Mathematical uses of string theoryStatistical physics of string theoryNon-trivial consequences of Baer's...



Mathematical uses of string theory


Statistical physics of string theoryNon-trivial consequences of Baer's theorem and Lucchini's theorem in subnormality theoryRole for generalized geometries in string theoryString theory “computation” for math undergrad audienceBook on mathematical “rigorous” String Theory?How much of character theory can be done without Schur's lemma or the Artin-Wedderburn theorem?Mathematica package for supergravity and string theorySingular Homology Groups from Compact Oriented Submanifolds?













21












$begingroup$


It is widely believed that correctness of string theory as a physical theory will not be decided in the near future. Regardless whether this will turn out to be correct or not, mathematical concepts derived from string theory may have proved theorems whose correctness (and relevance for mathematics) is undisputed.



What are (important in mathematics) mathematical theorems which wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In some way this might be an analogue of "what theorems in calculus wouldn't have been proven except for physics/mechanics". I mean this in a completely positive way, if there were any doubt! :) Seriously, "instantaneous rate of change" is pretty physical. :)
    $endgroup$
    – paul garrett
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    One indisputable contribution is various results in enumerative geometry, see, for instance, "Enumerative Geometry and String Theory" by Sheldon Katz.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitri Pavlov
    2 days ago
















21












$begingroup$


It is widely believed that correctness of string theory as a physical theory will not be decided in the near future. Regardless whether this will turn out to be correct or not, mathematical concepts derived from string theory may have proved theorems whose correctness (and relevance for mathematics) is undisputed.



What are (important in mathematics) mathematical theorems which wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In some way this might be an analogue of "what theorems in calculus wouldn't have been proven except for physics/mechanics". I mean this in a completely positive way, if there were any doubt! :) Seriously, "instantaneous rate of change" is pretty physical. :)
    $endgroup$
    – paul garrett
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    One indisputable contribution is various results in enumerative geometry, see, for instance, "Enumerative Geometry and String Theory" by Sheldon Katz.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitri Pavlov
    2 days ago














21












21








21


12



$begingroup$


It is widely believed that correctness of string theory as a physical theory will not be decided in the near future. Regardless whether this will turn out to be correct or not, mathematical concepts derived from string theory may have proved theorems whose correctness (and relevance for mathematics) is undisputed.



What are (important in mathematics) mathematical theorems which wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




It is widely believed that correctness of string theory as a physical theory will not be decided in the near future. Regardless whether this will turn out to be correct or not, mathematical concepts derived from string theory may have proved theorems whose correctness (and relevance for mathematics) is undisputed.



What are (important in mathematics) mathematical theorems which wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory?







ag.algebraic-geometry dg.differential-geometry gr.group-theory rt.representation-theory string-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday


























community wiki





2 revs, 2 users 89%
ThiKu












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In some way this might be an analogue of "what theorems in calculus wouldn't have been proven except for physics/mechanics". I mean this in a completely positive way, if there were any doubt! :) Seriously, "instantaneous rate of change" is pretty physical. :)
    $endgroup$
    – paul garrett
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    One indisputable contribution is various results in enumerative geometry, see, for instance, "Enumerative Geometry and String Theory" by Sheldon Katz.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitri Pavlov
    2 days ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In some way this might be an analogue of "what theorems in calculus wouldn't have been proven except for physics/mechanics". I mean this in a completely positive way, if there were any doubt! :) Seriously, "instantaneous rate of change" is pretty physical. :)
    $endgroup$
    – paul garrett
    2 days ago






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    One indisputable contribution is various results in enumerative geometry, see, for instance, "Enumerative Geometry and String Theory" by Sheldon Katz.
    $endgroup$
    – Dmitri Pavlov
    2 days ago








1




1




$begingroup$
In some way this might be an analogue of "what theorems in calculus wouldn't have been proven except for physics/mechanics". I mean this in a completely positive way, if there were any doubt! :) Seriously, "instantaneous rate of change" is pretty physical. :)
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
2 days ago




$begingroup$
In some way this might be an analogue of "what theorems in calculus wouldn't have been proven except for physics/mechanics". I mean this in a completely positive way, if there were any doubt! :) Seriously, "instantaneous rate of change" is pretty physical. :)
$endgroup$
– paul garrett
2 days ago




5




5




$begingroup$
One indisputable contribution is various results in enumerative geometry, see, for instance, "Enumerative Geometry and String Theory" by Sheldon Katz.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
2 days ago




$begingroup$
One indisputable contribution is various results in enumerative geometry, see, for instance, "Enumerative Geometry and String Theory" by Sheldon Katz.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
2 days ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















17













$begingroup$

Monstrous moonshine, the famous relationship between the
dimensions of the irreducible representations of the Monster group and the coefficients in the Fourier expansion of
the $j$-invariant. Borcherds' proof of monstrous moonshine uses the Goddard-Thorn
theorem, which comes out of string theory,
specifically the quantization of the bosonic string.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$























    10













    $begingroup$

    1) Verlinde's formula: Let $mathrm{C}$ be a curve of genus $ggeqslant 2$. The Picard group of the Moduli space of rank $2$ bundles on $mathrm{C}$ with trivial determinant is an infinite cyclic group, with ample generator denoted by $mathscr{L}$. Verlinde's formula says that $$h^0(mathscr{L}^{otimes k})=sum_{p=0}^{k} mathrm{S}_{p0}^{-chi(mathrm{C})},$$
    where the matrix $mathrm{S}=(mathrm{S}_{pq})_{p,q=0}^{k}$ is given by
    $$mathrm{S}_{pq}=sqrt{frac{2}{k+2}}sinfrac{(p+1)(q+1)}{k+2}pi.$$
    This was proven in the early 90s by several people (Bertram-Szenes, Faltings, Thaddeus,...).
    The corresponding result for rank $1$ bundles (in which case the right hand side of the formula is $k^g$) is classical and easy to prove. For rank $2$ bundles the Moduli space is not smooth, let alone a torus, and so the intersection theory is very hard to determine.



