This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Gravity

M. D. Sheppeard

April 29, 2008

Classical gravity, whatever its domain of applicability, does not address

the fact that the matter we know about has quantised gravitational charges,

such as rest masses or energy levels for bound systems. A theory capable of

deriving all such rest masses, which we assume exists, presumably encom-

passes both standard model physics and general relativity in certain limits,

and so requires a degree of mathematical sophistication far beyond century

old continuum techniques, or ad hoc deformations thereof. At the same

time, concepts must be accessible to physicists, along with new computa-

tional tools.

Higher operad combinatorics is an example of such a tool. That is,

within the context of certain ideas about quantum gravity, which will be

explained, this mathematics is capable of both (i) reformulating standard

model techniques and (ii) deﬁning simple quantum mass observables which

have some contact with empirical reality.

Classical gravity is considered to arise roughly in the following manner.

Firstly, cosmology is truly quantum and one may choose to abandon a global

ontological reality since all observables are to be deﬁned in terms of the

geometry of measurement conditions, from the point of view of diﬀerent

classes of constrained observers. The main constraint on an observation

is one of scale, such as a choice of beam energy for the LHC. Standard

model physics occupies a low energy tier marked by a ﬁxed value of , but

a whole hierarchy of scales is presumed to exist. As a formalism, general

relativity requires the entire hierarchy of quantum scales, since it exhibits

certain similar features, but physically GR may only apply to low redshift

scale diﬀerences.

In this case dark energy is replaced, most simply, by a variation in the

speed of light and also in (see Riofrio [9] and Pitkanen [8]), so that ﬁne

structure is preserved (please note that Big Bang nucleosynthesis, for in-

1

stance, is not an issue in this proposal). Then GR’s domain of applicability

is limited by its independent ﬁxing of c and . The early universe, from this

vantage point, is characterised by largely classical behaviour (small ) and

large scale thermal contact due to a divergent c. The quantities c and are

quantised, leading to a hierarchy of distance scales labeled by ordinals N

where q = e

2πi

N

will appear as a fundamental deformation parameter. Or-

dinary quantum physics corresponds to a ﬁxed at N = 2. A holographic

emergent 3-vector time (or background temperature) T is identiﬁed with

an entropy increasing process dual to a contraction of space that occurs

for high energy observables. Note that this concept of time is observer de-

pendent and not tied to ﬁxed foliations of a classical reality. Rather, our

estimates of cosmic time arise from the level of quantum complexity, or

Hegelian consciousness, that we employ in our observations (ie. at a ﬁxed

). Unfortunately, mass appears to require operators that span the entire

hierarchy.

Here we wish to investigate a new tricategorical [12] regime at N =

3 by relating special properties of 3-categories to the dimension of space,

colour in QCD, 3 stranded braids, and the number of generations in the low

energy particle spectrum. This appears to be possible only by attributing

to the parameter N = 3 an extremely fundamental signiﬁcance, associated

to unknown axioms for higher toposes and N-dimensional multicategories.

This approach is therefore quite distinct from other topos theoretic ideas for

gravity. The proposal contains 3 sections:

1. describes the axiomatic nature of higher topos quantum gravity

2. outlines the technical core of the proposed research

3. notes connections to a broader research program

1 Higher Topos Quantum Gravity

Ordinary geometry is supposed to emerge from a framework which ﬁrst

deﬁnes observables for a ﬁnite range of input criteria, determined by the ab-

stract constraints of speciﬁc experimental questions. This discrete language

must transcend the mathematics of points in a classical space.

A topos is the modern generalisation of the concept of space. It has

N = 2 levels of arrows, namely objects and 1-arrows. The canonical exam-

ple of a topos is the category of sets, equipped with the two valued Boolean

logic of set union and intersection. Although not necessarily Boolean, all

2

spatial toposes involve distributive lattices with lower (empty set) and upper

(whole set) bounds. A generalisation of the axioms to the logic of quantum

mechanics was considered in [11]. Although this work required higher di-

mensional categorical structures, it is also an N = 2 construction, basically

because the two element set subobject classiﬁer [7] is replaced by the qubit

(concretely C

2

in the category of complex vector spaces), corresponding to

two outcome experiments such as the observation of electron spin.

