Skip to main content

I have been reading Deligne-Milne's Tannakian Categories and got to the point at the end of part 3 where they discuss what went wrong with Saavedra's definition. Motivated by their counterexample, they ask the following question:

Let $C$ be a $k$-linear rigid abelian tensor category over a field $k$. Let us further assume that $\hom (1,1)=k$$End (\underline{1})=k$ and there exists a fiber functor with values in a field extension $k^'\supseteq k$$k'\supseteq k$. Does it follow that $C$ is Tannakian?

What is the current status of this question? A reference to a solution or to a modern discussion would be very useful.

I have been reading Deligne-Milne's Tannakian Categories and got to the point at the end of part 3 where they discuss what went wrong with Saavedra's definition. Motivated by their counterexample, they ask the following question:

Let $C$ be a $k$-linear rigid abelian tensor category over a field $k$. Let us further assume that $\hom (1,1)=k$ and there exists a fiber functor with values in a field extension $k^'\supseteq k$. Does it follow that $C$ is Tannakian?

What is the current status of this question? A reference to a solution or to a modern discussion would be very useful.

I have been reading Deligne-Milne's Tannakian Categories and got to the point at the end of part 3 where they discuss what went wrong with Saavedra's definition. Motivated by their counterexample, they ask the following question:

Let $C$ be a $k$-linear rigid abelian tensor category over a field $k$. Let us further assume that $End (\underline{1})=k$ and there exists a fiber functor with values in a field extension $k'\supseteq k$. Does it follow that $C$ is Tannakian?

What is the current status of this question? A reference to a solution or to a modern discussion would be very useful.

Source Link
Bugs Bunny
  • 12.4k
  • 1
  • 30
  • 65

Saavedra's Definition of Tannakian Category

I have been reading Deligne-Milne's Tannakian Categories and got to the point at the end of part 3 where they discuss what went wrong with Saavedra's definition. Motivated by their counterexample, they ask the following question:

Let $C$ be a $k$-linear rigid abelian tensor category over a field $k$. Let us further assume that $\hom (1,1)=k$ and there exists a fiber functor with values in a field extension $k^'\supseteq k$. Does it follow that $C$ is Tannakian?

What is the current status of this question? A reference to a solution or to a modern discussion would be very useful.