    2) Witten's conjecture: Consider the DM compactified moduli space $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ of genus $g$ curves with $n$ markings. For each $1leqslant ileqslant n$ there is a line bundle $mathscr{L}_i$ on $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ whose fiber over $(mathrm{C};p_1,ldots,p_n)$ is the cotangent space $mathrm{T}^vee_{mathrm{C},p_i}$. Let $psi_i=c_1(mathscr{L}_i)$. For $k_1,ldots,k_ngeqslant 0$ define $leftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightrangle_g$ to be
    $$int_{overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}}psi_1^{k_1}cdotspsi_n^{k_n}$$
    if $sum_{i=1}^n k_i=dimoverline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}=3g-3+n$ and $0$ otherwise. Then define
    $$F_g((t_i)_{i=0}^infty)=sum_d left(prod_{i=1}^infty frac{t_i^{d_i}}{d_i!}right)leftlangletau_0^{d_0}tau_1^{d_1}tau_2^{d_2}cdotsrightrangle_g,$$
    the summation being over all sequences $d=(d_i)_{i=1}^infty$ of natural numbers with finite support. Denote
    $$F=sum_{g=0}^infty F_g lambda^{2g-2}$$
    and
    $$leftlangleleftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightranglerightrangle=frac{partial}{partial t_{k_1}}cdotsfrac{partial}{partial t_{k_n}}F.$$
    Then Witten's conjecture says that for all $ngeqslant 1$
    $$(2n+1)lambda^{-2}leftlangleleftlangletau_n tau_0^2rightranglerightrangle=leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1}tau_0rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^3rightranglerightrangle+2leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^2rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^2rightranglerightrangle+frac{1}{4}leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^4rightranglerightrangle.$$
    (For more on this see for example Harris & Morrison, Moduli of Curves, page 71.)
    For $n=1$ Witten's conjecture means that $U=partial^2 F/partial t_0^2$ satisfies the KdV equation
    $$3lambda^{-2}frac{partial U}{partial t_1}=3Ufrac{partial U}{partial t_0}+frac{1}{4}frac{partial^3 U}{partial t_0^3}.$$
    Witten's conjecture was first proven by Kontsevich, and again several other people have given alternative proofs (Okounkov-Pandharipande, Kazarian-Lando, Mirzakhani,...). But I find it difficult to imagine that this result would have seen the light of day without string theory.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$











    • 6




      $begingroup$
      Actually Verlinde formula came from conformal field theory, not from string theory.
      $endgroup$
      – abx
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Regarding Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that the actual proofs are not using input from physics and string theory was „only“ needed for guessing the right formula?
      $endgroup$
      – ThiKu
      yesterday






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @ThiKu That seems right to me - but again it is not easy to imagine how mathematicians could have been led to think that there might be KdV equations involved in the intersection theory of $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$. abx: That's a good point, but it seems fair to say that Verlinde considered the CFT relevant for this special case (the WZW model) mainly because of string theory considerations of papers such as Gepner & Witten, String theory on group manifolds. I think the relationship between String theory and CFT is so close that we cannot dismiss this example as off-topic.
      $endgroup$
      – Spirit of perpetual negation
      yesterday





















    5













    $begingroup$

    If the question is set on the level of mentioning important "theorems" or "computations" or "results" which




    wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory




    i think one could easily build a very-very long list.

    Maybe it would be more appropriate to speak about which "theories" wouldn't have been out there (at least in their present form) had string theory been missing.



    I believe that the case of mirror symmetry is a good candidate. See also Kontsevich's 1994 paper



    Edit: Regarding the comment:




    would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?




    In some sense yes (at least regarding the part "...the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship"); and this may be seen in some precise sense as the the role of dualities in string theory: In general, duality -in string theory- means that two different string theory models may come down to the same "quantitative predictions" (for exampe the same set of topological invariants) for suitable choices of their parameters. The values of the parameters are often indicated by physical arguments (which may include experimental data or phenomenological arguments) and then the duality imposes conjectures of mathematical nature.

    (However, this does not exclude the possibility that the actual proofs are indeed using input from physics -i think that Witten's work has pointed to that direction but i do not have some exact reference available right now).

    The following diagram outlines some general scheme of the physics-mathematics interaction through dualities of string theory:



    enter image description here



    For more details, you can see the very interesting article: Mathematics and string theory, by Marcos Marino (see especially the discussion in p. 4-5).



    P.S.: Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at the list included in the first answer at the following quora's question:
    Are there any applicable uses of the string theory in maths? Or does it just apply for physics?






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$















    • $begingroup$
      The same question as for Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?
      $endgroup$
      – ThiKu
      yesterday



















    2













    $begingroup$

    I recall that Richard Wentworth's first paper on precise constants in bosonization formula (which is part of his PhD thesis?) extensively used computational methods from bosonic string theory. I am not sure if the methods have been justified, since his second paper used completely different methods to derive the same result. Later I was informed that Jorgenson proved the same result using much more classical methods like asymptotic expansion of heat kernel, construction and estimate of the paramatrix, etc.



