973 reputation
916
bio website math.tamu.edu/~branimir
location College Station, TX
age 28
visits member for 4 years, 11 months
seen 33 mins ago

I'm a noncommutative geometer doing a postdoc at Texas A&M, having just completed my PhD at Caltech.


May
16
answered Name for construction on two vector bundles
Apr
26
comment A survey for various $K$-homology theories and their relationship
A possible first step towards this might be found in Hilsum's notion of bordism of unbounded KK-cycles---nothing to do with cobordism of bounded cycles---which has recently been developed further by Deeley--Goffeng--Mesland: arxiv.org/abs/1503.07398
Mar
22
awarded  Announcer
Feb
27
awarded  Announcer
Jan
4
comment Correspondences as generalized morphism between $C^*$-algebras
See, for instance, mathoverflow.net/questions/82871/… and similar discussions on MathOverflow and Math.SE. I suppose the point is that naive $\ast$-homomorphisms $A \to B$ aren't necessarily all that natural in the nonunital case, when seen through the guiding lens of Gelfand–Naimark.
Jan
4
comment Correspondences as generalized morphism between $C^*$-algebras
I think that the heart of the matter here is that Gelfand–Naimark duality for locally compact Hausdorff spaces is a subtle business. One way to cut the Gordian knot is Woronowicz's approach, which identifies a continuous map $f: X \to Y$ as inducing a nondegenerate $\ast$-homomorphism $f^t : C_0(Y) \to M(C_0(X))$, where $M(C_0(X))$ denotes the multiplier algebra of $C_0(X)$; indeed, if $\phi : A \to M(B)$ is a nondegenerate $\ast$-homomorphism, so that $\phi(A)B$ is dense in $B$, then the induced bimodule ${}_A B_B$ satisfies both nondegeneracy and fullness.
Jan
4
comment Correspondences as generalized morphism between $C^*$-algebras
I completely forgot; thanks for reminding me. There is a corresponding condition on the right, which says that $(E,E)$ should be dense in $A$; again, it holds for ${}_A A_A$ precisely because $A$ admits an approximate unit.
Jan
3
comment Correspondences as generalized morphism between $C^*$-algebras
In particular, observe that the “trivial line bundle” ${}_A A_A$ satisfies this condition precisely because $A$ admits an approximate unit.
Jan
3
comment Correspondences as generalized morphism between $C^*$-algebras
In the nonunital case, one often imposes the additional condition on ${}_A E_B$ that $A E$ be dense in $E$; this should take care of the issue in your edit.
Jan
3
awarded  Announcer
Jan
1
comment Commutative spectral triples
...firmly from the perspective of mathematical physics.
Jan
1
comment Commutative spectral triples
...and hence, given a choice of spin structure, a canonical unbounded representative for the so-called fundamental $K$-homology class of your manifold. On the other hand, spin manifolds turn out to be natural to consider in the context of physics. So, I suspect it's a mixture of spectral triples' historical origins in $K$-homology and of Connes's interest in physics, already in the early and mid '90s, that resulted in a cultural association of spectral triples with noncommutative spin manifolds. This was certainly cemented by the account in Gracia-Bondia–Varilly–Figueroa, which was written...
Jan
1
comment Commutative spectral triples
Now to your latest question. As late as Connes's book Noncommutative Geometry (1994), spectral triples were still known by the older name of unbounded $K$-cycles, since the definition is exactly what you need to get a reasonable unbounded (in the sense of Baaj–Julg) representative for a $K$-homology class, and indeed, in $K$-homology, it turns out to be most natural to consider spin$^\mathbb{C}$ manifolds; in particular, the moment you impose a spin structure on a compact spin manifold, you automatically get an orientation, a Riemannian metric, and the spin Dirac operator...
Jan
1
comment Commutative spectral triples
Not just sufficient but genuinely necessary, given the proof that we have, which really uses every last condition in an essential manner; for instance, it's the orientability condition that gives you the candidate atlas.
Jan
1
comment Commutative spectral triples
@truebaran No, it's $A$ commutative plus a whole laundry list of highly non-trivial conditions concerning every part of the spectral triple; when I say that those spectral triples fail to be commutative, it's precisely because they fail some of those conditions. Please take a look at the introduction to Connes's paper for the full definition.
Dec
30
comment Commutative spectral triples not coming from manifolds
Another very interesting example, coming from a purely differential-geometric context, is Hasselmann's recent work on constructing spectral triples for Carnot manifolds: arxiv.org/abs/1404.5494.
Dec
30
comment Commutative spectral triples
@truebaran I've added a bit more about your Question 3; there's all sorts of things you can do to break the conditions for a commutative spectral triple, with the upshot that no meaningful characterisation is possible. Let me know if anything's unclear.
Dec
30
revised Commutative spectral triples
Added details about natural spectral triples for manifolds that aren't commutative spectral triples.
Dec
30
revised Commutative spectral triples
deleted 33 characters in body
Dec
30
comment Commutative spectral triples not coming from manifolds
In particular, you might also take a look at this paper, arxiv.org/abs/1112.6401, where the authors construct a family of spectral triples for the Sierpinski gasket, which, for instance, can be made to have spectral dimension the Hausdorff dimension of the Sierpinski gasket.