Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us Rajat Nag, who has written this book, Asia the 21st Century, question mark. Rajat, this has been a long time coming because you have been working on this issue inside the Asian Development Bank and subsequently after your retirement from there. You talk about this being possible in the Asian century, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. Let us start with what you think is a positive element that Asia has lifted a significant part of its population out of poverty. But in this your poverty estimates seem to be what used to be the old World Bank 1, 1 dollar 25 cents and it also leaves out the issue that you could have an issue that a lot of the people who have been lifted out of poverty, particularly in countries like India could fall back into poverty because they are in some kind of precarious condition or in a vulnerability band as it were. So how do you see this poverty, particularly structural poverty in countries like India? I think that's a very valid point and what I talk about in the book is yes it's great that we have pulled you know a large number of people out of poverty but defined a dollar 25 and sometimes a dollar 90. But even that is very low, the bar is very low. So you know a simple illness or a natural catastrophe or anything can push people back and therefore that vulnerability band as it were where another about 900 million Asians are not Indians but Asians. So the vulnerability band in Asia is large and in India even more so because China has done much better than India has. So my concern is really that though we have got much to celebrate even in India in terms of putting people out of poverty the vulnerability band is quite huge and therefore I think there are some major concerns about India's fight against poverty or India's victory against poverty or for that matter Asia's. And this is why in the book as you just showed I put a question mark because though of course one hopes that I'm wrong but I think the fight against poverty is far from over and then of course you superimpose on those serious concerns about social deprivations about rising inequality rising not just high but rising inequality and you have a picture which is mixed and that is the whole thrust of this book. Will that question mark be answered any positive or not? I think that's an interesting question mark of course that what are the causes of possible shall we say not being able to grow out of poverty and what are the possibilities are getting or getting stuck in a poverty trap and of course the issue of is also that the line of poverty is a socially moving one that's not something which should be considered absolute though it did we do tend to take $1.25 or now $1.90 as the absolute poverty measurement not this social poverty in terms of distance inequality and so on but even in terms of that the argument is that countries like India while it has done something which is significant in terms of moving it out of what would be considered absolute starvation level as it were which is really $1.25 but the middle class in India is also very narrow that means that the people who have grown out of poverty are still very much largely in what would be considered or should be considered as poor and they could easily slip back I mean that's the that's the whole point you know you're absolutely right so the poverty story in Asia in one sense is a very positive one because Asia has achieved in one generation what took other parts of the world in a couple of hundred years but the victory is far from in the bag as it were precarious it is a precarious one and therefore what I do point to there is the need for inclusive growth the green growth and clean growth but inclusive growth which is that you provide people the means to not only benefit from growth but also participate in the growth therefore investments in health and education for example become very well come to that but you also have talked about and I think that's a very interesting point in the book the issue of the middle income trap now of course that is a country where a middle income it's not really about the structure of the poverty or the income as it were it's really the averaged income right you're calling it middle income trap now you have said that the middle income trap exists if you do not invest in education and technology and so on so that you do not you're not able to participate in what society is moving towards that means particularly when you talk about technology it's not doing what already exists but doing what new things are coming into being being able to participate in that and you've contrasted Brazil and South Korea in that because South Korea did participate in the tech revolution if you will while Brazil got stuck into a commodity production service economy which is what really is today so how do you what do you think are the elements which create the possibility of escaping escaping the middle income trap two things one is higher productivity so with the same inputs you produce more and and both labor productivity and capital productivity so that's one but I think the more important one to escape the middle income trap is innovative capacity so that you know you not only produce the iPads or assemble the iPads but you actually design them and that is where the sort of you know money is that is where the value added is so for Asia and I'm talking about Asia but this applies very much to India as a matter of fact more to India than China or or Korea that our education system has to be such that not only do you improve the basic literacy the basic numeracy but also at the higher end of the spectrum so investments in the primary education basic education is very important but so is investments at the higher end because unless a country can innovate it will not be able to participate in the so called growth ladder and we will not be able to compete with countries above us on that because we're not as innovative or productive and we'll not be able to compete with countries below us because our wages have gone up so then that's how you get corner middle income trap so I think the ability to be more productive and the ability to be more innovative are two critical elements for a country like India. When you talk about being more productive you're really talking at the end of technology okay that's that's or through the process but at any level being more productive with a given amount of capital given amount of labor would obviously help but that's not going to be enough it might have been enough previously but now innovation as I said I think is going to have to be so technology development is going to be the key for the future and let's let's be very honest