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.
   • CommentAuthoradeelkh
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: adeelkh
   Format: MarkdownItexI just saw the following on the arXiv, by a student of Simpson. * Hugo V. Bacard, _Symmetries_, [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.2203). > Classical mathematics are founded within set theory, but sets don't have \emph{symmetries}. We conjecture that if we allow sets with symmetries, then many problems such as \emph{Mirror symmetry} or \emph{Homological mirror symmetry} can be explained. One way to do this is to embed sets to higher categories and especially into higher groupoids as already envisioned by Grothendieck, and more recently by Voevodsky. We simply outline this idea in these notes. Just wondering if anyone here has any thoughts on this.

   I just saw the following on the arXiv, by a student of Simpson.

   • Hugo V. Bacard, Symmetries, arXiv.

   Classical mathematics are founded within set theory, but sets don’t have \emph{symmetries}. We conjecture that if we allow sets with symmetries, then many problems such as \emph{Mirror symmetry} or \emph{Homological mirror symmetry} can be explained. One way to do this is to embed sets to higher categories and especially into higher groupoids as already envisioned by Grothendieck, and more recently by Voevodsky. We simply outline this idea in these notes.

   Just wondering if anyone here has any thoughts on this.