Timeline for Non-trivial factor splitting from vacuum in TQFTs. F-move not unity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2019 at 7:40 | vote | accept | as2457 | ||
| Apr 7, 2019 at 18:03 | history | edited | Kevin Walker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
more clarification
|
| Apr 7, 2019 at 17:59 | comment | added | Kevin Walker | I'll add some clarification to the answer. I'm using certain canonical elements of the 1-dimensional vector spaces $V_{1a\overline a}$ and $V_{1\overline cc}$. | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 14:59 | comment | added | as2457 | Thanks for the clarification. However, I'm not sure about your second point. I don't think the F-moves relate different vector spaces, they relate the different decompositions of the same vector spaces. That is, they define the associativity of the tensor product of vector spaces. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I also agree that there is a gauge freedom (except for certain gauge invariant F-moves). I guess the more precise question is, can we always fix the gauge to make this element equal to 1? | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 13:31 | comment | added | Kevin Walker | I added some remarks to the answer. | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 13:30 | history | edited | Kevin Walker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
answer questions in comments
|
| Apr 7, 2019 at 7:53 | comment | added | as2457 | What you're referring to is sometimes called the $\mathbb{Z}_3$ Frobenius Schur indicator, is this correct? | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 7:37 | comment | added | as2457 | Is this the only case that this would be different to the identity? | |
| Apr 7, 2019 at 2:29 | history | answered | Kevin Walker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |