added a couple of lines about how the usual notion of symplectomorphism is restrictive
]]>added a bunch of historical References, taken from the introduction of Alan Weinstein’s lecture notes
]]>I have added to Weinstein symplectic category a brief a remark on refinement to prequantum correspondences.
]]>No, I think you are understanding me to the extent I’ve understood anything myself.
Is it ever possible that the process of going from the non-derived setting to the derived setting is worth working out since you might pick something up you wouldn’t otherwise see? I mean, is it possible, say, that you wouldn’t notice the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group being around if you’d just started in the derived setting? Otherwise, don’t you just think to yourself reading such a paper, why didn’t they just start derived?
By the way, Adeel @#2 has caused Grothendieck-Teichmuller group to be created, but there’s a page Grothendieck-Teichmüller tower with redirect for ’Grothendieck-Teichmüller group’ (with umlaut). Is it better to split tower and group as two pages? I guess redirects for non-umlaut versions might help too.
]]>does one confront a similar problem where there’s a natural choice of something which wants to be a (higher)-category, but which needs to be stabilized first?
I think the idea is that things don’t have to be “stabilized” in this case if one formulates them in derived geometry from the beginning, which is a way of making the formalism automatically correct non-transverse intersections.
(Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you have in mind?)
]]>Shame we didn’t meet up.
There weren’t as many higher structures as I expected…
Yes, I think we could invoke the Trade Descriptions Act.
]]>So you too were at the Clay workshop, Adeel?
I was indeed. There weren't as many higher structures as I expected, but I did get to meet Ronnie Brown! :)
]]>So you too were at the Clay workshop, Adeel?
Regarding the drive towards higher geometric quantization, does one confront a similar problem where there’s a natural choice of something which wants to be a (higher)-category, but which needs to be stabilized first?
]]>Whilst following up those links I created a page for Paul Seidel and another one for Denis Auroux. There was also a set of notes that Auroux wrote as a Beginners Guide to Fukaya categories which on the Arxiv. Auroux has several useful looking sets of course notes on his webpages.
]]>Added a very brief description of Kitchloo's symplectic category, and a link to a reference
discussing relations between Kitchloo's category and the Grothendieck-Teichmuller group.
]]>started Weinstein symplectic category
]]>