Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2011
   • (edited Feb 11th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexA while back I had a discussion here with Domenico on how the framed cobordim $(\infty,n)$-category $Bord^{fr}_n(X)$ of cobordisns _in_ a topological space $X$ should be essentially the free symmetric monoidal $(\infty,n)$-category on the fundamental $\infty$-groupoid of $X$. This can be read as saying > Every flat $\infty$-parallel transport of fully dualizable objects has a unique $\infty$-holonomy. (!) Some helpful discussion with Chris Schommer-Pries tonight revealed that this is (unsurprisingly) already a special case of what Jacob Lurie proves. He proves it in more generality, which makes the statement easy to miss on casual reading. So I made it explicit now at [[cobordism hypothesis]] in the new section <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/cobordism+hypothesis#StatementForCobordismsInAManifold">For cobordisms in a manifold.</a>

   A while back I had a discussion here with Domenico on how the framed cobordim $(\infty,n)$-category $Bord^{fr}_n(X)$ of cobordisns in a topological space $X$ should be essentially the free symmetric monoidal $(\infty,n)$-category on the fundamental $\infty$-groupoid of $X$.

   This can be read as saying

   Every flat $\infty$-parallel transport of fully dualizable objects has a unique $\infty$-holonomy.

   (!)

   Some helpful discussion with Chris Schommer-Pries tonight revealed that this is (unsurprisingly) already a special case of what Jacob Lurie proves. He proves it in more generality, which makes the statement easy to miss on casual reading. So I made it explicit now at cobordism hypothesis in the new section For cobordisms in a manifold.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI can flesh this out tomorrow. Am too tired now.

   I can flesh this out tomorrow. Am too tired now.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthordomenico_fiorenza
   • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2011
   • (edited Feb 11th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: domenico_fiorenza
   Format: MarkdownItexHi Urs, this is very good news. In view of this, sooner or later we should also look back at what we have been discussing on [[Topological Quantum Field Theories from Compact Lie Groups]] somewhere here on nForum.

   Hi Urs,

   this is very good news. In view of this, sooner or later we should also look back at what we have been discussing on Topological Quantum Field Theories from Compact Lie Groups somewhere here on nForum.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthordomenico_fiorenza
   • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: domenico_fiorenza
   Format: MarkdownItexbetter sooner than later.. Urs' first post above can be rephrased as follows: TQFTs over a given oo-groupoid $\Pi$ are the same thing as representations of $\Pi$ on fully dualizable objects in an oo-symmetric category. in particular (fully extended) TQFTs over a manifold $X$ are the same thing of flat oo-bundles over $X$. now, it would be interesting to have a push-forwarding of flat oo-bundles along morphisms $X\to Y$. by the above equivalence this would push TQFTs over $X$ forward to TQFTs over $Y$. Now, let us come to the case of a finite group $G$. Here the relevant oo-groupoid $\Pi$ is the delooping $\mathbf{B}G$, and a flat higher vector bundle over $\mathbf{B}G$ is the same thing as an higher representation of $G$. So we are in [[Dijkgraaf-Witten theory]] playground: a $U(1)$-valued 3-cocycle on $G$, i.e. a morphism $\mathbf{B}G\to \mathbf{B}^3U(1)$ induces a ``1-dimensional'' 3-representation of $G$, and so a TQFT over $\mathbf{B}G$. now we want to push this TQFT forward to a TQFT over the point. to do this we just have to push forward our 3-vector bundle from $\mathbf{B}G$ to the point, i.e. to take its global sections. If $\Sigma$ is a manifold of dimension $\leq 3$ with a morphism to $\mathbf{B}G$, then we have an induced _flat_ 3-bundle over $\Sigma$ and so a TQFT over $\Sigma$. pushing this construction along $\mathbf{H}(\Pi(\Sigma),\mathbf{B}G)\to *$ should give the higher vector space associated to $\Sigma$ by push-forwarding the original TQFT on $\mathbf{B}G$ to the point.

   better sooner than later..

   Urs’ first post above can be rephrased as follows: TQFTs over a given oo-groupoid $\Pi$ are the same thing as representations of $\Pi$ on fully dualizable objects in an oo-symmetric category. in particular (fully extended) TQFTs over a manifold $X$ are the same thing of flat oo-bundles over $X$. now, it would be interesting to have a push-forwarding of flat oo-bundles along morphisms $X\to Y$. by the above equivalence this would push TQFTs over $X$ forward to TQFTs over $Y$.

   Now, let us come to the case of a finite group $G$. Here the relevant oo-groupoid $\Pi$ is the delooping $\mathbf{B}G$, and a flat higher vector bundle over $\mathbf{B}G$ is the same thing as an higher representation of $G$. So we are in Dijkgraaf-Witten theory playground: a $U(1)$-valued 3-cocycle on $G$, i.e. a morphism $\mathbf{B}G\to \mathbf{B}^3U(1)$ induces a “1-dimensional” 3-representation of $G$, and so a TQFT over $\mathbf{B}G$. now we want to push this TQFT forward to a TQFT over the point. to do this we just have to push forward our 3-vector bundle from $\mathbf{B}G$ to the point, i.e. to take its global sections.

   If $\Sigma$ is a manifold of dimension $\leq 3$ with a morphism to $\mathbf{B}G$, then we have an induced flat 3-bundle over $\Sigma$ and so a TQFT over $\Sigma$. pushing this construction along $\mathbf{H}(\Pi(\Sigma),\mathbf{B}G)\to *$ should give the higher vector space associated to $\Sigma$ by push-forwarding the original TQFT on $\mathbf{B}G$ to the point.