Fully extended TQFT and lattice modelsDo all 3D TQFTs come from Reshetikhin-Turaev?Principal $G$-bundles as fully extended TQFTs, and $n$-representationsRelation between fully-extended TQFT and a “topless” TQFT“extended TQFT” versus “TQFT with defects”6j symbols with Majorana indicesHow do sutured TQFT fit into the larger TQFT picture?Analogue of Reshetikhin-Turaev construction for unoriented TQFTsWhich manifolds are sensitive to the cocycle in the Dijkgraaf-Witten model?Can non-chiral 3D TQFTs be extended to non-orientable manifolds whereas chiral ones cannot?Bosonic topological orders and unitary fully dualizable fully extended TQFT
Fully extended TQFT and lattice models
Do all 3D TQFTs come from Reshetikhin-Turaev?Principal $G$-bundles as fully extended TQFTs, and $n$-representationsRelation between fully-extended TQFT and a “topless” TQFT“extended TQFT” versus “TQFT with defects”6j symbols with Majorana indicesHow do sutured TQFT fit into the larger TQFT picture?Analogue of Reshetikhin-Turaev construction for unoriented TQFTsWhich manifolds are sensitive to the cocycle in the Dijkgraaf-Witten model?Can non-chiral 3D TQFTs be extended to non-orientable manifolds whereas chiral ones cannot?Bosonic topological orders and unitary fully dualizable fully extended TQFT
$begingroup$
I often read that fully extended TQFTs are supposed to classify topological phases of matter. So I would like to understand the formal nature of fully extended TQFTs on a more direct physical level (without having to read up on a huge amount of category theory language):
1) Many algebraic structures are given by a finite set of tensors (linear maps if you wish) which fulfil a finite set of tensor-network equations (equations between different compositions of the linear maps if you wish). For example, fusion categories are given by a 10-index $F$-tensor satisfying the pentagon equation, or (ordinary axiomatic) 2-dimensional TQFTs are given by a bunch of tensors associated to the pair of pants and a few other cobordisms, satisfying the axioms of (something like) a Frobenius algebra.
Can $n$-dimensional fully extended TQFTs be formulated as a finite set of tensors obeying a finite set of tensor-network axioms? Is it known what these tensors and axioms are?
2) Is there any idea for a construction of a local partition function (similar to the Turaev-Viro construction) that takes data related to a fully extended TQFT as input? I guess for Turaev-Viro models (and any other topological state-sum construction) it's possible to find a corresponding extended TQFT. Are there any examples of extended TQFTs that are conjectured to correspond to phases without known state-sum constructions (such as chiral topological phases in 2+1D)?
mp.mathematical-physics tqft physics extended-tqft reshetikhin-turaev
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I often read that fully extended TQFTs are supposed to classify topological phases of matter. So I would like to understand the formal nature of fully extended TQFTs on a more direct physical level (without having to read up on a huge amount of category theory language):
1) Many algebraic structures are given by a finite set of tensors (linear maps if you wish) which fulfil a finite set of tensor-network equations (equations between different compositions of the linear maps if you wish). For example, fusion categories are given by a 10-index $F$-tensor satisfying the pentagon equation, or (ordinary axiomatic) 2-dimensional TQFTs are given by a bunch of tensors associated to the pair of pants and a few other cobordisms, satisfying the axioms of (something like) a Frobenius algebra.
Can $n$-dimensional fully extended TQFTs be formulated as a finite set of tensors obeying a finite set of tensor-network axioms? Is it known what these tensors and axioms are?
