Realizing the braided Temperley-Lieb-Jones C*-tensor categories as Hilbert C*-modules

Andreas N{\ae}s Aaserud; David E. Evans

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Realizing the braided Temperley-Lieb-Jones C-tensor categories as Hilbert C-modules

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Temperley–Lieb–Jones braided tensor categories are realized as Hilbert C*-modules over compact operators.

desk verdict A genuinely new braided Hilbert-module realization of TLJ categories, with coherence checks that are sketched rather than fully written out but likely correct. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02674 v3 pith:B3HT73YI submitted 2019-08-07 math-ph math.CTmath.MPmath.OA

Andreas N{ae}s Aaserud , David E. Evans This is my paper · ORCID

classification math-phmath.CTmath.MPmath.OA MSC 18D1046L0846L05

keywords Temperley-Lieb-JonescategoriesHilbertC*-modulesbraidedC*-tensorcompactoperatorsdiluteTemperley-LiebdiagramsfusionringsK-theoryofC*-algebrasunitarybraiding

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to show that the diagrammatic Temperley–Lieb–Jones C*-tensor categories TLJ(δ), for δ in the discrete set {2cos(π/(k+2)) : k=1,2,...} ∪ {2}, are not just abstract algebraic gadgets but occur as categories of Hilbert C*-modules. To do this it builds a C*-algebra B of compact operators from the category's own morphism spaces, defines a tensor product of right Hilbert B-modules through a diagram-superposition homomorphism Φ, and equips that module category with associators, a tensor unit, and a unitary braiding. It then constructs a braided monoidal *-functor from TLJ(δ) into the category of Hilbert B-modules and proves this functor is an equivalence onto the full subcategory of modules with a finite orthonormal basis. The payoff is a concrete analytic home for the fusion and braiding structure of TLJ(δ), and the method is indicated to work for every finitely generated rigid braided C*-tensor category.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the C*-algebra B = ∪_n B_n, which is *-isomorphic to ⊕_{s∈S} K(H_s), where H_s = ⊕_{x∈G^∞} Hom(s, o(x)) and G^∞ is the set of eventually trivial sequences in {tensor unit, generating object π}; each morphism space carries a Hilbert-space inner product, and operators L_{x,y}(a) with a ∈ Hom(o(y), o(x)) generate B. The superposition homomorphism Φ: B⊗B→B interleaves two diagrams into one, and the identities V Φ(Φ(b1⊗b2)⊗b3) V* = Φ(b1⊗Φ(b2⊗b3)) and U Φ(b1⊗b2) U* = Φ(b2⊗b1) are the master relations from which the associativity and braiding of the module category are derived. The verification scheme reduces every pentagon, triangle, and hexagon axiom to equality of operators attached to finite dilute braid diagrams, established by Reidemeister moves of types 2 and 3.

