Timeline for A gentle introduction to CFT [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2015 at 9:48 | comment | added | Arnold Neumaier | I answered this in physicsoverflow.org/5198 | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 2:50 | comment | added | Dilaton | Concerning 5) there are applications of CFT in the context of 2d conformal turbulence. I can look up the references later, if you are interested. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 2:26 | comment | added | Dilaton | @LoganMaingi yes I just wanted to point out the desolate situation on Physics SE we both know I guess, and the new higher level physics site (outside SE) is work in progress, I hope we will go online early next year. I did by no means want to overreach my position and presume the MO community should chance any rules. Though sometimes I wish out of desparation that advanced theoretical physics content could apply for asylum at a better more friendly and welcoming place not dominated by bad political overmoderation somewhere, until our new site is running... | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 1:55 | comment | added | Logan M | @Dilaton I agree that this question would not be accepted by Physics SE standards, but I don't think that immediately makes it acceptable on MathOverflow. MathOverflow is a site for professional mathematicians. While physicists and physics questions are sometimes welcome, we aren't the intended audience. As this question is right now, this is the wrong venue IMO (though there do seem to be some above who disagree). This question's closing on PSE may be an argument for creating a different Physics Q&A site or changing the rules there, but not for changing the rules here just to accommodate us. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 1:35 | comment | added | Dilaton | @LoganMaingi maybe you have noted this: Physics SE still closes any reference-request (reference-request defined as any researcher or advanced student would naturally use that term conversely to the strange way too restrictive definition of that tag on Physics SE) in particular about advanced theoretical topics immediately, even though this should no longer happen due to the new so-called "books or recommendation policy" they have. But it still does happen. So editing that question over there would be completely pointless, reference questions about advanced topics are simply not tolerated. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 10:38 | comment | added | Irina | @Federico: For references try Gaberdiel's review paper on conformal field theories. For commented pointers to the literature see here ncatlab.org/nlab/show/conformal+field+theory Or for one rigorous definition and derivation of the full theory from the first principles see the book by P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and D. Senechal, Conformal Field Theory (Springer, 1997) (and this is my source). | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 5:06 | comment | added | Vivek Shende | What's with the hate for this question? Regarding (1), there's a paper of Segal titled ``The definition of conformal field theory'' that might be relevant. As for (2), (3), (4), I would very much like an answer myself. I also think (2), (3), (4) are just reformulations / aspects of / clarifications of the same underlying question, so the complaint that there's too many questions here is just absurd. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 2:19 | comment | added | Logan M | @FedericoCarta I'll also note that questions should be tailored to the community. The original questions you posted were decent for physicists, though they were too broad together and should have been split up. However, if you're going to ask the same question on a site for research mathematicians, you need to be more tailored to that community. CFTs are of interest to mathematicians as well as physicists, but the literature in the two disciplines is quite different. I'm not sure which one you wanted to learn, but if it's the physics version this would probably not be the right place to ask. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 2:16 | comment | added | Federico Carta | I understand. Thank you for the advice. I was only trying to get some answers and maybe stimulate a good discussion. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 2:14 | comment | added | Logan M | @FedericoCarta Yes, different sites have different standards, and cross-posting isn't always bad. However, cross-posting immediately is frowned upon, whether or not the question was closed. This MSO post details the proper protocol for if you think you posted on the wrong site. Immediately cross-posting a closed question to a different site with no indication that it is a cross-post can come across as trying to game the system (I don't thin this was your intention). At minimum you should try to improve your post there first before reposting it here. | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 1:47 | comment | added | Federico Carta | @Logan Maingi I believed that different places have different rules on what can or can not be posted. Is it really bad to crosspost if it did not work there? Please I am not trying to be arrogant, just trying to understand, since it is my first time in both of these places | |
| Oct 29, 2013 at 1:04 | comment | added | Logan M | This is probably irrelevant since this question is already closed, but I'll just note that it's a cross-post of a question which was put on hold on Physics SE. | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 23:44 | history | closed |
Carlo Beenakker Ricardo Andrade Qiaochu Yuan Andrés E. Caicedo Kevin Walker |
Needs more focus | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 23:40 | comment | added | André Henriques | @Federico. You wrongly assume that there is a unique mathematical definition of CFT. There are many (I know three). Probably all good. And people don't know how to compare them (at a mathematical level of rigor). The mathematical prerequisites are very different depending on which approach to CFT you decide to study. Also, there is an important distinction between "chiral CFT" and "full CFT": those are two completely different things (but not unrelated). | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 23:26 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ |
Changed tags
|
|
| Oct 28, 2013 at 23:25 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | That's a lot of questions, and 5) is off-topic. Maybe start with a reference request for 1), on its own, with suitable background as to what you know already. I changed the tags to something more appropriate. | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 22:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 28, 2013 at 23:45 | |||||
| Oct 28, 2013 at 21:44 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 28, 2013 at 21:46 | |||||
| Oct 28, 2013 at 21:27 | history | asked | Federico Carta | CC BY-SA 3.0 |