 h\} \delta n\} \beta n )$.  The nilpotent algebra analogue of this claim is true, but requires another moderately complicated nilpotent algebra construction based on semi-direct products.
3. A bracket polynomial has a fairly visible concept of a “degree” (analogous to the corresponding notion for true polynomials), as well as a “rank” (which, roughly speaking measures the number of parentheses in the bracket monomials, plus one).  Thus, for instance, the bracket monomial $\{\{ \alpha n^4 \} \beta n \} \gamma n^2$ has degree 7 and rank 3.  Defining degree and rank for nilsequences requires one to generalise the notion of a (filtered) nilmanifold to one in which the lower central series is replaced by a filtration indexed by both the degree and the rank.

There are various other tradeoffs of this type in this paper.  For instance, nonstandard analysis tools were introduced to eliminate what would otherwise be quite a large number of epsilons and regularity lemmas to manage, at the cost of some notational overhead; and the piecewise discontinuities mentioned earlier were eliminated by the use of vector-valued nilsequences, though this again caused some further notational overhead.    These difficulties may be a sign that we do not yet have the “right” proof of this conjecture, but one will probably have to wait a few years before we get a proper amount of perspective and understanding on this circle of ideas and results.

Ben Green, Tamar Ziegler, and I have just uploaded to the arXiv the note “An inverse theorem for the Gowers norm ${U^{s+1}[N]}$ (announcement)“, not intended for publication. This is an announcement of our forthcoming solution of the inverse conjecture for the Gowers norm, which roughly speaking asserts that ${U^{s+1}[N]}$ norm of a bounded function is large if and only if that function correlates with an ${s}$-step nilsequence of bounded complexity.

The full argument is quite lengthy (our most recent draft is about 90 pages long), but this is in large part due to the presence of various technical details which are necessary in order to make the argument fully rigorous. In this 20-page announcement, we instead sketch a heuristic proof of the conjecture, relying in a number of “cheats” to avoid the above-mentioned technical details. In particular:

• In the announcement, we rely on somewhat vaguely defined terms such as “bounded complexity” or “linearly independent with respect to bounded linear combinations” or “equivalent modulo lower step errors” without specifying them rigorously. In the full paper we will use the machinery of nonstandard analysis to rigorously and precisely define these concepts.
• In the announcement, we deal with the traditional linear nilsequences rather than the polynomial nilsequences that turn out to be better suited for finitary equidistribution theory, but require more notation and machinery in order to use.
• In a similar vein, we restrict attention to scalar-valued nilsequences in the announcement, though due to topological obstructions arising from the twisted nature of the torus bundles used to build nilmanifolds, we will have to deal instead with vector-valued nilsequences in the main paper.
• In the announcement, we pretend that nilsequences can be described by bracket polynomial phases, at least for the sake of making examples, although strictly speaking bracket polynomial phases only give examples of piecewise Lipschitz nilsequences rather than genuinely Lipschitz nilsequences.

With these cheats, it becomes possible to shorten the length of the argument substantially. Also, it becomes clearer that the main task is a cohomological one; in order to inductively deduce the inverse conjecture for a given step ${s}$ from the conjecture for the preceding step ${s-1}$, the basic problem is to show that a certain (quasi-)cocycle is necessarily a (quasi-)coboundary. This in turn requires a detailed analysis of the top order and second-to-top order terms in the cocycle, which requires a certain amount of nilsequence equidistribution theory and additive combinatorics, as well as a “sunflower decomposition” to arrange the various nilsequences one encounters into a usable “normal form”.

It is often the case in modern mathematics that the informal heuristic way to explain an argument looks quite different (and is significantly shorter) than the way one would formally present the argument with all the details. This seems to be particularly true in this case; at a superficial level, the full paper has a very different set of notation than the announcement, and a lot of space is invested in setting up additional machinery that one can quickly gloss over in the announcement. We hope though that the announcement can provide a “road map” to help navigate the much longer paper to come.

In Notes 5, we saw that the Gowers uniformity norms on vector spaces ${{\bf F}^n}$ in high characteristic were controlled by classical polynomial phases ${e(\phi)}$.