What would settle it

Choose δ = 2cos(π/5) and take identity (5.6) with n=m=k=1; write out both sides as explicit finite sums of partial isometries in B acting on the Hilbert space H. If the resulting operators disagree on any vector coming from Hom(s, o(x)), then the associator on Mod_B is not well defined and Theorem 5.3 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 5.3: for each δ in the discrete range, TLJ(δ) is equivalent, as a braided C*-tensor category, to Mod_B^f, the full subcategory of right Hilbert B-modules admitting a finite orthonormal basis. The equivalence is implemented by the functor F sending a projection P in TLJ_n(δ) to the module L_n(P)B and a morphism a to left multiplication by L_{m,n}(a); F is shown to be fully faithful and essentially surjective onto Mod_B^f. The braided structure on Mod_B is built independently from B: a *-homomorphism Φ: B⊗B→B defined by superposition of dilute Temperley–Lieb and braid diagrams, together with infinite-braid-diagram unitaries V, U, W^ℓ, and W^r, supplies the associators, unit constraints, and braiding. The same construction identifies K0(B) with the fusion ring of TLJ(δ), and the module tensor product lifts that ring isomorphism to the categorical level.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the assumption that two finite strand diagrams that differ by pulling strands past each other in the allowed Reidemeister ways always give the same operator in B, since every associativity and braiding identity is checked that way, and some checks are left to the reader.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every object of Mod_B^f is isomorphic to F(P) for some object P of TLJ(δ), so the module category inherits rigidity: each finite-basis module has a conjugate, making Mod_B^f a rigid braided C*-tensor category.
The equivalence lifts the ring isomorphism K0(B) ≅ fusion ring of TLJ(δ) to a tensor product on modules, so the fusion rules of TLJ(δ) can be read off from the K0-module structure of B.
Because B is an inductive limit of finite-dimensional C*-algebras, TLJ(δ) is exhibited inside a category of modules over an AF algebra, where C*-algebraic and K-theoretic methods apply.
The same construction is claimed to realize any finitely generated rigid braided C*-tensor category, including representation categories of compact groups and Verlinde fusion categories from loop groups, as a category of finite-basis Hilbert modules.
The paper closes by asking whether a coset construction on the algebras B(k) associated to TLJ(2cos(π/(k+2))) could yield the Virasoro representation categories, a program the paper does not carry out.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the equivalence is taken as a definition of TLJ(δ) inside Hilbert C*-modules, the braiding on the module category might be used to construct explicit braided module categories for categories without a known graphical calculus, such as quantum doubles of subfactors; this goes beyond the paper's examples.
The same machinery suggests a testable route to the Virasoro question: build the inductive-limit algebras B(k) and check whether a diagonal embedding B(k)⊗B(1)⊂B(k+1) exists and yields the expected central charges; the paper only asks the question.
Because the proof of coherence leans on Reidemeister moves for finite sub-diagrams of infinite braid diagrams, a failure of those moves for a particular pattern would point to where a fully rigorous coherence theorem would need to add hypotheses, such as strong-operator convergence conditions.
The identification of K0(B) with the fusion ring may allow computational extraction of fusion coefficients from the Bratteli diagram of B rather than from Temperley–Lieb algebra data; this is an extension the paper does not make explicit.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, genuinely new representation theorem. The authors build, for each δ in the discrete TLJ range, a compact-operator C*-algebra B and use the TLJ braiding to make the whole category Mod_B of right Hilbert B-modules into a braided C*-tensor category, then show that TLJ(δ) is braided equivalent to the subcategory of modules admitting a finite orthonormal basis. Yuan's earlier work already realized rigid C*-tensor categories as Hilbert C*-bimodules, and Hartglass–Penneys built C*-algebras from planar algebras, but the braided structure on the module category, the finite-basis subcategory, and the explicit braided monoidal functor are new. The paper also states a clean generalization to finitely generated rigid braided C*-tensor categories (Remark 5.6), which makes it more than a one-off computation.

The main construction is sound. Lemma 3.2 (B is a direct sum of compact-operator algebras), the full faithfulness of F (Lemma 5.1), and essential surjectivity (Lemma 5.2) are proved with standard arguments and I see no gap. The K0(B) ≅ fusion ring statement is structural—B is built from TLJ data—but the paper is upfront about that, and it functions as a useful check rather than a circular derivation.

The soft spot is the coherence verifications. The associators and braiding on Mod_B are defined using infinite braid diagrams V and U, and the pentagon, hexagon, triangle, and monoidal functor identities are all discharged by asserting that two finite layered braid diagrams are related by Reidemeister moves of types 2 and 3. Equation (4.1) is argued this way; the pentagon reduction in §4.2.2 ends with "It is easily deduced"; the second hexagon identity (4.7) is left entirely to the reader. This is the right kind of argument—the diagrams have a layer structure, so each pair of strands crosses at most once and the braid relations are exactly what Reidemeister 2 and 3 provide—but the paper would be stronger with at least one fully written-out check, especially for the second hexagon. The stress-test concern about needing a concrete braid-word check is fair as a demand for detail, but I do not think it reveals an actual error: these are positive permutation braids, and the claimed isotopies are valid.

There are no machine-checked proofs or shipped code; the evidence is the explicit construction plus standard diagrammatic calculus, which is appropriate for this area. I would send this to a serious referee. The main theorem deserves careful reading, and the referee should ask the authors to expand the coherence arguments, but the result is likely correct and the paper is a genuine contribution to operator algebras and subfactor theory.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs, for each δ in the discrete Temperley–Lieb–Jones range, a C*-algebra B of compact operators from morphism spaces of TLJ(δ), and defines a *-homomorphism Φ : B ⊗ B → B by superposition of braided Temperley–Lieb diagrams. Using Φ, it defines a tensor product on the category Mod_B of right Hilbert B-modules, equips Mod_B with associators, unit constraints and a unitary braiding, and then defines a functor F from TLJ(δ) to the full subcategory Mod_B^f of modules admitting a finite orthonormal basis. The paper proves that F is fully faithful and essentially surjective, and concludes that TLJ(δ) and Mod_B^f are equivalent as braided C*-tensor categories (Theorem 5.3). It also indicates a generalization to finitely generated rigid braided C*-tensor categories.

Significance. The construction is explicit and original: it realizes a standard family of braided C*-tensor categories as categories of Hilbert modules over a single C*-algebra, and it promotes the known isomorphism K0(B) ≅ fusion ring to a categorical statement. Several parts of the paper are careful and convincing, in particular Lemma 3.2 (B ≅ ⊕_s K(H_s)), the full faithfulness of F in Lemma 5.1, and essential surjectivity in Lemma 5.2. If the categorical coherence that is currently only sketched is fully supplied, Theorem 5.3 would be a clean and useful bridge between diagrammatic tensor categories and Hilbert C*-module categories. The main caveat is that the coherence checks are load-bearing and are not yet proved at the level of rigor required for a categorical equivalence.

major comments (3)

[§4.2.1–4.2.2] Equation (4.1) and the pentagon identity (4.2) are the backbone of the associator construction. Their verification is reduced to the assertion that two finite dilute braid diagrams are related by Reidemeister moves of types 2 and 3, justified by the sentence 'It is easily deduced from this' and by a description of strands living on four layers. This assertion is not automatic: equality of the associated operators is equivalent to equality of the underlying braid words up to braid relations, and the paper does not prove that the two diagrams are reduced positive permutation braids with the same permutation, nor does it exhibit the required sequence of moves for arbitrary pattern vectors. Since α_{M1,M2,M3} is defined through V and (4.1), this gap directly affects whether Mod_B is a C*-tensor category. Please supply a complete combinatorial lemma—for example, that each such pair of layer-ordered finite dilute braid diagrams has the same permutation and no redundant crossings, so that Matsumoto's theorem applies—and verify the identity for all pattern vectors.
[§4.3.2] The first hexagon identity (4.6) is verified by a sketched 'pulling the strands' argument, and the second hexagon identity (4.7) is explicitly left to the reader. These identities are part of the definition of a braided C*-tensor category, so they are load-bearing for the braiding σ on Mod_B and hence for Theorem 5.3. The omitted proof of (4.7) must be supplied, and both verifications should be made rigorous with the same lemma requested above rather than by reference to sample diagrams.
[§5.1] Equations (5.5) and (5.6), which express compatibility of the monoidal functor J with the braiding and associators, are essential for F to be a braided monoidal functor. Their proof is again only a diagrammatic assertion: equation (5.5) is said to follow because one diagram is obtained from the other by Reidemeister moves of type 2, and (5.6) by 'noting that the strands live on three separate layers.' Since Theorem 5.3 is an equivalence of braided C*-tensor categories, these identities must be established at the same level of rigor as the rest of the paper.

minor comments (4)

[§3.3] The proof that Φ_n is a well-defined isometric *-homomorphism is very terse; please spell out how faithfulness of Tr_{2n} and the identity Tr_{2n} ∘ Φ_n = Tr_n ⊗ Tr_n imply well-definedness on the algebraic tensor product.
[Remark 5.4] The notation F(P̄) = F(P) presupposes self-duality of all objects of TLJ(δ); this should be stated or justified, since it is used to conclude that Mod_B^f is rigid.
[§4.2.3] The notation p_* for the projection associated to the empty diagram should be explicitly tied to the general notation p_x for x ∈ G^∞.
[Remark 5.6] Remark 5.6 is only an indication of a proof; if it is meant as a theorem, the steps following 'We can also define Φ ... by using the well-known graphical calculus' need to be spelled out. As it stands, it is appropriately labeled as an indication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the braided equivalence is constructed and checked, not presupposed.

full rationale

The paper builds B and Φ out of TLJ(δ) itself, so the K0(B) ≅ fusion ring statement is structural rather than an independent empirical prediction; however, that is not a circularity because the paper never presents this as a derived prediction. The main theorem, Theorem 5.3, requires defining the functor F and separately verifying that Mod_B is a braided C*-tensor category (pentagon, triangle, hexagon) and that F is braided monoidal (equations (5.1)–(5.4)). Those verifications are not identities imported from the input by definition; they are diagrammatic coherence checks. Some of these checks are asserted rather than fully proved (e.g., 'It is easily deduced' and 'leave the second one to the reader'), which is a correctness or completeness concern, not a circularity concern. There are no fitted parameters and no prediction that reduces to an input. The only self-citation is motivational and not load-bearing. Hence the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction takes the entire structure of TLJ(δ) as input: its simple objects, its morphism spaces, its semisimplicity, and its unitary braiding. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated; the C*-algebra B and the map Φ are constructed from TLJ data, and the theorem states an equivalence with a category built from those data. The central claim therefore inherits all assumptions of the TLJ category theory, which are standard and cited.

assumptions (4)

standard math Positivity of the Markov trace on TL algebras holds exactly for δ in {2cos(π/(k+2))} ∪ [2,∞), and at discrete points or δ=2 the quotient TLJ_n(δ) are finite-dimensional C*-algebras with faithful traces.
Section 2.4.1, cited to Jones [30]. The paper requires TLJ_n(δ) to be C*-algebras with positive faithful traces.
domain assumption TLJ(δ) is semisimple with simple objects given by Jones-Wenzl projections and is generated by the single-strand object π.
Section 2.4.3; used in Lemma 3.1 and in defining H_s over S and G^∞.
domain assumption At δ in the discrete range ∪ {2}, TLJ(δ) admits a unitary braiding given by the Kauffman element, and the graphical calculus with Reidemeister moves 2 and 3 is valid.
Sections 2.4.4 and 4; this braiding is used to define Φ, V, U and to prove Mod_B is braided.
standard math Hilbert C*-modules over B have the standard interior and exterior tensor product theory, and adjointable maps between modules over compact operator algebras are automatically bounded and B-linear.
Section 2.2, cited to Lance [37] and Frank [14]; used throughout the construction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realizing the braided Temperley-Lieb-Jones C*-tensor categories as Hilbert C*-modules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3HT73YI

@misc{pith2026190802674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realizing the braided Temperley-Lieb-Jones C*-tensor categories as Hilbert C*-modules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3HT73YI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02674}
}

abstract

We associate to each Temperley-Lieb-Jones C*-tensor category $\mathcal{T}\!\mathcal{L}\mathcal{J}(\delta)$ with parameter $\delta$ in the discrete range $\{2\cos(\pi/(k+2))\,:\,k=1,2,\ldots\}\cup\{2\}$ a certain C*-algebra $\mathcal{B}$ of compact operators. We use the unitary braiding on $\mathcal{T}\!\mathcal{L}\mathcal{J}(\delta)$ to equip the category $\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathcal{B}}$ of (right) Hilbert $\mathcal{B}$-modules with the structure of a braided C*-tensor category. We show that $\mathcal{T}\!\mathcal{L}\mathcal{J}(\delta)$ is equivalent, as a braided C*-tensor category, to the full subcategory $\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathcal{B}}^f$ of $\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathcal{B}}$ whose objects are those modules which admit a finite orthonormal basis. Finally, we indicate how these considerations generalize to arbitrary finitely generated rigid braided C*-tensor categories.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

