Timeline for "tmf$(n)$ is the space of supersymmetric conformal field theories of central charge $-n$"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2014 at 15:18 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 42 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Apr 7, 2014 at 15:06 | answer | added | Urs Schreiber | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 0:23 | history | edited | Dilaton |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 6, 2012 at 5:47 | comment | added | Scott Carnahan | You're unlikely to get a description of conformal field theory from the tmf spectrum. It seems more likely that any interesting functors go the other way, and that elliptic cohomology exhibits some kind of shadow of CFT. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 15:45 | answer | added | user220 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 13:21 | answer | added | Aaron | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 6:02 | comment | added | user566 | Thanks a lot, that's perfect. Hoping for some interesting and useful answers. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 5:45 | comment | added | user566 | Thanks. I was just looking for a brief explanation or definition of the terms in the title and whatever references you have, just as a starting point for whomever answers. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 5:39 | comment | added | Ryan Thorngren | Unfortunately the only reference I have is from math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week197.html as I said. Maybe it does not even deserve to be called a conjecture, but I would like to understand the intuition behind the statement. The connection between modular forms and vertex operator algebras seems very deep, mostly witnessed by the solutions to specific problems, such as the "monstrous moonshine". The comparative generality of the statement in the title is what is so interesting. | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 5:32 | comment | added | user566 | Could you please elaborate a bit on what the conjecture is? | |
| Dec 14, 2011 at 5:30 | history | asked | Ryan Thorngren | CC BY-SA 3.0 |