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 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 elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory 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 lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number 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 string string-theory 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
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2012
    • (edited Jul 3rd 2012)

    I wrote Hamiltonian action.

    I tried to say precisely what the action is by. In the literature (but also in a previous version of our moment map entry) there is often (for instance on Wikipedia, but also in many other sources) an imprecise (not to say: wrong) statement, where an action by Hamiltonian vector fields is not distinguished from one by Hamiltonians.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2012
    You might want to add to
    Dualizing, the homomorphism μ is equivalently a linear map
    μ˜:X→
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2012
    uh oh, the rest didn't appear

    which is a homomorphism of Poisson manifolds. This is called the moment map of the (infinitesimal) Hamiltonian G-action.

    You might want to add that 1st class constraints give something like mu but with range just a vector space and no G in sight.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2012

    Thanks, good point.

    I made a quick preliminary note at moment map - Relation to constrained mechanics.

    Currently symplectic reduction points to BRST-BV formalism and much stuff is hidden there which eventually ought to get its own entries. Maybe later…

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012

    You have both HamSympl(X,ω)HamSympl(X, \omega) and Sympl(X,ω)Sympl(X, \omega) for Hamiltonian symplectomorphisms. Which is better?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012

    The second is supposed to be just for symplectomorphisms, not necessarily Hamiltonian. If I mixed that up, then it needs to be corrected. I can’t check right now, (am at a bus stop, and there is my bus!…)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012

    So it looks like the Sympl(X,ω)Sympl(X, \omega) needs a ’Ham’ in front of it. I’ll do that.

    Also, I see that the links from ’Hamiltonian symplectomorphism’ points to symplectomorphism, and there’s nothing there to explain the difference between ordinary ones and Hamiltonian ones.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012

    Thanks, David! You are quite right, there was lacking a bunch of information. I have now added in more lines at Auto-symplectomorphisms.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012
    • (edited Jul 4th 2012)

    There’s also a notion of Hamiltonian diffeomorphism, e.g., here. Do we need HamDiffHamDiff? But maybe that’s your HamSympHamSymp.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012

    Yes, that’s just another term for the same concept. Some people also say “symplectic diffeomorphism” instead of “symplectomorphism”, e.g. here. I have added in this alternative terminology to the entry symplectomorphism now.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012

    So then, should we include the direct definition of Hamiltonian diffeomorphism/symplectomorphism from here:

    A symplectomorphism ϕ\phi \in Symp(M, ω\omega) is said to be a hamiltonian diffeomorphism if there exists a hamiltonian isotopy h th_t such that ϕ=h 1\phi = h_1.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2012
    • (edited Jul 4th 2012)

    Okay, I have expanded

    The further subgroup corresponding to those symplectic vector fields which are Hamiltonian vector fields […]

    to

    The further subgroup corresponding to those symplectic vector fields which are flows of Hamiltonian vector fields coming from a smooth family of Hamiltonians […]

    I don’t feel like expanding further on this at the moment. But of course if you or somebody feels like adding more from the literature, please do! Eventually then we could also add formal Definition / Proposition environments to the entry.

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)