6
$\begingroup$

Theorem 3 of the nLab article "Full field algebra" states that

Theorem 3. Two vertex operator algebras $V$ may appear as the left and right chiral halfs of a full conformal field theory precisely if their modular tensor categories of representations have the same Witt class.

I checked the references therein and searched more, but could not find neither the theorem stated anywhere else, nor the proof. I managed to find out that one can take two copies of the same vertex operator algebra to get a full field algebra in the sense of Huang and Kong, or that there exist unphysical diagonal modular invariants (Davydov2015). Since I am interested in CFTs on the plane, modular invariants are not interesting to me because they are associated with tori?

I am aware of (as in, I know that it exists) the FRS construction, but it only works for rational CFTs and Theorem 3 seems to be more general, unless it's just sloppiness since

"The purpose of the nLab is to provide a public place where people can make notes about stuff. The purpose is not to make polished expositions of material; that is a happy by-product."

Any help will be appreciated. In particular, a little summary of the state of the art would suffice, if Theorem 3 turns out to be very mysterious.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note that the notion of a (not necessarily chiral) genus zero CFT is not the same as the notion of a full CFT. Every full CFT yields an example of a genus zero CFT, but there are more genus zero CFTs than full CFTs. Your Theorem 3 does not hold for genus zero CFTs. See the first 10 pages of my course notes for some clarifications about various notions of CFT: staff.science.uu.nl/~henri105/Teaching/CFT-2014.pdf (in there, I called genus zero CFTs "weak CFTs"). $\endgroup$ – André Henriques Mar 20 '16 at 1:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I dropped a note for Urs Schreiber at the nForum to have a look at your question. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Mar 20 '16 at 1:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Theorem 3 is not more general than rational, because to make sense of the Witt class you need rationality. If you want genus 0 then I would say there aren't any restriction on the chiral parts $\endgroup$ – Marcel Bischoff Mar 20 '16 at 2:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This was a statement I took from a talk by Alexei Davydov golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/06/… It seems the relevant published version never materialized. I am taking the statement out of the nLab entry. $\endgroup$ – Urs Schreiber Mar 21 '16 at 15:36
5
$\begingroup$

If your VOA $V$ is not rational, then it is quite unlikely that its category of representations is a modular tensor category. That is, you can safely conclude that Theorem 3 contains an unstated assumption that $V$ is rational. At this point, we only know the modular tensor property when $V$ is rational, $C_2$-cofinite, of CFT type, and self-dual as a $V$-module (due to Huang).

$\endgroup$

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.