1999
DOI: 10.1006/jfan.1999.3453
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantum Galois Correspondence for Subfactors

Abstract: Ocneanu has obtained a certain type of quantized Galois correspondence for the Jones subfactors of type A n and his arguments are quite general. By making use of them in a more general context, we define a notion of a subequivalent paragroup and establish a bijective correspondence between generalized intermediate subfactors in the sense of Ocneanu and subequivalent paragroups for a given strongly amenable subfactors of type II 1 in the sense of Popa, by encoding the subequivalence in terms of a commuting squa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since N X N and M X M are equivalent systems of endomorphisms by definition, α-induction produces an example of a subequivalent paragroup. That is, for λ ∈ N X N , the subfactors α ± λ (M) ⊂ M are subequivalent to λ(N) ⊂ N. Various examples in [27] arise from this construction. Indeed, the most fundamental example in [27] comes from the Goodman-de la Harpe-Jones subfactor [17, Section 4.5] with index 3 + √ 3.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Since N X N and M X M are equivalent systems of endomorphisms by definition, α-induction produces an example of a subequivalent paragroup. That is, for λ ∈ N X N , the subfactors α ± λ (M) ⊂ M are subequivalent to λ(N) ⊂ N. Various examples in [27] arise from this construction. Indeed, the most fundamental example in [27] comes from the Goodman-de la Harpe-Jones subfactor [17, Section 4.5] with index 3 + √ 3.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That is, for λ ∈ N X N , the subfactors α ± λ (M) ⊂ M are subequivalent to λ(N) ⊂ N. Various examples in [27] arise from this construction. Indeed, the most fundamental example in [27] comes from the Goodman-de la Harpe-Jones subfactor [17, Section 4.5] with index 3 + √ 3. In our current setting, this example comes from the conformal inclusion SU(2) 10 ⊂ SO(5) 1 and shows that the two paragroups with principal graph E 6 are subequivalent to the paragroup with principal graph A 11 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, it is not clear at the moment how to incorporate the type II modular invariants in our framework. Another challanging question, suggested by the treatment of SU (2), concerns a better understanding of the relation between the appearance of modular invariants of SU (n) WZW models and the existence of sub-(equivalent)-paragroups of the paragroups arising from the relevant A-type subfactors ( [29,39]). Of course it will also be interesting to construct the associated fusion graphs also for modular invariants of other Lie groups, e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…C. Dong and G. Mason initiated a systematic search for a vertex operator algebra with a finite automorphism group, which is referred to as the operator content of orbifold models by physicists or as quantum Galois theory for finite groups [6], [9]. There are other Galois correspondences which are relevant to quantum Galois theory for finite groups, especially in the context of subfactors [11], [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%