Tannaka duality for semisimple groups












2












$begingroup$


Tannakian formalism tells us that for any rigid, symmetric monoidal, semisimple category $mathcal{C}$ equipped with a fiber functor $F: mathcal{C} to Vect_k$ for a field $k$ (of characteristic $0$) there exists a reductive algebraic group $G cong Aut(F)$ such that $mathcal{C} cong Rep(G)$. This means that any such category is associated with a root datum.



Is there a version of this reconstruction theorem that will tell us when a category $mathcal{C}$ is the category of finite dimensional representations of a semisimple group? I would like to be able to associate with a Tannakian category a root system, and not just a root datum.






ag.algebraic-geometry rt.representation-theory ct.category-theory tannakian-category







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Tannakian formalism tells us that for any rigid, symmetric monoidal, semisimple category $mathcal{C}$ equipped with a fiber functor $F: mathcal{C} to Vect_k$ for a field $k$ (of characteristic $0$) there exists a reductive algebraic group $G cong Aut(F)$ such that $mathcal{C} cong Rep(G)$. This means that any such category is associated with a root datum.



    Is there a version of this reconstruction theorem that will tell us when a category $mathcal{C}$ is the category of finite dimensional representations of a semisimple group? I would like to be able to associate with a Tannakian category a root system, and not just a root datum.






    ag.algebraic-geometry rt.representation-theory ct.category-theory tannakian-category







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Tannakian formalism tells us that for any rigid, symmetric monoidal, semisimple category $mathcal{C}$ equipped with a fiber functor $F: mathcal{C} to Vect_k$ for a field $k$ (of characteristic $0$) there exists a reductive algebraic group $G cong Aut(F)$ such that $mathcal{C} cong Rep(G)$. This means that any such category is associated with a root datum.



      Is there a version of this reconstruction theorem that will tell us when a category $mathcal{C}$ is the category of finite dimensional representations of a semisimple group? I would like to be able to associate with a Tannakian category a root system, and not just a root datum.






      ag.algebraic-geometry rt.representation-theory ct.category-theory tannakian-category







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Tannakian formalism tells us that for any rigid, symmetric monoidal, semisimple category $mathcal{C}$ equipped with a fiber functor $F: mathcal{C} to Vect_k$ for a field $k$ (of characteristic $0$) there exists a reductive algebraic group $G cong Aut(F)$ such that $mathcal{C} cong Rep(G)$. This means that any such category is associated with a root datum.



      Is there a version of this reconstruction theorem that will tell us when a category $mathcal{C}$ is the category of finite dimensional representations of a semisimple group? I would like to be able to associate with a Tannakian category a root system, and not just a root datum.






      ag.algebraic-geometry rt.representation-theory ct.category-theory tannakian-category




      ag.algebraic-geometry rt.representation-theory ct.category-theory tannakian-category






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      leibnewtzleibnewtz

      55428




      55428






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          In order for ${mathcal C}$ to come from an algebraic group rather than a pro-algebraic one, you want ${mathcal C}$ to be finitely generated. And for semisimplicity, you want the group to have finite center. The center can be read off from the category. Cf. my paper “On the center of a compact group”, Intern. Math. Res. Notes. 2004:51, 2751-2756 (2004) or math.CT/0312257.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Ah this is excellent! So that claim is that a semisimple, finitely generated, rigid, symmetric monoidal abelian category with a fiber functor is the category of representations of a semisimple algebraic group if and only if the chain group of the category is finite. Is this correct?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            I think so. But I’m more into topological groups...
            $endgroup$
            – M Mueger
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing here forces the group to be connected, and this finite center criterion holds only for connected groups (try $O(2)$).
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            47 mins ago



















          1












          $begingroup$

          Another criterion is that there should be only finitely many objects of bounded dimension. This condition might be easy to check in practice from abstract finiteness theorems. The proof is that, if the group is not semi simple, you can take any 1-dimensional character of the identity component and induce up to the main group. Because there are infinitely many characters, infinitely many representations.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Could you say something about what bounded dimension means?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            3 mins 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%2f328495%2ftannaka-duality-for-semisimple-groups%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          In order for ${mathcal C}$ to come from an algebraic group rather than a pro-algebraic one, you want ${mathcal C}$ to be finitely generated. And for semisimplicity, you want the group to have finite center. The center can be read off from the category. Cf. my paper “On the center of a compact group”, Intern. Math. Res. Notes. 2004:51, 2751-2756 (2004) or math.CT/0312257.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Ah this is excellent! So that claim is that a semisimple, finitely generated, rigid, symmetric monoidal abelian category with a fiber functor is the category of representations of a semisimple algebraic group if and only if the chain group of the category is finite. Is this correct?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            I think so. But I’m more into topological groups...
            $endgroup$
            – M Mueger
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing here forces the group to be connected, and this finite center criterion holds only for connected groups (try $O(2)$).
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            47 mins ago
