2) Is there any idea for a construction of a local partition function (similar to the Turaev-Viro construction) that takes data related to a fully extended TQFT as input? I guess for Turaev-Viro models (and any other topological state-sum construction) it's possible to find a corresponding extended TQFT. Are there any examples of extended TQFTs that are conjectured to correspond to phases without known state-sum constructions (such as chiral topological phases in 2+1D)?
mp.mathematical-physics tqft physics extended-tqft reshetikhin-turaev
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I often read that fully extended TQFTs are supposed to classify topological phases of matter. So I would like to understand the formal nature of fully extended TQFTs on a more direct physical level (without having to read up on a huge amount of category theory language):
1) Many algebraic structures are given by a finite set of tensors (linear maps if you wish) which fulfil a finite set of tensor-network equations (equations between different compositions of the linear maps if you wish). For example, fusion categories are given by a 10-index $F$-tensor satisfying the pentagon equation, or (ordinary axiomatic) 2-dimensional TQFTs are given by a bunch of tensors associated to the pair of pants and a few other cobordisms, satisfying the axioms of (something like) a Frobenius algebra.
Can $n$-dimensional fully extended TQFTs be formulated as a finite set of tensors obeying a finite set of tensor-network axioms? Is it known what these tensors and axioms are?
2) Is there any idea for a construction of a local partition function (similar to the Turaev-Viro construction) that takes data related to a fully extended TQFT as input? I guess for Turaev-Viro models (and any other topological state-sum construction) it's possible to find a corresponding extended TQFT. Are there any examples of extended TQFTs that are conjectured to correspond to phases without known state-sum constructions (such as chiral topological phases in 2+1D)?
mp.mathematical-physics tqft physics extended-tqft reshetikhin-turaev
$endgroup$
I often read that fully extended TQFTs are supposed to classify topological phases of matter. So I would like to understand the formal nature of fully extended TQFTs on a more direct physical level (without having to read up on a huge amount of category theory language):
1) Many algebraic structures are given by a finite set of tensors (linear maps if you wish) which fulfil a finite set of tensor-network equations (equations between different compositions of the linear maps if you wish). For example, fusion categories are given by a 10-index $F$-tensor satisfying the pentagon equation, or (ordinary axiomatic) 2-dimensional TQFTs are given by a bunch of tensors associated to the pair of pants and a few other cobordisms, satisfying the axioms of (something like) a Frobenius algebra.
Can $n$-dimensional fully extended TQFTs be formulated as a finite set of tensors obeying a finite set of tensor-network axioms? Is it known what these tensors and axioms are?
2) Is there any idea for a construction of a local partition function (similar to the Turaev-Viro construction) that takes data related to a fully extended TQFT as input? I guess for Turaev-Viro models (and any other topological state-sum construction) it's possible to find a corresponding extended TQFT. Are there any examples of extended TQFTs that are conjectured to correspond to phases without known state-sum constructions (such as chiral topological phases in 2+1D)?
mp.mathematical-physics tqft physics extended-tqft reshetikhin-turaev
mp.mathematical-physics tqft physics extended-tqft reshetikhin-turaev
asked 9 hours ago
Andi BauerAndi Bauer
45918
45918
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It may take a bit of extraction, but positive answers to both of your questions follow from our results in arXiv:1905.09566. In that paper we build a $mathbbC$-linear $(d+1)$-category that we call $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. ($n$ is arbitrary, and so is the ground field, but $mathbbC$ is natural for bosonic physics.) One of our main theorems is that there is a natural equivalence of $(d+1)$-categories between $Sigma^nmathrmVect_mathbbC$ and the fully dualizable subcategory of the $(d+1)$-category $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$ of all $mathbbC$-linear $d$-categories [1]. Thus, given the cobordism hypothesis, $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is the universal target for $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFTs, and in particular every object in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines a (framed) TQFT [2].
Second, our construction of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is sufficiently explicit so that, for each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$, we are able to build a (gapped topological) commuting projector Hamiltonian lattice system, which is, more or less, a very special type of the tensor-network models that you ask about. (Turaev–Viro is, essentially, the $d=2$ case of our construction.) Similarly, to each $k$-morphism, associate a (gapped topological) interface which is again commuting projector Hamiltonian. All together, this gives a realization of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ in terms of lattice models. Conversely, we argue that any $(d+1)$-dimensional gapped topological system which can be "condensed from the vacuum" is (in the same gapped phase as) an object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$.
