A $n$-dimensional Kac algebra (i.e., a Hopf C*-algebra), admits finitely many irreducible representations, whose cardinal $r$ is called its rank, the increasing sequence $(d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}, ..., d_{r})$ of their dimensions, its type, and the ring they generate for $\oplus$ and $\otimes$, its (integral) fusion ring.

Remark : $d_{1} = 1$ and $n=\sum d_{i}^{2}$.

Frobenius type hypothesis : We suppose that $d_{i} \vert n$ (it's a conjecture that it's always true).

Four conditions : There are some necessary conditions on the type $(1,d_{2},d_{3}, ..., d_{r})$ for the Kac algebra to be maximal (i.e., without non-trivial coideal subalgebra) and not $\mathbb{C}\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ (see this paper) :

  • $n$ not of the form $p^{a}q^{b}$ or $pqr$, with $p, q, r$ prime numbers.
  • $d_{2} \ge 3$ (in particular, a unique $1$-dimensional representation).
  • at least three different dimensions (in particular rank $r \ge 3$)
  • $gcd(d_{2},d_{3}, ..., d_{r}) = 1$ (it's a consequence of the Frobenius type hypothesis).

(If you know another necessary condition, please post it in comment)

Remark : We ask here about the finiteness of the number of such type for a fixed rank.

The concept of fusion ring can be defined for itself independently (see here p28).
A fusion ring is integral if the Perron-Frobenius of these basic elements, are integers.
A fusion ring is categorifiable if it is related to a fusion category. By Ocneanu's rigidity, a fusion ring is related to at most finitely many fusion categories, up to equivalence (see here).

Remark : There are non-integral fusion rings which are not categorifiable (even at rank $2$), and there are also non-categorifiable integral fusion rings (see corollary 7.4 here).

Experiment : I verified that every integral fusion ring of dimension $<210$, rank $<9$ and checking the four conditions above, is related to a Kac algebra (and in particular, is categorifiable).

Question : Is every integral fusion ring, checking these four conditions, related to a Kac algebra (or at least, is categorifiable) ?

Remark : If you know a counter-example, do you see also an additional "necessary condition" for excluding it ? Now, if it's true, it seems hard to prove, nevertheless, these four conditions are very restrictive, so maybe there is an "attainable" general proof.

The first undetermined example I know, is of dimension $210$ and rank $7$ (see this post).

  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused about why you're restricting to things satisfying those conditions. Just because any such Hopf algebra would fail to be maximal, doesn't mean that any Hopf algebra exists. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Sep 10 '13 at 23:45
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSnyder : I'm not sure to well-understand your comment. In fact here, I'm just interested in (non-trivial) maximal irreducible depth 2 subfactors (i.e. non-trivial maximal Kac algebras), and the four conditions above are necessary for that, so I don't need to investigate those whose don't check these conditions. Now it's true that these conditions are not sufficient, and for example, the Kac algebra of a finite (non abelian) simple group checks them. If you know some additional necessary conditions, I'm very interested. $\endgroup$ – Sebastien Palcoux Sep 11 '13 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ But none of your questions (comes from a Kac algebra, categorifiability) have anything to do with maximality. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Sep 11 '13 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSnyder : You're right, but I progress step by step. First, a list of necessary conditions (for maximality), and a question about the existence of the Kac algebras (checking these conditions). The next step will be to find among these Kac algebras, those which are maximal. $\endgroup$ – Sebastien Palcoux Sep 11 '13 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSnyder : another point is that it's very difficult for me, to know if my example at dimension 210, is categorifiable or not (by solving the pentagonal equation, very hard...), so I thought that maybe all the fusion rings (including my example) checking these conditions, are automatically related to a Kac algebra. I checked it's true by a computer calculation, for dim<210, rank<9, and I ask here about a possible general proof. $\endgroup$ – Sebastien Palcoux Sep 11 '13 at 14:22

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.