Timeline for Is there a nice application of category theory to functional/complex/harmonic analysis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 4 at 13:11 | comment | added | The Amplitwist | Reposting a link mentioned in a previous comment so that it appears in the "Linked" questions list: Yemon Choi's answer to "Is the category of Banach spaces with contractions an algebraic theory?" | |
Dec 14, 2011 at 19:29 | history | edited | Finn Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
Dec 14, 2011 at 19:27 | comment | added | Finn Lawler | @Todd: I didn't mean to suggest that analysis takes a material approach where, say, algebra takes a structural approach -- all I meant by the last paragraph was that, as Paul Garrett points out in his answer, texts on analysis typically eschew the structural point of view, and that it would be nice if there were more structurally-oriented accounts of analysis to complement the traditional ones. | |
Dec 14, 2011 at 2:55 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Finn, I honestly don't know how you are using the word 'material' here, but I'm pretty most sure analysts don't care how the real numbers are defined, as long as you get a complete ordered field. That's structural, not material, in the sense I am familiar with (set theoretic constructions). Do you have a good example of what you mean by "material" in analysis? | |
Dec 13, 2011 at 22:50 | comment | added | Finn Lawler | @Yemon: yes, that's the one I was thinking of. | |
Dec 13, 2011 at 22:02 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @David: there is a paper of Pelletier and Rosicky which at least mentions this result, see my answer mathoverflow.net/questions/8550/… | |
Dec 13, 2011 at 21:38 | comment | added | David Carchedi | Where can I read about C^* algebras being monadic? | |
Dec 13, 2011 at 21:21 | history | answered | Finn Lawler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |