format: text

text:
# A classical approach to TQFT’sThis work was supported by the programme “Programa Operacional Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação” (POCTI) of the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), cofinanced by the European Community fund FEDER.

## 1 Introduction

The term Topological Quantum Field Theory, or TQFT for short, was introduced by Witten in  to describe a class of quantum field theories whose action is diffeomorphism invariant. To capture the common features of a number of examples that appeared, Atiyah, in a seminal article , formulated a set of axioms for TQFT that were modelled on similar axioms for conformal field theory, due to Segal . A $`(d+1)`$-dimensional TQFT assigns to every closed oriented $`d`$-dimensional manifold $`A`$ a finite-dimensional vector space $`V_A`$, and to every $`(d+1)`$-dimensional oriented manifold with boundary $`X`$ an element $`Z_X`$ of the vector space assigned to its boundary, subject to certain rules. The notion of TQFT has had a pervasive influence in several areas of mathematics, in particular in low-dimensional topology. Amongst the many constructions coming out of TQFT, we would single out the $`3`$-manifold invariants due to Witten  and Reshetikhin-Turaev , and Turaev-Viro , the combinatorial formula for the signature of $`4`$-manifolds due to Crane-Yetter , and the Dijkgraaf-Witten invariants for manifolds of any dimension, coming from a discretized path integral for gauge theories with finite group . For a review of TQFT aimed at mathematicians, see .

As recognized in Atiyah’s article, there are many possible modifications of the basic axioms. Indeed the Witten invariant from  does not fit into the axioms, since it is a combination of a 3-manifold invariant and an invariant for an embedded $`1`$-manifold. Representations of braids  and tangles  also fit loosely into the TQFT framework, with the difference that they are trivial as $`1`$-dimensional manifolds, but non-trivial due to their embedding in $`3\mathrm{D}`$ space. Generalizations arise when one allows the manifolds to have extra geometrical structures. An example is Homotopy Quantum Field Theory (HQFT)  (see also  and ), where the manifolds come equipped with a map to a fixed target space.

Turning to the algebraic side, many interesting ideas have appeared about the nature of the vector spaces and elements to be assigned to the manifolds. These ideas constitute, in a sense, extra structure, similar to the possible extra structure on the topological side considered above. Whilst not wishing to summarize all constructions, we would like to mention as examples, representations of the quantum group $`SL(2)_q`$ at roots of unity for $`3`$-dimensional TQFT’s , spherical categories for $`3`$-dimensional TQFT’s , Hopf categories  and spherical $`2`$-categories  for $`4`$-dimensional TQFT’s, constructions coming from operator algebras , and the very interesting higher-dimensional algebra programme  in which notions of higher algebra ($`n`$-categories) enter simultaneously on the topological and algebraic side.

To complete this brief survey of variations of TQFT, there are cases where both the topological and algebraic side come from geometry, namely parallel transport for vector bundles with connection. Here the underlying structure is a vector bundle $`(E,\pi ,M)`$ with connection, and the $`1`$-dimensional TQFT assigns to each point $`a`$ of the base space $`M`$ its fibre $`\pi ^1(a)`$, and to each path from $`a`$ to $`b`$ the parallel transport operator from the fibre over $`a`$ to the fibre over $`b`$, regarded as an element of $`\pi ^1(a)^{}\pi ^1(b)`$. This is essentially the functorial viewpoint of connections given in . An interpretation in terms of HQFT was recently given for parallel transport for gerbes with connection .

As stated earlier, in his article on the axioms of TQFT Atiyah already envisaged various modifications of the axioms to enlarge the scope, so it was natural that mathematicians would attempt to formulate the theory in a more general fashion. There are two such general definitions of TQFT that we would like to mention in this context, due to Quinn  and Turaev . Quinn achieved generality by giving a very general definition of a “domain category”, endowed with a collection of structures which are abstractions of topological notions, such as boundary, cylinder or gluing. Turaev achieved generality by defining a “space structure” on a topological space, which includes as special cases a choice of orientation, a differentiable structure or a structure of a $`\mathrm{CW}`$-complex. Both definitions are rather abstract, and both are in the so-called cobordism framework, which has some limitations as we now explain.

