Timeline for Why is the Tangent Groupoid useful in non-commutative geometry?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2013 at 18:57 | vote | accept | Mozibur Ullah | ||
| Jun 22, 2013 at 18:55 | history | edited | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 189 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jun 22, 2013 at 18:27 | history | edited | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1130 characters in body
|
| Jul 11, 2012 at 2:29 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @Waldorf: Nice idea, I will once I find out where I put my copy... | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 14:59 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | @Vahid: it was something of a joke. Rest assured I am well aware of what "natural" means, but I had some vague idea that the tangent groupoid was relevant to noncommutative geometry and so I thought that the use of the word "natural" in this context to describe a commutative construction was funny. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 13:27 | comment | added | Konrad Waldorf | @Mozibur Ullah: Maybe you could edit your question and add a brief explanation what this tangent groupoid is. Just in case that somebody doesn't have Connes' books at hand... | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 11:27 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | @roberts: Do you mean that there are different definitions, or actually different notions? The one I know of, but do not understand is the one described by Connes in his non-commutative geometry | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 6:39 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | There are several notions of tangent groupoid. Which one do you mean? | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 4:30 | answer | added | Zhaoting Wei | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 3:04 | comment | added | user23860 | @Qiaochu: In mathematics when people talk about a natural construction, they mean it is immediately defined from the very core nature of the previous construction (and in most cases) it does not depend on specific choice of other object, for example, the quotient map in algebraic construction. So, we should not expect a notion be inspired by nature in order to call it natural. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 0:46 | history | edited | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2012 at 0:45 | comment | added | Mozibur Ullah | You have a point. I meant natural as in what I would naturally reach for when I want to think about tangents. Classical is a better & right word. | |
| Jul 9, 2012 at 0:13 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | I disagree that the tangent bundle is "the" natural construction. It is so classical! How can a classical construction be "the" natural construction when nature is quantum? | |
| Jul 8, 2012 at 23:51 | history | asked | Mozibur Ullah | CC BY-SA 3.0 |