Talk:Wu–Yang dictionary

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Dictionary?

Is the "dictionary" of the title equal to or part of the "published a paper in 1975" in the history section? Which paper is that?

I stumbled upon this article, which seems interesting because I've read about gauge theory but the "fiber" bits I've seen are completely opaque to me. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original dictionary is the table by Wu and Yang (bottom of the article). Others authors have come up with different tables. I am also not well trained in the math side of this equivalence so any corrections are welcome.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table caption says "Wu–Yang dictionary (1975)" but it has no reference. I don't think they typed it here ins 1975, so there must be a source? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the first reference of the wiki article: Wu & Yang, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845. There are also references that reproduce the table, right before the table. --ReyHahn (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

$S_{ba}$ in Wu-Yang dictionary

Hi ReyHahn,

I'm afraid, it escaped your notice that $S_{ba}$ is explained in TABLE 1 of the original paper. There stands "(see Sec. V)", since there Sec. V. contains the definition and the name of $S_{ba}$ . Here we don't have "Sec. V", that's why I wrote the name of $S_{ba}$ directly into the table. If you want to stick as strictly as possible to the original format, then please consider to write here "(see above)", or something like this. A letter without any explanation makes no sense!

Cheers, 2A02:AB88:2A82:CD80:D525:C7C2:821A:71DE (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some notes to the table. Does that help?--ReyHahn (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost... I hope we have converged finally. :) 2A02:AB88:2A82:CD80:D525:C7C2:821A:71DE (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary?

S b a {\displaystyle S_{ba}} in Wu-Yang dictionary

$S_{ba}$ in Wu-Yang dictionary