/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11485181
It really isn't. Quantum theories such as in-equilibrium many-body QM, [math]G[/math]-QFTs for finite [math]G[/math], YM, TQFTs and CFTs don't fit that description and indeed have well-defined/rigorous notions of "average over histories". You need to stop pretending you know what you're talking about anon, because you don't.

>>11378964
>unusually technical sounding research interest is mentioned
Because other factors make the applicant seem unreliable/incredulous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a solid proposal-type writeup in an app.
>holistically
If they want something "holistic" they'd talk to their rubber duckys. If you did good research then your app definitely didn't show it.
>zips right past any mentions of profs
I said target the profs, not mention them by name. Doing so only limits your options and makes you look presumptuous, I agree, especially you have zero prior correspondence with them. This is obvious.
>different admission committee attitudes in Canada and the US.
Math is math, and "publish and perish" holds in any country. Enough with the excuses, just do better.

>>11376998
Define [math]J(\theta)[/math].
>>11376785
>got nowhere
Sorry to hear that anon, even though in that form literally every property you need for a norm follows directly from those of the absolute value in one line.

>>11357800
That is to be expected if it's a physics masters, since physicists don't really concern themselves with the mathematical formalisms. Some even consider the classification problem to be solved in the 80's. Bernevig himself is doing qauntum chemistry stuff now.
I'd say you don't need much of the math if you're mainly focused on the physics, but it'd be good to at least go through Altland-Zirnbauer and Kitaev's papers on the classification of non-interacting topological orders.
>>11357880
I don't know if there's a lower bound on how stupid a question can be on /sqt/ but energy quite literally determines the ground state, which is what almost all measurements [math]\opreatorname{tr}\rho A[/math] are made on. Of course changing the potential energy is going to change your measurements.

>this entire thread

>>9062425
>respective dogma
Right and wrong. Those mathematicians that dislike the supposed "lack of rigor" in physics should also reject statements proven assuming generalized RH/CH.
Physicists of the older generation are more likely to reject fancy mathematical constructs, but I'm sure this is about to change.
>notations/conventions
Have you ever been to a CS conference? Their shit's even more fucked up.

>>9034437
The classical theory might be much easier to manage since you won't need to mess with operator algebras. Even if you do find what you're looking for, an application of it to QFT will still be a while off. I'm thinking that it's likely we'll need a new quantization scheme (e.g. taken from concepts in geometric quantization) instead of trying to patch up second quantized theories like what Wightman was doing if any new PDE/analysis techniques are developed.
Good luck to you tho anon what you're doing seems to be very interesting and useful even if QFT can't use it for a while.

>>9018100
What's wrong with letting people smarter than mathematicians write math textbooks?