1,774 reputation
315
bio website
location London, United Kingdom
age 44
visits member for 2 years, 5 months
seen Aug 20 at 0:29

Education: Mathematics BA, Theoretical Physics MSc

Interested in the Eastern & continental philosophy.


Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jul
2
awarded  Inquisitive
Jun
20
awarded  Nice Question
Jun
12
comment Why is the space of trajectories for a particle a cotangent bundle?
@Lutzl: So, tangent bundle for the Lagrangian perspective; and cotangent bundle for the Hamiltonian one; with Legendres transform to transform between the two pictures?
Jun
12
comment Is there a category whose internal logic is paraconsistent?
@parsnip: thanks
Jun
10
comment What are defining & fundamental representations?
I should have accepted this answer a long-time ago :). Thanks.
Jun
10
accepted What are defining & fundamental representations?
Jun
7
asked Why is the space of trajectories for a particle a cotangent bundle?
Jun
7
comment Are there any legitimate examples of applications of set theory to Physics?
There is this book by Zilber: Model Theory, Non-commutative Geometry & Physics
Jun
6
comment Are there any legitimate examples of applications of set theory to Physics?
@Asaf: No, I wasn't suggesting that it was - but was offering it as an example of an answer to the broader question that was motivating this one; as you were asking 'what sort of examples I'm looking for'.
Jun
6
comment Are there any legitimate examples of applications of set theory to Physics?
@asaf: There are papers by Chris Isham that uses Toposes - which can be considered as generalised set theories - that he uses to discuss the foundations of physics; and Usrs Schrieber uses cohesive toposes to discuss large parts of QFT.
Jun
6
comment Are there any legitimate examples of applications of set theory to Physics?
@asaf: the same question directed to asaf :)
Jun
6
comment Are there any legitimate examples of applications of set theory to Physics?
@Karaglia: How is choice used in QM?
Jun
6
asked Are there any legitimate examples of applications of set theory to Physics?
Jun
6
comment Why are large cardinal axioms actually axioms?
@Wilson: sure, and so are the Peano Axioms; but can't one write the them in terms of the ZFC ones? If one can do that, then isn't it a legitimate supposition that one can do the same with the Hilbert Space axioms? I'm thinking perhaps purely syntactically, rather than (or also) semantically which possibally is giving rise to my confusion. I didn't have an alternative in mind!
Jun
6
comment Why are large cardinal axioms actually axioms?
@Caicedo: done.
Jun
6
revised Why are large cardinal axioms actually axioms?
added 455 characters in body
Jun
6
comment Why are large cardinal axioms actually axioms?
@Caicedo: I've rephrased the question heading to make this more explicit.
Jun
6
revised Why are large cardinal axioms actually axioms?
edited title
Jun
6
comment Is there a largest large cardinal?
@caicedo: An answer along the lines of 'Its a legitimate question. There is no prior art on this question; and on the basis of what is already known, there is no clear strategy that would work' is a perfectly legitimate answer; and is how I interpret both your and Patricks comments.