bio | website | math.berkeley.edu/~cgerig |
---|---|---|
location | UC Berkeley | |
age | 26 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 3 months |
seen | 4 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 6,678 |
After doing my BS in engineering physics (with experimental research on gravity), I started my PhD in experimental atomic physics. But I quit to do math, and am now a 3rd year student of Michael Hutchings.
Current interest: the interplay between gauge theory and symplectic geometry
Apr 4 |
comment |
*The* open problem in General Relativity?
That means you're not looking for mathematical problems which relate GR to QFT. In which case, I haven't heard of there being the problem on everyone's minds. But, you'll be interested in the mathematical seminar paper of Penrose, Some Unsolved Problems in Classical General Relativity. |
Apr 3 |
comment |
Nilpotence of the stable Hopf map via framed cobordism
@Qiaochu: It's more of a hunch. For some manifolds, vanishing signature implies framed-nullcobordance. |
Apr 2 |
revised |
Universal coefficient theorem for group homology and cohomology
added 337 characters in body |
Apr 2 |
revised |
Universal coefficient theorem for group homology and cohomology
added 284 characters in body |
Apr 1 |
comment |
Universal coefficient theorem for group homology and cohomology
This isn't a UCT, though. You're only swapping $M$-coefficients for $M^\ast$-coefficients. |
Apr 1 |
answered | Universal coefficient theorem for group homology and cohomology |
Mar 31 |
comment |
Nilpotence of the stable Hopf map via framed cobordism
I believe the answer is based on the existence of the signature, a cobordism-invariant. The 4-torus has a well-defined signature $\sigma(H^2(\mathbb{T}^4;\mathbb{R}),\smile)$, given geometrically in terms of the intersection pairing of cycles in 2-dimensional homology. But this doesn't exist for the 3-torus or 2-torus. |
Mar 27 |
answered | Why not develop a Hamiltonian-based Morse theory? |
Mar 27 |
comment |
Mathematical statistical qm book-recommendation
Quantum Physics: A Functional Integral Point of View by Glimm and Jaffe (they're theoretical physicists). That's the closest I can think of, which should suffice since it is rigorous, but I find it hard to follow (they leave a lot up to the reader). |
Mar 20 |
comment |
Pseudomanifolds and Poincaré duality
Oh I thought "Poincare duality space" just meant $H^k\approx H_{n-k}$ and not necessarily induced by maps, sorry. |
Mar 20 |
comment |
Pseudomanifolds and Poincaré duality
Ah, the "kissing banana" is not a pseudomanifold (doesn't satisfy second bullet point), nevermind! |
Mar 19 |
revised |
$\pi_0${plane fields}$\to\mathbb{Z}_2$
added 76 characters in body |
Mar 18 |
reviewed | Reject A metric for Grassmannians |
Mar 16 |
answered | What if the low-degree cohomology of a $G$-module and all its restrictions vanish? |
Mar 4 |
comment |
Elliptic operators corresponds to non vanishing vector fields
Yes; I think the spherical harmonics won't be in the image, because they can't be integrated (when solving for the corresponding function in the domain). For example, in order for $D_X(f)=\cos\phi$ you need $f=\sin^2\theta\ln|\sin\phi|$ which blows up at $\phi=0,\pi$. |
Feb 24 |
comment |
Elliptic operators corresponds to non vanishing vector fields
@AliTaghavi, I think the cokernel is infinite-dimensional. |
Feb 24 |
comment |
liftings of principal bundles
OK, what then makes the coefficient system constant when $K$ is central? Some sort of reduction map must be arising somewhere? |
Feb 23 |
comment |
liftings of principal bundles
Can you explain why local coefficients are required when $K$ is abelian but not central? |
Feb 23 |
revised |
Coboundary of a cup-product
rolled back to a previous revision |
Feb 23 |
revised |
Coboundary of a cup-product
added 232 characters in body |