    To me I feel the fact that path integral and $zeta$-function regularization methods "coincide" in actual computation for topics related to Polyakov measure is not a mere coincidence. I do not really know string theory, but this observation stroke me as something deep and subtle connecting physics to mathematics.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$















    • $begingroup$
      I suppose you refer to Section 5 of math.umd.edu/%7Eraw/papers/arakelov.pdf and the use of the Spin-1-bosonization formula (5.1)?
      $endgroup$
      – ThiKu
      19 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      No, his very first paper. This paper is also very good but does not use path integral in any significant way. I think a separate proof was given by Jorgenson in his Duke paper.
      $endgroup$
      – Bombyx mori
      17 hours ago














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f338904%2fmathematical-uses-of-string-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    17













    $begingroup$

    Monstrous moonshine, the famous relationship between the
    dimensions of the irreducible representations of the Monster group and the coefficients in the Fourier expansion of
    the $j$-invariant. Borcherds' proof of monstrous moonshine uses the Goddard-Thorn
    theorem, which comes out of string theory,
    specifically the quantization of the bosonic string.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




















      17













      $begingroup$

      Monstrous moonshine, the famous relationship between the
      dimensions of the irreducible representations of the Monster group and the coefficients in the Fourier expansion of
      the $j$-invariant. Borcherds' proof of monstrous moonshine uses the Goddard-Thorn
      theorem, which comes out of string theory,
      specifically the quantization of the bosonic string.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        17














        17










        17







        $begingroup$

        Monstrous moonshine, the famous relationship between the
        dimensions of the irreducible representations of the Monster group and the coefficients in the Fourier expansion of
        the $j$-invariant. Borcherds' proof of monstrous moonshine uses the Goddard-Thorn
        theorem, which comes out of string theory,
        specifically the quantization of the bosonic string.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Monstrous moonshine, the famous relationship between the
        dimensions of the irreducible representations of the Monster group and the coefficients in the Fourier expansion of
        the $j$-invariant. Borcherds' proof of monstrous moonshine uses the Goddard-Thorn
        theorem, which comes out of string theory,
        specifically the quantization of the bosonic string.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        answered 2 days ago


























        community wiki





        Arun Debray



























            10













            $begingroup$

            1) Verlinde's formula: Let $mathrm{C}$ be a curve of genus $ggeqslant 2$. The Picard group of the Moduli space of rank $2$ bundles on $mathrm{C}$ with trivial determinant is an infinite cyclic group, with ample generator denoted by $mathscr{L}$. Verlinde's formula says that $$h^0(mathscr{L}^{otimes k})=sum_{p=0}^{k} mathrm{S}_{p0}^{-chi(mathrm{C})},$$
            where the matrix $mathrm{S}=(mathrm{S}_{pq})_{p,q=0}^{k}$ is given by
            $$mathrm{S}_{pq}=sqrt{frac{2}{k+2}}sinfrac{(p+1)(q+1)}{k+2}pi.$$
            This was proven in the early 90s by several people (Bertram-Szenes, Faltings, Thaddeus,...).
            The corresponding result for rank $1$ bundles (in which case the right hand side of the formula is $k^g$) is classical and easy to prove. For rank $2$ bundles the Moduli space is not smooth, let alone a torus, and so the intersection theory is very hard to determine.



            2) Witten's conjecture: Consider the DM compactified moduli space $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ of genus $g$ curves with $n$ markings. For each $1leqslant ileqslant n$ there is a line bundle $mathscr{L}_i$ on $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ whose fiber over $(mathrm{C};p_1,ldots,p_n)$ is the cotangent space $mathrm{T}^vee_{mathrm{C},p_i}$. Let $psi_i=c_1(mathscr{L}_i)$. For $k_1,ldots,k_ngeqslant 0$ define $leftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightrangle_g$ to be
            $$int_{overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}}psi_1^{k_1}cdotspsi_n^{k_n}$$
            if $sum_{i=1}^n k_i=dimoverline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}=3g-3+n$ and $0$ otherwise. Then define
            $$F_g((t_i)_{i=0}^infty)=sum_d left(prod_{i=1}^infty frac{t_i^{d_i}}{d_i!}right)leftlangletau_0^{d_0}tau_1^{d_1}tau_2^{d_2}cdotsrightrangle_g,$$
            the summation being over all sequences $d=(d_i)_{i=1}^infty$ of natural numbers with finite support. Denote
            $$F=sum_{g=0}^infty F_g lambda^{2g-2}$$
            and
            $$leftlangleleftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightranglerightrangle=frac{partial}{partial t_{k_1}}cdotsfrac{partial}{partial t_{k_n}}F.$$
            Then Witten's conjecture says that for all $ngeqslant 1$
            $$(2n+1)lambda^{-2}leftlangleleftlangletau_n tau_0^2rightranglerightrangle=leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1}tau_0rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^3rightranglerightrangle+2leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^2rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^2rightranglerightrangle+frac{1}{4}leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^4rightranglerightrangle.$$
            (For more on this see for example Harris & Morrison, Moduli of Curves, page 71.)
            For $n=1$ Witten's conjecture means that $U=partial^2 F/partial t_0^2$ satisfies the KdV equation
            $$3lambda^{-2}frac{partial U}{partial t_1}=3Ufrac{partial U}{partial t_0}+frac{1}{4}frac{partial^3 U}{partial t_0^3}.$$
            Witten's conjecture was first proven by Kontsevich, and again several other people have given alternative proofs (Okounkov-Pandharipande, Kazarian-Lando, Mirzakhani,...). But I find it difficult to imagine that this result would have seen the light of day without string theory.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$











