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













7












$begingroup$


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)?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    7












    $begingroup$


    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)?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      7












      7








      7


      3



      $begingroup$


      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)?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 9 hours ago









      Andi BauerAndi Bauer

      45918




      45918




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $mathbbC$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 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












          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $mathbbC$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 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
















          7












          $begingroup$

          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 $mathbbC$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 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














          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          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 $mathbbC$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          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 $mathbbC$).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          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













          • 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


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

          Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

          199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單