bio | website | chemie.uni-hamburg.de/ac/AKs/… |
---|---|---|
location | Hamburg | |
age | 54 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 8 months |
seen | 2 days ago | |
stats | profile views | 1,385 |
knot theory dilettant!
Aug
10 |
comment |
Highest weight formulas for quadratic Casimir and dimension for the simply laced Lie algebras
In fact, this question can be closed: a) I found a Chinese (:-) site which wonderfully explained how to apply the Weyl formula step by step, and I immediately understood everything. It IS simple but I never would have understood your standard abstract textbook. And b), the formula for the quantum dimension will be automatically correct for the Casimir by the replacements I described, but not in reverse - you can do nice fully general Casimir formulas for laced Dynkin diagrams OR Bn+Cn+F4, but unfortunately, this doesn't hold for the quantum dimensions and my work was a bit pointless. |
Aug
10 |
comment |
Highest weight formulas for quadratic Casimir and dimension for the simply laced Lie algebras
In fact, this questio |
Aug
8 |
asked | Highest weight formulas for quadratic Casimir and dimension for the simply laced Lie algebras |
Jul
15 |
revised |
Quadratic Casimirs of the E7 series
And a typo. Sigh... |
Jul
15 |
revised |
Quadratic Casimirs of the E7 series
Argl. Example wasn't formulated precisely enough. |
Jul
15 |
revised |
Quadratic Casimirs of the E7 series
example given |
Jul
15 |
asked | Quadratic Casimirs of the E7 series |
Jul
8 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Jun
24 |
asked | Distiguishing mutant knots |
Jun
17 |
comment |
Noncommutative fusion categories
Doesn't matter insofar as I just fell over Haagerup 2 (also called H6) in arxiv1102.2631v2 which I forgot - so we're down to rank 6 anyway. |
Jun
17 |
asked | Noncommutative fusion categories |
Jun
11 |
comment |
Fusion categories: If infinity were an integer
So, loosely, a based ring is a category iff it has a consistent (pentagon rule etc.) set of 6j symbols? |
Jun
10 |
comment |
Fusion categories: If infinity were an integer
Owch! I begin to think that what I always called a "fusion category" is only a "based ring". (I check: Associative, commutative, 1 element, conjugate element. Uhm, can you give me a simple condition for fusion rules or Verlinde matrix that a based ring can be categorified?) |
Jun
10 |
accepted | Fusion categories: If infinity were an integer |
Jun
9 |
asked | Fusion categories: If infinity were an integer |
Jun
2 |
comment |
General quantum highest-weights dimension formulas
G2: Some integers cancel out and I possibly use q^3 where I should use q or so :-) (Cf. "GLOBAL DIMENSIONS FOR LIE GROUPS AT LEVEL k AND THEIR CONFORMALLY EXCEPTIONAL QUANTUM SUBGROUPS" by R. Coquereaux, p.23., which was the "next" paper mentioned above. More precise there.) It is not 100% trivial, though, since e.g. i+1 in the A2 formula could translate to [2*i+2]/[2] or [3*i+3]/[3] in quantum integers. Do you have a handy reference to look up the Weyl dimensions of all the simple Lie algebras? |
Jun
1 |
asked | General quantum highest-weights dimension formulas |
May
29 |
revised |
Pseudo-braided fusion categories
Open mouth, insert foot. |
May
28 |
asked | Pseudo-braided fusion categories |
May
20 |
comment |
Fusion category R-symbols diagonal even when multiplicity present?
Also, regarding 3.3. of Galindo: Of course they are, but can you get BOTH Schur and braiding to be diagonal? (I assume the unitary case by default.) |