            • 6




              $begingroup$
              Actually Verlinde formula came from conformal field theory, not from string theory.
              $endgroup$
              – abx
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Regarding Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that the actual proofs are not using input from physics and string theory was „only“ needed for guessing the right formula?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @ThiKu That seems right to me - but again it is not easy to imagine how mathematicians could have been led to think that there might be KdV equations involved in the intersection theory of $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$. abx: That's a good point, but it seems fair to say that Verlinde considered the CFT relevant for this special case (the WZW model) mainly because of string theory considerations of papers such as Gepner & Witten, String theory on group manifolds. I think the relationship between String theory and CFT is so close that we cannot dismiss this example as off-topic.
              $endgroup$
              – Spirit of perpetual negation
              yesterday


















            10













            $begingroup$

            1) Verlinde's formula: Let $mathrm{C}$ be a curve of genus $ggeqslant 2$. The Picard group of the Moduli space of rank $2$ bundles on $mathrm{C}$ with trivial determinant is an infinite cyclic group, with ample generator denoted by $mathscr{L}$. Verlinde's formula says that $$h^0(mathscr{L}^{otimes k})=sum_{p=0}^{k} mathrm{S}_{p0}^{-chi(mathrm{C})},$$
            where the matrix $mathrm{S}=(mathrm{S}_{pq})_{p,q=0}^{k}$ is given by
            $$mathrm{S}_{pq}=sqrt{frac{2}{k+2}}sinfrac{(p+1)(q+1)}{k+2}pi.$$
            This was proven in the early 90s by several people (Bertram-Szenes, Faltings, Thaddeus,...).
            The corresponding result for rank $1$ bundles (in which case the right hand side of the formula is $k^g$) is classical and easy to prove. For rank $2$ bundles the Moduli space is not smooth, let alone a torus, and so the intersection theory is very hard to determine.



            2) Witten's conjecture: Consider the DM compactified moduli space $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ of genus $g$ curves with $n$ markings. For each $1leqslant ileqslant n$ there is a line bundle $mathscr{L}_i$ on $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ whose fiber over $(mathrm{C};p_1,ldots,p_n)$ is the cotangent space $mathrm{T}^vee_{mathrm{C},p_i}$. Let $psi_i=c_1(mathscr{L}_i)$. For $k_1,ldots,k_ngeqslant 0$ define $leftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightrangle_g$ to be
            $$int_{overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}}psi_1^{k_1}cdotspsi_n^{k_n}$$
            if $sum_{i=1}^n k_i=dimoverline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}=3g-3+n$ and $0$ otherwise. Then define
            $$F_g((t_i)_{i=0}^infty)=sum_d left(prod_{i=1}^infty frac{t_i^{d_i}}{d_i!}right)leftlangletau_0^{d_0}tau_1^{d_1}tau_2^{d_2}cdotsrightrangle_g,$$
            the summation being over all sequences $d=(d_i)_{i=1}^infty$ of natural numbers with finite support. Denote
            $$F=sum_{g=0}^infty F_g lambda^{2g-2}$$
            and
            $$leftlangleleftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightranglerightrangle=frac{partial}{partial t_{k_1}}cdotsfrac{partial}{partial t_{k_n}}F.$$
            Then Witten's conjecture says that for all $ngeqslant 1$
            $$(2n+1)lambda^{-2}leftlangleleftlangletau_n tau_0^2rightranglerightrangle=leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1}tau_0rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^3rightranglerightrangle+2leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^2rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^2rightranglerightrangle+frac{1}{4}leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^4rightranglerightrangle.$$
            (For more on this see for example Harris & Morrison, Moduli of Curves, page 71.)
            For $n=1$ Witten's conjecture means that $U=partial^2 F/partial t_0^2$ satisfies the KdV equation
            $$3lambda^{-2}frac{partial U}{partial t_1}=3Ufrac{partial U}{partial t_0}+frac{1}{4}frac{partial^3 U}{partial t_0^3}.$$
            Witten's conjecture was first proven by Kontsevich, and again several other people have given alternative proofs (Okounkov-Pandharipande, Kazarian-Lando, Mirzakhani,...). But I find it difficult to imagine that this result would have seen the light of day without string theory.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$











            • 6




              $begingroup$
              Actually Verlinde formula came from conformal field theory, not from string theory.
              $endgroup$
              – abx
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Regarding Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that the actual proofs are not using input from physics and string theory was „only“ needed for guessing the right formula?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @ThiKu That seems right to me - but again it is not easy to imagine how mathematicians could have been led to think that there might be KdV equations involved in the intersection theory of $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$. abx: That's a good point, but it seems fair to say that Verlinde considered the CFT relevant for this special case (the WZW model) mainly because of string theory considerations of papers such as Gepner & Witten, String theory on group manifolds. I think the relationship between String theory and CFT is so close that we cannot dismiss this example as off-topic.
              $endgroup$
              – Spirit of perpetual negation
              yesterday
















