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 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 internal-categories k-theory 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 8th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI would like to eventually improve the articles on unitary irreps of the Poincare group, but I am having some doubts that I hope one of you could clear up quickly. In the article [[unitary group]] there is no mention of the topology of $U(H)$, where $H$ is a (we'll say separable) Hilbert space. It seems to me the most natural choice of topology would be as a subspace of $L(H, H)$, the space of bounded linear operators with the norm topology. But in reading accounts of Stone's theorem, I am led to believe this is *not* the topology chosen; rather one chooses the strong operator topology, the smallest topology such that all evaluation maps $ev_h: L(H, H) \to H$ are continuous. Could someone confirm for me the correct topology on the unitary group, to be used in the article [[unitary group]]? If it is the strong operator topology, are there any nice high-level or conceptual reasons why that should be the one chosen (besides the fact that it might be needed to make Stone's theorem rigorous)?

   I would like to eventually improve the articles on unitary irreps of the Poincare group, but I am having some doubts that I hope one of you could clear up quickly. In the article unitary group there is no mention of the topology of $U(H)$, where $H$ is a (we’ll say separable) Hilbert space. It seems to me the most natural choice of topology would be as a subspace of $L(H, H)$, the space of bounded linear operators with the norm topology. But in reading accounts of Stone’s theorem, I am led to believe this is not the topology chosen; rather one chooses the strong operator topology, the smallest topology such that all evaluation maps $ev_h: L(H, H) \to H$ are continuous.

   Could someone confirm for me the correct topology on the unitary group, to be used in the article unitary group? If it is the strong operator topology, are there any nice high-level or conceptual reasons why that should be the one chosen (besides the fact that it might be needed to make Stone’s theorem rigorous)?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI asked my question at the Café, and John Baez kindly responded. Yes, it is apparently the so-called strong operator topology that is meant. (I didn't ask the question about conceptual explanations.) But now I have another question: at [[Kuiper's theorem]] it was mentioned that $U(H)$ is contractible in "the" [[operator topology]], but when I click on that article, I found not one but several operator topologies mentioned. So which one does Kuiper's theorem refer to?

   I asked my question at the Café, and John Baez kindly responded. Yes, it is apparently the so-called strong operator topology that is meant. (I didn’t ask the question about conceptual explanations.) But now I have another question: at Kuiper’s theorem it was mentioned that $U(H)$ is contractible in “the” operator topology, but when I click on that article, I found not one but several operator topologies mentioned. So which one does Kuiper’s theorem refer to?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHi Todd, probably the references that explicitly claim to be about mathematical physics do mention this. For instance _[The Mathematics any Physicist should know](http://www.math.ku.dk/~thd/Matematisk_fysik.pdf)_ , around page 9. Concerning Kuiper's theorem: I guess the Wikipedia article gives the relevant pointers. Originally proven for the norm topology, the theorem does hold for the strong operator topology, too. All the nLab entries on these matters deserve to be improved, certainly.

   Hi Todd,

   probably the references that explicitly claim to be about mathematical physics do mention this. For instance The Mathematics any Physicist should know , around page 9.

   Concerning Kuiper’s theorem: I guess the Wikipedia article gives the relevant pointers. Originally proven for the norm topology, the theorem does hold for the strong operator topology, too.

   All the nLab entries on these matters deserve to be improved, certainly.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
   • (edited Jul 10th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Urs -- that looks like a really nice reference. I put in some changes at [[unitary group]] and [[Kuiper's theorem]] to reflect what you have just told me. I am still curious though as to whether a nice categorical or nPOV story could be told about the strong operator topology in particular, as this is apparently the correct topology for purposes of studying unitary representations of Lie groups.

   Thanks, Urs – that looks like a really nice reference. I put in some changes at unitary group and Kuiper’s theorem to reflect what you have just told me.

   I am still curious though as to whether a nice categorical or nPOV story could be told about the strong operator topology in particular, as this is apparently the correct topology for purposes of studying unitary representations of Lie groups.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I am still curious though as to whether a nice categorical or nPOV story could be told about the strong operator topology in particular, as this is apparently the correct topology for purposes of studying unitary representations of Lie groups. Yes, I think that's a very good question. I am not sure that I know the answer, but I want to look some things up and see. I'll try to get back to you on this. Unfortunately, right now I must be concentrating on something else.

   I am still curious though as to whether a nice categorical or nPOV story could be told about the strong operator topology in particular, as this is apparently the correct topology for purposes of studying unitary representations of Lie groups.

   Yes, I think that’s a very good question. I am not sure that I know the answer, but I want to look some things up and see. I’ll try to get back to you on this. Unfortunately, right now I must be concentrating on something else.