There are systems, e.g. Kitaev's honecomb model of $E_8,1$, which are gapped topological and have commuting projector Hamiltonian models, but which cannot be condensed from the vacuum, and are not realized in our $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not "fully extended" in any reasonable sense. Indeed, the value a fully extended $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFT assigns to a point is (probably) the $d$-category of (local) gapped topological boundary conditions for the TQFT, which is (probably) empty unless the TQFT can be condensed from the vacuum.
In any case, our theorems do provide an isomorphism between some large families of TQFTs and lattice models, which I think includes all the ones you are asking about.
Footnotes.
[1] I take arbitrary linear functors as my morphisms in $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$. This choice picks out the "naive tensor product" as the symmetric monoidal structure. There are other natural $(d+1)$-categories of $n$-linear categories. One expects, given the appendix to arXiv:1509.06811, that all these different $(n+1)$-categories should have equivalent fully dualizable subcategories, but this is not known. Scheimbauer calls this the "bestiary hypothesis".
[2] We conjecture that in fact each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines an oriented TQFT in an essentially-canonical way. If this conjecture is true, then it is special to the complex numbers $mathbbC$ — I expect it to fail over other fields. Specifically, the cobordism hypothesis determines an action of $O(d+1)$ on the $(d+1)$-groupoid of objects in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Using the analytic topology on $mathbbC$, this $(d+1)$-groupoid is in fact naturally a topological groupoid. Our conjecture is that the $O(d+1)$-action is canonically homotopy-trivial on this topological groupoid (but not on the groupoid that only uses the algebraic structure of $mathbbC$).
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I am tempted to disagree with your statement: "Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not 'fully extended' in any reasonable sense". See my recent paper arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03393.pdf for a way to (conjecturally) fit the Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants into the framework of fully extended TQFTs (specifically the section called "Manifold invariants" in the intro of the paper).
$endgroup$
– André Henriques
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f333787%2ffully-extended-tqft-and-lattice-models%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It may take a bit of extraction, but positive answers to both of your questions follow from our results in arXiv:1905.09566. In that paper we build a $mathbbC$-linear $(d+1)$-category that we call $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. ($n$ is arbitrary, and so is the ground field, but $mathbbC$ is natural for bosonic physics.) One of our main theorems is that there is a natural equivalence of $(d+1)$-categories between $Sigma^nmathrmVect_mathbbC$ and the fully dualizable subcategory of the $(d+1)$-category $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$ of all $mathbbC$-linear $d$-categories [1]. Thus, given the cobordism hypothesis, $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is the universal target for $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFTs, and in particular every object in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines a (framed) TQFT [2].
Second, our construction of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is sufficiently explicit so that, for each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$, we are able to build a (gapped topological) commuting projector Hamiltonian lattice system, which is, more or less, a very special type of the tensor-network models that you ask about. (Turaev–Viro is, essentially, the $d=2$ case of our construction.) Similarly, to each $k$-morphism, associate a (gapped topological) interface which is again commuting projector Hamiltonian. All together, this gives a realization of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ in terms of lattice models. Conversely, we argue that any $(d+1)$-dimensional gapped topological system which can be "condensed from the vacuum" is (in the same gapped phase as) an object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$.
There are systems, e.g. Kitaev's honecomb model of $E_8,1$, which are gapped topological and have commuting projector Hamiltonian models, but which cannot be condensed from the vacuum, and are not realized in our $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not "fully extended" in any reasonable sense. Indeed, the value a fully extended $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFT assigns to a point is (probably) the $d$-category of (local) gapped topological boundary conditions for the TQFT, which is (probably) empty unless the TQFT can be condensed from the vacuum.
In any case, our theorems do provide an isomorphism between some large families of TQFTs and lattice models, which I think includes all the ones you are asking about.
Footnotes.
[1] I take arbitrary linear functors as my morphisms in $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$. This choice picks out the "naive tensor product" as the symmetric monoidal structure. There are other natural $(d+1)$-categories of $n$-linear categories. One expects, given the appendix to arXiv:1509.06811, that all these different $(n+1)$-categories should have equivalent fully dualizable subcategories, but this is not known. Scheimbauer calls this the "bestiary hypothesis".
[2] We conjecture that in fact each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines an oriented TQFT in an essentially-canonical way. If this conjecture is true, then it is special to the complex numbers $mathbbC$ — I expect it to fail over other fields. Specifically, the cobordism hypothesis determines an action of $O(d+1)$ on the $(d+1)$-groupoid of objects in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Using the analytic topology on $mathbbC$, this $(d+1)$-groupoid is in fact naturally a topological groupoid. Our conjecture is that the $O(d+1)$-action is canonically homotopy-trivial on this topological groupoid (but not on the groupoid that only uses the algebraic structure of $mathbbC$).
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I am tempted to disagree with your statement: "Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not 'fully extended' in any reasonable sense". See my recent paper arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03393.pdf for a way to (conjecturally) fit the Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants into the framework of fully extended TQFTs (specifically the section called "Manifold invariants" in the intro of the paper).
$endgroup$
– André Henriques
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It may take a bit of extraction, but positive answers to both of your questions follow from our results in arXiv:1905.09566. In that paper we build a $mathbbC$-linear $(d+1)$-category that we call $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. ($n$ is arbitrary, and so is the ground field, but $mathbbC$ is natural for bosonic physics.) One of our main theorems is that there is a natural equivalence of $(d+1)$-categories between $Sigma^nmathrmVect_mathbbC$ and the fully dualizable subcategory of the $(d+1)$-category $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$ of all $mathbbC$-linear $d$-categories [1]. Thus, given the cobordism hypothesis, $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is the universal target for $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFTs, and in particular every object in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines a (framed) TQFT [2].
Second, our construction of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is sufficiently explicit so that, for each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$, we are able to build a (gapped topological) commuting projector Hamiltonian lattice system, which is, more or less, a very special type of the tensor-network models that you ask about. (Turaev–Viro is, essentially, the $d=2$ case of our construction.) Similarly, to each $k$-morphism, associate a (gapped topological) interface which is again commuting projector Hamiltonian. All together, this gives a realization of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ in terms of lattice models. Conversely, we argue that any $(d+1)$-dimensional gapped topological system which can be "condensed from the vacuum" is (in the same gapped phase as) an object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$.
There are systems, e.g. Kitaev's honecomb model of $E_8,1$, which are gapped topological and have commuting projector Hamiltonian models, but which cannot be condensed from the vacuum, and are not realized in our $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not "fully extended" in any reasonable sense. Indeed, the value a fully extended $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFT assigns to a point is (probably) the $d$-category of (local) gapped topological boundary conditions for the TQFT, which is (probably) empty unless the TQFT can be condensed from the vacuum.
In any case, our theorems do provide an isomorphism between some large families of TQFTs and lattice models, which I think includes all the ones you are asking about.
Footnotes.
[1] I take arbitrary linear functors as my morphisms in $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$. This choice picks out the "naive tensor product" as the symmetric monoidal structure. There are other natural $(d+1)$-categories of $n$-linear categories. One expects, given the appendix to arXiv:1509.06811, that all these different $(n+1)$-categories should have equivalent fully dualizable subcategories, but this is not known. Scheimbauer calls this the "bestiary hypothesis".
[2] We conjecture that in fact each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines an oriented TQFT in an essentially-canonical way. If this conjecture is true, then it is special to the complex numbers $mathbbC$ — I expect it to fail over other fields. Specifically, the cobordism hypothesis determines an action of $O(d+1)$ on the $(d+1)$-groupoid of objects in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Using the analytic topology on $mathbbC$, this $(d+1)$-groupoid is in fact naturally a topological groupoid. Our conjecture is that the $O(d+1)$-action is canonically homotopy-trivial on this topological groupoid (but not on the groupoid that only uses the algebraic structure of $mathbbC$).