We will consider rest mass as a kind of three outcome experiment. But

to begin with, let us consider multiple experiments constructed from N = 2

logic. The standard functor F : Set → Vect sends a set S to a basis for

F(S). This selection of a single measurement basis may be generalised to

multicategories, which allow multiple sources

**for 1-arrows. Since quantum processes invariably involve either multiple in-
**

puts and/or multiple outputs, we will consider this kind of categorical arrow

to be the natural one to use. An operad is just a one object multicategory

built from such arrows.

The set of n leaved one level rooted trees labels, in particular, a sequence

of spherical polytopes of dimension d = n −3. For 5 leaves one obtains the

2-sphere in the form of the Stasheﬀ associahedron:

•

• .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

•

•

• . . . . .

• •

•

• •

•

.........

(1)

The vertices of this polytope are labeled by all possible 5-leaved rooted

binary trees, the edges by one edge contractions of such trees and the faces

by two edge contractions, which contain only two internal vertices.

What is the real physical reason for considering such sets of topological

spaces? To begin with, we would like to a ﬁnd an N = 2 shadow of the

hierarchy in ordinary quantum theory (namely Feynman calculi) in a form

3

which puts more emphasis on elementary categorical notions associated to

the logic of measurement than on the particulars of speciﬁc models that rely

on the ad hoc use of complex geometry. This means viewing a continuum

set of numbers (nominally an N = 1 entity) such as the complex numbers,

on the one hand as a weak terminal object [11] in the model category, but

more importantly as an N = ∞limit of allowable measurement values. This

also reﬂects the ω-categorical nature of topological spaces. So although we

will now describe some interesting sets of matrices, complex numbers will

only appear because they reﬂect an inﬁnite number of degrees of freedom

which cannot be properly accounted for by the N = 2 physics alone. And

note that mathematically speaking, the N = 2 case covers almost all 20th

century mathematics. It is the 2 of duality, the 2 of matrices, the 2 of spin

and the 2 of supersymmetry. But mass operators live at N = 3.

As a quantum number, in what way is rest mass analogous to spin? An

experimenter may construct a beam with particles exhibiting random spin

states and the beam is split into two by a magnetic ﬁeld. On the other hand,

a charged lepton beam is usually in a selective electron state due to the low

energy environment of the experiment. But it is feasible that a random

charged lepton beam could be constructed, in which case the magnetic ﬁeld

of a mass spectrometer would yield three divergent trajectories in a manner

similar to the two paths of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. One could argue

that the two experimental conﬁgurations are quite distinct, but we focus

only on the 3-valued aspect of rest mass.

This suggests analysing mass via a ternary extension of qubit logic, at

the fundamental level of higher topos axioms. Fortunately, although topos

models require the existence of inﬁnite sets and uncountable bases, for our

purposes the ﬁnite objects provide suﬃcient material with which to work.

In fact, by principle, the complexity of a measurement dictates both the

categorical dimension N and the ﬁnite degrees of freedom required to specify

and compute observables.

