This is a follow up to the following two MO questions: q1,q2

What I'm interesting in understanding is the universal property (if any) of the morphism $Sum_n:Fam_n(\mathcal{C})\to \mathcal{C}$ considered by Freed-Hopkins-Lurie-Teleman in Topological Quantum Field Theories from Compact Lie Groups. Namely, the existence and the more or less explicit form of such a monoidal functor is in itself such an amazing fact that one one could easily forget that if just a monoidal functor $Fam_n(\mathcal{C})\to \mathcal{C}$ is what one seeks, then this problem would be trivially solved by the trivial (or zero) functor. This would be clearly a trivial solution and one could say that what is remarkable in FHLT cosnstruction is that it is not trivial, but this would be quite a weak statement. Rather I suspect (and the question is precisely "How much are these suspects correct and which are references for them?") that $Sum_n$ secretely satisfies an adjointness property. More precisely, one has the forgetful functor $Fam_n(\mathcal{C})\to Fam_n$ and so a fully extended tqft with target $Fam_n(\mathcal{C})$ determines a "classical background" $X$, as the image of the point via the composition $Bord_n \to Fam_n(\mathcal{C})\to Fam_n$ (here I'm omitting eventual framings and orientations fore ease of writing/reading). A lifting from $Bord_n \to Fam_n$ to $Bord_n \to Fam_n(\mathcal{C})$ is the datum of a $\mathcal{C}$-local system on $X$ )or at least, it should be, if I'm not mistaken here), and $\mathcal{C}$ itself can be identified with $\mathcal{C}$-local system on the point.

So from this point of view the $Sum_n$ construction seems to be a push-forward to the point of a $\mathcal{C}$-local system on $X$. This suggests to consider the more general situation of a morphism $f:X\to Y$ of classical backgrounds, and to consider the pull-back of $\mathcal{C}$-local systems (this should be the easy direction) and wondering whether this has an adjoint. Then $Sum_n$ in FHLT should map the $\mathcal{C}$-local system $A:X\to \mathcal{C}$ of the pushforward of $A$ along the terminal morphism $X\to *$, and all the other values of $Sum_n$ should be uniquely determined by the cobordism hypothesis.

Is this correct? References?


Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.