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I am tempted to disagree with your statement: "Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not 'fully extended' in any reasonable sense". See my recent paper arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03393.pdf for a way to (conjecturally) fit the Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants into the framework of fully extended TQFTs (specifically the section called "Manifold invariants" in the intro of the paper).
$endgroup$
– André Henriques
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It may take a bit of extraction, but positive answers to both of your questions follow from our results in arXiv:1905.09566. In that paper we build a $mathbbC$-linear $(d+1)$-category that we call $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. ($n$ is arbitrary, and so is the ground field, but $mathbbC$ is natural for bosonic physics.) One of our main theorems is that there is a natural equivalence of $(d+1)$-categories between $Sigma^nmathrmVect_mathbbC$ and the fully dualizable subcategory of the $(d+1)$-category $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$ of all $mathbbC$-linear $d$-categories [1]. Thus, given the cobordism hypothesis, $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is the universal target for $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFTs, and in particular every object in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines a (framed) TQFT [2].
Second, our construction of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is sufficiently explicit so that, for each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$, we are able to build a (gapped topological) commuting projector Hamiltonian lattice system, which is, more or less, a very special type of the tensor-network models that you ask about. (Turaev–Viro is, essentially, the $d=2$ case of our construction.) Similarly, to each $k$-morphism, associate a (gapped topological) interface which is again commuting projector Hamiltonian. All together, this gives a realization of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ in terms of lattice models. Conversely, we argue that any $(d+1)$-dimensional gapped topological system which can be "condensed from the vacuum" is (in the same gapped phase as) an object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$.
There are systems, e.g. Kitaev's honecomb model of $E_8,1$, which are gapped topological and have commuting projector Hamiltonian models, but which cannot be condensed from the vacuum, and are not realized in our $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not "fully extended" in any reasonable sense. Indeed, the value a fully extended $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFT assigns to a point is (probably) the $d$-category of (local) gapped topological boundary conditions for the TQFT, which is (probably) empty unless the TQFT can be condensed from the vacuum.
In any case, our theorems do provide an isomorphism between some large families of TQFTs and lattice models, which I think includes all the ones you are asking about.
Footnotes.
[1] I take arbitrary linear functors as my morphisms in $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$. This choice picks out the "naive tensor product" as the symmetric monoidal structure. There are other natural $(d+1)$-categories of $n$-linear categories. One expects, given the appendix to arXiv:1509.06811, that all these different $(n+1)$-categories should have equivalent fully dualizable subcategories, but this is not known. Scheimbauer calls this the "bestiary hypothesis".
[2] We conjecture that in fact each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines an oriented TQFT in an essentially-canonical way. If this conjecture is true, then it is special to the complex numbers $mathbbC$ — I expect it to fail over other fields. Specifically, the cobordism hypothesis determines an action of $O(d+1)$ on the $(d+1)$-groupoid of objects in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Using the analytic topology on $mathbbC$, this $(d+1)$-groupoid is in fact naturally a topological groupoid. Our conjecture is that the $O(d+1)$-action is canonically homotopy-trivial on this topological groupoid (but not on the groupoid that only uses the algebraic structure of $mathbbC$).
$endgroup$
It may take a bit of extraction, but positive answers to both of your questions follow from our results in arXiv:1905.09566. In that paper we build a $mathbbC$-linear $(d+1)$-category that we call $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. ($n$ is arbitrary, and so is the ground field, but $mathbbC$ is natural for bosonic physics.) One of our main theorems is that there is a natural equivalence of $(d+1)$-categories between $Sigma^nmathrmVect_mathbbC$ and the fully dualizable subcategory of the $(d+1)$-category $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$ of all $mathbbC$-linear $d$-categories [1]. Thus, given the cobordism hypothesis, $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is the universal target for $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFTs, and in particular every object in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines a (framed) TQFT [2].
