@ChrisWhite I think we focus on infinite-dimensional stuff that much because that is how the world is. You may focus on spin- or other degrees of freedom, but even particles moving around in space have an infinite Hilbert space when you look at their position. The finite spaces are mostly artifical, and they do not mesh well with discussions of "canonical" quantization.

^ what's this!

"My conflicts with the known splinter group (whose members partially are banned, but partially remain here without contributing productively"

what does that mean

@Danu up for some games mate?

I'm a little hung over :P So I can't think right now

haahah

@ACuriousMind hey how are you?

@Phonon Fine, but tired/hungover ;) - how're you?

@ACuriousMind haha, definitely not hungover :D

@ACuriousMind found this nice post, rather answer, on math SE from Mark Eichenlaub, it's really well written, and that intro haha so nice, here : math.stackexchange.com/questions/1002/…

@ACuriousMind other than that, not much excitement on physics SE...

@Phonon I think I like this answer. (bookmarked)

And yeah, seems rather slow at the moment. But I've not done more than cleaning my review queues the last days, so I've not really paid attention

I initially thought he must've been talking about the Ron Maimon etc etc stuff, but maybe not?

@Danu I think he is talking about that. Look in the transcript of the last chat session, I think he brought it up there, too.

I remember that

@Phonon I LOVE that answer! Kind of a 'wow' for me

@MichaelT Including my tiny correction ;D

@Danu haha yeah ;)

@Danu that intro nails it :D

beautiful stuff

indeed, most of Mark's posts are good

he answers to a lot of the classical mechanics questions, which is always interesting to read.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll check his user profile out!