Suppose that C is a ribbon monoidal category with dominant ribbon functors F_1: C->D_1 and F_2: C->D_2 such that D_1 and D_2 are modular tensor categories, does it follow that D_1 and D_2 are equivalent as MTCs? Here dominant means that every object in the target is a summand of an object in the image of the functor.

This is certainly true if C is premodular (semisimple with finitely many simple objects) as was proved by Bruguieres. What if C is not premodular? I haven't been able to locate a more general statement in the literature.

The particular case I have in mind is where C is the Kuperberg G_2-spider specialized to q a particular root of unity. After semisimplification C is in fact premodular, but actually proving that is likely to be a lot of work (it would require writing down inductive formulas for simples, etc.).


Noah, this is a comment to your answer to your question: unfortunately your functor is not braided. Indeed the braiding on the square V_2 has 2 eigenvalues and the braiding on
the square of F_2(V_2) has 4 different eigenvalues.. Also, I think that TL_{-1} is related with third (or sixth) root of 1.


I think this is a counterexample to the result I was looking for. Let C be the idempotent completion of TL_{-1}, the Temperley-Lieb category with loop value -1. (Or equivalently, the category of finite dimensional representations of U_q(sl_2) where q is an third root of unity.)

Let D_1 be the quotient of C by negligibles. This category is just Rep(Z/2) but with the dimension of the nontrivial rep being -1.

Let B be the Fibonacci category and let B' be its Galois conjugate, let x and x' be the nontrivial objects. Let D_2 be the Deligne tensor product of B and B'. Let F_2 be the functor sending V_2 to $x \boxtimes x'$, this exists by the universal property of Temperley-Lieb (i.e. $x \boxtimes x'$ is symmetrically self-dual and has quantum dimension -1). This functor is dominant because $F_2(V_2 \otimes V_2)$ has every object of D_2 as a summand.

As Victor Ostrik points out F_2 is not a ribbon functor, so this is not a counterexample.

  • $\begingroup$ Despite this not being a counterexample to my question, it still suggests that the result is unlikely to be true. What this counterexample shows is that there are functors of pivotal categories C->D with D semisimple which don't factor through the "semisimplification" (quotient by all negligibles) of C. This stops the most obvious route to a positive answer to my question. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Jan 12 '10 at 18:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.