bio  website  sbseminar.wordpress.com 

location  Bloomington, Indiana  
age  33  
visits  member for  4 years, 6 months 
seen  2 hours ago  
stats  profile views  5,821 
Assistant Professor at Indiana University, working on tensor categories and their relationships to operator algebras and topology.
14h

comment 
What is ChernSimons theory expected to assign to a point?
@AndréHenriques: I'm confused, don't you have to modify the notion of center? In your talk you make the point that you need to restrict to continuous halfbraidings. Or did I misunderstand? 
14h

answered  What is ChernSimons theory expected to assign to a point? 
1d

awarded  Popular Question 
2d

accepted  Are the higher homotopy groups of the Hawaiian earring trivial? 
Apr 20 
awarded  Nice Question 
Apr 20 
comment 
Are the higher homotopy groups of the Hawaiian earring trivial?
Also available publicly via an author's website 
Apr 20 
asked  Are the higher homotopy groups of the Hawaiian earring trivial? 
Mar 17 
comment 
Is the category of spherical fusion categories regular? (i.e. is image factorisation possible?)
There's a 2category of tensor categories, tensor functors, and tensor natural transformations. You're talking about a 1category, so do you mean tensor functors up to natural isomorphism? 
Mar 17 
comment 
Is the category of spherical fusion categories regular? (i.e. is image factorisation possible?)
Do you mean functors up to equivalence? Otherwise it's a 2category, not a category. 
Mar 3 
awarded  Nice Answer 
Mar 1 
awarded  Nice Question 
Mar 1 
revised 
Operator Theoretical Models for $(K(\mathbb{Z}, 3)$
Fixed tex 
Feb 28 
revised 
Groups which are only defined up to conjugation
Rewrote to make a better question. 
Feb 28 
awarded  Disciplined 
Feb 28 
comment 
Groups which are only defined up to conjugation
Fair enough, this may be NARQ. I remember though when I learned about Galois representations that a big deal was made about how you have to look at Galois representations because that's something invariant under conjugation, unlike other properties. Perhaps the point is that for these examples you need choice to build it in the first place so you can't just agree before hand on what you mean. Unlike with the cube where we can just agree. 
Feb 28 
asked  Groups which are only defined up to conjugation 
Feb 19 
comment 
Is “being a modular category” a universal or categorical/algebraic property?
@Turion: Ok. That direction is essentially a coherence theorem for braided monoidal categories. Making that rigorous is going to be tricky, since making anything about 3categories rigorous is tricky, but morally it just comes down to Artin's presentation for the braid group. That is, you need to check that braided tensor categories have an action of braids on them. 
Feb 17 
comment 
Is “being a modular category” a universal or categorical/algebraic property?
As a warmup you might want to think through why a 2category with one object and one 1morphism is automatically a commutative monoid by EH. 
Feb 16 
comment 
What are the intermediate subfactors of the tensor product of two maximal subfactors?
I would be shocked if you could get an iff statement along those lines. Generically there's no more intermediates, but there might be many very different special ways to get intermediates. Can you even prove that when the two subfactors are not isomorphic there can't be other intermediates? It's not even clear to me that the indices need to be the same! 
Feb 16 
comment 
Is “being a modular category” a universal or categorical/algebraic property?
You just do EH... $x \otimes y \rightarrow (x \star 1) \otimes (1 \star y) \rightarrow (x \otimes 1) \star (1 \otimes y) \rightarrow x \star y$ and then do the same thing once more to end up at $y \otimes x$. See also cheng.staff.shef.ac.uk/degeneracy/eggclock.pdf 