New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fusion Ring - Rmatrix #30257
Comments
Branch: public/fusion-rmatrix-30257 |
Commit: |
comment:3
Rowell, Stong and Wang was corrected in arXiv version 4 and Example 5.4.5 agrees with our code in the corrected version. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:6
This method has been tested a lot in the past couple of days in computing F-matrices (using the hexagon relations). I think it is reliable. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:12
I renamed I renamed I also made some minor changes to the docstrings. If my changes are good, then positive review. |
Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw |
Changed branch from public/fusion-rmatrix-30257 to |
The
FusionRing
method captures much of the structure of a modular tensor category. One aspect that it does not capture is the R-matrix, which is implemented in this ticket.The results may be compared with calculations in Rowell, Stong and Wang (arXiv:0712.1377) and in Bonderson's thesis. Our results agree for several examples in Rowell, Stong and Wang. The reason for an apparent discrepancy in Example 5.4.5 was investigated. (See comment:3.)
CC: @tscrim @sagetrac-sage-combinat @dwbump @willieab @physicstravels
Component: combinatorics
Keywords: FusionRing, R-matrix
Author: Daniel Bump, Guillermo Aboumrad
Branch/Commit:
db68965
Reviewer: Travis Scrimshaw
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30257
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: