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 $Q_8$?


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 $1_D$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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).

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ This also begs another question: can we have two non-isomorphic finite groups with equivalent tensor categories of representations? $\endgroup$ – Dr. Evil Sep 29 '17 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. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Sep 29 '17 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 '17 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. $\endgroup$ – Peter McNamara Sep 30 '17 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. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Barter Sep 30 '17 at 22:03

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.