about it what differentiate the developed country from a not so developed one is a level of the human capacities therefore it is what what we build into the people is what finally reflects its development now coming back to that issue what you talk about it would then mean investing in people but this is the problem that we have now that for instance in a country like India there's a lot of investment in so the IIT is the Indian Institute of Science and they do take a disproportionate amount of resource out of the education system in order to create the so-called centers of excellence which then compete at the global level but the problem with that is that if you see today these are the sectors which Indian state is not investigating further we're talking about building new IITs new aims but the kind of infrastructure we are building is abysmal in those places and even it would take an IIT for IIT for instance and I've had very senior scientific members community people coming and telling me that India was at the cutting edge once upon a time even if institutions are few today we really have third-grade infrastructure over the IITs now how do you see your move out of the middle income trap and what India seems to be doing I'm focusing more on India because Korea and China have invested quite heavily in scientific and technical infrastructure in terms of education and institutions how do you see this happening this seems to be actually extremely retrogressive in terms of policies yeah I think we've got to think both in terms of the spending on education as part of the overall macro and then within education higher education basic education IITs first of all I think India just has to invest much more on education per se period per se or we invest in a less than 2% of GDP we should be spending more like 5% and and health and education together we spend less than 4% it should be closer to 10 now the 12 five-year plan does talk about increasing it significantly and it is increasing yes but not enough but there's no plan at the moment as you know well I mean you know there's no official plan but the the the notional education expenditure and education health is increasing good news bad news is nowhere enough the other part is what you're saying the intra-sectoral distribution there I think it would be a mistake if we think that we will invest more in primary education at the cost of investing in higher education I think we just have to increase the pie for education because unless we invest more in higher education including in the IITs and of course the number of IITs and all that is another major issue we will not be able to compete on the global scale at all and what's happening now I'm afraid is we are playing a numbers game we're playing a numbers game in terms of number of engineering colleges or number of IITs or AIMS and quality is what's going to matter and I think and you're right that we are I think losing that sort of you know edge that we had we still have IIT graduates who do very well elsewhere but the question is can they do better inside the country and the answer is no for a variety of combinations but one is public expenditures on education needs to education and health I should add needs to increase very significantly see we had significant investments in building up science and technical institutions and if we look at the issue of escaping the middle-income crap coming back to that you really have to then invest in those institutions as well as you said and our science aren't the expenditure is also extremely poor and that's why we had science marches in the country of scientific community saying what's happening because even in CSI aren't the expenditure is now being cut severely and without research and development you're not going to get anywhere the implication of this is the belief that private sector will come in and fill the gap the point is even in the United States a lot of this is public infrastructure in public investment and that's the education and health has to be a public good up to a point and that's not mean you know 100% but certainly not sort of where we are and yes the private sector will have a role to play but I think it will be a big error of policy judgment if we sort of say we'll free up the space and just let the private sector come in I think we should not make artificial impediments for the private sector but there's no getting away from the fact that you know you need significant public sector investments in social infrastructure as somebody once said how many Einstein's do not get to study physics and how many of them are in India will not get to study physics if you depend on we can't get away from that for education and help segueing to the second point that you have in your book the question of inclusive growth and this of course what we've discussed touches upon the issue of inclusive growth and you've talked about that there is bad inequality and good inequality irrespective of whether I agree with you about good inequality or not but the bad inequality we have to completely agree with you that if there is no equality of opportunity access that means access not just simple being able to attend a school but getting quality education in the school affirmative action if it's a first-generation learner because he or she might require more support by providing health and other facilities for 0 to 5 years you've talked about malnutrition means they're already compromised out of the out of their lifetime security in fact because that 0 to 5 years is crucial for growth of the brain as well now all of that are we not sort of going at least if you see the policy pronouncements being made of the government and we're going in a retrogressive direction you know one way or another I'm not so concerned frankly provide on the policy pronouncements is the implementation now policies aren't bad I mean even in India but I think is the implementation that we are we are talking about so for example we talk about let's say the bad inequality we'll talk about the good equality if you have time but not being able to invest enough in education basically means you are exacerbating the access to opportunities to the primary school which results in more inequality and therefore I think it's not our policies but the implementation we have a right to education great I mean but so what I mean you know if you don't have the schools if you don't have the facilities and as a matter of fact sometimes and you're right sometimes these can be regressive because this automatic pass through for example visiting many schools in the last couple of months actually actually has worsened the situation because the emphasis has now become on quantity and just basically pass through so students will automatically go up to grade eight without the necessary skills to even go to grade grade five or six. So I think in India or in Asia in general in particular is the implementation of these policies which I think are important. Well let me distinguish between policy pronouncements and policies one is what you do in terms of public relations make good noises implementation is what physically happens on the ground ground you know I do believe there are also policies but that's a nomenclature issue we can debate. What we are seeing is really cutbacks and cutbacks in terms of teachers in terms of investment being made without even talking about need to upgrade them. That's that's where I'm saying that gap is actually widening in terms of the pronouncements and actual implementation. Exactly I have no problem. So there's no policy which says will reduce investments but that's exactly what we're doing and that's a problem.


