRight, so I think the story is to be thought of like this: in a first step, the information in the noncommutative algebra is reduced to that which can be seen by the collection of all its "classical contexts" aka commutative subalgebras. This loses a bit of information. But not too much. It seems to remember precisely the "observable" information in the sense of quantum mechanics: the partial subalgebra of normal elements. But then, in a second step, in the topos over these commutative subalgebras, we do have internal commutative Gelfand duality, and this is now a true duality, internally.

   Right, so I think the story is to be thought of like this:

   in a first step, the information in the noncommutative algebra is reduced to that which can be seen by the collection of all its “classical contexts” aka commutative subalgebras. This loses a bit of information. But not too much. It seems to remember precisely the “observable” information in the sense of quantum mechanics: the partial subalgebra of normal elements.

   But then, in a second step, in the topos over these commutative subalgebras, we do have internal commutative Gelfand duality, and this is now a true duality, internally.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexCan one make the words "observable information" into a mathematical statement logically precedeng and independent from this theory ?

    Can one make the words “observable information” into a mathematical statement logically precedeng and independent from this theory ?

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexOne precise statement is this: 1. the Bohrification of the nc $C^\ast$-algebra $A$ depends only on its partial $C^\ast$-subalgebra $N(A)$ of normal elements; 1. in the category of partial $C^\ast$-algebras $N(A)$ is the colimit over its commutative $C^\ast$-subalgebras.

    One precise statement is this:

    1. the Bohrification of the nc $C^\ast$-algebra $A$ depends only on its partial $C^\ast$-subalgebra $N(A)$ of normal elements;

    2. in the category of partial $C^\ast$-algebras $N(A)$ is the colimit over its commutative $C^\ast$-subalgebras.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexOh, thanks, this is very helpful mathematically. I still need to educate myself in the foundations of QM to understand the precise meaning of the $N(A)$ from foundational QM point of view.

    Oh, thanks, this is very helpful mathematically.

    I still need to educate myself in the foundations of QM to understand the precise meaning of the $N(A)$ from foundational QM point of view.

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThe standard lore is that it is the self-adjoint operators that are observable. These are contained in the normals and for $a$ normal, $a^* a$ is self-adjoint and positive. The other result is that iso-classes of posets of commutative subalgebras of $A$ correspond to isos of the Jordan algebra $J(A)$. Again, the Jordan algebra structure is supposed to capture the observable content. This is Harding-Döring, the other statement was vdBerg-Heunen, all referenced in the entry. Finally the Spitters-Landsman-Heunen result says that the internal integrals over the Bohrified phase space give the quantum states. I need to write this out in more detail in the entry, eventually.

    The standard lore is that it is the self-adjoint operators that are observable. These are contained in the normals and for $a$ normal, $a^* a$ is self-adjoint and positive.

    The other result is that iso-classes of posets of commutative subalgebras of $A$ correspond to isos of the Jordan algebra $J(A)$. Again, the Jordan algebra structure is supposed to capture the observable content.

    This is Harding-Döring, the other statement was vdBerg-Heunen, all referenced in the entry.

    Finally the Spitters-Landsman-Heunen result says that the internal integrals over the Bohrified phase space give the quantum states. I need to write this out in more detail in the entry, eventually.

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2011
    • (edited Mar 17th 2011)
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexWhat the abstract passage from commutative subalgebra in some abstract category of (noncommutative) "partial C-star algebras" would correspond from the point of view of measurement ? The noncommutativity is about the impossibility of simulteneous measurement. Now you have things which are commutative, and for which you can say some geometry in some internal point of view. Now the colimit fact tells you that the full thing is in some sense determined from the pieces. But maybe this abstract colimit in somewhat arbitrary category has some interpretation from the measurement point of view ?

    What the abstract passage from commutative subalgebra in some abstract category of (noncommutative) “partial C-star algebras” would correspond from the point of view of measurement ? The noncommutativity is about the impossibility of simulteneous measurement. Now you have things which are commutative, and for which you can say some geometry in some internal point of view. Now the colimit fact tells you that the full thing is in some sense determined from the pieces. But maybe this abstract colimit in somewhat arbitrary category has some interpretation from the measurement point of view ?

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI have added something like the following parapgraph to the Idea-section at [[Bohrification]] > One thing that is nice about [[Bohrification]] is that it makes the following statement true: "quantum states on a quantum algebra $A$ are precisely classical states internal to the Bohrified ringed topos corresponding to $A$". > This is essentially a direct re-interpretation of [[Gleason's theorem]]: this theorem says that quantum states on $A$ are already fixed by demanding them to be maps on $A$ that are (positive, normed) linear functions on all commutative subalgebras of $A$. Now, the immediate formalization of a map $A \to \mathbb{C}$ that is required to preserve certain structure on all commutative subalgebras is a fully structure-preserving function, but internal to the presheaf topos over the comutative subalgebras. That presheaf topos is the "Bohrification" of $A$, since Bohr said things that can be interpreted as being formalized by this process.

