Timeline for Character table does not determine group Vs Tannaka duality
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11, 2010 at 16:42 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | An important point to make here is that the tensor product structure on R(G) comes from the comultiplication on C[G], which means you then have to ask yourself: where did the multiplication go? | |
| Jan 11, 2010 at 16:35 | history | edited | Theo Johnson-Freyd | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected major errors
|
| Jan 11, 2010 at 16:23 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | oops! I wasn't thinking. | |
| Jan 11, 2010 at 6:44 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | The representation ring $R(G)$ from the question is not the group algebra, as far as I can see, and it is the latter which is a bialgebra. | |
| Jan 10, 2010 at 20:54 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | Thanks Theo, that's a great comment. You've elucidated a point which I only had a much vaguer appreciation of when I wrote my answer. | |
| Jan 10, 2010 at 20:03 | history | answered | Theo Johnson-Freyd | CC BY-SA 2.5 |