from University of San Diego, Medellin, and he's talking about singular change on the groups and the carton relations, so thanks. Thank you so much. I want to thank Alejandra and the organizers for giving me the opportunity to speak. And I also want to thank you for everyone who's listening for your attention. Okay, so the title of my talk is singular change in lead groups and the carton relations. So this is a talk on lead theory and topology. That's what I want to talk about. Let me show you what the outline of the talk is. It's roughly divided in three parts. So the first part I will discuss sort of the main ingredients of what I want to talk about, which are singular change in lead groups and the carton relations, which arise in topology. The second part of the talk will be about the relationship between the first part and the Chern Bay theory for characteristic classes. And the third part of the talk is going to be about the theory of local systems from classifying spaces and how they relate to the first two parts. So that's the plan. I also want to say that if someone has a question, please feel free to ask. I would very much appreciate any comments. Suggestions or questions. So please interrupt me if you want to. Okay, so let me start. So we'll fix for the whole talk, simply connect the lead group and this lead group has a lead algebra track G that's fixed for the whole discussion. And we will consider the space of singular chains on this lead group G. So this is the vector space generated by smooth simplices on G and we'll denote it by CG. Now, this space has an algebraic structure. The structure it has is a structure of a differential graded hopf algebra. And this, let me remind you for those who are not familiar with the fact that it's a hopf algebra, it means that it has two pieces of structure because it's an algebraic has a product and because it is a coalgebraic has a co-product and these two structures are related, it's in some very specific way, they satisfy this identity. This identity which sort of relates the product and the co-product. This is a hopf identity relation. So hopf algebra is something that is an algebra and it's also a coalgebra and the product and the co-product are related by this. So what I'm saying is that this space of singular change on a lead group has a structure of a hopf algebra.  In singular change form a coalgebra for an arbitrary topological space, the product in singular change comes from multiplication in the group. So the product in this algebra is defined using the island very silver map together with the multiplication that you have on a group. So those pieces of structure give you a product and a co-product and together they form a hopf algebra. So the island of silver map is something that's defined combinatorially. It's something that depends simply on the combinatorics of simplices. And here is the formula, which if you haven't seen it's not important to remember for the purposes of this talk, better than the formula is the picture. I mean, the island of silver map simply comes from the fact that you can embed the product of two simplices into a simplex of, sorry, yeah, you can embed the product of two simplices inside a simplex of higher dimension. So this is the geometry or sort of the combinatorics that comes into the finding the island of silver map. But as I said before, if you haven't seen them it doesn't really matter at the level of these formulas, but it is. It's just the fact that the product, the multiplication map on the group induces a product on the algebra of singular chains. So now I want to describe the relationship between the group ring and the algebra of singular chains. So let me show you what I mean by this. So if you had a group, right? So if G is sort of an arbitrary discrete group, then of course the representations of G are the same as modules over the group ring, let's say over R, say for a discrete group. Now, this space of the group ring, in case your group has a topology, well, as we mentioned before, the algebra of singular chains is a differential graded algebra, differential graded hopf algebra. And in degree zero, in degree zero, well, it is a sub-algebra and this sub-algebra is, well, the group ring of G. So I'm simply saying that this algebra of singular chains should be thought of as an extension of the group ring, an extension for which the degree zero part is precisely a group ring, but it has components of higher dimensions. So this algebra of singular chains, one can think of as an extension, a more topological version of the group ring of a topological group. Now, given this relation here, that the representations of the group are the same as modules over the group ring, one can ask the same question about modules over the algebra of singular chains. So the first question I want to address is, well, you know, representations of a group can be described infinitesimally in terms of representations of the algebra. And the question I want to address is, well, how do you describe infinitesimally? Not the modules over the group ring, but the modules over the whole algebra of singular chains. So this talk is about how you do lead theory, how you do infinitesimal version of, not modules over the group ring, which are representations of the algebra, but modules over the algebra of singular chains. The goal is to describe those modules infinitesimally. That's the first question I want to ask. Okay, so let me tell you how this can be answered. So this can be answered in terms of relations that arise in topology. So these are the carton relations. So let me remind you that we have G is the lead algebra of our lead group. And given this lead algebra G, one can form a different differential graded lead algebra, which I will denote by TG. TG is a differential graded lead algebra, which is sort of functorially associated to G. And it's very simple. It is a lead algebra, a graded lead algebra that has components only in dimension zero and dimension minus one. And it satisfies these relations which are called the carton relations. I mean, most of you probably recognize these are simply the relations that are satisfied between the contractions and the lead derivatives on a manifold. So if you have any manifold then you have an algebra vector fields. And these vector fields act on differential forms in two different ways. They act by contractions and by lead derivatives. And the contractions and the lead derivatives are related. They satisfy some identities. These identities are called the carton relations. So this lead algebra TG that I'm introducing here is simply the algebra that's universal for the carton relations. In the sense that having an action of the lead algebra TG is the same thing as having the satisfying the relations that are satisfied by lead derivatives and contractions. So this is the universal. This TG is the universal differential graded lead algebra for the carton relation. Okay. The point is that here's what I already mentioned that if G acts on a manifold then the lead algebra of G acts on differential forms but you have more, you have that. Not only G acts, but the whole TG acts because you have not only lead derivatives but you also have contractions. Now the lead derivatives here but you'll have the contractions and they are related and the way in which they are related are the carton relations that I wrote before. So it's just universal for these identities. Okay. The first theorem I want to mention is that the question I posed before about describing infinitesimally the modules over the algebra of singular chains can be answered by this, the algebra TG. So there is an integration functor that takes a representation of the algebra TG and produces for you a module over the algebra of singular chains. And this is an equivalence of categories. So what this says is that it is possible to describe infinitesimally the modules over the algebra of singular chains by studying representations of this differential graded the algebra TG. This is of course an extension of the usual correspondence between representations of the lead group and representations of the algebra, right? So this, both of these categories they contain the representations of the lead algebra and the lead group. And this functor is an extension of the usual correspondence between representations of the lead group and representations of the algebra. This is the first theorem I want to mention. I should tell you how the proof works and that's that I can do. It is a very explicit construction that I will explain now. Are there any questions? Sorry? I have a question. So could you go back a few slides when you talk about the relationship between the what's that called the grouping and the singular chains? So there you view this G as a discrete group. Right, so that's a good point. So when I said, so if the lead group has a topology, right? Then I said that modules over the grouping are the same thing as representations of the group. But that's only true if I restrict to certain kind of modules over the group ring. I'm considering always smooth representations, hey? And so if I want to be completely precise, I need to say that these are modules over the grouping which are sufficiently smooth if you want to recover the representation of the group. And the same should happen in this theorem. So when I say modules over CG, I'm sort of implicitly assuming that the modules are sufficiently smooth in a way that has to be specified. But yeah, I'm sort of omitting some details to be completely precise. One should say that all representations in our modules are supposed to be smooth so that you can really do the theory. Yeah, you're right. That's a good point. Okay, thanks. I hope that was, I hope that addresses your question. Yes, thanks. Okay, thank you. All right, so let me tell you how the proof works because it's very explicit. So I'm telling you that there's an equivalence of categories. So in some way I need to produce, given a representation of the Lie algebra DG, I should be able to produce a modules over the algebra of singular change. So I should be able to produce an action of the whole space of singular change on G on some vector space. So each singular space, sorry, each singular chain on the Lie group G should be able to act on a vector space in a complex of vector spaces. And this is how it works. You start with a representation of the Lie algebra TG. So it means I call it raw. So it's just a map of Lie algebras from TG to the endomorphisms of some graded vector space. And out of these, I want to produce, I need to construct an equivariant differential form on the group. So this differential form is going to be the sum of homogeneous components. So alpha is going to be the sum of alpha one, alpha two, alpha three and so on, where alpha I is an I form, is an I form on G with values in the endomorphisms of B. So this alpha is sort of a non-homogeneous differential form. It has homogeneous components, alpha one, alpha two, alpha three and so on. Each alpha I is in differential form of degree I in the Lie group. And this differential form of degree I in the group or in this case of degree K in the group is going to be defined as follows. When you evaluate this differential form at the identity and then evaluating K vector fields, it's going to be the action of the action that you have, the representation row evaluated on those vectors. That's how you evaluate the differential form at the identity. And because you want to be a equivalent specifying its value at the identity determines the differential form. There's a unique differential form that satisfies these conditions. Notice that it doesn't look very anti-symmetric. So it doesn't look like you will define a differential form, but it does because precisely one of the Cartan relations guarantees that this is an anti-symmetric expression, skew-symmetric expression. Now this differential form, if you define it in this way in terms of row, it turns out that its differential form satisfies a certain sequence of differential equations. So the first differential equation says that the derivative of the alpha zero is the usual lead derivative. There is another relation that tells you how the differential form behaves with respect to multiplication. And there is another differential equation that tells you how the RAM operator acts on this differential form. So notice that this differential form is something that you can explicitly produce given the representation row that you started with. So this representation row is exactly the data that