It is a basic fact in representation theory of finite groups over complex numbers that the character tables of $Q_8$ and $D_8$ are identical. I believe, this implies that the corresponding categories of representations are equivalent (as tensor categories).

On the other hand, Tannakian Formalism tells us that we can reconstruct a finite group $G$ from its category of representations $\mathbf{Rep}_G$ together with the natural (foregetfull) fibre functor $F_G: \mathbf{Rep}_G\rightarrow \mathbf{Vect}$. Namely, $G$ is canonically isomorphic to the tensor automorphisms of the tensor functor $F_G$.

This implies that the fibre functors $F_{D_8}$ and $F_{Q_8}$ are different. How can one see this explicitly in terms of representations of $D_8$ and $Q_8$?


2 Answers 2


Let $V_D$ and $V_Q$ be the two dimensional simple representations of $D_4$ and $Q_8$ respectively. Let $1_D$ and $1_Q$ denote their trivial representations.

Suppose that there is a tensor equivalence between $\mathbf{Rep}(D_4)$ and $\mathbf{Rep}(Q_8)$ commuting with the fibre functor to $\mathbf{Vect}_\mathbb{C}$. This equivalence sends $1_D$ to $1_Q$ (as they're the unit object) and sends $V_D$ to $V_Q$ (as they're the unique simple of dimension 2).

In particular there is a $\mathbb{C}$-linear isomorphism $g$ from $V_D$ to $V_Q$. Consider $$g\otimes g:V_D\otimes V_D\to V_Q\otimes V_Q.$$ It must send the unique copy of $1_D$ in $V_D\otimes V_D$ to the unique copy of $1_Q$ in $V_Q\otimes V_Q$.

It is easy to see that there is no such $g$. The slickest way I can see to prove this is to note that the flip map $v\otimes w\mapsto w\otimes v$ acts by -1 on $1_Q$ and by 1 on $1_D$.


The categories ${\rm Rep}(Q_8)$ and ${\rm Rep}(D_8)$ are not equivalent as tensor categories. They have the same Grothendieck ring, but they have non equivalent associators. As far as I am aware, it is an open problem to classify all tensor categories which have the same Grothendieck ring as ${\rm Rep}(Q_8)$ (there are at least two).

  • $\begingroup$ This also begs another question: can we have two non-isomorphic finite groups with equivalent tensor categories of representations? $\endgroup$
    – Dr. Evil
    Sep 29, 2017 at 5:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dr. Evil: no, if by tensor you mean symmetric monoidal. This follows from stronger variants of Tannaka reconstruction which imply that the fiber functor is unique, as a symmetric monoidal functor. $\endgroup$ Sep 29, 2017 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel - Thanks for the answer. Could you please give a reference for the associators being different? I guess this probably follows from Qiaochu's remark, but it would be good to have a more direct argument. $\endgroup$
    – Dr. Evil
    Sep 30, 2017 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ If you want to check that the categories are not equivalent as tensor categories, you can compute the 6j symbols. I don't know a slick way to do this. $\endgroup$ Sep 30, 2017 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Dr.Evil: As Peter said, you need to choose a basis for each ${\rm hom}(a,b \otimes c)$ and compute the associator in terms of your chosen basis. $\endgroup$ Sep 30, 2017 at 22:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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