Added more material from Sakellaridis’ KAST lectures.

]]>Added reference to Sakellaridis’ KAST slides.

]]>all right, so *Segal-Shale-Weil representation*

Where you ask for a link “Weil representation”, should we redirect to the entry *Weil-Deligne representation*?

added some hyperlinks, such as for *Hamiltonian action*.

Brief mention of Weil representation and theta series.

]]>Added mention of the Hamiltonian $G$-space. Added a brief mention of the role of quantization in the relative Langlands program. Will add examples later.

]]>Added Rapahael Beuzart-Plessis’ lectures at the 2022 IHES summer school.

]]>I get the impression that by “relative” he just means “with boundary” and/or “extended”, hence in any case: with higher codim data.

That looks right. From the long article in #3, it’s about extended “4-dimensional arithmetic quantum field theory” (p. 15).

Odd that quoted remark in #4 then. It seems one source of “relative” in “relative Langlands” is Jacquet’s “relative trace formula”.

Ultimately here it seems it’s relative in the sense that:

For favorable $G$-spaces $X$ (or Hamiltonian $G$-spaces $M$), the various structures of the $X$-relative Langlands program are simultaneously encoded, on the dual side, by a Hamiltonian $\check{G}$-variety $\check{M}$. (p. 10)

These $X$ are “hyperspherical varieties” for a given $G$,

]]>a convenient class of graded Hamiltonian G-spaces that is closely related to the class of cotangent bundles of spherical varieties.

What Freed & Teleman call “relative” field theory is what Stolz & Teichner call “twisted” field theory, namely (e.g. p. 51 in this pdf, using an observation that I gave them in 2005 when we met in Hamburg) not a cobordism representation as such, but a morphism from a fixed one, hence what one might call a “generalized pointed field theory” or an “object in a co-slice of field theories” or the like.

This describes field theories with a kind of anomalies: Because, by the “holographic principle of higher category theory”, such a morphism between two cobordism representations, is itself a kind of cobordism representation, but failing to strictly preserve composition in a way measured by the non-triviality of the cobordism representations that it is a morphism between.

(I used to draw the corresponding “tin-can diagrams” a lot in the old days, I think there is a series of posts called “D-branes from tin-cans” on the nCafe, following my Fields Institute talk from 2007 here)

Now, browsing through Ben-Zvi’s brief note that you link to, I get the impression that by “relative” he just means “with boundary” and/or “extended”, hence in any case: with higher codim data.

]]>Added

- David Ben-Zvi,
*Relative Langlands*(pdf)

I was trying to get a sense of what the ’relative’ in ’relative Langlands program’ means.

I can’t see it directly addressed in the 451-page article in #3, but in a brief note

- David Ben-Zvi,
*Relative Langlands*(pdf),

he writes

Slogan: the relative Langlands program can be explained via relative TFT

Does he mean as in

- Daniel Freed, Constantin Teleman,
*Relative quantum field theory*(arXiv:1212.1692) {#FreedTeleman} ?

If so, I see the note at twisted differential c-structure on this article

it is proposed to call such twisted structures “relative fields”.

So we might have “twisted Langlands program”?

But then what’s this at field(physics)?

Fields $\simeq$ twisted relative cohesive cycles

Is the ’relative’ of ’relative cohomology’ relevant?

]]>Added

- David Ben-Zvi, Yiannis Sakellaridis, Akshay Venkatesh,
*Relative Langlands duality*(pdf).

Presumably the “V1” of the link address will change, but there doesn’t seem to be an anchor for the paper.

]]>Added Sakellaridis’ survey to the references.

]]>Created page. Will fill out more later.

]]>