            10














            10










            10







            $begingroup$

            1) Verlinde's formula: Let $mathrm{C}$ be a curve of genus $ggeqslant 2$. The Picard group of the Moduli space of rank $2$ bundles on $mathrm{C}$ with trivial determinant is an infinite cyclic group, with ample generator denoted by $mathscr{L}$. Verlinde's formula says that $$h^0(mathscr{L}^{otimes k})=sum_{p=0}^{k} mathrm{S}_{p0}^{-chi(mathrm{C})},$$
            where the matrix $mathrm{S}=(mathrm{S}_{pq})_{p,q=0}^{k}$ is given by
            $$mathrm{S}_{pq}=sqrt{frac{2}{k+2}}sinfrac{(p+1)(q+1)}{k+2}pi.$$
            This was proven in the early 90s by several people (Bertram-Szenes, Faltings, Thaddeus,...).
            The corresponding result for rank $1$ bundles (in which case the right hand side of the formula is $k^g$) is classical and easy to prove. For rank $2$ bundles the Moduli space is not smooth, let alone a torus, and so the intersection theory is very hard to determine.



            2) Witten's conjecture: Consider the DM compactified moduli space $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ of genus $g$ curves with $n$ markings. For each $1leqslant ileqslant n$ there is a line bundle $mathscr{L}_i$ on $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ whose fiber over $(mathrm{C};p_1,ldots,p_n)$ is the cotangent space $mathrm{T}^vee_{mathrm{C},p_i}$. Let $psi_i=c_1(mathscr{L}_i)$. For $k_1,ldots,k_ngeqslant 0$ define $leftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightrangle_g$ to be
            $$int_{overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}}psi_1^{k_1}cdotspsi_n^{k_n}$$
            if $sum_{i=1}^n k_i=dimoverline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}=3g-3+n$ and $0$ otherwise. Then define
            $$F_g((t_i)_{i=0}^infty)=sum_d left(prod_{i=1}^infty frac{t_i^{d_i}}{d_i!}right)leftlangletau_0^{d_0}tau_1^{d_1}tau_2^{d_2}cdotsrightrangle_g,$$
            the summation being over all sequences $d=(d_i)_{i=1}^infty$ of natural numbers with finite support. Denote
            $$F=sum_{g=0}^infty F_g lambda^{2g-2}$$
            and
            $$leftlangleleftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightranglerightrangle=frac{partial}{partial t_{k_1}}cdotsfrac{partial}{partial t_{k_n}}F.$$
            Then Witten's conjecture says that for all $ngeqslant 1$
            $$(2n+1)lambda^{-2}leftlangleleftlangletau_n tau_0^2rightranglerightrangle=leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1}tau_0rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^3rightranglerightrangle+2leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^2rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^2rightranglerightrangle+frac{1}{4}leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^4rightranglerightrangle.$$
            (For more on this see for example Harris & Morrison, Moduli of Curves, page 71.)
            For $n=1$ Witten's conjecture means that $U=partial^2 F/partial t_0^2$ satisfies the KdV equation
            $$3lambda^{-2}frac{partial U}{partial t_1}=3Ufrac{partial U}{partial t_0}+frac{1}{4}frac{partial^3 U}{partial t_0^3}.$$
            Witten's conjecture was first proven by Kontsevich, and again several other people have given alternative proofs (Okounkov-Pandharipande, Kazarian-Lando, Mirzakhani,...). But I find it difficult to imagine that this result would have seen the light of day without string theory.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            1) Verlinde's formula: Let $mathrm{C}$ be a curve of genus $ggeqslant 2$. The Picard group of the Moduli space of rank $2$ bundles on $mathrm{C}$ with trivial determinant is an infinite cyclic group, with ample generator denoted by $mathscr{L}$. Verlinde's formula says that $$h^0(mathscr{L}^{otimes k})=sum_{p=0}^{k} mathrm{S}_{p0}^{-chi(mathrm{C})},$$
            where the matrix $mathrm{S}=(mathrm{S}_{pq})_{p,q=0}^{k}$ is given by
            $$mathrm{S}_{pq}=sqrt{frac{2}{k+2}}sinfrac{(p+1)(q+1)}{k+2}pi.$$
            This was proven in the early 90s by several people (Bertram-Szenes, Faltings, Thaddeus,...).
            The corresponding result for rank $1$ bundles (in which case the right hand side of the formula is $k^g$) is classical and easy to prove. For rank $2$ bundles the Moduli space is not smooth, let alone a torus, and so the intersection theory is very hard to determine.