Aaserud, A. N. and Evans, D. E.: K-theory of AF-algebras from braided C*-tensor categories , Rev. Math. Phys. (2020), 2030005. Online Ready. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129055X20300058

doi:10.1142/s0129055x20300058 2020
[2]

and Guljaˇ s, B.:Hilbert C*-modules over C*-algebras of compact operators , Acta Sci

Baki´ c, D. and Guljaˇ s, B.:Hilbert C*-modules over C*-algebras of compact operators , Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), vol. 68 (2002), pp. 249–269

work page 2002
[3]

Belletˆ ete, J.: The fusion rules for the Temperley–Lieb algebra and its dilu te generalization , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., vol. 48 (2015), 395205 (67 pp). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/48/39/395205 23

work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/48/39/395205 2015
[4]

M., Jacobsen, J

Belletˆ ete, J., Gainutdinov, A. M., Jacobsen, J. L., Sal eur, H. and Tavares, T. S.: Topological defects in lattice models and aﬃne Temperley–Lieb algebra , preprint (2018), arXiv:1811.02551 [hep-th]

arXiv 2018
[5]

Belletˆ ete, J., and Saint-Aubin, Y.: The principal indecomposable modules of the dilute Temperl ey–Lieb algebra , J. Math. Phys., vol. 55 (2014), 111706 (41 pp). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4901546

work page doi:10.1063/1.4901546 2014
[6]

K-Theory for Operator Algebras

Blackadar, B.: “ K-Theory for Operator Algebras”, Second Edition, Mathemati cal Sciences Research Institute Publications, 1998. (First Edition published by Springer, 1986.)

work page 1998
[7]

and Penneys, D.: Rigid C*-tensor categories of bimodules over interpolated free group factors, J

Brothier, A., Hartglass, M. and Penneys, D.: Rigid C*-tensor categories of bimodules over interpolated free group factors, J. Math. Phys., vol. 53 (2012), 123525 (43 pp). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4769178

work page doi:10.1063/1.4769178 2012
[8]

and Evans, D

Connes, A. and Evans, D. E.: Embeddings of U(1)-current algebras in non-commutative al gebras of classical statistical mechanics, Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 121 (1989), pp. 507–525

work page 1989

Show all 57 references

[9]

Almost Koszul Duality and Rational Conform al Field Theory

Cooper, B.: “Almost Koszul Duality and Rational Conform al Field Theory”, PhD thesis, University of Bath, 2007

2007
[10]

and Roberts, J

Doplicher, S. and Roberts, J. E.: A new duality theory for compact groups , Invent. Math., vol. 98 (1989), pp. 157–218

1989
[11]

and Wenzl, H.: Subfactors from braided C* tensor categories , Paciﬁc J

Erlijman, J. and Wenzl, H.: Subfactors from braided C* tensor categories , Paciﬁc J. Math., vol. 231 (2007), pp. 361–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2007.231.361

2007 doi
[12]

Evans, D. E. and Gannon, T.: The exoticness and realisability of twisted Haagerup–Izum i modular data , Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 307 (2011), pp. 463–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-011-1329-3

2011 doi
[13]

Evans, D. E. and Pugh, M.: The Nakayama automorphism of the almost Calabi–Yau algebra s associated to SU(3) modular invariants , Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 312 (2012), pp. 179–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-011-1389-4

2012 doi
[14]

K-Theory, vol

Frank, M.: Characterizing C*-algebras of compact operators by generi c categorical properties of Hilbert C*- modules, J. K-Theory, vol. 2 (2008), pp. 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/is008001031jkt035

2008 doi
[15]

and Teleman, C.: Loop groups and twisted K-theory I , J

Freed, D., Hopkins, M. and Teleman, C.: Loop groups and twisted K-theory I , J. Topology, vol. 4 (2011), pp. 737–798. https://doi.org/10.1112/jtopol/jtr019

