Talk:Supermanifold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

There seem to be numerous different definitions of supermanifolds in the literature. It would be useful if this article could give an overview of all the different definitions (with references) and reasons why some may be preferred over others. The field seems young enough that perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't pick out one definition as the correct one. -- Fropuff 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition in terms of ringed spaces is very much canonical --Tiphareth

Perhaps, but it would be nice to have more discussion of the less sheaf-theoretic view of supermanifolds. For example, the work of Alice Rogers or B. or C. DeWitt. Mryacht 15:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

well I don't mind the sheafs, they're a great way of thinking, but I am still a bit at loss about this definition. Does anybody have a source? I am looking for a math book on this topic for quite some time (and I consider DeWitts book as a physics book, he doesn't seem to prove existence of Grassmann numbers). What is quite unclear to me in this definition is, what is Lambda^dot(., ..,)? Lambda (in my world) would be the exterior algebra maybe on a vectorspace fibre bundle. But what is ^dot? The space of all morphisms? Until this is resolved, I think it is quite bold to speak of having a 'definition'. Anybody can help? Andreask 09:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)