Added a talk to references

- Daniel Freed,
*The Atiyah-Singer index theorem*, (slides)

John Baez mentioned this paper

- Florian Hanisch, Matthias Ludewig,
*A Rigorous Construction of the Supersymmetric Path Integral Associated to a Compact Spin Manifold*, (arXiv:1709.10027)

so I added it, but maybe it needs a word to distinguish it from the two above described as “traditional physics arguments”.

]]>Linked to the relevant section at supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

In case anyone’s wondering why the interest, John Baez announced the death of Singer on the $n$Café.

]]>Replaced a dead link

- Rafe Mazzeo,
*The Atiyah-Singer Index theorem: what it is and why you should care*, (slides)

Seems rather a slight page.

]]>Ok, so have changed that.

]]>Right, the “supposed to” need not be there.

]]>Added details of a talk

- Rafe Mazzeo,
*The Atiyah-Singer Index theorem: what it is and why you should care*, (slides)

Where the page has

The index theorem is supposed to have an interpretation in terms of the quantum field theory of the superparticle on the given space,

is the “is supposed to” necessary? Why not “has an interpretation”? Is it just the general issue of any translation from mathematics to physics?

]]>