2011 doi
[16]

and Teleman, C.: Loop groups and twisted K-theory II , J

Freed, D., Hopkins, M. and Teleman, C.: Loop groups and twisted K-theory II , J. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 26 (2013), pp. 595–644. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-2013-00761-4

2013 doi
[17]

and Teleman, C.: Loop groups and twisted K-theory III , Ann

Freed, D., Hopkins, M. and Teleman, C.: Loop groups and twisted K-theory III , Ann. Math. (2), vol. 174 (2011), pp. 947–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.4007/annals.2011.174.2.5

2011 doi
[18]

Gainutdinov, A. M. and Saleur, H.: Fusion and braiding in ﬁnite and aﬃne Temperley–Lieb catego ries, preprint (2016), arXiv:1606.04530 [math.QA]

2016 arXiv
[19]

Gainutdinov, A. M. and Vasseur, R.: Lattice fusion rules and logarithmic operator product expa nsions, Nuclear Phys. B, vol. 868 (2013), pp. 223–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.11.004

2013 doi
[20]

and Roberts, J

Ghez, P., Lima, R. and Roberts, J. E.: W*-categories, Paciﬁc J. Math., vol. 120 (1985), pp. 79–109

1985
[21]

and Olive, D.: Unitary representations of the Virasoro and super- Virasoro algebras, Comm

Goddard, P., Kent, A. and Olive, D.: Unitary representations of the Virasoro and super- Virasoro algebras, Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 103 (1986), pp. 105–119

1986
[22]

Coxet er Graphs and Towers of Algebras

Goodman, F. M., Harpe, P. de la and Jones, V. F. R.: “Coxet er Graphs and Towers of Algebras”, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, Vol. 14, Spring er, New York, 1989

1989
[23]

Grimm, U.: Dilute algebras and solvable lattice models , in Proceedings of the Satellite Meeting of STATPHYS-19 on Statistical Models, Yang–Baxter Equation and Related To pics, edited by M. L. Ge and F. Y. Wu (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1996), pp. 110–117

1996
[24]

Guionnet, A., Jones, V. F. R. and Shlyakhtenko, D.: Random matrices, free probability, planar algebras and subfactors, in Quanta of Maths: Conference in Honor of Alain Connes, edi ted by E. Blanchard, D. Ellwood, M. Khalkhali, M. Marcolli, H. Moscovici and S. Popa (Clay Math. ...

2010
[25]

and Penneys, D.: C*-algebras from planar algebras I: Canonical C*-algebras associated to a planar algebra, Trans

Hartglass, M. and Penneys, D.: C*-algebras from planar algebras I: Canonical C*-algebras associated to a planar algebra, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 369 (2017), pp. 3977–4019. https://doi.org/10.1090/tran/6781

2017 doi
[26]

G.: What Chern–Simons theory assigns to a point , Proc

Henriques, A. G.: What Chern–Simons theory assigns to a point , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 114 (2017), pp. 13418–13423. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711591114 24

2017 doi
[27]

Analytic K-Homology

Higson, N. and Roe, J.: “Analytic K-Homology”, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford Unive rsity Press, 2000

2000
[28]

and Lepowsky, J.: Tensor categories and the mathematics of rational and logar ithmic conformal ﬁeld theories, J

Huang, Y.-Z. and Lepowsky, J.: Tensor categories and the mathematics of rational and logar ithmic conformal ﬁeld theories, J. Phys. A, vol. 46 (2013), 494009 (21 pp). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/46/49/494009

2013 doi
[29]

Iohara, K., Lehrer, G. I. and Zhang, R. B.: Temperley–Lieb at roots of unity, a fusion category and the J ones quotient, preprint (2017), arXiv:1707.01196 [math.RT]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Jones, V. F. R.: Index for subfactors , Invent. Math., vol. 72 (1983), pp. 1–25

1983
[31]

Jones, V. F. R.: A polynomial invariant for knots via Von Neumann algebras , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 12 (1985), pp. 103–111

1985
[32]

Jones, V. F. R.: Planar algebras I , preprint (1999), arXiv:math/9909027 [math.QA]