An example of an N indexed construction, which recovers a classical

structure in the N →∞ limit that arises from a basic categorical duality, is

the quantum Fourier transform [5] and the Weyl torus with noncommutative

relations

UV = qV U (2)

where U and V are taken here to be matrix operators under the convolution

product of functions on the discrete torus. For q = −1, the Fourier transform

4

is speciﬁed by powers of the Pauli matrix

σ

x

=

0 1

1 0

**That is, any 2 ×2 complex matrix of the form
**

A1 +Bσ

x

=

A B

B A

**has eigenvalues A + B and A − B. In particular, the spin eigenvalues are
**

±1. The 3 ×3 circulant matrices with real eigenvalues are of the form

M = η

1 re

iθ

re

−iθ

re

−iθ

1 re

iθ

re

iθ

re

−iθ

1

(3)

for real η, r and θ. These matrices are written in terms of powers of the cyclic

permutation (312). Brannen [3] has shown that for r

2

=

1

2

this operator,

with eigenvalues

√

m

e

,

√

m

µ

and

√

m

τ

, recovers Koide’s [6] relation

(

√

m

e

+

√

m

µ

+

√

m

τ

)

2

=

3

2

(m

e

+m

µ

+m

τ

) (4)

for the charged lepton masses, which was used to predict the τ mass and is

still correct to within experimental precision with a phase θ = 0.222222047(17).

Note that a similar relation may be applied to the triplet of neutrino masses

and presumably also to other particle triplets. A primary goal of this re-

search is to derive these phase parameters from fundamental principles.

Remark 1.1 For Hilbert spaces H of prime power dimension D, the D×D

Fourier transform may be used to construct a set of D+1 mutual unbiased

bases for H. In the case of spin, one may choose the bases for measurement

in the x, y and z spatial directions. Again, the discrete torus appears as a

phase space. The special nature of primes N is expected to appear explicitly

in the higher topos axioms, or at least via their recursiveness, because one

important aspect of the scale hierarchy is its relation to categoriﬁed counting

as set cardinality.

If inertial mass arises as a topos quantum number, what role might the

equivalence principle play in this framework? Observe that the extrinsic

Euclidean curvature of particle trajectories is correlated with the quantum

numbers. The Euclidean geometry acts as a measurement template on which

5

rods and clocks have been speciﬁed. Equating this inertial mass with a

universal gravitational charge says that the experimenter’s clock keeps time

with an emergent cosmic clock.

If cosmology is the net eﬀect of large numbers of histories, then the index

N is correlated with the number of particles in an experimental constraint.

In fact, a major motivation for this approach comes from the (categorical)

dimension raising nature of adding input nodes to operad trees, or the di-

mension raising nature of Gray tensor products [12] for bicategories [11].

A new element here is the Machian use of the apparent cosmic time T,

which appears with the assertion that the aforementioned particle collection

is in fact the collection of all bodies in an observable universe [9]. The total

observed mass of the universe is seen to increase with T, although energy is

conserved, in line with the decreasing temperature which T also represents.

Thus when a given charged lepton selects a path in the mass spectrometer,

it determines the classical past which led to this scenario. (This is taken

to be an illustration of the absurdity of considering gravity to be entirely

classical).

This comes back to the diﬃculties in deﬁning time, as discussed by

Descartes and Newton [4]. Recall that Newton’s absolute space was in-

troduced as a necessity only once he had rejected the use of moving bodies

to deﬁne a background, with respect to which motion could be deﬁned.

Concrete macroscopic clocks are constructed from motions with predictable

physical behaviour. Since motion between bodies is relative, and no body is

truly free of external forces, the only potentially ideal clock is a whole uni-

verse of classical bodies along with a theory describing the inertial behaviour

of these bodies, which is assumed to be a quantum theory.

We can now begin to address Harvey Brown’s question [4]: why are the

same clocks able to describe the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces?

Because all concrete clocks are modeled on the cosmic time that emerges

from the mathematical measurement templates used to deﬁne the quantum

numbers of localisable states of matter. Note that T-duality, for instance, is

one possible consequence of these ideas, since the concentration of mass in

a high curvature limit should correspond to the universal observed mass of

a selected past on the largest scales.

