## February 15, 2018

### Physics and 2-Groups

#### Posted by David Corfield

The founding vision of this blog, higher gauge theory, progresses. Three physicists have just brought out Exploring 2-Group Global Symmetries . Two of the authors have worked with Nathan Seiberg, a highly influential physicist, who, along with three others, had proposed in 2014 a program to study higher form field symmetries in QFT (Generalized Global Symmetries), without apparently being aware that this idea was considered before.

Eric Sharpe then published an article the following year, Notes on generalized global symmetries in QFT, explaining how much work had already been done along these lines:

The recent paper [1] proposed a more general class of symmetries that should be studied in quantum field theories: in addition to actions of ordinary groups, it proposed that we should also consider ‘groups’ of gauge fields and higher-form analogues. For example, Wilson lines can act as charged objects under such symmetries. By using various defects, the paper [1] described new characterizations of gauge theory phases.

Now, one can ask to what extent it is natural for n-forms as above to form a group. In particular, because of gauge symmetries, the group multiplication will not be associative in general, unless perhaps one restricts to suitable equivalence classes, which does not seem natural in general. A more natural understanding of such symmetries is in terms of weaker structures known as 2-groups and higher groups, in which associativity is weakened to hold only up to isomorphisms.

There are more 2-groups and higher groups than merely, ‘groups’ of gauge fields and higher-form tensor potentials (connections on bundles and gerbes), and in this paper we will give examples of actions of such more general higher groups in quantum field theory and string theory. We will also propose an understanding of certain anomalies as transmutations of symmetry groups of classical theories into higher group actions on quantum theories.

## February 14, 2018

### Gradual typing

#### Posted by Mike Shulman

*(Guest post by Max New)*

Dan Licata and I have just put up a paper on the arxiv
with a syntax and semantics for a *gradually typed* programming
language, which is a kind of synthesis of statically typed and
dynamically typed programming styles.
The central insight of the paper is to show that the dynamic type
checking used in gradual typing has the structure of a proarrow
equipment.
Using this we can show that some traditional *definitions* of dynamic
type checks can be proven to be in fact *unique solutions* to the
specifications provided by the structure of an equipment.
It’s a classic application of category theory: finding a universal
property to better understand what was previously an ad-hoc
construction.

The paper is written for computer scientists, so I’ll try to provide a more category-theorist-accessible intro here.

## February 8, 2018

### Homotopy Type Theory Electronic Seminar

#### Posted by John Baez

What a great idea! A seminar on homotopy type theory, with talks by top experts, available to everyone with internet connection!

## February 6, 2018

### Linguistics Using Category Theory

#### Posted by John Baez

*guest post by Cory Griffith and Jade Master*

Most recently, the Applied Category Theory Seminar took a step into linguistics by discussing the 2010 paper Mathematical Foundations for a Compositional Distributional Model of Meaning, by Bob Coecke, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, and Stephen Clark.

Here is a summary and discussion of that paper.

## February 5, 2018

*m*Lab

#### Posted by John Baez

Since nothing get parodied until it’s sufficiently well-known to make it worth the effort, this proves the $n$Lab is a success:

• $m$Lab.

Click on the links!

## February 2, 2018

### A Problem on Pushouts and Pullbacks

#### Posted by John Baez

I have a problem involving pullbacks and pushouts. This problem arose in work with Kenny Courser on an application of category theory. But you don’t need to understand anything about that application to understand — and I hope solve! —our problem.

If you can solve it, we will credit you in our paper.