Just got an email that *now* the book is officially/actually published.

Checking on GoogleBooks whether the glitches pointed out in #21 have been fixed… Hm: partially.

]]>Add links to preprints for the chapters by Anders Kock and Timothy Porter.

]]>have now added author links and hyperlinked keywords to essentially all book chapters, and arXiv pointers for the (few) cases where I new about them (haven’t searched much yet, please add pointers where available)

]]>I have fixed the missing line-breaks in the list of book chapters.

While I was at it I turned them into subsections, too. Then I started adding author links and arxiv links to the book chapters.

Not complete yet, but I am running out if steam niw.

]]>Oh, somebody give me a sanity check:

Do they have a bad glitch in the table of contents?

On top of p. v it says

Contents

Contents forNew Spaces in Physics $\;\;\;\;$pagevii

Introduction$\;\;\;\;$page1Introduction $\;\;\;\;$

page1

followed by what clearly must be the content of “New Spaces in Mathematics”;

while the top of p. vii is says both

Contents for

New Spaces in Physics

Contents forNew Spaces in Mathematics $\;\;\;\;$pagevii

followed by what must be the content of “New Spaces in Physics”;

$\,$

There seem to be a couple of problems here.

(Am I missing something? I am looking at the GoogleBooks-version. Couldn’t get access via my NYU account, strangely.)

]]>The GoogleBooks link took me to a Croatian dialogue box. So I have replaced `.hr`

with `.us`

, just so that if the dialogue box comes up, more people know what to make of it.

removed the duplication of the book title and URL

added DOI and ISBN

and reformatted slightly to better fit the usual pattern

(Incidentally, I am learning about this finally being published now only through the news. It’s been a long time, over 5 years since submission of the contributions.)

]]>I never wrote about this, so I’m deleting it:

Instead I wrote about “Struggles with the continuum”.

]]>Somehow a part of the books can be seen on googlebooks already (some of the individual pages) with issue date of March 31. For example, Kontsevich’s contribution has 4-5 pages more than the version previously circulating among colleagues.

Previously expected table of contents is at the page 3 of pdf.

Here are the gBooks links:

- New spaces in mathematics: formal and conceptual reflections gBooks, New spaces in physics: formal and conceptual reflections gBooks

P.S. I reinstalled ubuntu (now 20.04) on my main machine and still adjusting parameters, if you notice any strange behaviour from my posts anywhere around, please let me know.

]]>Looks like these volumes are about to appear, so I added in CUP websites for them.

]]>I changed the projected publication date to 2021!

]]>One of the editors just wrote in asking me to promotly remove several names, apparently their contributions were cancelled.

]]>The book doesn’t quite match up with the conference, and so I’ve separated them. At some point should link the entries, but no time now.

]]>Came across the latest table of contents so I’m adding that in.

]]>John Duffield ]]>

Removed the double indexation and added a link to a draft version of my chapter for New Spaces in Mathematics and Physics.

]]>Now by “the same approach” you are referring to the general topic of rectification, right? Yes, the concept of dg-Lie algebroids is (or should be) the rectification of the concept of general $\infty$-Lie algebroids. To be more precise I would have called Joost’s def 2.1 in arXiv:1712.03442 that of *dg-Lie-Rinehart pairs*, but of course the difference is negligible in a context of dg-geometry.

And the extension to look at differential graded algebroids belongs to same approach? I see from this abstract that your former student is developing this:

]]>we explain how to apply this machinery to the case of non-split formal moduli problems under a given derived affine scheme; this situation has been dealt with recently by Joost Nuiten, and requires to replace differential graded Lie algebras with differential graded Lie algebroids.

That sounds possibly circular, since how would one know about duality relations without first having an independent construction of quantization in the first place. But who knows what the future will bring.

But the point under discussion above is a different one: The Lagrangian densities that define Lagrangian field theory (up to renormalization choices) a priori yield higher pre-symplectic structure, not higher symplectic structure. The latter is obtained only after auxiliary fields are adjoined and a choice of BV-gauge fixing is made, which is directly analogous to choosing a differential graded algebra over an operad as a rectified model for an $\infty$-algebra over an $\infty$ -operad. It works and is often convenient, sometimes it may even be the only tool under control, but it is not part of the definition of the homotopy theoretic concept.

That’s why I always thought it pays to have a thorough look at higher pre-quantum geometry first, before hastening to make assumptions about what higher quantum geometry should be like. First things first. In any case, it is not a fault or omission of higher pre-quantum geometry not to feature derived geometry and non-degenerate shifted symplectic form, rather this is the nature of the subject of Lagrangian field theory. Or so I think.

]]>So a way needs to be found to realise

]]>quantization is the result of forming the homotopy quotient of the space of Lagrangian data by these duality relations?

Thanks for the alerts. I have fixed that link.

It says there about dcct and other articles:

Observe that these references also deal with variants of shifted pre-symplectic structures on stacks, but the non-degeneracy condition is almost never satisfied as everything takes place in the realm of underived stacks.

It is noteworthy that non-degenerate symplectic structure in gauge field theory is all about recitifying a homotopy-theoretic structure: the gauge-fixing of the BV-BRST complex which ensures the non-degenerate graded symplectic structure is a means to quantize homotopy-theoretically by doing it naively but degreewise, respecting a differential (chapter 11). This is in direct analogy to how a naive Lie algebra considered degreewise and respecting a differential (hence a dg-Lie algebra) is a rigidified model for a strong homotopy Lie algebra.

While it is true that presently this homotopy-rigidified trick is the only known way to quantize gauge field theory, in general, it is clear from the point of view of homotopy theory that this must be but a tool and a convenience, not a fundamental necessity. It ought to be true that there is a homotpy-quantization procedure which reads in the non-gauge fixed and hence degenerate presymplectic current (aka shifted pre-symplectic structure) and quantizes it right away.

This is ultimately what Marco Benini and Alexander Schenkel are headed for in their homotopical AQFT. Their toy example of free electromagnetism sort of works this way already, but there is a long way to go until this will be understood generally. Meanwhile, it is good to have a clear picture of the role that symplectic rather than pre-symplectic structure plays in QFT.

]]>Anel’s paper added too.

Good final flourish to the paper!

]]>It says there about dcct and other articles:

Observe that these references also deal with variants of shifted pre-symplectic structures on stacks, but the non-degeneracy condition is almost never satisfied as everything takes place in the realm of underived stacks.

I was reminded of our conversation here.

By the way, the talk slides link at Prequantum field theories from Shifted symplectic structures doesn’t work.

]]>Damien Calaque’s contribution has just appeared, so I’ve added a link.

]]>