Now let us ask what kind of mathematics might capture the logic of the

hierarchy and models such as an ω-categorical resolution of the quantum

Fourier transform. In the 1-topos setting [11] one views the one dimensional

vector space as an analogue of the one point set, and the zero vector space

(with one element) as an analogue of the empty set. The qubit space replaces

the two point space of Boolean logic. Now the topos Set is really the

6

category of sheaves over a point, but what is this point? As a space, it is

the simplest lattice 0 → 1 mapping the empty set into the full space. All

kinds of abstract (Stone) dualities, including that associated to the classical

Fourier transform, are derived from the correspondence between a suitable

category of lattices underlying spatial toposes, and its categorical dual [7].

One may consider even a braided monoidal category as a quantum topos

[11], where the braiding c : X ⊗ Y → Y ⊗ X is associated to the noncom-

mutativity of a meet operator ∧

c

in a quantum lattice. But the monoidal

structure will be weakened in the polytope laws that we need to consider, in

particular the six faces of the parity cube. So categoriﬁed knot invariants,

such as Khovanov homology, are not expected to pick up the generational

structure. Note that this was also observed in the B

3

ribbon characterisation

of particle states by Bilson-Thompson [2], which we view as a low energy

set of diagrams incorporating categorical duality but not triality. What we

seek is a suitable N = 3, ie. ternary, analogue of (co)homological invariants.

2 Higher Operad Combinatorics

The resolution of useful categories, or categorical coherence laws, into hierar-

chical structures is what operads are about. Alternatively, operads generalise

the process of function substitution for functions of any number of variables.

An n-operad is indexed by an n-ordinal. An ordinary 1-ordinal m ∈ N

+

is

represented by an m leaved rooted tree. Rooted trees with two levels of

branches

**label 2-ordinals. For our purposes a 1-operad is a sequence of polytopes
**

O(m) of dimension m − 1 that satisﬁes the operad rules, for instance the

associahedra appearing above, which directly correspond to the 1-ordinal

labels. The combinatorics of associahedra, and the motivic cohomology of

(real) moduli spaces tiled by associahedra, are known to be closely related

to zeta function algebras appearing in QFT amplitudes [11].

Instead of resolving the 1-ordinal tree into bracketings on m+1 letters,

one may demand trees with all nodes at separated levels. The vertices of

these polytopes, the permutohedra, are labeled by permutations on m sym-

bols because these denote the ordering of internal nodes in a given direction,

up or down. The distinction between permutohedra and associahedra is cru-

cial to the breaking of monoidal structure in a categoriﬁed setting, because

7

it marks the sixth side

//

κ

//

(5)

of the cube on which the pentagon law sits on the other ﬁve sides. The

permutohedra may be labeled by 2-ordinal trees which extend the 1-ordinal

trees by single branches at every branch, as in the example above.

Finally, a third sequence of polytopes to be considered is the humble n

dimensional cube. The vertices of an n-cube are labeled by the 2

n

possible

sets of parity words of length n. For example, the 3-cube has vertices −−−,

−−+, +−−, −+−, −++, +−+, ++− and +++. Edges are directed

according to an increase in positivity, making + + + the target vertex of

the cube. Parity words correspond to bracketings of (n + 1) letters. For

instance, the 4 vertices of the parity square label ABC, A(BC), (AB)C and

(ABC). Observe that a 2-arrow α

ABC

α

//

A(BC)

(AB)C

//

(ABC)

ﬁlling such a square represents broken associativity. As a face of the 3-cube,

this square is a categoriﬁed version (a pseudonatural transformation) of an

associator arrow from the pentagon law.

To each permutation on n symbols one may assign a sequence of n − 1

signs, called the signature. For example, the signature of (312) is −+ follow-

ing the decrease and increase in the numerical symbols. Thus the signature

types of S

n+1

, which label the vertices of the permutohedron in dimension

n, form a parity cube C

n

of 2

n

vertices in dimension n. For example, the

hexagon S

3

descends to the square. It is possible [10] to factorise these

vertex maps through the associahedron A

n

S

n+1

→A

n

→C

n

8

in any dimension. In a sequence of the form

S

4

→A

3

→C

3

→S

3

→A

2

→C

2

→S

2

= A

1

= C

1

→S

1

= point

there is only one extra natural map to discuss, namely the map from the

3-cube to the hexagon S

3

which maps paths in the cube from the source

to the target onto vertices of the hexagon. The faces of the cube, which

lie between two adjacent paths, then correspond to edges of the hexagon.

