In “The Fabric of Reality”, David Deutch gives a refutation of solipsism. I’m not entirely sure it works – all he really tries to do is to show that the difference between solipsism and realism is more nearly a mere semantic distinction than is generally assumed. But in any case, along the way, there’s an anecdote about a solipsist professor lecturing his (imaginary?) class merely to help him clarify his ideas. The idea being that, even if the imaginary students don’t really exist, it helps to clarify the professor’s own ideas by lecturing to them, answering questions, and so forth. In this view, you don’t really understand your own opinions – let alone justifiably believe in them – unless you’ve argued for them against a variety of possible criticisms. (J.S. Mill gave a defense of full-fledged freedom of speech, even for grossly offensive and even “dangerous” opinion, on this ground.)

I mention this because, when I told Dan about the blog, he seemed dubious about blogging as a way of communicating math. It’s certainly more solipsistic than a usenet newsgroup, or a mailing list. Those are channels devoted to a particular subject, with many participants. A blog, comments notwithstanding, is mainly a channel devoted to one voice, on many particular subjects. It’s true that half the point of communicating ideas is to get feedback on them from other people. You make your thinking part of one of those great processes like cathedral-building – ad-hoc, gradual, and (significantly) collective. Even so, relatively solipsistic channels are not entirely pointless.

To wit: by working through my theorems about transporting 2-vectors through spans – both for this blog, and for my talk at Groupoidfest, I discovered some problems. Nobody pointed them out, but discovering them was a consequence of approaching the material again from a new angle, with an audience in mind.

The problem is a conceptually important one – mistaking an n-dimensional space for a 1-dimensional space. I’m fairly sure, for various reasons, that the theorem that there is a 2-functor is still true, but the proof I have in my thesis (in the special case where the groupoids are flat connection groupoids on spaces) has a problem. Since that affects the Part 4 of “Spans and Vector Spaces” which I was going to post, I’ll put that off for a while as I get the proof straightened out.

Here is the issue in a nutshell, however:

The proof I have involves a construction of a functor by a particular method, which I’ve been describing in the last three posts. The final step I was going to describe involved what the contstruction does for 2-morphisms – spans between spans. (There is more to the proof, but the remainder is technical enough to be fairly unenlightening – basically, to be a 2-functor, there need to be specified natural isomorphisms replacing the equations for preserving identities and composition in the definition of a functor, and these have to obey some equations which need to be checked.)

The construction given in my thesis is supposed to give a way to take a span of spans of groupoids, and give a natural transformation between a pair of 2-linear maps. But a 2-linear map can be written as a matrix of vector spaces, and a natural transformation is then written as a matrix of linear operators which act componentwise. So one way to look at the problem is to construct a linear map between vector spaces from a span of groupoids.

That is, we have spans and . Picking basis objects for and (namely, objects and , plus representations of their automorphism groups) gives a subgroupoid of of , consisting of those objects which are sent to and under the maps in the span. It also gives a vector space which is built as a colimit of some vector spaces associated to these objects. Assuming is skeletal, this works out (as I described before) to for each of the in question. The same holds for .

Now suppose we have a span-of-spans making the obvious diagram commute. Then because of that commutation, we also have a span of groupoids over each of the choices of objects, and so then the question becomes, partly, how to get a linear map between the vector spaces we just constructed. If you have bases for all the vector spaces here, it’s not too bad: vectors can be seen as complex-valued functions on the basis. We can push these through the span just as we’ve been talking about in the last few posts here: first pull back a function along one leg by composition, then push forward along the other leg. The push-forward will involve a sum over some objects, and some normalizing factors having to do with the groupoid cardinalities of the groupoids in the span.

However, I won’t go too far into detail about this, because the construction I actually outlined doesn’t adequately specify the basis to use. In fact, it will really only work if all the vector spaces is one-dimensional. Then there is a basis for the combined space which just consists of all the objects . I’d hoped that Schur’s lemma (that intertwiners from to itself, or from to itself, have to be multiples of the identity) would get out of this problem, but I’m not sure it does. So there is a problem with the construction I was trying to use.

As I say, I’m fairly sure the theorem remains true – it’s just the proof needs fixing, which I don’t expect to be too hard. However, I’ll refrain from getting sidetracked until I know I have it worked out.

Instead, next time I’ll describe some of the things I learned at Groupoidfest 07 when I presented a talk on this stuff. (At first I was nervous, having discovered this flaw while preparing the talk – but then, a lot of people were talking about work-in-progress, so I don’t feel too bad now. Plus, the meeting was a lot of fun.)

November 5, 2007 at 9:59 pm

That’s exactly the way I use my blog. It’s nice that I have some readers, of course, but I could be the only bloke on the internet and still get something out of writing.

November 6, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Jeff wrote:

Dan is a bit behind the times when it comes to blogs. I was too, once. I thought more people read usenet newsgroups – and indeed once that was true, but it’s not anymore. At present, blogs are better.

However,

group blogsare better than solipsist blogs, especially in technical subjects like math. They stand a better chance of attracting a critical mass of readers, enough to keep conversations going.So, I hereby invite you to post about math to the n-Category Cafe whenever you like. I should have done this ages ago.

I can see a complicated set of tradeoffs involving greater readership versus less of an individual identity — but a good way around all that is to keep your current blog and just cross-post over at the Cafe whenever you feel like it.

Please think about it!

November 6, 2007 at 6:14 pm

By the way, a little post about what happened at the Groupoidfest would be really great — either at your blog and/or the Cafe.

Also by the way, in this post I see a typo: $V(B)$ in the 8th paragraph.

November 6, 2007 at 7:00 pm

John: Thanks for the invitation. I’ll consider taking you up on that next time I have something interesting and substantial. I probably won’t be able to say much interesting and substantial about Groupoidfest, since a lot of it went over my head. I did get a strong sense of why it would be good to study C*-algebras, since that term was probably used more than “groupoid” among the people there. But in a little bit I’ll describe what I can about it. It was a good meeting.`

I agree about group blogs. Also, a lot of the original design features making hypertext useful are only starting to be implemented (like trackbacks). A better commenting system, finer-grained linking, typed linking, more sophisticated interfaces (the Web is the modern equivalent of the GUI – one standard interface for everything saving time on learning for each new application, but actually not that great for any of them – there’s no reason everyone has to use the same interface to content, however). More semantic markup and a better metadata system than tagging would also be nice, as would a better system of filtering content into different “views”…

November 28, 2007 at 10:43 am

John wrote:

I can only second that. I would enjoy more guest contributions and/or more permanent “hosts” at the n-Café.

October 3, 2008 at 6:39 am

[…] the groupoid/2-vector space stuff I wrote about last year. I resolved the issue I mentioned in a previous post on the subject, which isn’t fundamentally that complicated, but I had to disentangle some […]