            2) Witten's conjecture: Consider the DM compactified moduli space $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ of genus $g$ curves with $n$ markings. For each $1leqslant ileqslant n$ there is a line bundle $mathscr{L}_i$ on $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$ whose fiber over $(mathrm{C};p_1,ldots,p_n)$ is the cotangent space $mathrm{T}^vee_{mathrm{C},p_i}$. Let $psi_i=c_1(mathscr{L}_i)$. For $k_1,ldots,k_ngeqslant 0$ define $leftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightrangle_g$ to be
            $$int_{overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}}psi_1^{k_1}cdotspsi_n^{k_n}$$
            if $sum_{i=1}^n k_i=dimoverline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}=3g-3+n$ and $0$ otherwise. Then define
            $$F_g((t_i)_{i=0}^infty)=sum_d left(prod_{i=1}^infty frac{t_i^{d_i}}{d_i!}right)leftlangletau_0^{d_0}tau_1^{d_1}tau_2^{d_2}cdotsrightrangle_g,$$
            the summation being over all sequences $d=(d_i)_{i=1}^infty$ of natural numbers with finite support. Denote
            $$F=sum_{g=0}^infty F_g lambda^{2g-2}$$
            and
            $$leftlangleleftlangletau_{k_1}cdotstau_{k_n}rightranglerightrangle=frac{partial}{partial t_{k_1}}cdotsfrac{partial}{partial t_{k_n}}F.$$
            Then Witten's conjecture says that for all $ngeqslant 1$
            $$(2n+1)lambda^{-2}leftlangleleftlangletau_n tau_0^2rightranglerightrangle=leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1}tau_0rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^3rightranglerightrangle+2leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^2rightranglerightrangleleftlangleleftlangletau_0^2rightranglerightrangle+frac{1}{4}leftlangleleftlangletau_{n-1} tau_0^4rightranglerightrangle.$$
            (For more on this see for example Harris & Morrison, Moduli of Curves, page 71.)
            For $n=1$ Witten's conjecture means that $U=partial^2 F/partial t_0^2$ satisfies the KdV equation
            $$3lambda^{-2}frac{partial U}{partial t_1}=3Ufrac{partial U}{partial t_0}+frac{1}{4}frac{partial^3 U}{partial t_0^3}.$$
            Witten's conjecture was first proven by Kontsevich, and again several other people have given alternative proofs (Okounkov-Pandharipande, Kazarian-Lando, Mirzakhani,...). But I find it difficult to imagine that this result would have seen the light of day without string theory.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            answered 2 days ago


























            community wiki





            Spirit of perpetual negation












            • 6




              $begingroup$
              Actually Verlinde formula came from conformal field theory, not from string theory.
              $endgroup$
              – abx
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Regarding Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that the actual proofs are not using input from physics and string theory was „only“ needed for guessing the right formula?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @ThiKu That seems right to me - but again it is not easy to imagine how mathematicians could have been led to think that there might be KdV equations involved in the intersection theory of $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$. abx: That's a good point, but it seems fair to say that Verlinde considered the CFT relevant for this special case (the WZW model) mainly because of string theory considerations of papers such as Gepner & Witten, String theory on group manifolds. I think the relationship between String theory and CFT is so close that we cannot dismiss this example as off-topic.
              $endgroup$
              – Spirit of perpetual negation
              yesterday
















            • 6




              $begingroup$
              Actually Verlinde formula came from conformal field theory, not from string theory.
              $endgroup$
              – abx
              yesterday






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Regarding Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that the actual proofs are not using input from physics and string theory was „only“ needed for guessing the right formula?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @ThiKu That seems right to me - but again it is not easy to imagine how mathematicians could have been led to think that there might be KdV equations involved in the intersection theory of $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$. abx: That's a good point, but it seems fair to say that Verlinde considered the CFT relevant for this special case (the WZW model) mainly because of string theory considerations of papers such as Gepner & Witten, String theory on group manifolds. I think the relationship between String theory and CFT is so close that we cannot dismiss this example as off-topic.
              $endgroup$
              – Spirit of perpetual negation
              yesterday










            6




            6




            $begingroup$
            Actually Verlinde formula came from conformal field theory, not from string theory.
            $endgroup$
            – abx
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Actually Verlinde formula came from conformal field theory, not from string theory.
            $endgroup$
            – abx
            yesterday




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Regarding Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that the actual proofs are not using input from physics and string theory was „only“ needed for guessing the right formula?
            $endgroup$
            – ThiKu
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Regarding Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that the actual proofs are not using input from physics and string theory was „only“ needed for guessing the right formula?
            $endgroup$
            – ThiKu
            yesterday




            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            @ThiKu That seems right to me - but again it is not easy to imagine how mathematicians could have been led to think that there might be KdV equations involved in the intersection theory of $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$. abx: That's a good point, but it seems fair to say that Verlinde considered the CFT relevant for this special case (the WZW model) mainly because of string theory considerations of papers such as Gepner & Witten, String theory on group manifolds. I think the relationship between String theory and CFT is so close that we cannot dismiss this example as off-topic.
            $endgroup$
            – Spirit of perpetual negation
            yesterday






            $begingroup$
            @ThiKu That seems right to me - but again it is not easy to imagine how mathematicians could have been led to think that there might be KdV equations involved in the intersection theory of $overline{mathscr{M}}_{g,n}$. abx: That's a good point, but it seems fair to say that Verlinde considered the CFT relevant for this special case (the WZW model) mainly because of string theory considerations of papers such as Gepner & Witten, String theory on group manifolds. I think the relationship between String theory and CFT is so close that we cannot dismiss this example as off-topic.
            $endgroup$
            – Spirit of perpetual negation
            yesterday













            5













            $begingroup$

            If the question is set on the level of mentioning important "theorems" or "computations" or "results" which




            wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory




            i think one could easily build a very-very long list.

            Maybe it would be more appropriate to speak about which "theories" wouldn't have been out there (at least in their present form) had string theory been missing.



            I believe that the case of mirror symmetry is a good candidate. See also Kontsevich's 1994 paper



            Edit: Regarding the comment:




            would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?




            In some sense yes (at least regarding the part "...the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship"); and this may be seen in some precise sense as the the role of dualities in string theory: In general, duality -in string theory- means that two different string theory models may come down to the same "quantitative predictions" (for exampe the same set of topological invariants) for suitable choices of their parameters. The values of the parameters are often indicated by physical arguments (which may include experimental data or phenomenological arguments) and then the duality imposes conjectures of mathematical nature.

