bio | website | chemie.uni-hamburg.de/ac/AKs/… |
---|---|---|
location | Hamburg | |
age | 54 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 6 months |
seen | Jun 30 at 15:38 | |
stats | profile views | 1,365 |
knot theory dilettant!
Jun 24 |
asked | Distiguishing mutant knots |
Jun 18 |
asked | Kac-Moody D6 level 2 - “copying” objects necessary for some based rings to categorify? |
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 15 |
comment |
Fusion: Hexagon implies pentagon?
EDIT: When I went home, I remembered the obvious (?) standard counterexample: the AxA=1+k*A family. Not a category for k>1 but the S matrix is symmetric and a T with (ST)^3=I exists (only the entries are not cyclotomic). |
Jun 14 |
asked | Fusion: Hexagon implies pentagon? |
Jun 12 |
comment |
Quantum Half :-)
THX! Now I again must look up terms I never heard before but it's a clear mathematical answer :-) (Just another one, is the "halving" unique, i.e. Z(f1)=Z(f2) implies f1=f2?) |
Jun 11 |
asked | Quantum Half :-) |
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.) |
May 20 |
comment |
Fusion category R-symbols diagonal even when multiplicity present?
@Matthew - I know the Ostrik paper. But the data is OK - the Verlinde matrix V is symmetric, has V=V+ and VV=I, and it exists a diagonal matrix W such that (VW)^3=I. What is NOT the case is that W is cyclotomic. So F is not modular but still braided. Or do I confuse the many many fusion category bynames again? |
May 19 |
asked | Fusion category R-symbols diagonal even when multiplicity present? |
May 14 |
comment |
Not especially famous, long-open problems which anyone can understand
Arguably, the brick violates the "outside mathematician" condition. I even tried to convince some crank (may one say this word here? :-) not to waste as many of his lifetime to the problem as I did. |