Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

April 4, 2007

Quantization and Cohomology (Week 19)

Posted by John Baez

The spring quarter has begun here at U. C. Riverside! Our seminar on Quantization and Cohomology resumed today. This time we’ll try to bring cohomology more explicitly into the picture — and we’ll start by seeing how it arises in a modern approach to classical mechanics:

  • Week 19 (Apr. 3) - Finding critical points of an action functor S:CS: C \to \mathbb{R}. For this, CC should be a ‘smooth category’ and SS should be something like a ‘smooth functor’. How can we make these concepts precise? The example where CC is the smooth path groupoid of a manifold equipped with a 1-form (for example, a cotangent bundle equipped with its canonical 1-form). The definition of ‘smooth category’ - that is, a category internal to some category of ‘smooth spaces’.

Last week’s notes are here; next week’s notes are here.

Of course, we’ll eventually see that CC should be a category internal to some nice category of smooth spaces, as explained in this paper:

and SS should be a smooth anafunctor or ‘2-map’ in the sense of Bartels:

Posted at April 4, 2007 5:41 AM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:

2 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

Re: Quantization and Cohomology (Week 19)

typo on page 2: rank dH \leq ? 1, I think.

Posted by: David Roberts on April 4, 2007 7:34 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Quantization and Cohomology (Week 19)

You’re right, the rank is 1\le 1.

I’ve added this error to the list of errata for the spring 2007 session… I welcome other bug reports!

Posted by: John Baez on April 4, 2007 11:51 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment