bio | website | sbseminar.wordpress.com |
---|---|---|
location | Bloomington, Indiana | |
age | 34 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 3 months |
seen | 7 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 6,265 |
Assistant Professor at Indiana University, working on tensor categories and their relationships to operator algebras and topology.
Dec 24 |
revised |
Why does a tetracategory with one object, one 1-morphism and one 2-morphism give a symmetric monoidal category
added 59 characters in body |
Dec 24 |
revised |
Why does a tetracategory with one object, one 1-morphism and one 2-morphism give a symmetric monoidal category
edited body |
Dec 24 |
answered | Why does a tetracategory with one object, one 1-morphism and one 2-morphism give a symmetric monoidal category |
Dec 8 |
answered | Generalizations of the Four-Color theorem |
Nov 29 |
comment |
Perron-Frobenius theory for reducible matrices
Have you looked at the beginning of Goodman, de la Harpe, Jones? I forget the exact details, but I recall that they need to do a little more generality than a lot of sources due to the bipartite nature of principal graphs. |
Nov 10 |
comment |
In Algebraic Compact Quantum Groups, is an Irreducible Corepresentation equivalent to its Conjugate?
No problem. For that the easiest example is the trivial corep which is always selfdual. |
Nov 6 |
comment |
In Algebraic Compact Quantum Groups, is an Irreducible Corepresentation equivalent to its Conjugate?
@JpMcCarthy: Ok, I rewrote it with more detail. |
Nov 6 |
revised |
In Algebraic Compact Quantum Groups, is an Irreducible Corepresentation equivalent to its Conjugate?
More detail |
Nov 5 |
answered | In Algebraic Compact Quantum Groups, is an Irreducible Corepresentation equivalent to its Conjugate? |
Oct 16 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Oct 8 |
answered | No basis change in a fusion ring allowed? |
Sep 30 |
awarded | Explainer |
Sep 29 |
awarded | Yearling |
Sep 17 |
comment |
Does an equivalence of fusion categories depend on choice of simple objects within isomorphism classes?
p.s. Let's talk sometime this week. I started looking at our draft again today. |
Sep 17 |
answered | Does an equivalence of fusion categories depend on choice of simple objects within isomorphism classes? |
Sep 16 |
comment |
Square roots of elements in a finite group and representation theory
@FriederLadisch: I think the explanation for why this happens often, is that you do get that multiplicity-free summands of tensor products behave as predicted. So if you have enough multiplicity free summands in your tensor products then you'll get a FS grading. |
Sep 4 |
comment |
When is Rep(U_q(g)) invariant under q -> -q and why?
With the "usual" conventions the dimension of the 2d rep of $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ is $q+q^{−1}$. Your formula has two changes. There's a variable $s$ with $s^L=q$ where $L$ is the index of the root lattice in the weight lattice (so $L=2$ for $\mathfrak{sl}_2$). You need this $s$ to write down the braiding. Your q is s, which explains the appearance of $q^2$ in your formula. The minus sign is coming because TL is not the "usual" pivotal structure (since it's real instead of quaternionic). (The latter point is not important since changing piv. str. won't affect whether Rep is symmetric.) |
Sep 4 |
revised |
When is Rep(U_q(g)) invariant under q -> -q and why?
added 14 characters in body |
Sep 4 |
asked | When is Rep(U_q(g)) invariant under q -> -q and why? |
Aug 30 |
revised |
Does the notion of a “coherent state” exist in TQFTs? (ETQFTs?)
added 7 characters in body |