2016
DOI: 10.5427/jsing.2016.14c
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strangely dual orbifold equivalence I

Abstract: In this brief note we prove orbifold equivalence between two potentials described by strangely dual exceptional unimodular singularities of type $K_{14}$ and $Q_{10}$ in two different ways. The matrix factorizations proving the orbifold equivalence give rise to equations whose solutions are permuted by Galois groups which differ for different expressions of the same singularity.Comment: Appendix by the second author and Federico Zerbin

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The notion of orbifold equivalence was inspired by the study of (defects in) topological quantum field theories (see [8,12,19]) and it was first defined in the context of the study of equivariant and orbifold completions of the bicategory of Landau-Ginzburg models. Several examples have been explored in detail in the recent years [7,[38][39][40].…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The notion of orbifold equivalence was inspired by the study of (defects in) topological quantum field theories (see [8,12,19]) and it was first defined in the context of the study of equivariant and orbifold completions of the bicategory of Landau-Ginzburg models. Several examples have been explored in detail in the recent years [7,[38][39][40].…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For explaining Table 6.1 let us go over one of its entries in detail. The three-variable potentials describing the singularities Q 10 and E 14 are known to be orbifold equivalent [40]. Explicitly, they are given by f E 14 = x 4 +y 3 +xz 2 and f Q 10 = u 4 w+v 3 +w 2 respectively.…”
Section: Computational Feasibilitymentioning
confidence: 99%