Hopefully, I will be starting soon. For now I just posted an entry containing my response to the historical discussion on the theorems of Beck and Benabou-Roubaud. For now I am more absorbed by nlab. My personal nlab pages can be found here and my web page at work is here.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

This entry was posted on December 22, 2009 at 2:28 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

February 27, 2010 at 8:13 pm |

I want to say how delighted I am to see you in a blog of your own, as well as on nlab.

March 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm |

Well, thanks! But so far it was not really starting…we have external evaluations and I have administrative reports to write these days. Hopefully after that it will become regular. Some of the topics I want to present are related to noncommutative geometry, nonabelian cohomology, mathematical physics (I was thinking last few days of doing also a series of pedagogical low-brow presentations titled “Theoretical physics from the point of view of mathematical” to give some understandable arguments why things like modern geometry and category theory would be relevant for a mainstream theoretical physicist and what would one profit into learning some of it, if not intending to become a math side specialist). There is a nice metaphore for that. You have say a cosmology expert to present his work in front of an auditing reviewers’ auidience. But the talk is short and he can snow people by saying various works hiding the fact that recently he was not producing any significant word. But scientist hear familiar phrases and think that they heard a proof of competence. Now you bring a psychologist who does not know anything about cosmology, and she listens and sees the guy sweatening, looks for his body language and gets maybe better feeling about the frankness of the guy than the experts. Similar to that scenario, I think sometimes big picture which is coming from fancy new mathematical physics sometimes can get organizational clarity and sharp insights here and there without going into details of a particular teoretical physics works. I think those who are theoretical physicist, and being so, better in that respect than mathematical physicists like me, can still from us learn some hints how to use some of the new insights mathematics and geometry offer. This could bridge a communication gap with mainstream theoretical physicists. When I was a student I was closer to them and now I feel frustrated by being further from them, and I decided recently to bridge that gap at least within the smaller community closer around me and in my own scientific personality.