Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded to _[[geometric representation theory]]_ a quote of program description of the [MSRI program](http://www.msri.org/web/msri/scientific/programs/show/-/event/Pm8951) next year.

   added to geometric representation theory a quote of program description of the MSRI program next year.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexDavid Ben-Zvi gave a longer description of the same event at [MO](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/126474/new-geometric-methods-in-number-theory-and-automorphic-forms/126540#126540), which I've added. Does all that seem nPOV-able or HoTT-able? Sounds like a good test case would be >Geometric representation theory seeks to understand groups and representations as a consequence of more subtle but fundamental symmetries. A groundbreaking example of its success is Beilinson-Bernstein’s uniform construction of all representations of Lie groups via the geometry of D-modules on flag varieties. Should [[geometric representation theory]] and [[geometric function theory]] talk more to each other?

   David Ben-Zvi gave a longer description of the same event at MO, which I’ve added.

   Does all that seem nPOV-able or HoTT-able? Sounds like a good test case would be

   Geometric representation theory seeks to understand groups and representations as a consequence of more subtle but fundamental symmetries. A groundbreaking example of its success is Beilinson-Bernstein’s uniform construction of all representations of Lie groups via the geometry of D-modules on flag varieties.

   Should geometric representation theory and geometric function theory talk more to each other?