          2












          $begingroup$

          In order for ${mathcal C}$ to come from an algebraic group rather than a pro-algebraic one, you want ${mathcal C}$ to be finitely generated. And for semisimplicity, you want the group to have finite center. The center can be read off from the category. Cf. my paper “On the center of a compact group”, Intern. Math. Res. Notes. 2004:51, 2751-2756 (2004) or math.CT/0312257.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Ah this is excellent! So that claim is that a semisimple, finitely generated, rigid, symmetric monoidal abelian category with a fiber functor is the category of representations of a semisimple algebraic group if and only if the chain group of the category is finite. Is this correct?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            I think so. But I’m more into topological groups...
            $endgroup$
            – M Mueger
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing here forces the group to be connected, and this finite center criterion holds only for connected groups (try $O(2)$).
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            47 mins ago














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          In order for ${mathcal C}$ to come from an algebraic group rather than a pro-algebraic one, you want ${mathcal C}$ to be finitely generated. And for semisimplicity, you want the group to have finite center. The center can be read off from the category. Cf. my paper “On the center of a compact group”, Intern. Math. Res. Notes. 2004:51, 2751-2756 (2004) or math.CT/0312257.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          In order for ${mathcal C}$ to come from an algebraic group rather than a pro-algebraic one, you want ${mathcal C}$ to be finitely generated. And for semisimplicity, you want the group to have finite center. The center can be read off from the category. Cf. my paper “On the center of a compact group”, Intern. Math. Res. Notes. 2004:51, 2751-2756 (2004) or math.CT/0312257.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          M MuegerM Mueger

          1635




          1635












          • $begingroup$
            Ah this is excellent! So that claim is that a semisimple, finitely generated, rigid, symmetric monoidal abelian category with a fiber functor is the category of representations of a semisimple algebraic group if and only if the chain group of the category is finite. Is this correct?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            I think so. But I’m more into topological groups...
            $endgroup$
            – M Mueger
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing here forces the group to be connected, and this finite center criterion holds only for connected groups (try $O(2)$).
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            47 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Ah this is excellent! So that claim is that a semisimple, finitely generated, rigid, symmetric monoidal abelian category with a fiber functor is the category of representations of a semisimple algebraic group if and only if the chain group of the category is finite. Is this correct?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            I think so. But I’m more into topological groups...
            $endgroup$
            – M Mueger
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            Nothing here forces the group to be connected, and this finite center criterion holds only for connected groups (try $O(2)$).
            $endgroup$
            – Will Sawin
            47 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          Ah this is excellent! So that claim is that a semisimple, finitely generated, rigid, symmetric monoidal abelian category with a fiber functor is the category of representations of a semisimple algebraic group if and only if the chain group of the category is finite. Is this correct?
          $endgroup$
          – leibnewtz
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          Ah this is excellent! So that claim is that a semisimple, finitely generated, rigid, symmetric monoidal abelian category with a fiber functor is the category of representations of a semisimple algebraic group if and only if the chain group of the category is finite. Is this correct?
          $endgroup$
          – leibnewtz
          1 hour ago












          $begingroup$
          I think so. But I’m more into topological groups...
          $endgroup$
          – M Mueger
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          I think so. But I’m more into topological groups...
          $endgroup$
          – M Mueger
          1 hour ago












          $begingroup$
          Nothing here forces the group to be connected, and this finite center criterion holds only for connected groups (try $O(2)$).
          $endgroup$
          – Will Sawin
          47 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          Nothing here forces the group to be connected, and this finite center criterion holds only for connected groups (try $O(2)$).
          $endgroup$
          – Will Sawin
          47 mins ago











          1












          $begingroup$

          Another criterion is that there should be only finitely many objects of bounded dimension. This condition might be easy to check in practice from abstract finiteness theorems. The proof is that, if the group is not semi simple, you can take any 1-dimensional character of the identity component and induce up to the main group. Because there are infinitely many characters, infinitely many representations.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Could you say something about what bounded dimension means?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            3 mins ago
















          1












          $begingroup$

          Another criterion is that there should be only finitely many objects of bounded dimension. This condition might be easy to check in practice from abstract finiteness theorems. The proof is that, if the group is not semi simple, you can take any 1-dimensional character of the identity component and induce up to the main group. Because there are infinitely many characters, infinitely many representations.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Could you say something about what bounded dimension means?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            3 mins ago














