I will give an overview of audio identification methods on spectral representations of songs. I will outline the persistent homology-based approaches that I propose and their shortcomings. I hope that the review of previous work will help spark a discussion on new possible representations and filtrations.

I will review the equivalence of categories of a Bernstein component of a p-adic classical group with the category of right modules over a certain affine Hecke algebra (with parameters) that I obtained previously. The parameters can be made explicit by the parametrization of supercuspidal representations of classical groups obtained by C. Moeglin, using methods of J. Arthur. Via this equivalence, I can show that the category of smooth complex representations of a quasisplit $p$-adic classical group and its pure inner forms is naturally decomposed into subcategories that are equivalent to the tensor product of categories of unipotent representations of classical groups (in the sense of G. Lusztig). All classical groups (general linear, orthogonal, symplectic and unitary groups) appear in this context.
 

Highly oscillatory integrals arise in a range of wave-based problems. For example, they may occur when a basis for a boundary element has been enriched with oscillatory functions, or as part of a localised approximation to various short-wavelength phenomena. A range of contemporary methods exist for the efficient evaluation of such integrals. These methods have been shown to be very effective for model integrals, but may require expertise and manual intervention for
integrals with higher complexity, and can be unstable in practice.

The PathFinder toolbox aims to develop robust and fully automated numerical software for a large class of oscillatory integrals. In this talk I will introduce the method of numerical steepest descent (the technique upon which PathFinder is based) with a few simple examples, which are also intended to highlight potential causes for numerical instability or manual intervention. I will then explain the novel approaches that PathFinder uses to avoid these. Finally I will present some numerical examples, demonstrating how to use the toolbox, convergence results, and an application to the parabolic wave equation.

American mathematics was experiencing growing pains in the 1920s. It had looked to Europe at least since the 1890s when many Americans had gone abroad to pursue their advanced mathematical studies.  It was anxious to assert itself on the international—that is, at least at this moment in time, European—mathematical scene. How, though, could the Americans change the European perception from one of apprentice/master to one of mathematical equals? How could Europe, especially Germany but to a lesser extent France, Italy, England, and elsewhere, come fully to sense the development of the mathematical United States?  If such changes could be effected at all, they would likely involve American and European mathematicians in active dialogue, working shoulder to shoulder in Europe and in the United States, and publishing side by side in journals on both sides of the Atlantic. This talk will explore one side of this “equation”: European mathematicians and their experiences in the United States in the 1920s.

Supergravity backgrounds are an essential ingredient in string theory or field theories via AdS/CFT. The simplest example of a 4d, N=1 background is the product of four-dimensional Minkowski space with a seven-dimensional manifold with G_2 holonomy in M-theory. For more complicated backgrounds where we allow non-zero fluxes, the supersymmetry conditions can be rephrased in terms of G-structure data. The geometry of these backgrounds is often complicated and their general features are not well understood.

In this talk, I will define the analogue of G_2 geometry for generic 4d, N=1 backgrounds with flux in both type II and eleven-dimensional supergravity. The geometry is characterised by a G-structure in 'exceptional generalised geometry' that includes G_2 structures and Hitchin's generalised geometry as subcases. Supersymmetry is then equivalent to integrability of the structures, which appears as an involutivity condition and a moment map for diffeomorphisms and gauge transformations. I will show how this works in a few simple examples and discuss how this can be used to understand general properties of supersymmetric backgrounds.