Second, our construction of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ is sufficiently explicit so that, for each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$, we are able to build a (gapped topological) commuting projector Hamiltonian lattice system, which is, more or less, a very special type of the tensor-network models that you ask about. (Turaev–Viro is, essentially, the $d=2$ case of our construction.) Similarly, to each $k$-morphism, associate a (gapped topological) interface which is again commuting projector Hamiltonian. All together, this gives a realization of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ in terms of lattice models. Conversely, we argue that any $(d+1)$-dimensional gapped topological system which can be "condensed from the vacuum" is (in the same gapped phase as) an object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$.
There are systems, e.g. Kitaev's honecomb model of $E_8,1$, which are gapped topological and have commuting projector Hamiltonian models, but which cannot be condensed from the vacuum, and are not realized in our $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not "fully extended" in any reasonable sense. Indeed, the value a fully extended $(d+1)$-dimensional TQFT assigns to a point is (probably) the $d$-category of (local) gapped topological boundary conditions for the TQFT, which is (probably) empty unless the TQFT can be condensed from the vacuum.
In any case, our theorems do provide an isomorphism between some large families of TQFTs and lattice models, which I think includes all the ones you are asking about.
Footnotes.
[1] I take arbitrary linear functors as my morphisms in $nmathrmCat_mathbb C$. This choice picks out the "naive tensor product" as the symmetric monoidal structure. There are other natural $(d+1)$-categories of $n$-linear categories. One expects, given the appendix to arXiv:1509.06811, that all these different $(n+1)$-categories should have equivalent fully dualizable subcategories, but this is not known. Scheimbauer calls this the "bestiary hypothesis".
[2] We conjecture that in fact each object of $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$ determines an oriented TQFT in an essentially-canonical way. If this conjecture is true, then it is special to the complex numbers $mathbbC$ — I expect it to fail over other fields. Specifically, the cobordism hypothesis determines an action of $O(d+1)$ on the $(d+1)$-groupoid of objects in $Sigma^dmathrmVect_mathbbC$. Using the analytic topology on $mathbbC$, this $(d+1)$-groupoid is in fact naturally a topological groupoid. Our conjecture is that the $O(d+1)$-action is canonically homotopy-trivial on this topological groupoid (but not on the groupoid that only uses the algebraic structure of $mathbbC$).
answered 6 hours ago
Theo Johnson-FreydTheo Johnson-Freyd
30.1k883254
30.1k883254
1
$begingroup$
I am tempted to disagree with your statement: "Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not 'fully extended' in any reasonable sense". See my recent paper arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03393.pdf for a way to (conjecturally) fit the Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants into the framework of fully extended TQFTs (specifically the section called "Manifold invariants" in the intro of the paper).
$endgroup$
– André Henriques
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I am tempted to disagree with your statement: "Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not 'fully extended' in any reasonable sense". See my recent paper arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03393.pdf for a way to (conjecturally) fit the Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants into the framework of fully extended TQFTs (specifically the section called "Manifold invariants" in the intro of the paper).
$endgroup$
– André Henriques
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I am tempted to disagree with your statement: "Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not 'fully extended' in any reasonable sense". See my recent paper arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03393.pdf for a way to (conjecturally) fit the Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants into the framework of fully extended TQFTs (specifically the section called "Manifold invariants" in the intro of the paper).
$endgroup$
– André Henriques
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I am tempted to disagree with your statement: "Such systems correspond to TQFTs (e.g. TQFTs of Reshetikhin–Turaev type), but those TQFTs (probably) are not 'fully extended' in any reasonable sense". See my recent paper arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03393.pdf for a way to (conjecturally) fit the Reshetikhin–Turaev invariants into the framework of fully extended TQFTs (specifically the section called "Manifold invariants" in the intro of the paper).
$endgroup$
– André Henriques
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f333787%2ffully-extended-tqft-and-lattice-models%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown