Timeline for Physicists misuse the term "Kac Moody algebra". Does that bring problems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2019 at 10:11 | comment | added | Timothée Marquis | The accepted answer to this post and the included references might be relevant to your question. | |
| Aug 3, 2019 at 16:32 | comment | added | paul garrett | @Soap, yes, I think your reading of that is what is intended. | |
| Aug 3, 2019 at 10:47 | comment | added | soap | @paulgarrett So in this case the assumption would be that the derivation extension does not affect the main properties, it seems. That seems to be about right: in Kerf's book (a mathematical physicist from what I gather) he says that the derivation extension is a "technicality". | |
| Aug 3, 2019 at 2:08 | answer | added | S. Carnahan♦ | timeline score: 9 | |
| Aug 3, 2019 at 1:38 | comment | added | Nik Weaver | @paulgarrett: I think that's exactly right. | |
| Aug 2, 2019 at 21:26 | comment | added | paul garrett | It is my impression that, as seems to often happen in physics-y contexts, names have a bit of free-association, context-dependence, and heuristic suggestive-ness. So, well, I think the general attitude would be that "we" are "possibly justified" in assuming this-or-that, based on some prior experiences. This may often be weaker than the "justification" insisted upon in mathematics textbooks, for example, but that doesn't mean it's not more productive in the long run. | |
| Aug 2, 2019 at 18:00 | history | asked | soap | CC BY-SA 4.0 |