Note that length 3 paths are represented directly by all permutations of the

directions x, y and z.

An N = 3 analogue of the Weyl relations takes the hexagonal form

UV W = qWV U simply by virtue of being a one dimensional equation. The

three dimensional equation, by deﬁnition, cannot be written on a line. The

N = 3 circulant Fourier transform basis, in terms of (312), corresponds to a

cycle of three vertices on the hexagon that divide the cube into three pairs

of faces, each pair marked by a spatial direction or a braid on three strands

composed of the two generators marking the edges of the hexagon. Similarly

the two spin operators, σ

x

and the identity, label the two paths of the square

C

2

, namely yx and xy. On the cube, the edges of the xy squares mark out

four faces, so the composition of two faces, or the B

3

braid, might represent

fermionic spin, as observed in [2].

Remark 2.1 Actually, a parity cube (of smoothings) also describes the

Khovanov homology of the 3 crossing trefoil knot, which famously decorates

the associahedron A

3

when crossings are marked on the squares. The fun-

damental group of the complement of a trefoil is the braid group B

3

which

has many nice properties, such as covering the modular group PSL(2, Z).

The Jones polynomial of the (left handed) trefoil at any cubed root of unity

is exactly 1 and this normalises J(K) for all torus knots.

A crucial observation here is that the discrete U(1) transform involves

only 1-categorical resolutions, whereas a complete mass operator is expected

to be at least 3 dimensional. Loday has investigated a number of ternary

algebras and operads related to the interplay between these sequences of

polytopes, but it is unclear how mass operators might be deﬁned with such

tools.

The proposal is to consider N = 3 type invariants, potentially related to

mass, which are constructed from fundamental geometric principles. First

observe that an Euler characteristic is an alternating sum of possibly quan-

tum dimensions. In the example of Khovanov homology for the trefoil, the

signs correspond to the total parity of the vertex of the cube, and in general

9

the sign is a parity check bit for choices of smoothing over all crossings on

the knot. The signs are thus closely related to logical bits, or rather qubits,

and we seek an extension to invariants based on the cubed roots of unity of

ternary logic.

Write the Euler characteristic as a 2×2 circulant matrix where A collects

the even parity terms and B the odd parity. For example, a triangulated

closed surface has

χ =

V +F E

E V +F

(6)

The usual χ is recovered as an eigenvalue of the matrix. Poincare dual-

ity, namely the interchange of faces and vertices on dual surfaces, preserves

this 2-valued invariant. Poincare duality underlies the ubiquitous categor-

ical string diagrams for which knot and ribbon invariants are constructed,

whereas a ternary analogue would cycle the three axiomatic levels of points,

lines and faces. By always distinguishing points, the boundary of a boundary

may not vanish and one must replace the fundamental monadic law d

2

= 0

by, one guesses, d

3

= 0. Note that d

3

is the label at the source of a cube, in

analogy with the deﬁning square of a monad.

At a more sophisticated level, one seeks a ternary analogue of Connes’

cyclic homology, which itself applies to quantum tori. Since nonassociativ-

ity is endemic here, noncommutative geometry alone cannot capture the

desired algebraic structures. Note that in labeling braid strands by higher

categorical objects, one needs to keep track of groupings of strands

**corresponding to bracketings of objects in the category. This consideration
**

led Bar-Natan [1] to a series of genuine 2-operad polytopes known as the

permutoassociahedra.