you need to produce this differential form satisfying these differential equations on the lead group. And then once you have the differential form alpha, you can do what you always do with differential forms, which is to integrate. So you have a map I, and this map, it should produce a module over the algebra of singular chain. So that means that given a singular chain, you should produce an endomorphism of the vector space. And the way you do it is by integration. So what you do is you take a differential form alpha and the way in which you're going to produce the action of alpha on B is by integrating the pullback of alpha. This is the usual way. The only thing that you can do with differential forms. So given row, you produce a sequence of differential forms and by integrating those differential forms, you produce an action of the algebra of singular chains. Now, the differential equations that I wrote down for alpha are precisely, guarantee precisely that this map that I defined is a homomorphism of differential-graded algebra. So that this formula produces the structure of a module over the algebra of singular chains. So notice this is a completely explicit description. Given row, you produce the differential forms, then integrate the differential forms and that gives you the module. And the process is something that can be reversed because you can check that any differential form that gives you a module will have to be constructed in this way. So that's how the equivalence of categories works. So this is the first thing I want to mention. The conditions here that I had in the lead group or simply that G is simply connected, one can sort of do a version of these if the group has a fundamental group, but it's not much more interesting, would be just, there would be no new ideas there. What is interesting is what happens when G is compact. So for the rest of the talk, once that we have this theorem which is general for arbitrarily simply connected lead groups, what I want to explain next is what happens in the case where G is also connected, sorry, also compact. So the rest of the talk will be about the relationship between this theorem that I just mentioned and the Chen Bay theory. And the Chen Bay theory of course works for compact groups. So this is the second part of the talk. I want to remind you about Chen Bay theory for characteristic classes. So here are Chen and Bay and Simon Bay. And the Chen Bay theory is a description of the characteristic classes of a space in terms of differential geometry and lead theory. So let me just remind you briefly how Chen Bay theory works. So we start with the principal G bundle over X and principal G bundles are classified by a classifying map. So this is classified by a map F from X to BG. And this map F is well-defined up to homotopy. So in cohomology, it defines a map from the cohomology of BG to the cohomology of X, right? So there's a well-defined, once you have a principal G bundle, there is a well-defined map from the cohomology of BG to the cohomology of X. Here BG is, of course, the classifying space of G. For those who are not very familiar with this, you can think that G is the unitary group. And in this case, the classifying space is an infinite dimensional brass mining, et cetera. The fundamental example of this construction. So the Bay algebra is just the Chevalier-Eilenberg complex of the algebra TG. It's not usually presented in this way, but in the language that I'm using for the stock, that's an efficient way of saying what it is. And because TG is a contractible differential-graduli algebra, then the Bay algebra is a contractible algebra. And it behaves as differential forms on the universal, on the space of the universal bundle in the total space. And its basic part, the basic part of the Bay algebra, turns out to be isomorphic to the invariant polynomials on the Lie algebra, and it's also isomorphic to the cohomology of the classifying space. So what this computation of Chevalier-Eilenberg is, is the relationship between the Lie theory of the Lie algebra and the topological properties of the classifying space of the group. It's an infinitesimal description of the cohomology of the classifying space of the group. That's what Chevalier-Eilenberg theory does. And not only that, but it tells you that once you fix a connection on the principal G-vandal, then that connection defines a map from the Bay algebra to differential forms in the bundle. And by restricting to the basic forms, you get algebra homomorphism from the invariant polynomials to the cohomology of X. And this is sort of a Lie theoretic or differential geometric description of the Chevalier-Eilenberg homomorphism of the mapping used by the classifying map. So this is the Chevalier-Eilenberg theory. So you have something defined in homotopy theoretic ways and then you see that it has an analog in differential geometry or in Lie theory. That's how it works. Now, I want to explain how the construction I mentioned before about these representations of the algebra of singular chains are related to Chevalier theory. So for this, I want to define two differential graded categories. So for those who are not familiar with these words, well, it simply means just like when you have an algebra you can ask for the algebra to be a differential graded. So everything is graded and has differentials. A differential graded category is a category where the home spaces between two objects are differential graded objects also. So they're chain complexes. So differential graded category is simply a category where the home spaces are something that you can do homotopy with. In this case, they are chain complexes. That's what I mean by a DG category. So what I want to do is I want to promote the theorem I told you about before to a theorem about differential graded categories. The first theorem I stated is the statement which is an equivalence of categories where I was considering these categories of representations simply as categories. But I want to show you that in the case where G is compact, you can promote this result to make it a theorem about differential graded categories. And that's something that contains much more information. So this category of representations of the algebra TG which I have here in blue, it can be promoted to a category in yellow which is overlined, which is now a differential graded category. I won't go into the details but I just want to say that you can promote the basic, there's the bare category to a differential graded category which I will denote with overlined. And the same is true on the other side. So the category of modules over the algebra of singular chain can also be enhanced, promoted to being a differential graded category. Both of these are