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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdownstub for [[Poisson sigma-model]]. Needs references.

   stub for Poisson sigma-model. Needs references.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
   • (edited Nov 26th 2009)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownIn related entry [[AKSZ model]] I have changed the link to action functional which actually was directing to path integral to the true link [[action functional]], which itself has a paragraph on path integral containing a link [[path integral]]. I added some references to [[Poisson sigma model]].

   In related entry AKSZ model I have changed the link to action functional which actually was directing to path integral to the true link action functional, which itself has a paragraph on path integral containing a link path integral. I added some references to Poisson sigma model.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
   • (edited Nov 26th 2009)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownThanks! By the way, what's the full story: Kontsevich didn't mention the Poisson sigma-model in his work, first. Then Cattaneo-Felder guessed that this was really where he got his diagrammatics from, secretly. I have been told that after they figured this out they asked him if he obtained his idea this way, without saying so, and allegedly he just said something like "Sure." Do you know more?

   Thanks!

   By the way, what's the full story: Kontsevich didn't mention the Poisson sigma-model in his work, first. Then Cattaneo-Felder guessed that this was really where he got his diagrammatics from, secretly. I have been told that after they figured this out they asked him if he obtained his idea this way, without saying so, and allegedly he just said something like "Sure."

   Do you know more?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
   • (edited Nov 26th 2009)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownI think this is true, MK was imagining diagram expansion for a particular field theory, though his purpose was deformation quantization, hence maybe did not develop full theory of the model, which had for him then just a heuristic purpose.

   I think this is true, MK was imagining diagram expansion for a particular field theory, though his purpose was deformation quantization, hence maybe did not develop full theory of the model, which had for him then just a heuristic purpose.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 6th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have spelled out the definition of the action functional of the [[Poisson sigma-model]]

   I have spelled out the definition of the action functional of the Poisson sigma-model

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeAug 6th 2011
   • (edited Aug 6th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexSigma model is much more common spelling then sigma-model, as far as the main contemporary references and google search show, as well as scholarpedia and wikipedia entries. Of course, if spelled out the Greek letter than it has a dash.

   Sigma model is much more common spelling then sigma-model, as far as the main contemporary references and google search show, as well as scholarpedia and wikipedia entries. Of course, if spelled out the Greek letter than it has a dash.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 6th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHm, okay, thanks. I am always unsure about how to typeset such compunds. Maybe I should change that throughout....

   Hm, okay, thanks. I am always unsure about how to typeset such compunds. Maybe I should change that throughout….

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeAug 6th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexIn a logical way it is more consistent the way you done it -- because the version with Greek letter had a hyphen, but somehow this easier no-hyphen way got statistically prevalent in present day references with word-spelled form of sigma. Don't worry.

   In a logical way it is more consistent the way you done it – because the version with Greek letter had a hyphen, but somehow this easier no-hyphen way got statistically prevalent in present day references with word-spelled form of sigma. Don’t worry.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorJosh
   • CommentTimeJun 5th 2023
   • (edited Jun 5th 2023)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Josh
   Format: MarkdownItexI have a question about the use of the term ``connection" on this page, but first I think that here $\eta$ should be valued in $\phi^*T^*X,$ right? About the use of the term ``connection" (I found this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4735.pdf). I've been thinking about what it should mean, and my feeling was that a map $(\phi,\eta)$ should define a connection in the case that $\phi_*(V)=\pi(\eta(V),\cdot),$ ie. it satisfies the natural compatibility condition with respect to the anchor map of the Lie algebroid. I think in such a case you get an Ehresmann connection on $\phi^*G,$ where $G\rightrightarrows X$ is a groupoid integrating the Poisson structure, which we are thinking of as a principal groupoid bundle for $G$ itself. This is a special case of the definition given in the paper, but with the more general definition, do you get an Ehresmann connection on some principal $G$-bundle over $\Sigma?$

   I have a question about the use of the term “connection” on this page, but first I think that here $\eta$ should be valued in $\phi^*T^*X,$ right?

   About the use of the term “connection” (I found this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4735.pdf). I’ve been thinking about what it should mean, and my feeling was that a map $(\phi,\eta)$ should define a connection in the case that $\phi_*(V)=\pi(\eta(V),\cdot),$ ie. it satisfies the natural compatibility condition with respect to the anchor map of the Lie algebroid. I think in such a case you get an Ehresmann connection on $\phi^*G,$ where $G\rightrightarrows X$ is a groupoid integrating the Poisson structure, which we are thinking of as a principal groupoid bundle for $G$ itself.

   This is a special case of the definition given in the paper, but with the more general definition, do you get an Ehresmann connection on some principal $G$-bundle over $\Sigma?$