Talk:E8 (mathematics)

On 15 November 2007, E8 (mathematics) was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Applications

the dec 2010 issue of scientific american has an article about e8's application in a theory of everything. although this is not a peer review journal, i think it should be added here, and not just at the article on the theory (why isnt it linked?). and to echo other comments here, would someone please attempt to write a summary lede of this subject for the educated layperson. I understand, to some reasonable degree, both of einsteins theories, i got an 800 on my math sat, and i have absolutely no idea what this article is about. maybe stephen hawking could write a summary? there are scientists and mathematicians who can find ways to write about these things. i do understand this is highly advanced math, so i know i will never understand it completely, as i dont have the requisite education in that area. but seriously, how many people on this planet can comprehend this article? a thousand?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the E8 TOE mention back to the Applications section as suggested, but it was recently deleted with dubious justification. I'm guessing this material is a bit contentious.-Dilaton (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Lisi's "theory of everything"

R.e.b. removed mention of Lisi's Theory of Everything (again). I think this is wrong. Even though the theory itself has not been validated (and I, personally, think it's all hogwash), the fact that this theory exists is a fact, and a notable one, so should be somehow mentioned on the article. And the edits which have been removed did exactly that, with acceptable source. Of course, the article should be carefully worded so as not to imply that the theory is correct or even interesting, merely that it has been proposed: but to not even mention it would be like if the article on mercury didn't mention alchemy. Many people will probably be reading the article on E₈ because they've heard about Lisi's theory, and it must be made clear, at the very least, that it is indeed the object in question (they have reached the right E₈, not some other mathematical object which happens to have the same name). --Gro-Tsen (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E8 groups in string theory ?

This article does not talk about the role of E8 in (heterotic) string theory. It is one of its most important roles in theoretical physics.--Horv2000 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s mentioned in the first paragraph of the #Applications section. It is only mentioned but with links which readers can follow to discover more, but this is a mathematics article not a physics article so details of the physics are beyond the scope of this article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E8 is not evidence based

A better characterization is a hypothesis, since there exists no evidence E8 is valid.[1] GenacGenac (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with proofreading the section on subgroups?

There were a couple of errors in the section on E6/E7 restricted representations that bugged me. In the course of correcting them (I think), I wrote a bit of exposition connecting the representations appearing there to the related articles on Albert algebras, the Kantor-Koecher-Tits construction, structurable algebras, and such. I'm not a mathematician, I just read the papers linked from those pages (and portions of Jacobson's and McCrimmon's books). Perhaps someone else who has worked through Allison's 5-graded Lie algebra construction in https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1988-306-02/S0002-9947-1988-0933312-2/S0002-9947-1988-0933312-2.pdf could check that I got it right? Michael K. Edwards (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this section should be discarded altogether, or extracted into its own entry; it has gotten long. But what was there before was neither correct (I'm fairly sure) nor well cross-connected to otherwise esoteric entries on structurable algebras, E7½, etc. Seems like, if we're going to have those entries, there should be some exposition somewhere tying them together with more or less accurate citations. Setting it aside for the present until someone actually knowledgeable in this area weighs in. Does Skip Garibaldi edit Wikipedia? Michael K. Edwards (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]