ordinary categories in principle and you can promote them to being differential graded categories. These are the ones that I'm denoting in yellow and they're with an overline. So now the second theorem I want to mention is that in the compact case, you can take the equivalence of categories and promote it to an infinity equivalence of differential graded categories. So if G is a compact, simply connect the lead group with the algebra G, then the following differential graded categories are infinity equivalent. So now I put overlines on both sides. It means that the category without overlines is the theorem that I had before for arbitrary groups. But now when I am in the compact case, when G is compact, then I have a much stronger result. It says that the equivalence can be promoted to an equivalence of differential graded categories. And I will try to explain what this means. But for now it's just a stronger version of the previous result that holds in the compact case. So there is a word here, infinity, which maybe I should say something about. So infinity means that all the morphisms that you have in this context, they are allowed to be only homotopic morphisms. So it means that equations do not necessarily hold strictly, but they hold up to higher coherent systems of higher homotopies. This is what the word infinity means here. So this is the second theorem I wanted to mention. And I want to, the proof is longer than the other theorem that I mentioned, so I wouldn't have time to tell you in all the detail. But I can tell you what the ingredients in the proof are. So let me try to do that. So the ingredients of the proof are the following. The first ingredient in the proof is the theory of chain-siterated integrals. So these are our construction that was introduced by quote side chain, quote side chain. And it's just a sequence of integrals that arise very often in different parts of mathematics. They arise in solving explicitly differential equations where called transport, they arise in representation theory and they arise in topology and they arise in the theory, even in number theory, there are multiple set of values. So these are just sequences of integrals that arise often for different reasons. The second part, the second ingredient which enters in this proof is Guggenheim's version of the Ram theorem. So I will say something more in a moment about it, but the idea is that the usual, the Ram theorem that I, that at least I learned when I was a student that you usually teach in your classes, admits a stronger version that was provided by Guggenheim in the 70s. And I will say something about it in a moment. The other construction is what you must ask if algebra for the cohomology of classifying spaces is a model different from the Chenbei model. It's a different way to think about or compute homologies of classifying spaces. And another ingredient that enters is the non-community version of the Bay algebra. So the Chenbei theory that I described before, the way it's usually presented, it's something about community of algebras because differential forms are commutative. But Alexel van Maindren, can they introduce a non-community version of Chenbei theory? And it turns out that this non-community construction enters in the proof. These are the four main ingredients of the proof that I, let me say a little bit more about them, but I won't have time to say much more. So let me show you a sketch of the proof, how it works. First, iterated integral. So as I said, this is for the purposes of this construction, it's just a way to produce differential forms and mapping spaces. This is what the way in which they enter in constructions in topology. But they arise, as I said before, in other parts of topology, in theory, in the theory of multiple seta values, probably you haven't countered them for all the reasons as well. So let me, I mentioned Guggenheim, this is Guggenheim, and he proved an A infinity version of the Rams theorem. So let me tell you what this is. Guggenheim's A infinity, the Rams theorem, is the following statement, is that when you have, so let me tell you what this means. So the way the Rams theorem is usually stated is that when you have differential forms, you can view them as co-chains by integration, and this map induces an isomorphism in co-homology. That's the way the Rams theorem is usually presented. Now, there is something which is strange about this statement presented that way, and it is the following. It is that the Rams map is not an algebra map because the map that takes a differential form and sees it as a co-chain. It's not an algebra map, and it shouldn't be because it goes from something commutative to something non-commutative. So you shouldn't expect to have an algebra homomorphism given by integration, and you don't. However, this map, which is not an algebra homomorphism, induces an isomorphism of algebras in the, in co-homology. So you have something that the chain level is not an algebra map, but the co-homology level is an algebra map. So that's a natural, that sort of begs for an explanation. And the explanation that was provided by Guggenheim is that the reason it happens is because the usual, the Rams map, is just the first part of an infinity map. So you have an infinite sequence of higher order maps that make it, that make, that produce an infinity equivalence between these two algebras, right? So that's a much better explanation of why you have something that's not an algebra map, but at co-homology level, it becomes an algebra map. Now, these higher order correction terms to the Rams theorem, they're provided by Chen's integrals. This is the work of Guggenheim in which Guggenheim is an infinity version of the Rams theorem, and this enters in the proof. The Butch-Schulman algebra, these are both in stash, if I can find a picture of Schulman. So the Butch-Schulman algebra, it's just a differential-graded algebra. I have a picture of it here that can be used to compute the co-homology of classifying space. It can be sort of constructed combinatorially and it comes from a double complex and it's one of the ingredients of the proof. Improving the theorem that I mentioned before, one of the intermediate steps that one has to go through is to prove a version of the infinity Rams theorem for classifying spaces. So Guggenheim's theorem is just a theorem about manifolds, but you can try to do it for classifying spaces. Classifying spaces are infinite dimensional, well, manifolds if you want, but they're not manifolds in the standard sense. So it requires some work in proving an infinity version of the RAM theorem for classifying spaces as well. And this is something we did with Alexander Quintet. Oh, sorry, I, it wasn't the first slide, but maybe I should