Talk:Stone–von Neumann theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so that saying it is 'small' isn't very meaningful...

I'm not sure I understand what this means, particularly since asymptotics (e.g. h \rightarrow 0 ) are an important topic in quantization theory.CSTAR 16:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It has the dimensions of action, rather than being dimensionless; that's all I really meant.

Charles Matthews 16:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe you should say that in the article.CSTAR 16:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hope I got the constants right on the Fourier transform. CSTAR 22:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if it needs much more to construct the Weil representation, which is a requested article. Charles Matthews 15:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was planning on doing that under the metaplectic representation in the not too distant future. I also added the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem which is a particularly important fact. I'm wondering what the distinction between a featured article and a non-featured article is? Should I care?CSTAR 15:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's like a five-star hotel, I suppose - one knows it will cost more, and it may even be better. Charles Matthews 15:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think one can reliably say that about five-star hotels (at least in France) that they may be better, but I've seen some featured articles with numerous innaccuracies.CSTAR 16:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nit: position and momentum are reversed

Uhh, this is kind of a nit, but in standard physics usage, Q is the position coordinate, and P is the momentum. (p^2/2m is the kinetic energy/schroedinger operator/laplacian, p-slash is the dirac operator, p is the momentum part of the energy-momentum tensor). I'd fix this myself but verifying all the minus signs in this article is daunting .. linas 04:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you're right.. I don't know what I was thinking. But it may not be that hard to fix. Although the results are true as stated and equivalent to the the other form with P, Q interchanged. CSTAR 05:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, great, thanks, it was late at night, I was going to fix it this morning...linas 15:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] plancks const and Im tau

I was adding to the article on theta functions (and am not done yet) (and should probably move some of that content to the article on heisenberg group) and there's a G-module isomorphism, in the texts I'm reading (mumford), there is no plancks const (its not mentioned, and crudely seems to be taken as one). But in one relationship, it seems to also be related to Im τ (maybe even equal to Im τ ??) where τ is the thing appearing in the article on theta function. Ever see anything along these lines? Any words of wisdom?linas 15:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also the section on S, T in theta function; I'm thinking that roughly Q=T-S Re τ and P=S+T Re τ or something like that ... is there a canonical form for this relation? I don't want to mess it up by just making one up that seems to fit but is subtly wrong... linas 15:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)