bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 2 years, 9 months |
seen | Feb 15 at 22:58 | |
stats | profile views | 326 |
Apr 6 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Feb 15 |
awarded | Enlightened |
Feb 15 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Feb 15 |
comment |
space at the Planck scale
with the linearity of the classical objects. I agree that the naive proposal does not work but one has to give better reasons. |
Feb 15 |
comment |
space at the Planck scale
I essentially agree with the general message of this answer, but I disagree with the objection given to the naive proposal. The linear combination $c_1M_1+c_2M_2$ can trivially be taken in the vector space generated by the $M_i$'s and it is usually this kind of thing one has to do in quantum mechanics. For example, in gauge theory, we have classically bundles-with-connections and if $E_1$ and $E_2$ are two such objects then $c_1M_1+c_2M_2$ is a well-defined element in the Hilbert space of the theory. More generally, the "linearity" of quantum mechanics is something which has nothing to do .. |
Feb 15 |
comment |
The open problem of finding the explicit metric on a compact Calabi-Yau manifold
Maybe it is worth mentionning that some work has been done to approximate numerically Ricci flat metrics on compact Calabi-Yau manifolds: see for example arxiv.org/pdf/math/0512625v1.pdf and arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0612075.pdf The first paragraph of the second paper contains the phrase: "it is widely thought that for compact Calabi-Yau manifolds no closed form expression exists, except in trivial cases", which makes me pessimistic on the existence of a positive answer to the question. |
Feb 15 |
comment |
“Arithmetic genus” of a plane curve singularity.
@Gregor Bruns : Thanks a lot. I have corrected the formula in the answer. |
Feb 15 |
revised |
“Arithmetic genus” of a plane curve singularity.
edited body |
Jan 3 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Jan 3 |
revised |
Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(9)$ as a subalgebra of $\mathfrak{f}_4$
edited body |
Jan 3 |
revised |
Why is the CM closure of $\mathbb{Q}$ the “ultimate” coefficient field for motives?
added 218 characters in body |
Jan 3 |
asked | Why is the CM closure of $\mathbb{Q}$ the “ultimate” coefficient field for motives? |
Nov 6 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Nov 5 |
revised |
What are the higher homotopy groups of a K3 suface?
edited body |
Nov 3 |
answered | What are the higher homotopy groups of a K3 suface? |
Nov 1 |
asked | Is there a non-abelian version of the Torelli map? |
Oct 30 |
awarded | Good Question |
Oct 28 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Oct 28 |
revised |
Why is there no Brauer scheme?
edited body |
Oct 28 |
asked | Why is there no Brauer scheme? |