Remark 2.2 In three dimensions, this 120 vertex polytope extends the per-

mutohedron by replacing all vertices with pentagons and adding additional

squares. The S

3

hexagons become 12 sided with the addition of associator

maps. Observe that these dodecagons may reduce to both the permutohe-

dron hexagon and the hexagon laws for braided monoidal categories.

The dimension of an operad polytope increases as the number of branches

at the top level increases. If category objects are represented by strands, as

is common in diagram methods, then one associates larger B

n

braid groups

10

with higher dimension. This is what happens, for instance, in the Feynman

chord diagrams of Kreimer et al, where the algebra of multiple zeta values

giving the amplitudes matches n to the depth (number of integers) in the

zeta argument. We would also like to better understand how the motivic

multiple zeta amplitudes, arising from cohomology computed using operad

polytopes [11], are transformed into the knot diagrams.

In any case, Bar-Natan’s grouped strands replace an ordinary associator

1-arrow, and the latter was categoriﬁed to a face of the parity cube. Follow-

ing the Khovanov categoriﬁcation, consider a cobordism between the central

strands of the two possible reassociations. When viewed from above, this

cobordism is a half twisted ribbon. That is, a ribbon is the simplest cobor-

dism resolving a crossing. The composition of two such faces becomes either

a fully twisted ribbon or an untwisted one. Again, it would be interesting

to compare such cobordisms with the charge representation of [2].

The three edge side of the Bar-Natan [1] pentagon has been described

by the gluing of three tetrahedron graphs,

**each representing one face of the parity cube. These knotted trivalent graphs
**

are yet another route to invariants that might pick up the higher operad com-

binatorics of the permutoassociahedra. In this representation, ﬁve tetrahe-

dra bound a triangular 4-simplex, leading to constructions common to spin

foam quantum gravity. In fact, the noncommutative Fourier transform and

path integrals of Kapranov are based on the idea of noncommutative poly-

nomial paths, drawn on cubic lattices as above.

The higher realm of 3-operads must combine all the aforementioned ele-

ments, and more. Simply specifying the low dimensional polytopes at N = 3

would be a time consuming task.

3 Relation to other research

Ribbon networks are interpreted as logical statements in the internal lan-

guage of a higher topos, in analogy to the Venn diagrams of set theory,

which were extended by C. S. Peirce, who in many ways founded categorical

thinking in the 19th century. A long term research goal is to outline in detail

a statement of quantum gravitational principles in this, as yet undeveloped,

language.

11

More concretely, previous occurrences of ribbon techniques in QFT may

be revisited using such interpretations; for instance, the ribbon diagrams

of ’t Hooft for QCD. Placing Bilson-Thompson [2] braids on a cube shows

a correspondence between QCD colour and spatial directions. This corre-

spondence arises in a number of ways, most notably via comparisons to the

computation of gluon amplitudes using 1-operad techniques [11]. Given the

primary importance of these processes to LHC physics, more work needs to

be done on translating MHV tools into categorical ones.

It is worth investigating simple characterisations of ternary toposes in

analogy to the axioms of a topos as motivated by the Boolean category Set.

For instance, the basic characterising pullback square, deﬁned by the two

target arrows, would be replaced by the three target faces of a cube. Unlike

duality, which is described by a single pair of functors, triality requires a

triple of dual processes, and hence three parity cubes. M. Rios has pointed

out that these cubes are labeled by pairs of three logic symbols, say 0, 1 and

2. There are 27 elementary functions in ternary logic, corresponding to the

27 dimensions of the 3 ×3 octonion Jordan algebra.

Another motivation for this view of quantum causality is twistor theory

and the H

1

sheaf cohomology solutions for massless ﬁelds. Sparling has

considered an interesting three time twistor triality. The idempotent oper-

ators of Brannen [3] may be thought of as points in projective space using

the Jordan algebra characterisation of projective geometry. Twistor space

is a model for 6 dimensional moduli, such as the triple (M

0,6

, M

1,3

, M

2,0

),

viewed as a ternary analogue of the pair (M

0,4

, M

1,1

) which underlies a

lot of number theory and also Grothendieck’s work on ribbon graphs. The

orbifold Euler characteristic of M

0,6

is -6, which is another way to ﬁx the

number of generations at 3, and may be computed using ribbon techniques.

