Not signed in (Sign In)

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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorBlake Stacey
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011
    Per the suggestion of John Baez, I took a conversation we had on Google+ and made an nLab entry out of it: universality.
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011
    • (edited Aug 30th 2011)

    Thanks! I have added

    • a table of contents (so that I can see at a glance what the entry contains);

    • a mentioning of the word “physics” right at the beginning (to make clear that this is what the entry is about)

    • a disambiguation line on the very top (there is also universality in mathematics, which is rather different).

    Why “term of the art”? Is that just a phrase?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011

    I have added a few more links, also in the tables. But one could add many more.

    (Notice, by the way, that usually we have plural versions of entry titles as redirects. So usually you can just put the plural alone in double square brackets.)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorBlake Stacey
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011
    Thanks for the additions!

    "Term of the art" is just a way of saying "jargon term"; I think I've mostly seen it used in legal contexts. Wiktionary defines it as "A term whose use or meaning is specific to a particular field of endeavor".
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011

    The idea sections should be understandable and local metaphors like “term of art” confuse me as well, and probably many other readers. I suggest that the entry be renamed to universality class. Then we can have a separate entry universality which will be a disambiguation entry.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011

    I have separated it. Now we have

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011

    I’ve never heard the phrase “term of art” outside of law, nor have I ever heard it with a “the”.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011
    • (edited Aug 30th 2011)

    What I find strange about the mentioning of either “jargon” or “term of art” – or any other jargon for jargon ;-) – is that it is hard to see how “universality” is more jargon than, say, “category” or “Lie algebra” or so. I’d just say “universality is the term used for …”.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011

    Urs: I wanted to do the same, but did not want to interfere with phrasing part, we are writing for technical people, hence, in non-extreme cases we do not need to emphasise that our terminology is technical.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorBlake Stacey
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011
    • (edited Aug 30th 2011)
    First sentence of universality class now edited to reflect this discussion.
    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011

    Hi Blake,

    thanks. Sorry for this, it’s a pretty unimportant point that we kept complaining about. Thanks for the entry. I’ll add a link to universality class now to the main physics-toc. It’s an important concept.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorBlake Stacey
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2011
    I don't mind at all!

    Over the past year, I've gotten used to writing stuff for people who are not, for the most part, physicists and mathematicians, so I've acquired the habit of indicating explicitly when a jargon word which also has a non-jargon, everyday meaning is being used in a jargony way. (For example, "These form a group, in the technical sense...") I don't think that's really necessary for the nLab, though!
    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorBlake Stacey
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2011
    Filling in the question-mark links: c-theorem. This is basically a wikified paraphrase of the original paper, as I don't understand RG and CFT nearly as well as I should.