have mentioned it explicitly that this talk is based in joint work with Alexander Quintet, which is my colleague here. I should have mentioned that earlier, sorry. Anyway, so one of the intermediate steps in the proof is this infinity version of classifying, of the Rams theorem for classifying spaces, which is based on Guggenheim's construction. So we proved an infinity version for classifying spaces as well. And this infinity version, what it relates is this Bat-Schulman model for the cohomology of the classifying space with the Hochschild cohomology of the algebra of syndrome change. So what we produced is an explicit A infinity equivalence between the Bat-Schulman algebra that I mentioned before and the algebra of Hochschild co-chains in the algebra of singular change on G. You can produce an explicit A infinity map between these two algebras. And this is an equivalence. This is based on Guggenheim's construction. And the other sort of key step in the proof is what I mentioned earlier, which is a non-commutative version of the Chen Bay theory. And the reason that it enters, I want to tell you, is why do you need something non-commutative? You see, because when you're doing sort of ordinary different geometry, your algebras are algebras of differential forms and they are commutative. But when you go to infinite dimensions, the models that you have for the cohomology of spaces, for instance here, the Bat-Schulman algebra or the Hochschild co-chains, and these are non-commutative algebras. And that's the reason that if you want to use the Chen Bay theory, you need to have a non-commutative version of it. So yeah, so we have that. It was introduced by Alexei Van Meinrenken. And we use it in the construction as the non-commutative version of the Bay algebra. This non-commutative version of the Bay algebra was introduced by Alexei Van Meinrenken, as I said before, for different purposes, they used it for applications in Li theory and in Chen Bay theory. I guess one of the more interesting applications they found is a proof of the flow isomorphism in the case of quadratic Bay algebra. So I think the main application they used is non-commutative Bay algebra four is about the flow isomorphism in Li theory. It's usually proved by transcendental methods. You need some complicated integrals or some dream-filled associators. But in the case of quadratically algebras, they found a much easier proof and this proof uses the non-commutative Bay algebra. That was, I think, their original motivation. Anyway, so now I want to tell you about the theory of local systems. So local systems, I guess, many of you will have encountered their local systems for cohomology theories and they can be described in different ways from the point of view of geometry. If you're a differential geometry, you can think that they're flat connections. If you are more into representation theory, you can think that they're representations of some sort of fundamental group void. And if you're more interested in homotopy theory, you can think that these are modules over the algebra of singular chains on the base loop space of your space. So these are structures that are usually known as higher local systems. And the reason they're higher is because everything here is graded. And if you restrict to non-graded things, you get recovered the usual, well, the usual notion of local systems that you encounter in the course of topology, which are, well, locally constant sheaves or flat vector bundles or representations of the fundamental group void. But these are sort of allowed for higher dimensions. That's what the word higher means here. All right, so there's a theory, a well-developed theory of higher local systems. And let me say something about them. There's a technicality here when I said that you can consider modules over the algebra singular chain. This is not exactly true because the base loop space is not a group because composition of paths is not an associative structure. In this picture, you see that if you compose paths into different ways, you don't get the same answer because you get different parameterizations. So the base loop space is not a group, but it wants to be a group. And there's a way to fix it. And this way to fix it is to remember the length of a path. So if you replace the base loop space on a space by what's called the more loop space, what it does is it remembers the length of a path. And then if you put this extra data, then you can make a space which is homotopy equivalent to the base loop space, but it now has a strictly associative structure. So that's the way in which you can think of higher local systems as modules over the algebra of singular chains on the more loop space, which is now genuinely a topological monoid. So the more loop space is a topological monoid, and so singular chains on it are a hoop algebra. Modules over these hoop algebra are, you can think of them as high local systems on a space. Now, there is a theorem which usually goes by the name of Freeman-Hilbert correspondence. It tells you that well, essentially that you can identify flat connections with representations of the fundamental group. There's sort of all sorts of versions of this theorem, but essentially it's just the least theory which tells you how representations of a fundamental group can be described infinitesimally. It goes by the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence, and there's a higher version of the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence in this setting, and it says that all the possible notions of local systems that I mentioned before, they produce equivalent or quasi-equivalent differential graded categories. So it means that there's a robust theory of higher local systems, and they satisfy the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence that one would expect. This is work, the theorem that I have here in blue is sort of a collection of results by several people. There's a block and smith. There is Julian Hallstein, I did some work with Florian Chetz. These sort of different pieces are in different places, but essentially what happens at the end is that all the possible versions of higher local systems, they are equivalent. So it's sort of a robust generalization of the classical result. And so because all these possibilities are equivalent, then I'll just denote log X by any of these differential graded categories, which are all equivalent. So the last theorem I want to mention is that these categories of representations, so again, so if G is a compact and simply connect the league group, then the following categories are infinity equivalent, and these are these three categories. So the category of representations of TG, the category of modules over the