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.
   • CommentAuthorPeter Heinig
   • CommentTimeAug 4th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Peter Heinig
   Format: MarkdownItexDoes anyone agree that one should document the "Feynman Categories" in the sense of Kaufmann and Ward in the nLab? It puzzles me a little that despite [extensive](https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1269) [publications](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06843.pdf), extending back to 2013, and a [talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhBTKGc9xyY), and despite the systematizing aspirations of Kaufmann--Ward's work, the concept of Feynman category seems to yield zero search hits, both in the nLab, and in the nForum. Is this simply hazard?

   Does anyone agree that one should document the “Feynman Categories” in the sense of Kaufmann and Ward in the nLab?

   It puzzles me a little that despite extensive publications, extending back to 2013, and a talk, and despite the systematizing aspirations of Kaufmann–Ward’s work, the concept of Feynman category seems to yield zero search hits, both in the nLab, and in the nForum. Is this simply hazard?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
   • CommentTimeDec 10th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Jon Beardsley
   Format: MarkdownItexJust happened across this while I was searching for something else. In general, I don't think there's often any reason things AREN'T written up on the nlab, other than nobody has gotten around to it. As far as I can tell, people write things up on the nlab when they're thinking about them, rather than in some systematic way meant to cover all the bases. However, Feynman categories do look interesting, so thanks for posting this!

   Just happened across this while I was searching for something else. In general, I don’t think there’s often any reason things AREN’T written up on the nlab, other than nobody has gotten around to it. As far as I can tell, people write things up on the nlab when they’re thinking about them, rather than in some systematic way meant to cover all the bases.

   However, Feynman categories do look interesting, so thanks for posting this!