1999 arXiv
[33]

Jones, V. F. R.: Some unitary representations of Thompson ’s groups F and T , J. Comb. Alg., vol. 1 (2017), pp. 1–44. https://doi.org/10.4171/JCA/1-1-1

2017 doi
[34]

Jones, V. F. R. and Reznikoﬀ, S.: Hilbert space representations of the annular Temperley–Li eb algebra , Paciﬁc J. Math., vol. 228 (2006), pp. 219–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2006.228.219

2006 doi
[35]

Quantum Groups

Kassel, C.: “Quantum Groups”, Graduate Texts in Mathem atics, Vol. 155, Springer, New York, 1995

1995
[36]

H.: State models and the Jones polynomial , Topology, vol

Kauﬀman, L. H.: State models and the Jones polynomial , Topology, vol. 26 (1987), pp. 395–407

1987
[37]

Hilbert C*-Modules

Lance, E. C.: “Hilbert C*-Modules”, London Mathematic al Society Lecture Note Series, Vol. 210, Cambridge University Press, 1995

1995
[38]

and Roberts, J

Longo, R. and Roberts, J. E.: A theory of dimension , K-Theory, vol. 11 (1997), pp. 103–159

1997
[39]

and Snyder, N.: Skein theory for the D2n planar algebras , J

Morrison, S., Peters, E. and Snyder, N.: Skein theory for the D2n planar algebras , J. Pure Appl. Algebra, vol. 214 (2010), pp. 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpaa.2009.04.010

2010 doi
[40]

Compact Quantum Groups an d Their Representation Categories

Neshveyev, S. and Tuset, L.: “Compact Quantum Groups an d Their Representation Categories”, Cours Sp´ ecialis´ es, Collection SMF, Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France, 2013

2013
[41]

Pasquier, V.: Two-dimensional critical systems labelled by Dynkin diagr ams, Nuclear Phys. B, vol. 285 (1987), pp. 162–172

1987
[42]

and Saleur, H.: Common structures between ﬁnite systems and conformal ﬁeld theories through quantum groups , Nuclear Phys

Pasquier, V. and Saleur, H.: Common structures between ﬁnite systems and conformal ﬁeld theories through quantum groups , Nuclear Phys. B, vol. 330 (1990), pp. 523–556

1990
[43]

V.: A class of C*-algebras generalizing both Cuntz–Krieger alg ebras and crossed products by Z, Fields Inst

Pimsner, M. V.: A class of C*-algebras generalizing both Cuntz–Krieger alg ebras and crossed products by Z, Fields Inst. Commun., vol. 12 (1997), pp. 189-212

1997
[44]

Math., vol

Popa, S.: An axiomatization of the lattice of higher relative commuta nts of a subfactor , Invent. Math., vol. 120 (1995), pp. 427–445

1995
[45]

and Vaes, S.: Representation theory for subfactors, λ -lattices and C*-tensor categories , Comm

Popa, S. and Vaes, S.: Representation theory for subfactors, λ -lattices and C*-tensor categories , Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 340 (2015), pp. 1239–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-015-2442-5

2015 doi
[46]

Loop Groups

Pressley, A. and Segal, G.: “Loop Groups”, Revised Edit ion, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford Science Publications, Clarendon Press, 1988. (Originally publish ed in 1986.)

1988
[47]

and Saleur, H.: Enlarged symmetry algebras of spin chains, loop models, and S-matrices, Nucl

Read, N. and Saleur, H.: Enlarged symmetry algebras of spin chains, loop models, and S-matrices, Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 777 (2007), pp. 263–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.03.007

2007 doi
[48]

and Saleur, H.: Associative-algebraic approach to logarithmic conformal ﬁeld theories , Nucl

Read, N. and Saleur, H.: Associative-algebraic approach to logarithmic conformal ﬁeld theories , Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 777 (2007), pp. 316–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.03.033

2007 doi
[49]

An Introduc tion to K-theory for C*-Algebras

Rørdam, M., Larsen, F. and Laustsen, N. J.: “An Introduc tion to K-theory for C*-Algebras”, London Mathe- matical Society Student Texts, Vol. 49, Cambridge Universi ty Press, Cambridge, 2000

