MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Just for fun, I set up the following scheme:
- A 6j symbol is everything that fulfils Biedenharn-Elliott. (Plus symmetry, orthogonality etc. if that doesn't follow from it anyway.)
- There are only a finite number $i$ of irreps (including $1$, the 1-dim "neutral"). Then I tried out which of the many possible Clebsch-Gordan expansions are mutally consistent with all the 6j equations via Biedenharn-Elliott. For two irreps I got only this: $1\bigotimes{X}=X (X=1,2), 2\bigotimes{2}=1+2.$
- Ha!
- Even I did see this before, it's the smallest Fibonacci fusion category. Now a quick research gave me a load of adjectives that come with fusion categories. Can you tell me which of them apply to my scheme?
- $i=3$ produces 3 "minis", with $i=4$ I get 6 (and I stopped here because of the dreaded combinatiorial explosion - are these already classified somewhere?).
- My main question, though, is whether you get a free parameter when you choose $i$ large enough. All my "minis" give only a set of fixed complex numbers for the values of the 6j symbols, the quantum dimension and the writhe normalizer (the minis all seem to be knot-theory compatible). The latter is a root of unity so I can speculate all the minis correspond to special values of the Jones polynomial. Or suchlike.

share|cite|improve this question

Fusion categories are discrete (like finite groups) and you never have a "free parameter". This is an observation by Ocneanu.

share|cite|improve this answer
See for a proof. – DamienC Aug 21 '12 at 15:19

The number of non-isomorphic simple objects is called the rank of the fusion category.

You've made an error somewhere, as in rank 2 you should also get an example where the nontrivial simple object squares to $1$. (In your notation $2 \otimes 2 \cong 1$.)

For rank 2, Ostrik gave a complete classification ( Ostrik's argument is somewhat indirect (via the Drinfel'd center). As far as I know, no one has given a direct classification in rank 2 via 6j symbols. The hard part is figuring out why there's no fusion categories with the fusion rule $X^2 = 1 + n X$ for $n>1$.

For rank 3 if you only look at fusion categories that give knot invariants, then Ostrik has a complete classification (

A great source of all information about "minis" that give knot invariants is Section 5.3 of Rowell-Strong-Wang ( "Modular" means that you get knot invariants plus you have a certain "non-degeneracy" condition that's a bit hard to explain.

share|cite|improve this answer
Ah, silly me, of course I got 2*2=1 too but the object looked so trivial that I didn't mention it. :-) (Also, I probably have a different counting: the solutions with phi or 1/phi I see as the same.) THX for the literature list. BTW, after I did the computations I noticed that I complete overlooked that possibility: why not X*X=1+nX? Do I infer correctly that multiplicy>1 CAN occur when rank>2? (The K(0,1,0,2) mentioned in, right? I have to check it out with Clebsches, knot incompatible or not :-) @Bruce: That saves me lot of time, THX too! – Hauke Reddmann Aug 22 '12 at 10:08
Indeed, you can have nontrivial multiplicity for rank 3 as you say. – Noah Snyder Aug 22 '12 at 14:27

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.