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 beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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 subobject 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.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009

    I've started a page an elementary treatment of Hilbert spaces. The intention is to see how much of (simple) Hilbert space theory can be done without using the phrases "As a Hilbert space is a normed vector space ..." or "As a Hilbert space is a metric space ...".

    I haven't gotten very far yet, as can be seen! Also, it's not intended to be Deep Mathematics (there's a mild centipedal justification on the page) but just playing with some ideas and trying to see what a Hilbert space really is.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009

    I slightly Lab-elved the page, editing the toc and insering some links

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009

    Thanks!

    I should have said: I hope that this is okay for the n-lab.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009
    This comment is invalid XHTML+MathML+SVG; displaying source. <div> <blockquote> I hope that this is okay for the n-lab. </blockquote> <p>Most certainly. Why are you worried?</p> </div>
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009

    It didn't have an 'n' in it!

    I wasn't particularly worried, otherwise I would have asked before I started writing, but I suffer from the British disease of always worrying that I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009

    Well, I think thi stuff is very good. It doesn't need to have an n in it to be part of the nLab.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2009

    Yeah, you just have to accept that we'll start remarking on what strength of logic your elementary treatment requires and which categories it can be internalised in, stuff like that.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    @Toby, go ahead!

    Seriously, so long as it's clear which bits are meant as the "elementary" bits and which are commentary, then I would welcome such. As you can see, I'm putting in remarks linking the elementary treatment to the standard treatment. In case it's not clear, the idea of such an elementary treatment is that it be a gateway to the more developed theory but one that is, perhaps, simpler to reach. Without the commentary there wouldn't be any indication of where someone could go once they'd gotten through the gateway. So I see remarks like that as sort of "If you liked this bit, you'll also like ...".

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)