            (However, this does not exclude the possibility that the actual proofs are indeed using input from physics -i think that Witten's work has pointed to that direction but i do not have some exact reference available right now).

            The following diagram outlines some general scheme of the physics-mathematics interaction through dualities of string theory:



            enter image description here



            For more details, you can see the very interesting article: Mathematics and string theory, by Marcos Marino (see especially the discussion in p. 4-5).



            P.S.: Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at the list included in the first answer at the following quora's question:
            Are there any applicable uses of the string theory in maths? Or does it just apply for physics?






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$















            • $begingroup$
              The same question as for Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday
















            5













            $begingroup$

            If the question is set on the level of mentioning important "theorems" or "computations" or "results" which




            wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory




            i think one could easily build a very-very long list.

            Maybe it would be more appropriate to speak about which "theories" wouldn't have been out there (at least in their present form) had string theory been missing.



            I believe that the case of mirror symmetry is a good candidate. See also Kontsevich's 1994 paper



            Edit: Regarding the comment:




            would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?




            In some sense yes (at least regarding the part "...the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship"); and this may be seen in some precise sense as the the role of dualities in string theory: In general, duality -in string theory- means that two different string theory models may come down to the same "quantitative predictions" (for exampe the same set of topological invariants) for suitable choices of their parameters. The values of the parameters are often indicated by physical arguments (which may include experimental data or phenomenological arguments) and then the duality imposes conjectures of mathematical nature.

            (However, this does not exclude the possibility that the actual proofs are indeed using input from physics -i think that Witten's work has pointed to that direction but i do not have some exact reference available right now).

            The following diagram outlines some general scheme of the physics-mathematics interaction through dualities of string theory:



            enter image description here



            For more details, you can see the very interesting article: Mathematics and string theory, by Marcos Marino (see especially the discussion in p. 4-5).



            P.S.: Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at the list included in the first answer at the following quora's question:
            Are there any applicable uses of the string theory in maths? Or does it just apply for physics?






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$















            • $begingroup$
              The same question as for Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday














            5














            5










            5







            $begingroup$

            If the question is set on the level of mentioning important "theorems" or "computations" or "results" which




            wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory




            i think one could easily build a very-very long list.

            Maybe it would be more appropriate to speak about which "theories" wouldn't have been out there (at least in their present form) had string theory been missing.



            I believe that the case of mirror symmetry is a good candidate. See also Kontsevich's 1994 paper



            Edit: Regarding the comment:




            would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?




            In some sense yes (at least regarding the part "...the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship"); and this may be seen in some precise sense as the the role of dualities in string theory: In general, duality -in string theory- means that two different string theory models may come down to the same "quantitative predictions" (for exampe the same set of topological invariants) for suitable choices of their parameters. The values of the parameters are often indicated by physical arguments (which may include experimental data or phenomenological arguments) and then the duality imposes conjectures of mathematical nature.

            (However, this does not exclude the possibility that the actual proofs are indeed using input from physics -i think that Witten's work has pointed to that direction but i do not have some exact reference available right now).

            The following diagram outlines some general scheme of the physics-mathematics interaction through dualities of string theory:



            enter image description here



            For more details, you can see the very interesting article: Mathematics and string theory, by Marcos Marino (see especially the discussion in p. 4-5).



            P.S.: Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at the list included in the first answer at the following quora's question:
            Are there any applicable uses of the string theory in maths? Or does it just apply for physics?






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            If the question is set on the level of mentioning important "theorems" or "computations" or "results" which




            wouldn‘t have been proved without the development of string theory




            i think one could easily build a very-very long list.

            Maybe it would be more appropriate to speak about which "theories" wouldn't have been out there (at least in their present form) had string theory been missing.



            I believe that the case of mirror symmetry is a good candidate. See also Kontsevich's 1994 paper



            Edit: Regarding the comment:




            would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?




            In some sense yes (at least regarding the part "...the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship"); and this may be seen in some precise sense as the the role of dualities in string theory: In general, duality -in string theory- means that two different string theory models may come down to the same "quantitative predictions" (for exampe the same set of topological invariants) for suitable choices of their parameters. The values of the parameters are often indicated by physical arguments (which may include experimental data or phenomenological arguments) and then the duality imposes conjectures of mathematical nature.

            (However, this does not exclude the possibility that the actual proofs are indeed using input from physics -i think that Witten's work has pointed to that direction but i do not have some exact reference available right now).

            The following diagram outlines some general scheme of the physics-mathematics interaction through dualities of string theory:



            enter image description here



            For more details, you can see the very interesting article: Mathematics and string theory, by Marcos Marino (see especially the discussion in p. 4-5).



            P.S.: Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at the list included in the first answer at the following quora's question:
            Are there any applicable uses of the string theory in maths? Or does it just apply for physics?







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited yesterday


























            community wiki





            Konstantinos Kanakoglou
















            • $begingroup$
              The same question as for Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday


















            • $begingroup$
              The same question as for Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              yesterday
















            $begingroup$
            The same question as for Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?
            $endgroup$
            – ThiKu
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            The same question as for Witten‘s conjecture: would it be right to say that actual proofs (as far as they exist) are not using input from physics and that the role of string theory was to formulate the relationship?
            $endgroup$
            – ThiKu
            yesterday











            2













            $begingroup$

            I recall that Richard Wentworth's first paper on precise constants in bosonization formula (which is part of his PhD thesis?) extensively used computational methods from bosonic string theory. I am not sure if the methods have been justified, since his second paper used completely different methods to derive the same result. Later I was informed that Jorgenson proved the same result using much more classical methods like asymptotic expansion of heat kernel, construction and estimate of the paramatrix, etc.



