Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Say I have an "ordinary" TQFT $F$ of dimension $n$, assigning groups or vector spaces to closed $(n-1)$-manifolds and linear maps to cobordisms. Consider the different ways $F$ can be obtained from a TQFT "extended one step" which assigns categories to manifolds of dimension $n-2$ (often derived categories of algebras or dg / $A_{\infty}$ algebras).

Is there expected to be any uniqueness to these extensions of $F$? For example, are there cases where you can extend the same $F$ two ways, but the corresponding (derived) categories associated to a codimension-2 manifold aren't equivalent?

This question is motivated partly by the situation in bordered Heegaard Floer homology; the dg algebra associated to a surface depends on a choice of parametrization, but these distinct algebras end up having equivalent derived categories (of type D or type A modules).

I'd be happy with a toy example in lower dimensions or anything illustrating this uniqueness holding or not holding- maybe in some restricted context. I'd also be curious to know if there's an $F$ which doesn't extend at all (maybe this is basic knowledge for the experts...)

Thanks!

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The question of which tqfts extend is a very interesting one. To make the question more mathematically precise, we can fix the target n-categories and ask for the tqfts to extend with respect to those targets. Then I can give precise answers.

In general there are both existence and uniqueness issues, even in the n=2 case. That case is pretty instructive, and it doesn't get much simpler by increasing dimensions.

It is well known that a 2D non-extended (oriented) tqft in vector spaces is the same thing as a commutative Frobenius algebra. Now we can ask that this "extends to points" using our favorite target 2-category, like linear categories or the 2-category of algebras, bimodules, and maps. There turns out to not be much difference between these two choices, so I will work with the latter. If you prefer the former, than you should just think of the category of modules associated to the algebra. It doesn't really effect what I am going to say.

Now a 2D extended (oriented) tqft in algebras, bimodules, and maps is the same thing as a non-commutative symmetric Frobenius algebra which is fully-dualizable. Over a perfect field fully-dualizable is the same as finite dimensional and semisimple.

Now if A is such a fully-dualizable Frobenius algebra, then the center Z(A) will be a commutative Frobenius algebra and this is the algebra corresponding the the non-extended part of the 2D TQFTs. Since A is semisimple, this commutative algebra is semisimple.

Thus, not every 2D TQFT extends to points (at least with the usual target categories). An explicit counter example is given by the non-semisimple commutative Frobenius algebra $k[x]/x^{n+1}$, where the trace is given by picking off the $x^n$-coefficient.

Moreover we also see that uniqueness is an issue. For example consider working over the real numbers. Then the algebra $\mathbb{R}$, (with trivial trace) is a semisimple Frobenius algebra. The center is, of course, also $\mathbb{R}$. But we also have the quaternion algebra $\mathbb{H}$, which is also a semisimple Frobenius algebra (the trace is projection onto the real line in $\mathbb{H}$). The center of $\mathbb{H}$ is also $\mathbb{R}$, and so this gives an example of two extended tqfts which have the same underlying non-extended 2D tqft. Note that $\mathbb{H}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ are not Morita equivalent, and so in particular these are genuinely different extended tqfts.

Different extended 2D tqfts can have the same underlying non-extended 2D tqft.

share|improve this answer
    
This is a great answer- thanks! –  Andy Manion May 15 at 18:27

For your $n=2$ case, with vector spaces assigned to 1-manifolds, the extension to 0-manifolds is unique up to Morita equivalence (of linear 1-categories). This assumes that the extensions assign a semisimple 1-category to a 0-manifold, which might be implied by the extended TQFT axioms depending on which version of those axioms you choose.

For $n-1>1$, there is a categorified version of Morita equivalence for $(n-1)$-categories, and Morita equivalent $(n-1)$-categories lead to TQFTs which are isomorphic at the $(n-1,n)$ level. More generally, the $k$-categories assigned by the two TQFTs to closed $(n-1-k)$-manifolds are Morita equivalent. Morita equivalent $(n-1)$-categories can look somewhat different. For example, Morita equivalent tensor categories (2-categories with one 0-morphism) can have different numbers of (isomorphism classes of) simple objects.

(Warning: There is more than one version of categorified Morita equivalence in the literature. I have in mind the version that uses bimodules rather than functors "all the way up", as described here.)

share|improve this answer
    
Cool! So, to make sure I understand what you're saying, if I have an $(n-1, n)$ TQFT $F$ and two extensions of $F$ all the way down to points, and furthermore if the extensions assign Morita equivalent $(n-1)$-categories to the point, then they assign equivalent categories at every level, right? What happens if you have two fully-extended TQFTs which assign non-equivalent $(n-1)$-categories to a point (and more generally, non-equivalent categories to codim-2 manifolds). Do they have a chance of still being isomorphic at the $(n-1,n)$-level? –  Andy Manion Apr 22 '13 at 18:38
    
In answer to your first question: yes, right. I'm not sure about the second question (non-Morita-equivalent $(n-1)$-categories giving rise to same $(n-1, n)$ structure). I'm not even sure which way I would bet, if I had to bet. –  Kevin Walker Apr 22 '13 at 21:25

Your Answer

 
discard

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.