Note also that the six point space is represented by a particular 2-ordinal

tree with six branches which was instrumental in (Tamarkin’s observations

and) Batanin’s extension of conﬁguration space compactiﬁcations.

The sum of indices for this moduli triple is 12, which appears to count the

dimensions of F theory: three times from the genus, three spatial directions

from the torus and six so called compactiﬁed dimensions from the gluon

points on the sphere. Since quantum directions are selected by idempotents,

one can take this idea seriously, along with many other coincidences related

to string theoretic parameters. Note that the two extra time directions

are associated with the cosmic expansion and hence the genus two moduli

represents non standard massless degrees of freedom.

The thermodynamic emergence of time with a cosmic scale parameter

is reminiscent of the canonical evolution parameter of Connes’ noncommuta-

12

tive spaces. Pitkanen [8] and Brannen [3] both have well developed programs

based on closely related physical ideas. Connections between stringy black

holes and quantum computation also use ternary mathematics, such as Cay-

ley’s hyperdeterminant. In short, there are many reasons to hope that this

is a fruitful line of research.

References

[1] D. Bar-Natan. Nonassociative tangles.

http://www.math.utoronto.ca/ drorbn/papers/nat/nat.pdf.

[2] S. O. Bilson-Thompson. A topological model of composite preons.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503213.

[3] C. A. Brannen. http://carlbrannen.wordpress.com/.

[4] H. Brown. Time and motion. http://pirsa.org/06110043/.

[5] M. A. Nielsen I. L. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum

information. Cambridge, 2000.

[6] Y. Koide. Fermion-boson two body model of quarks and leptons and

Cabibbo mixing. Lett. Nuovo Cim., 34:201, 1982.

[7] S. Mac Lane I. Moerdijk. Sheaves in Geometry and Logic. Springer,

1992.

[8] M. Pitkanen. http://matpitka.blogspot.com/.

[9] L. Riofrio. http://riofriospacetime.blogspot.com/.

[10] J. L. Loday M. O. Ronco. Adv. Math., 139:293–309, 1998.

[11] M.D. Sheppeard. Gluon phenomenology and a linear topos. Ph D

thesis, University of Canterbury, 2007.

[12] R. Gordon A.J. Power R. Street. Coherence for tricategories. Mem.

Amer. Math. Soc., 117(558), 1995.

13

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulFQXi large grants proposal May 2008

FQXi large grants proposal May 2008

- Time Essay from 2008
- Ternary Logic and Mass Quantum Numbers
- CosmoMDS08
- MDSepsrc
- Fourier Supersymmetry
- mathgen-1615743437
- 13.What is an Infocube
- mock3
- The Cube of Life _ Space Writing
- Understanding and Solving
- 14 Solving the Cube
- Rubik4x4x4SolutionHardwickSpeed.pdf
- Games & Puzzles
- 2×2キューブ
- rubik solver2
- 4 Ways to Solve a Rubik's Cube (Easy Move Notation) - WikiHow
- Russell Absolutism
- sq_obj
- Compete Geom
- Rubik Beginner Method
- Physics Formula Sheet-By Er Rammohan Mudgal
- Physics a Level Formula Sheet 1 (Detailed)
- Bunsen Burner Lab
- ComputerGraphics_RepresentationOfPrimitives
- Tutorial 1
- CBSE Class 11 Phyiscs MCQs - Set 6
- 2010 h2 Prelims Revision A
- Senarai Amali Fizik Spm Ting 4
- Igcse Notes Physics Numbered-140205153241-Phpapp01
- IGCSE 2004-2008 Physics
- FullProp08

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.