At various places I have seen people referring to Segal's papers in CFT as the "standard definition" of the subject. These seem to have become classics in this field. But I can't locate them on the net. I searched on arxiv,spires,Google/Scholar,AMS etc.

The papers I am referring to are (especially the fist one),

  • G. Segal, The definition of conformal field theory, in: Differential geometrical methods in theoretical physics (Como, 1987), NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., 250, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1988, 165-171

  • G. Segal, Two-dimensional conformal field theories and modular functors, in: Proceedings of the IXth International Congress on Mathematical Physics, Swansea, 1988, Hilger, Bristol, 1989, 22-37.

  • G. Segal, The definition of conformal field theory, preprint, 1988; also in: Topology, geometry and quantum field theory, ed. U. Tillmann, London Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser., Vol. 308. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, 421-577.

and on similar lines this paper by Moore and Seiberg

  • G. Moore and N. Seiberg, Lectures on RCFT, in: Physics, geometry, and topology (Banff, AB, 1989), ed. H.C. Lee, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. B Phys., 238, Plenum, New York, 1990, 263-361.

One possibility is that these are only available in the proceedings mentioned and hence only as books in some library. Are there no online copies of these?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are these books/proceedings/volumes not available in your library? $\endgroup$ – Kevin H. Lin Jun 17 '10 at 21:23
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ I voted to close, because I don't think the purpose of MO is to substitute for going to the library/requesting an interlibrary loan/reading previews on google books - especially not for things like the Tillmann volume that are in print and easily available. I think MO runs the risk of getting into murky waters if people use it this way. Happily, much of what we need is openly available - for those things that are not, an occasional library visit isn't such a hardship. $\endgroup$ – Tim Perutz Jun 17 '10 at 22:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Personally, I don't mind mathoverflow being used this way unless it in some way becomes disruptive. $\endgroup$ – Scott Morrison Jun 18 '10 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ Anirbit: Does Tata have a physical library? $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan Jun 18 '10 at 4:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Tim on the murky waters. There's a definite distinction between asking for a reference and asking for a way to find a technically illegal copy of something. Whilst the question does not ask for such, it doesn't not ask for it. $\endgroup$ – Loop Space Jun 18 '10 at 8:44

Moore-Seiberg can be obtained from Professor Moore's webpage, see this page.

One of Segal's lectures can be found here, which I'm afraid is different from what you requested.




The first of your references is available via Google books.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.