Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 8, 2016 at 14:33 comment added Eugene Lerman GIT quotients and symplectic quotients are "the same" in various senses of the word "same." This idea goes back to Mumford. It first appeared in print in the papers of Guillemin and Sternberg and Kempf and Ness
Jan 4, 2011 at 12:41 comment added Anirbit @Moduli Also the way in these papers the symplectic quotient is implemented, it looks like what is often called taking the geometric quotient! I can't see why these are the same things. It might be helpful if you can either give references or explain this construction.
Jan 4, 2011 at 12:39 comment added Anirbit @Moduli I have been myself looking into these things following this recent work, arxiv.org/abs/1005.3546. It is not clear to me as to why this "conformal" manifold has to come from a symplectic quotient rather than a normal quotient. A similar argument for the case of vacua of supersymmetric gauge theories was given in this paper arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9506098 where they again argued the need for a symplectic quotient. Though this argument is a little more understandable than the former.
Oct 22, 2010 at 16:37 comment added jvkersch Thanks! I definitely want to understand this some more.
Oct 22, 2010 at 2:15 comment added Moduli Related to this, in a gauged supergravity theory, we do not have a symplectic quotient anymore; instead we have a GIT quotient.
Oct 22, 2010 at 2:13 comment added Moduli J. Bagger and E. Witten, “The gauge invariant supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model,” Phys. Lett. B118 (1982) 103–106. J. Bagger and J. Wess, “Gauging the supersymmetric sigma model with a Goldstone field,” Phys. Lett. B199 (1987) 243–246.
Oct 21, 2010 at 23:21 comment added jvkersch Interesting. Do you have a reference with some details?
Oct 21, 2010 at 22:41 history answered Moduli CC BY-SA 2.5