Now we study the analogous situation on cyclic groups ${{\bf Z}/N{\bf Z}}$. Here, there is an unexpected surprise: the polynomial phases (classical or otherwise) are no longer sufficient to control the Gowers norms ${U^{s+1}({\bf Z}/N{\bf Z})}$ once ${s}$ exceeds ${1}$. To resolve this problem, one must enlarge the space of polynomials to a larger class. It turns out that there are at least three closely related options for this class: the local polynomials, the bracket polynomials, and the nilsequences. Each of the three classes has its own strengths and weaknesses, but in my opinion the nilsequences seem to be the most natural class, due to the rich algebraic and dynamical structure coming from the nilpotent Lie group undergirding such sequences. For reasons of space we shall focus primarily on the nilsequence viewpoint here.

Traditionally, nilsequences have been defined in terms of linear orbits ${n \mapsto g^n x}$ on nilmanifolds ${G/\Gamma}$; however, in recent years it has been realised that it is convenient for technical reasons (particularly for the quantitative “single-scale” theory) to generalise this setup to that of polynomial orbits ${n \mapsto g(n) \Gamma}$, and this is the perspective we will take here.

A polynomial phase ${n \mapsto e(\phi(n))}$ on a finite abelian group ${H}$ is formed by starting with a polynomial ${\phi: H \rightarrow {\bf R}/{\bf Z}}$ to the unit circle, and then composing it with the exponential function ${e: {\bf R}/{\bf Z} \rightarrow {\bf C}}$. To create a nilsequence ${n \mapsto F(g(n) \Gamma)}$, we generalise this construction by starting with a polynomial ${g \Gamma: H \rightarrow G/\Gamma}$ into a nilmanifold ${G/\Gamma}$, and then composing this with a Lipschitz function ${F: G/\Gamma \rightarrow {\bf C}}$. (The Lipschitz regularity class is convenient for minor technical reasons, but one could also use other regularity classes here if desired.) These classes of sequences certainly include the polynomial phases, but are somewhat more general; for instance, they almost include bracket polynomial phases such as ${n \mapsto e( \lfloor \alpha n \rfloor \beta n )}$. (The “almost” here is because the relevant functions ${F: G/\Gamma \rightarrow {\bf C}}$ involved are only piecewise Lipschitz rather than Lipschitz, but this is primarily a technical issue and one should view bracket polynomial phases as “morally” being nilsequences.)

In these notes we set out the basic theory for these nilsequences, including their equidistribution theory (which generalises the equidistribution theory of polynomial flows on tori from Notes 1) and show that they are indeed obstructions to the Gowers norm being small. This leads to the inverse conjecture for the Gowers norms that shows that the Gowers norms on cyclic groups are indeed controlled by these sequences.Nearly two months after Microsoft acquired ZeniMax Media and its publisher Bethesda Softworks, it’s still unclear how game releases and updates will be handled from here on out. Will they be Xbox and PC exclusive or will they also be launching on other platforms like the PlayStation and Switch? Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Tim Stuart put the matter to rest in a statement during last week’s Jefferies Interactive Entertainment Virtual Conference.
You’ll find the full transcript of the conference on Seeking Alpha.
I tend to consider a photograph as a scene captured by an optical device. Pinhole camera, DSLR, telescope and CCD, Polaroid, whatever. Getting into how much editing can go into it while it's still a photo can be pretty complex and admittedly subjective, of course.

But I generally have the idea -- If you combine multiple elements (real or not) to make a fantastical scene (something very unlike reality), it is better fit into the broad category of digital art.

If you start with a photograph and make edits or adjustments to either enhance some element of reality (like making astronomical features not visible to the naked eye visible in your photo), or to perhaps incorporate some clue of the effects of the passage of time (compositing multiple phases of the eclipse into one image, or perhaps multiple points of a bird in flight into one image) then it still fits the more narrow definition of photography. Though you might call it a composite, or a timelapse, or long exposure.

Anyway, I didn't mean to nitpick. Just offering my opinion on the labels.Why is a good night's sleep not on your priority list yet?..... Did you know that it has been scientifically proven that we really sleep too little! Doctors are really