algebra, singular chains, and also the category of local systems on the classifying space. So all of these categories are infinity equivalent. So it means that the first theorem that I told you about, which is sort of can be thought of as simply piece of theory, you describe infinitesimally the modules. It can also be thought of as a categorified version of the train Bay theory, where you computing infinitesimally some topological invariant of the classifying space, BG. In this case, this topological invariant is the category of local systems over BG. Yeah, so these three categories are equivalent for representations of TG, the categories of modules over singular chains, and the category of local systems on the classifying space. These are all equivalent differential graded categories. I want to finish with a couple of examples to show you how this theorem sort of relates to the train Bay theory, right? So I want to show you two examples to get a feeling for what this means. So the first example is just what happens if you apply these equivalents of categories to the trivial representation, right? So I'm stating that there is here an equivalent of categories, but these categories, well, the categories of modules in particular have a trivial module. So you can ask, well, what happens if I apply these equivalents of categories to the trivial module? So we know that the local system of BG can be equivalent to representations of TG. So in particular, this equivalent sends the trivial representation to the trivial representation. So, well, it means that the endomorphisms of the trivial representation in one category needs to be equivalent to the endomorphisms of the trivial representation in the other category. And it also has to be equivalent to the cohomology of the space BG with trivial coefficients, with trivial local system, right? So it means that it gives you the cohomology of BG as the endomorphisms of the trivial module in either of these two categories. And if you unravel what this spaces of endomorphisms are, you just recover Chenbei construction, Chenbei computation of the cohomology of BG. So in particular, when you apply these equivalents of categories to a trivial module, what you see is that, well, when you compute the cohomology of BG with trivial coefficients, you recover Chenbei's computation that you get invariant polynomials and the linear algebra. That's for the trivial module. But there are other modules which are also interesting. So let me show you a different example. Second example I want to mention is the free-loop space of the classifying space. So, well, if you have any space, you have a loop space vibration, which takes the free-loop space in that space and evaluates it at one, right? So you have a free-loop space vibration. So it's a map from the free-loop space of BG to BG. And this vibration has a Gauss-Mannin connection. This Gauss-Mannin connection is a local system on BG. And it turns out that you can identify, if you believe that this local system on BG can be described as a module over TG, then you can sort of identified as the Chevalier-Elember complex of TG. And this implies that, well, the cohomology of the total space of the vibration should be the same thing as the cohomology of the base with coefficients in the Gauss-Mannin connection. And if you unravel what this means, you get that the cohomology of the loop space of BG is the mapping space from the trivial module to this module in this category, or the mapping space from the trivial module to this module in the category of rep of TG. Both of these things are naturally isomorphic once you compute them to the equivariant cohomology of G acting on itself by conjugation. And so what you recover is a well-known fact that the cohomology of the loop space is, sorry, the cohomology of the loop space of the classifying space is isomorphic to the cohomology, the equivariant cohomology of G acting on itself by conjugation. So when you apply the equivalence of categories that I mentioned before to this path space vibration, what you recover is the computation of the equivariant cohomology of G acting on itself by conjugation as the cohomology of the free loop space of the classifying space. So you recover sort of these topological computations as a consequence of the equivalence of categories. I think this is all I wanted to say. I thank you all for your attention. Thanks. Thank you so much, Camila. So are there any questions? Now you can unmute your microphones and ask or you can write on them. So let me stop sharing and maybe in case there are questions in there. Sure. In the chat. What, would like to ask a question? Okay. So I asked one, but this is a bit far from work. So we have pre-magnetic work correspondence, the olemorphic one, and you have the flat vector bundles with local constant shifts. And what we do is like, we have an algebraic version of it, like the model, so the color of the models and perversives. And I don't know if there is a kind of an algebraic version of the higher women correspondence or if it makes sense. I don't know the answer to that question. So if you have some sort of extra structure, something holomorphic, is that what you mean? So this is sort of a, so I think there are sort of all sorts of kinds of remanhealable correspondences. This is just one more of them. And this is sort of the more, in a way, the more flexible one, the more topological. So it tells you that instead of thinking about representations of just the fundamental group, you want to think of local systems where you have holonomies, not only for one dimensional things, but you have holonomies for simplices of all dimensions. And the theorem is that also those, just like the ordinary ones, you can describe with flat connections, these higher dimensional ones, you can also describe differential geometrically by some sort of flat super connections. That's the way. That's the way it works. And it can be thought of as some sort of version of the theory also. Now, whether you can combine the two ideas and make some sort of a higher dimensional version in presence of more, say, holomorphic or the right structure, I don't know the answer. Might just answer that. And one, I have briefly thought about it. And the first place where I got stuck is that, well, if you want to do holomorphic things, well, I don't know how you get odd simplices. So in this construction, you have simplices of all dimensions. And it's important that you have simplices of all dimensions, but in the holomorphic case, well, you only have even dimensions. So that was the first place where I got stuck, but I just don't know the answer. Thank you so much. Any other questions? So we thank Camille again. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you.