Timeline for What's the right way to think about "anomalies" in 3d TQFTs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 30, 2015 at 14:05 | history | edited | Xiao-Gang Wen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 130 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2015 at 13:08 | history | edited | Xiao-Gang Wen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 54 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2015 at 12:55 | history | edited | Xiao-Gang Wen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Sep 24, 2015 at 16:16 | comment | added | Yingfei Gu |
Prof. Wen, I feel confused about the meaning of 'lattice model' here: e.g., we say FQHE states can be realized on 'lattice' just as solid state experimentalist did, so it should be called anomaly free from your definition. However, from Kevin's answer, a Chern-Simons theory is anomalous because it has non-trivial central charge, or related to language of lattice, it can not be realized as Turaev-Viro/Levin-Wen TQFT. In that sense, the 'mathematical lattice' seems to imply a Local Commuting Projector Hamiltonian as well, however, a 'physical lattice' does not requires that.
|
|
| Aug 11, 2015 at 21:00 | history | edited | Xiao-Gang Wen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 212 characters in body
|
| Aug 11, 2015 at 20:29 | history | edited | Xiao-Gang Wen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| Aug 11, 2015 at 20:23 | history | answered | Xiao-Gang Wen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |