A $(n+1)$-topological quantum field theory $\mathcal{T}$ is a rigid symmetric monoidal functor from the category $(n+1)$-Cob of $n$-manifolds and $(n+1)$-cobordisms to FdVect. My question is about the symmetric monoidal structure of $(n+1)$-Cob and how it plays well with functoriality:

We consider our manifolds abstractly (as opposed to being embedded in some ambient space). The monoidal structure in $(n+1)$-Cob is given by disjoint union, thus $$M\otimes N = M \sqcup N$$ for manifolds $M,N$, and likewise for cobordisms. But since our manifolds are just abstract, surely this is exactly the same object as $$N\otimes M=N\sqcup M.$$ But when we pass to FdVect our functor gives $$ \mathcal{T}(M\otimes N)=\mathcal{T}M \otimes \mathcal{T}N $$ while $$ \mathcal{T}(N\otimes M) = \mathcal{T}N \otimes \mathcal{T}M $$ which are certainly isomorphic but distinct objects.

So clearly something is broken in my understanding of this, but what? Do we somehow distinguish between $M\otimes N$ and $N\otimes M$ in $(n+1)$-Cob? If so, how, given that these are just abstract manifolds?

  • $\begingroup$ You should think about what, really, you mean by the collection of symbols $M \sqcup N$. If you want this construction to give you an actual abstract manifold, it should also give you an actual abstract underlying set: which set is it? $\endgroup$ – Oscar Randal-Williams Jul 1 '14 at 14:23
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that's exactly what I mean: there are then canonical isomorphisms $M \sqcup N \to N \sqcup M$, which are not the identity maps, and which give the cobordism category a symmetric monoidal structure. $\endgroup$ – Oscar Randal-Williams Jul 1 '14 at 14:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not quite, labelling by the set's "name" is not a good idea: what would $M \sqcup M$ be in that case? $\endgroup$ – Oscar Randal-Williams Jul 1 '14 at 14:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Any symmetric tensor category can be strictified, so there's certainly some version of the bordism category where $M \sqcup N = N \sqcup M$. Scrictification is not a very natural thing to do though, and Oscar's right that with standard definitions $M \sqcup N \neq N \sqcup M$. $\endgroup$ – Noah Snyder Jul 1 '14 at 15:04
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ While it is possible to arrange for $M \amalg N = N \amalg M$ as objects, it is not in general possible to make the "swap" isomorphism $M \amalg N \to N \amalg M$ equal to the identity morphism. So there's really no point in forcing $M \amalg N = N \amalg M$ anyway. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jul 1 '14 at 17:13

As Oscar has explained in comments, with the most common definitions it's just not true that $M \sqcup N$ is exactly the same as $N \sqcup M$. But even if you were working with some version of the category of sets where they were equal, this wouldn't be a problem because tensor functors don't have to be strict. In other words, you don't know that $\mathscr{F}(M \sqcup N) = \mathscr{F}(M)\otimes \mathscr{F}(N)$, but instead only that you have isomorphisms $\mathscr{F}(M \sqcup N) \cong \mathscr{F}(M)\otimes \mathscr{F}(N)$ satisfying the natural coherence conditions. In particular, $\mathscr{F}(M \sqcup N) = \mathscr{F}(N \sqcup M)$ does not imply that $\mathscr{F}(M)\otimes \mathscr{F}(N) = \mathscr{F}(N)\otimes \mathscr{F}(M)$, but only that the latter are isomorphic in a coherent way.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.