Timeline for Why Lagrangian cobordism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2021 at 1:43 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed arxiv front-end link
|
| Oct 23, 2014 at 1:09 | comment | added | Daniel Moskovich | This question turns out in fact to be a special case of this question: mathoverflow.net/questions/389/… | |
| Apr 5, 2011 at 6:35 | comment | added | Kelly Davis | Without having read the paper you reference, my guess is that this is equivalent to the gauge fixing condition for path-integral BV quantization. The ref is here dx.doi.org/10.1016/0920-5632(90)90647-D. Basically, one has a space of fields that is a symplectic manifold. A gauge choice corresponds to a Lagrangian submanifold. Physically equivalent gauge choices correspond to cobordant Lagrangian submanifolds. | |
| Nov 9, 2010 at 9:38 | comment | added | Chris Schommer-Pries | (cont) Many of these approaches are (nearly) equivalent, but I don't know a good reference which compares them and gives details of the comparison. | |
| Nov 9, 2010 at 9:37 | comment | added | Chris Schommer-Pries | To me this looks very much like some version of weak 2-framings, as you put it. There seem to be two problems in 3D TQFT: (1) you usually don't get a well defined oriented theory. Instead you get a theory that is defined for some other kind of manifold. By making certain auxiliary choices you can get a well defined TQFTs, and (2) everybody has their own method of making these choices. Another common way to deal with these choices is to choose (cob. classes of) bounding 4-manifolds for your 3-manifold and bounding 3-manifolds for you surfaces. (cont) | |
| Nov 9, 2010 at 6:10 | answer | added | Richard Montgomery | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 8, 2010 at 20:19 | history | asked | Daniel Moskovich | CC BY-SA 2.5 |