2000
DOI: 10.1023/a:1007641619266
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Abstract: We consider the harmonic superspaces associated to SU (2, 2/N )

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is easy to see that for the massless cases given in (3.20) one has: 27) which is indeed negative for j 2 = 0, 1 2 and non-negative for j 2 ≥ 1. In fact, the finite-dimensional irrep, related to a massless case with j 2 ≥ 1, has dimension [45]:…”
Section: Characters Of the Even Subalgebramentioning
confidence: 96%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…It is easy to see that for the massless cases given in (3.20) one has: 27) which is indeed negative for j 2 = 0, 1 2 and non-negative for j 2 ≥ 1. In fact, the finite-dimensional irrep, related to a massless case with j 2 ≥ 1, has dimension [45]:…”
Section: Characters Of the Even Subalgebramentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The UIRs of G are realized as irreducible components of ERs, and then they coincide with the usually used superfields in indexless notation. This construction is canonical, yet we should mention that some of the resulting superspaces were obtained in the papers [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], using the notions of 'harmonic superspace analyticity' and 'Grassmann analyticity'. The relation between the latter approach and ours were commented on in [4], [18], [17].…”
Section: The Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…To reduce to the usual 11 independent complex parameters of pure spinors, we further impose the following two covariant constraints u a Iv bI = 0 , λ α a ǫ αβ ǫ ab λ β b +λα a ǫαβǫ abλβ b = 0 . S(U(2)×U(2)) used in [7](see also [11] and [9]). The restriction of U (2) × U (2) to the subgroup S(U (2) × U (2)) is due to second constraint of (2.4).…”
Section: The Decomposition In (22) Is Left Invariant By the Gauge Trmentioning
confidence: 99%