Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

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 comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite 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 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

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2011

    briefly added something to fusion category. See also this blog comment.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v29, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2022

    added pointer to:

    (maybe we should have a dedicated entry for braided fusion categories – not sure)

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 9th 2022

    oh, sorry, this reference should be included via anyonic topological order via braided fusion categories – references – will fix

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2023

    added references on fusion 2-categories:

    diff, v37, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2023

    It is known that one can define a fusion category up to equivalence by considering GG-graded vector spaces for GG a finite group and taking the associator to be defined by a cohomology class of H 3(G,k ×)H^3(G,k^{\times}). I am somewhat confused by the actual construction leading to this statement. Is this to be understood as a construction that takes as input GG and a cocycle so that if the cocycles are in the same class then the corresponding fusion categories are equivalent but not isomorphic? Usually the notion of isomorphism of categories is too strong, so it makes me wonder if there is a refined notion of fusion category constructed in a similar way such that they are only equivalent to other fusion categories constructed from the same cocycle, not only the same class.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2023
    • (edited Oct 12th 2023)

    For reference, I have slightly expanded our statement of this example (now here), which originates probably with Etingof, Nikshych & Ostrik 2005, item 1. on p. 584 (p. 4 in the pdf).

    Yes, up to equivalence, these fusion categories should depend on the cohomology class of the 3-cocycle only.

    It’s not clear to me how one would reasonably restrict the notion of equivalence such as to retain the actual cocycle. And why would you want to do this?

    diff, v39, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2023

    This comes as a confusion I have regarding some computations on a project related to generalized symmetries I’m currently working on, in particular related to the concept of dual or quantum symmetry. But I can’t really phrase out a concrete question to ask here just yet without first sorting out the issue (that I highlighted couple of times in the nLab entry) that all that literature effectively ignores the need for concretely defining “action” for these things (in a sense, it’s like talking about GG-symmetries by just concentrating on properties of GG and not of a GG-action). I guess I just got ahead of myself by asking the question in #6.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeNov 4th 2023
    • (edited Nov 4th 2023)

    Is there an analogous concept but for categories enriched over virtual vector spaces? I think this and an analog of Turaev-Viro would turn out to be relevant for e.g. global symmetries of theories quantized in K-theory.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2023

    Not that I know of.

    But depending on what you have in mind it may be that you could do with super-vector spaces instead of virtual vector spaces?

    In that case there is a notion of “superfusion category” and there is a good general theory such as Deligne’s theorem on tensor categories.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeNov 5th 2023

    Maybe. I was thinking what a functorial field theory valued in virtual vector spaces is supposed to be and whether this would be related to the usual assumptions of positive level on CS/WZW.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2024

    Re#7: I got a better answer than #8, goes back to the paper by Majid about octonions as twisted group algebras. One of the main observations there is that the associator of the octonions, a group 3-cocycle ω\omega, is not exactly one (obviously, since they are not associative) but it is a coboundary, so that it defines a trivial cohomology class. If we take the construction of Vec [ω]( 2 3)\text{Vec}_{[\omega]}(\mathbb{Z}_2^3), this will not care about ω\omega, only about [ω]=1[\omega]=1 and will return something equivalent to just Vec( 2 3)\text{Vec}(\mathbb{Z}_2^3). Since these categories are representation categories of (twisted) group algebras, the statement probably is something like, the untwisted algebra [ 2 3]\mathbb{R}[\mathbb{Z}_2^3] and the twisted algebra α[ 2 3]\mathbb{R}_{\alpha}[\mathbb{Z}_2^3] for ω=dα\omega=d\alpha are not isomorphic but Morita equivalent? But in any case, the fusion category construction seems to be too coarse to detect these distinctions?