# 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

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorIan_Durham
• CommentTimeMar 13th 2010
I filled in a bit on the Wightman axioms. I also have a query there about adding an "axiom" environment to the LaTeX/CSS style sheets of nLab. I don't know how to do it on nLab but an axiom environment seems like it might be useful.
• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMar 15th 2010

Thanks!

I have expanded the Idea-section a bit.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorTim_van_Beek
• CommentTimeMar 15th 2010
Thanks from me too.
I'd like to have an "axiom" environment too, and I would like to reference single axioms in the text, is there a different way than to use the "+-- {: .num_theorem #nameGoesHere}" tag?

Two questions to the content, first a trivial one:
"...assignment of field operators to points..."
As far as I know you can prove in the Haag-Kastler approach that the algebras associated with points are necessarily trivial, so no point has nontrivial observables, is that correct? I still plan to cite a corresponding theorem on the Haag-Kastler page, as soon as I find the time.

"They were later further abstracted to the Haag-Kastler axioms..."
All I know about the equivalence of this approach comes from a paper that dates back to 1992, from Borchers and Yngvason, dedicated to Haag's 70th birthday. If there is a better reference I'd like to know (I think any kid in Göttingen knows more about this than me :-).
• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMar 15th 2010
• (edited Mar 15th 2010)

I don't know about how to create a new environment. We have to shout for help for that with the Lab elves. When I need an environment that isn't there I usually take one that is there and then change its displayed keyword (the one that goes after the sequence of five or so hash/sharp signs) to be what I want it to be.

Concerning the two technical questions: that may well be true. I'd need to check details here, too.

1. Corrected a small typo in the scalar field example — at the end, the Klein-Gordon operator should be $\box + m^2$, rather than $\box + m$. The square was missing on the mass.

Cheers! Marko Vojinovic

Anonymous