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Another criterion is that there should be only finitely many objects of bounded dimension. This condition might be easy to check in practice from abstract finiteness theorems. The proof is that, if the group is not semi simple, you can take any 1-dimensional character of the identity component and induce up to the main group. Because there are infinitely many characters, infinitely many representations.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Another criterion is that there should be only finitely many objects of bounded dimension. This condition might be easy to check in practice from abstract finiteness theorems. The proof is that, if the group is not semi simple, you can take any 1-dimensional character of the identity component and induce up to the main group. Because there are infinitely many characters, infinitely many representations.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 48 mins ago









          Will SawinWill Sawin

          68.7k7140285




          68.7k7140285












          • $begingroup$
            Could you say something about what bounded dimension means?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            3 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Could you say something about what bounded dimension means?
            $endgroup$
            – leibnewtz
            3 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          Could you say something about what bounded dimension means?
          $endgroup$
          – leibnewtz
          3 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          Could you say something about what bounded dimension means?
          $endgroup$
          – leibnewtz
          3 mins 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%2f328495%2ftannaka-duality-for-semisimple-groups%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

          Cosme II de Mèdici

          Image
          Cosme II de Mèdici Cosme II de Medici Nom original (it) Cosimo II de' Medici Biografia Naixement 12 de maig de 1590 Florència Mort 28 de febrer de 1621 ( 1621-02-28 ) (als 30 anys) Florència Causa de mort Tuberculosi Lloc d'enterrament Capella funerària dels Mèdici, Florència    Gran Duc de Toscana 1609 – 1621 ← Ferran I de Mèdici Ferran II de Mèdici → Religió Església Catòlica i catolicisme Activitat Ocupació Polític Altres Títol Duc Dinastia Mèdici Cònjuge Maria Magdalena d'Àustria Fills Maria Cristina, Ferran, Joan Carles, Margarida, Mateu, Francesc, Anna, Leopold Pares Ferran I de Mèdici Cristina de Lorena Germans Caterina de Mèdici, Maria Maddalena de' Medici , Clàudia de Mèdici, Carles de Mèdici, Llorenç de Mèdici (1599-1648), Elionor de Mèdici (1591-1617) i Francesc de Ferran I de Mèdici Cosme II de Mèdici o Cosme II de Toscana (Florència, Gran...
          Read more

          Hivernacle

          Image
          Hivernacle Hivernacle a les cases del Salt a Alcoi Un hivernacle és una construcció més o menys permanent que permet modificar el microclima del seu interior i permetre el conreu de vegetals en millors condicions o fora d'època. [1] Són el nivell superior de l'anomenat conreu protegit que va des d'un mínim que correspon a l'ús de plàstics que cobreixen el terra (mulching) fins al màxim que serien els hivernacles de vidre i amb un sistema complet de calefacció. Etimològicament la paraula hivernacle es refereix al lloc on passen l'hivern les plantes. En la pràctica actual s'hi mantenen tota la temporada de conreu o més. Contingut 1 Funcionament 2 Evolució en l'ús dels hivernacles 3 Característiques constructives dels hivernacles 4 Hivernacles als Països Baixos 5 Referències Funcionament Els que no tenen calefacció aprofiten precisament l'efecte hivernacle que produeix un escalfame...
          Read more

          Eisenach

          Image
          Eisenach Localització 50° 58′ 29″ N, 10° 19′ 28″ E  /  50.974722222222°N , 10.324444444444°E  / 50.974722222222; 10.324444444444 Estat Alemanya Estat federat Turíngia Capital de Ducat de Saxònia-Eisenach Q1787273 Conté la localitat Berteroda Hötzelsroda Madelungen Neuenhof Hörschel Neukirchen Stedtfeld Stockhausen Stregda Wartha (Eisenach) Göringen Població Total 42.417 (2015) • Densitat 407,19 hab/km² Geografia Part de Q2098401 Superfície 104,17 km² Banyat per Hörsel i Werra Altitud 215 m Limita amb Wartburgkreis Werra-Meißner-Kreis Ilmenau Meiningen Organització política • Cap de govern Katja Wolf  (2012) Membre de Q27862084 Aliança per el medi ambient (1995) Identificador descriptiu Codi postal 99817 Zona horària UTC+01:00 UTC+02:00 Prefix telefònic 03691, 036920 i 036928 Codi NUTS DEG0N Clau d...
          Read more