![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is the functor covariant, or contravariant (as it would be in the case of a sheaf)? It perhaps looks like the former, from what is said (restriction maps are rarely going to be injective). But I think we should be told.
Charles Matthews 12:56, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Aren't functors automatically assumed to be covariant by default unless explicitly told otherwise? Phys 13:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes - but the notation i-sub-stuff wasn't introduced explicitly, making it harder to suss out.
Charles Matthews 17:17, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
does AQFT stand for axiomatic quantum field theory? Lethe
Apparently algebraic QFT, though it is also axiomatic.
Charles Matthews 18:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm somewhat unsatisfied with this article but don't know how to proceed. So I'll start on the discussion pages (in fact I added a link before I got my user account and did a small change on QFT, BTW thanks for sp and fmt).
The entry doesn't read as physics but as pure mathematics. Of course an axiomatic approach has a strong mathematical side, but there's something beyond.
The entry has only the objective side of AQFT, what is IMHO missing are motives, successes, failures relative standing compared to other approaches. Any feedback whether this would be OK to add? Then I'll try to do it.
Pjacobi 21:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, how does one "pull an action back" to the target category, when the action is defined on the domain category? This does not make any sense, though an equivalent notion could be developed if the functor were an equivalence of categories. Regrettably, it is not. The Poincare covariance axiom is not well explained in this article and should be reformulated. Haag's famous paper from the 60s would do nicely as a source. myrkkyhammas 18:40, 2 March 2007
The list of researches at the end along with links to their websites seems promotional to me. So I plan to cut down the list to those researchers who are notable as evidenced by an article on them at WP. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The page is written in the language of category theory. I suggest that many people who would be interested in the Haag-Kastler axioms don't speak that language.
FWIW, Haag and Kastler did not present their axioms in the language of category theory.
Gregweeks ( talk) 01:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)gregweeks
Somebody more expert in AQFT than I should explain what "the net" and "net monomorphism" refer to. My general sense is that an AQFT defines an allowed set of states on a "net of algebras" but it should pointed out just what that net is before the term is used. There is a monomorphism referred to earlier, maybe that's the net monomorphism, but then this should be stated. Hope someone can do this!
MorphismOfDoom (
talk)
18:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Local quantum field theory be
renamed and moved to
Algebraic quantum field theory.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Local quantum field theory → Algebraic quantum field theory – New name is much more widely used in the scientific literature and thus more appropriate STEMster42 ( talk) 10:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). Steel1943 ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is the functor covariant, or contravariant (as it would be in the case of a sheaf)? It perhaps looks like the former, from what is said (restriction maps are rarely going to be injective). But I think we should be told.
Charles Matthews 12:56, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Aren't functors automatically assumed to be covariant by default unless explicitly told otherwise? Phys 13:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes - but the notation i-sub-stuff wasn't introduced explicitly, making it harder to suss out.
Charles Matthews 17:17, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
does AQFT stand for axiomatic quantum field theory? Lethe
Apparently algebraic QFT, though it is also axiomatic.
Charles Matthews 18:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm somewhat unsatisfied with this article but don't know how to proceed. So I'll start on the discussion pages (in fact I added a link before I got my user account and did a small change on QFT, BTW thanks for sp and fmt).
The entry doesn't read as physics but as pure mathematics. Of course an axiomatic approach has a strong mathematical side, but there's something beyond.
The entry has only the objective side of AQFT, what is IMHO missing are motives, successes, failures relative standing compared to other approaches. Any feedback whether this would be OK to add? Then I'll try to do it.
Pjacobi 21:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, how does one "pull an action back" to the target category, when the action is defined on the domain category? This does not make any sense, though an equivalent notion could be developed if the functor were an equivalence of categories. Regrettably, it is not. The Poincare covariance axiom is not well explained in this article and should be reformulated. Haag's famous paper from the 60s would do nicely as a source. myrkkyhammas 18:40, 2 March 2007
The list of researches at the end along with links to their websites seems promotional to me. So I plan to cut down the list to those researchers who are notable as evidenced by an article on them at WP. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The page is written in the language of category theory. I suggest that many people who would be interested in the Haag-Kastler axioms don't speak that language.
FWIW, Haag and Kastler did not present their axioms in the language of category theory.
Gregweeks ( talk) 01:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)gregweeks
Somebody more expert in AQFT than I should explain what "the net" and "net monomorphism" refer to. My general sense is that an AQFT defines an allowed set of states on a "net of algebras" but it should pointed out just what that net is before the term is used. There is a monomorphism referred to earlier, maybe that's the net monomorphism, but then this should be stated. Hope someone can do this!
MorphismOfDoom (
talk)
18:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Local quantum field theory be
renamed and moved to
Algebraic quantum field theory.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Local quantum field theory → Algebraic quantum field theory – New name is much more widely used in the scientific literature and thus more appropriate STEMster42 ( talk) 10:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). Steel1943 ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)