Let me begin with a very general statement about the meeting. It was simply ** amazing**! I met many amazing people – Dr. Marcy Robertson, Dr. Julie Bergner, Dr. Aaron Mazel-Gee, Dr. Matthew Pancia, Dr. Eric Peterson and Dr. David Carchedi. They were all very nice people, and it was very fun meeting them. Here are the highlights, for me, of the meeting.

First, my own presentation at 10:30 in the morning. My own presentation went very well; here is the final version of the slides that I presented: AMS Fall Western Sectional Meeting.

Then I visited Dr. Kiran Kedlaya’s lecture, *A brief history of perfectoid spaces*. Essentially, perfectoid spaces are things that connect stuff in characteristic 0 and characteristic p. He never really presented the actual precise definition of a perfectoid space; he said that the precise definition takes one away from the actual intended use of the objects (whose purpose is to connect stuff in characteristic 0 and characteristic p). I then ate lunch at Subway on the SFSU campus.

Following that tasty lunch, I went on to visit Dr. Marcy Robertson’s talk, which was at 3:00 pm. Since I didn’t know where everyone was, and my parents had taken my brother out to the mall nearby (he was understandably bored), I sat in the room two hours early. Just before I was about to leave out of boredom, Dr. Robertson came in.

When I’d first met her in UCLA, she’d given my some stuff to read on symmetric spectra by Hovey, Shipley, et. al. She told me some interesting stuff about DGAs and DG-categories (DG-categories with one object are DGAs!), and it was very fun! She then told me about how my research on the K-theory of modules over infinity operads could actually provide some input into the theory of derived categories.

By then, people started coming in, and I met Dr. Julie Bergner, who was a very nice person. Dr. Robertson’s talk was on Morita theory and categorification. I’ve taken some notes, and plan to type them in sometime soon. Dr. Eric Peterson’s talk was on determinantal K-theory and some applications; his typed in notes are here.

After the talks, there was really nothing much to do, so I went out, wandered about like an idiot, and came back into the room. Dr. Robertson and Dr. Bergner were leaving then, and I went into the room and introduced myself to Dr. Aaron Mazel-Gee, Dr. Matthew Pancia, Dr. Eric Peterson and Dr. David Carchedi. They were very nice people, and I talked to them about my research. They offered to put me in contact with Dr. Barwick and Dr. Lurie, and they also gave me their emails. They were very nice people, and I hope to see them sometime soon!

There was the Einstein Public Lecture, of course, by Dr. Simons – famous for Chern-Simons theory. I didn’t attend the reception, but I did attend the lecture.

I didn’t stay for the second day, as I have school tomorrow, and the drive was very *very *long – 7 hours! I hope to post more regularly, but until then, goodbye!

I’m glad it went well!

Thank you! I hope to see you next week at UCLA!

Glad you are still updating your blog regularly. I had a look at the slides of your presentation. I really like them. Especially the long “Preliminaries” section might help me to make sense of the “infinity”-version of some concepts I understand currently only for the (“1”- and) “2”-version.

Where you described the Homotopy Hypothesis, you should have mentioned that it’s not Top, but Top localized “modulo weak homotopy equivalence”.

Did you get any questions after your talk?

I did want to add some of the more technical formalities in my slides, but as I was giving a contributed talk, I didn’t want to confuse those in the audience. (many of the audience didn’t work in homotopy theory). I did get one question only – what is ? It was supposed to be an object of , but I guess I didn’t mention that in the slides.

I then met Dr. Aaron Mazel-Gee, Dr. Matthew Pancia, Dr. Eric Peterson and Dr. David Carchedi, who I talked to about my research. One of the questions I got was if I had any examples of my main “theorem”, which I didn’t. I was also asked for evidence for the statements in the last slide; I later figured out that those claims were wrong.