            To me I feel the fact that path integral and $zeta$-function regularization methods "coincide" in actual computation for topics related to Polyakov measure is not a mere coincidence. I do not really know string theory, but this observation stroke me as something deep and subtle connecting physics to mathematics.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$















            • $begingroup$
              I suppose you refer to Section 5 of math.umd.edu/%7Eraw/papers/arakelov.pdf and the use of the Spin-1-bosonization formula (5.1)?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              19 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              No, his very first paper. This paper is also very good but does not use path integral in any significant way. I think a separate proof was given by Jorgenson in his Duke paper.
              $endgroup$
              – Bombyx mori
              17 hours ago
















            2













            $begingroup$

            I recall that Richard Wentworth's first paper on precise constants in bosonization formula (which is part of his PhD thesis?) extensively used computational methods from bosonic string theory. I am not sure if the methods have been justified, since his second paper used completely different methods to derive the same result. Later I was informed that Jorgenson proved the same result using much more classical methods like asymptotic expansion of heat kernel, construction and estimate of the paramatrix, etc.



            To me I feel the fact that path integral and $zeta$-function regularization methods "coincide" in actual computation for topics related to Polyakov measure is not a mere coincidence. I do not really know string theory, but this observation stroke me as something deep and subtle connecting physics to mathematics.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$















            • $begingroup$
              I suppose you refer to Section 5 of math.umd.edu/%7Eraw/papers/arakelov.pdf and the use of the Spin-1-bosonization formula (5.1)?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              19 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              No, his very first paper. This paper is also very good but does not use path integral in any significant way. I think a separate proof was given by Jorgenson in his Duke paper.
              $endgroup$
              – Bombyx mori
              17 hours ago














            2














            2










            2







            $begingroup$

            I recall that Richard Wentworth's first paper on precise constants in bosonization formula (which is part of his PhD thesis?) extensively used computational methods from bosonic string theory. I am not sure if the methods have been justified, since his second paper used completely different methods to derive the same result. Later I was informed that Jorgenson proved the same result using much more classical methods like asymptotic expansion of heat kernel, construction and estimate of the paramatrix, etc.



            To me I feel the fact that path integral and $zeta$-function regularization methods "coincide" in actual computation for topics related to Polyakov measure is not a mere coincidence. I do not really know string theory, but this observation stroke me as something deep and subtle connecting physics to mathematics.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            I recall that Richard Wentworth's first paper on precise constants in bosonization formula (which is part of his PhD thesis?) extensively used computational methods from bosonic string theory. I am not sure if the methods have been justified, since his second paper used completely different methods to derive the same result. Later I was informed that Jorgenson proved the same result using much more classical methods like asymptotic expansion of heat kernel, construction and estimate of the paramatrix, etc.



            To me I feel the fact that path integral and $zeta$-function regularization methods "coincide" in actual computation for topics related to Polyakov measure is not a mere coincidence. I do not really know string theory, but this observation stroke me as something deep and subtle connecting physics to mathematics.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            answered yesterday


























            community wiki





            Bombyx mori
















            • $begingroup$
              I suppose you refer to Section 5 of math.umd.edu/%7Eraw/papers/arakelov.pdf and the use of the Spin-1-bosonization formula (5.1)?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              19 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              No, his very first paper. This paper is also very good but does not use path integral in any significant way. I think a separate proof was given by Jorgenson in his Duke paper.
              $endgroup$
              – Bombyx mori
              17 hours ago


















            • $begingroup$
              I suppose you refer to Section 5 of math.umd.edu/%7Eraw/papers/arakelov.pdf and the use of the Spin-1-bosonization formula (5.1)?
              $endgroup$
              – ThiKu
              19 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              No, his very first paper. This paper is also very good but does not use path integral in any significant way. I think a separate proof was given by Jorgenson in his Duke paper.
              $endgroup$
              – Bombyx mori
              17 hours ago
















            $begingroup$
            I suppose you refer to Section 5 of math.umd.edu/%7Eraw/papers/arakelov.pdf and the use of the Spin-1-bosonization formula (5.1)?
            $endgroup$
            – ThiKu
            19 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            I suppose you refer to Section 5 of math.umd.edu/%7Eraw/papers/arakelov.pdf and the use of the Spin-1-bosonization formula (5.1)?
            $endgroup$
            – ThiKu
            19 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            No, his very first paper. This paper is also very good but does not use path integral in any significant way. I think a separate proof was given by Jorgenson in his Duke paper.
            $endgroup$
            – Bombyx mori
            17 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            No, his very first paper. This paper is also very good but does not use path integral in any significant way. I think a separate proof was given by Jorgenson in his Duke paper.
            $endgroup$
            – Bombyx mori
            17 hours ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f338904%2fmathematical-uses-of-string-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Hudson River Historic District Contents Geography History The district today Aesthetics Cultural...

            The number designs the writing. Feandra Aversely Definition: The act of ingrafting a sprig or shoot of one...

            Ayherre Geografie Demografie Externe links Navigatiemenu43° 23′ NB, 1° 15′ WL43° 23′ NB, 1°...