    I have added something like the following parapgraph to the Idea-section at Bohrification

    One thing that is nice about Bohrification is that it makes the following statement true: “quantum states on a quantum algebra $A$ are precisely classical states internal to the Bohrified ringed topos corresponding to $A$”.

    This is essentially a direct re-interpretation of Gleason’s theorem: this theorem says that quantum states on $A$ are already fixed by demanding them to be maps on $A$ that are (positive, normed) linear functions on all commutative subalgebras of $A$. Now, the immediate formalization of a map $A \to \mathbb{C}$ that is required to preserve certain structure on all commutative subalgebras is a fully structure-preserving function, but internal to the presheaf topos over the comutative subalgebras. That presheaf topos is the “Bohrification” of $A$, since Bohr said things that can be interpreted as being formalized by this process.

16. • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI am re-organizing and expanding the entry. And have renamed it to _[[Bohr topos]]_ .

    I am re-organizing and expanding the entry. And have renamed it to Bohr topos .

17. • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2011
    • (edited Jul 25th 2011)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexAt [[Bohr topos]] I have considerably expanded the previous Idea-section. After polishing a bit more I am planning to make this a post to the $n$Café. (So all comments and criticism on the exposition are most welcome!)To account for the length of the section now, I have split it into subsections "Brief" and "More detailed".

    At Bohr topos I have considerably expanded the previous Idea-section. After polishing a bit more I am planning to make this a post to the $n$Café. (So all comments and criticism on the exposition are most welcome!)To account for the length of the section now, I have split it into subsections “Brief” and “More detailed”.

18. • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI have considerably expanded the section [The Bohr topos](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Bohr+topos#BohrTopos) at [[Bohrification]] during the last few days.

    I have considerably expanded the section The Bohr topos at Bohrification during the last few days.

19. • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: TobyBartels
    Format: MarkdownItexI see that you're again writing about a full and faithful functor from $Top$ to $Loc$. This functor is neither full nor faithful: on maps to a non-$T_0$ space, it's not faithful; on maps to a space without enough points (a non-sober space whose $T_0$ reflection is still non-sober), it's not full. As I see it, you have three options: 1. Just use a functor and don't worry about its surjectivity properties. 2. Remark that the spaces that you need are all sober and use $Sob \hookrightarrow Loc$ instead. 3. Skip $Top$ entirely, and use locales from the very beginning. (Skipping $Loc$ and going straight to $Topos$ will not help.)

    I see that you’re again writing about a full and faithful functor from $Top$ to $Loc$. This functor is neither full nor faithful: on maps to a non-$T_0$ space, it’s not faithful; on maps to a space without enough points (a non-sober space whose $T_0$ reflection is still non-sober), it’s not full.

    As I see it, you have three options:

    1. Just use a functor and don’t worry about its surjectivity properties.

    2. Remark that the spaces that you need are all sober and use $Sob \hookrightarrow Loc$ instead.

    3. Skip $Top$ entirely, and use locales from the very beginning.

    (Skipping $Loc$ and going straight to $Topos$ will not help.)

20. • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2011
    • (edited Jul 29th 2011)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> I see that you're again writing about a full and faithful functor from $Top$ to $Loc$. Sorry. That's not "again" but is a remnant that I have overlooked. That's embarrasing. But now I have removed it. > Remark that the spaces that you need are all sober No, they are not. $Alex \mathcal{C}(A)$ is almost never sober, I think. Let me try to clarify: there are two aspects that are needed for the discussion of the decent = locality thing. 1. The faithfulness of $Poset \to Topo_{ess}$. This is now discussed in detail. 1. The fact that $Alex : Poset \to TopSpace$ (but not $Alex : Poset \to Locale$) preserves limits. (And then the descent objects are formed in the category of ringed topological spaces).

    I see that you’re again writing about a full and faithful functor from $Top$ to $Loc$.

    Sorry. That’s not “again” but is a remnant that I have overlooked. That’s embarrasing. But now I have removed it.

    Remark that the spaces that you need are all sober

    No, they are not. $Alex \mathcal{C}(A)$ is almost never sober, I think.

    Let me try to clarify: there are two aspects that are needed for the discussion of the decent = locality thing.

    1. The faithfulness of $Poset \to Topo_{ess}$. This is now discussed in detail.

    2. The fact that $Alex : Poset \to TopSpace$ (but not $Alex : Poset \to Locale$) preserves limits. (And then the descent objects are formed in the category of ringed topological spaces).