« Not Even Wrong on Group Theory
Optimal reduction in the lambda calculus »

Finite dimensional algebras and quivers

May 11th, 2005 by Walt

On ArXiv there is a new survey paper on finite-dimensional algebras and quivers. The paper is rather dense, so it would be tough going for someone not already familiar with the vocabulary of quivers, but it covers some of the surprising connections with Kac-Moody Lie algebras.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 11th, 2005 at 3:23 pm and is filed under Mathematics. 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.

8 Responses to “Finite dimensional algebras and quivers”

  1. sigfpe Says:
    May 11th, 2005 at 6:26 pm

    For an easy(ish) to read introduction I recommend the article on quiver representations here.

  2. Walt Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 10:55 am

    Good recommendation. That’s much easier to read than the survey article.

    I have to say that I find the new registration system for the Notices annoying.

  3. sigfpe Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    They seem to have lost my account and when I reregistered with the same username it didn’t protest that the account was taken.

    Anyway, those AMS articles are great. And I hadn’t met quivers before I found that article a couple of months ago. Surprising how much good stuff comes out of something that at first glance seems like a trivial concept.

  4. Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Crawley-Boevey on Quivers et al Says:
    July 5th, 2005 at 11:26 pm

    [...] m Crawley-Boevey. He provides lecture notes covering quivers (which we’ve discussed before), the cohomological approach to central simple [...]

  5. Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Baez Week 230 Says:
    June 26th, 2006 at 9:32 am

    [...] Week 230 of John Baez’s This Week’s Finds in Mathematical Physics is out. He has returned to one of his favorite subjects (and really, one of everyone’s favorite subjects), Dynkin diagrams. We covered some of the same topics here and here. [...]

  6. beans Says:
    June 26th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    Maybe the new filter thing didn’t work after all! Although fourier series sound nasty- I’m sure no one would object to doing integrals! (Hi Steve. :D)

  7. John Armstrong Says:
    June 26th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    beans: depends on the method. Integration by FToC, sure. Integration by parts, great. Integration by partial fractions.. enh. And I’m about to move to the Southern states where they just do not do integration by court order.

  8. beans Says:
    June 27th, 2007 at 9:03 am

    Is it bad that I had to google FToC!! I’m sure Steve could have us differentiating instead. :D (I’m not a big fan of integration.)

Leave a Reply