2000
[50]

Temperley, H. N. V. and Lieb, E. H.: Relations between the ‘percolation ’ and ‘colouring’ problem and other graph- theoretical problems associated with regular planar latti ces: Some exact results for the ‘percolation ’ problem , Proc. R. Soc. A, vol. 322 (1971), pp. 251–280

1971
[51]

Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manif olds

Turaev, V. G.: “Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manif olds”, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 18, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1994

1994
[52]

J.: Operator algebras and conformal ﬁeld theory

Wassermann, A. J.: Operator algebras and conformal ﬁeld theory. III. Fusion of positive energy representations of LSUpN q using bounded operators, Invent. Math., vol. 133 (1998), pp. 467–538

1998
[53]

Wenzl, H.: On sequences of projections , C. R. Math. Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada, vol. 9 (1987), pp. 5–9. 25

1987
[54]

Wenzl, H.: C* tensor categories from quantum groups , J. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 11 (1998), pp. 261–282

1998
[55]

Math., vol

Xu, F.: Standard λ -lattices from quantum groups , Invent. Math., vol. 134 (1998), pp. 455–487

1998
[56]

Yamagami, S.: A categorical and diagrammatical approach to Temperley–Li eb algebras , preprint (2004), arXiv:math/0405267 [math.QA]

2004 arXiv
[57]

Edinburgh Math

Yuan, W.: Rigid C*-tensor categories and their realizations as Hilbe rt C*-bimodules , Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc., vol. 62 (2019), pp. 367–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0013091518000524 Andreas Næs Aaserud (ORCID: 0000-0001-9685-1640) Email: andreas.naes.aaserud@gmail.com Davi...

2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aaserud, A. N. and Evans, D. E.: K-theory of AF-algebras from braided C*-tensor categories , Rev. Math. Phys. (2020), 2030005. Online Ready. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129055X20300058

doi:10.1142/s0129055x20300058 2020

[2] [2]

and Guljaˇ s, B.:Hilbert C*-modules over C*-algebras of compact operators , Acta Sci

Baki´ c, D. and Guljaˇ s, B.:Hilbert C*-modules over C*-algebras of compact operators , Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), vol. 68 (2002), pp. 249–269

work page 2002

[3] [3]

Belletˆ ete, J.: The fusion rules for the Temperley–Lieb algebra and its dilu te generalization , J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., vol. 48 (2015), 395205 (67 pp). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/48/39/395205 23

work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/48/39/395205 2015

[4] [4]

M., Jacobsen, J

Belletˆ ete, J., Gainutdinov, A. M., Jacobsen, J. L., Sal eur, H. and Tavares, T. S.: Topological defects in lattice models and aﬃne Temperley–Lieb algebra , preprint (2018), arXiv:1811.02551 [hep-th]

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Belletˆ ete, J., and Saint-Aubin, Y.: The principal indecomposable modules of the dilute Temperl ey–Lieb algebra , J. Math. Phys., vol. 55 (2014), 111706 (41 pp). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4901546

work page doi:10.1063/1.4901546 2014

[6] [6]

K-Theory for Operator Algebras

Blackadar, B.: “ K-Theory for Operator Algebras”, Second Edition, Mathemati cal Sciences Research Institute Publications, 1998. (First Edition published by Springer, 1986.)

work page 1998

[7] [7]

and Penneys, D.: Rigid C*-tensor categories of bimodules over interpolated free group factors, J

Brothier, A., Hartglass, M. and Penneys, D.: Rigid C*-tensor categories of bimodules over interpolated free group factors, J. Math. Phys., vol. 53 (2012), 123525 (43 pp). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4769178

work page doi:10.1063/1.4769178 2012

[8] [8]

and Evans, D

Connes, A. and Evans, D. E.: Embeddings of U(1)-current algebras in non-commutative al gebras of classical statistical mechanics, Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 121 (1989), pp. 507–525

work page 1989