The cobordism approach to TQFT’s arises by taking an algebraic idea and transporting it to the topological side. Suppose the manifold $`X`$ has an in-boundary $`A_1^{}`$ and an out-boundary $`A_2^+`$, like the starting and end point of the curve on $`M`$ in the parallel transport example mentioned above. To this boundary one assigns the tensor product $`V_{A_1^{}}V_{A_2^+}`$, which is assumed to be isomorphic to $`V_{A_1^+}^{}V_{A_2^+}`$. Thus $`Z_X`$ can be regarded as a linear map from $`V_{A_1^+}`$ to $`V_{A_2^+}`$, i.e. a morphism in the algebraic category. In the cobordism approach, $`X`$ is then also taken to be a morphism from $`A_1`$ to $`A_2`$, in a category on the topological side called the cobordism category. More precisely, appropriate equivalence class of manifolds $`X`$ constitute the morphisms in the cobordism category, so as to ensure the associativity of composition and the existence of identity morphisms. An advantage of this shift of viewpoint is that the TQFT assignments become functorial both at the level of $`X`$’s and $`A`$’s, and thus a TQFT becomes a functor from the cobordism category to the category of vector spaces. The cobordism viewpoint is very natural for $`1`$-dimensional TQFT’s describing braids and tangles (these have been termed “embedded TQFT’s” in ), since morphisms are intuitively associated to $`1`$-dimensional topology, but is less natural, or rather, has to be amended to higher cobordism categories in the higher-dimensional algebra setting, when one is dealing with dimensions greater than one. Despite the attractive functorial feature of the cobordism approach, a disadvantage is that making the $`X`$’s into morphisms on the topological side leaves no room for other morphisms between the $`A`$’s, in particular isomorphisms between them. (In the context of HQFT, Rodrigues in  showed a nice way to get round this problem, by means of some quotient constructions, allowing both cobordisms and isomorphisms to appear as topological morphisms on the same footing.) A second disadvantage of the cobordism approach is that, although the gluing together of two manifolds $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ along a shared boundary comes in naturally as the composition of topological morphisms, the notion of self-gluing of a single manifold $`X`$ by identifying two of its boundary components has no such natural interpretation, and has to be dealt with in theorems. A third disadvantage of the cobordism approach is that the algebraic notion of duality, which was necessary to pass from elements of a linear space to linear maps, requires a rather subtle treatment when it is transported to the topological side - see  for a definition in the context of HQFT and further references on the subject of duality in categories. Finally, a disadvantage, to our mind, of the cobordism approach is that the same topological object acquires a plethora of algebraic guises. Thus, for example, disregarding orientations, the cylinder can be viewed in three different ways as a morphism from the circle to the circle, or a morphism from two circles to the empty set, or a morphism from the empty set to two circles.

Thus we were motivated to return to Atiyah’s original formulation where $`Z_X`$ is simply an element of $`V_A`$. Now Atiyah’s axioms in this form do not describe a functor, although they do contain functorial ingredients. One of our main goals was to define TQFT’s as functors, analogously to the classical functors of algebraic topology such as homology and homotopy (hence our slightly tongue-in-cheek title). The approach we found worked best was to take objects on the topological side to be essentially pairs $`(X,A)`$ (together with an “inclusion” morphism from $`A`$ to $`X`$), and to allow only a very restricted class of morphisms between these objects, namely isomorphisms and gluing morphisms, where the latter are essentially morphisms from an object to a copy of the object that results after gluing some components of $`A`$ together. A TQFT is then a functor from this category to an algebraic category whose objects are also pairs, essentially a vector space and an element of that space. Furthermore, the TQFT functors preserve structures, namely a monoidal structure (which is essentially the disjoint union on the topological side) as well as an endofunctor (which is an abstraction of the operation of changing orientation on the topological side). Thus we use the language of monoidal categories and monoidal functors. Generality in describing a wide range of topological situations is achieved by building up the topological category, in a series of steps, out of a fairly arbitrary topological starting category.

Our approach is rather detailed, since we wanted to arrive at a very concrete and explicit formulation, allowing calculations to be performed efficiently. The insight that is gained, after working through the formalism, is that TQFT is in essence a “topological tensor calculus”, where manifolds get tensors assigned to them, with the number of indices equal to the number of connected components of $`A`$, and where gluing manifolds together corresponds to contracting the indices. This picture is made explicit in our illustrative example of $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s, where we obtain a result precisely of this nature: all $`2`$-manifolds with boundary are represented by a tensor built up from just two basic tensors, one with one index and one with three indices, representing the disk and the pair-of-pants, respectively. This result should be contrasted with Abrams’  characterization of $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s in terms of Frobenius algebras, using the cobordism approach - see also earlier work by Sawin . There the topological category ($`2`$-Cobord) is generated by five surfaces, two different disks, two different pairs-of-pants and one cylinder. The first four surfaces correspond to the (co)unit and (co)multiplication of the Frobenius algebra structure on the vector space assigned to the circle, which is again an example of topological objects acquiring multiple algebraic guises. Our result for $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s is much closer in spirit to that of R. Lawrence , who gets a classification in terms of three tensors, corresponding to the disk, pair-of-pants and cylinder, respectively.

Rather than give an outline of the whole construction here, we refer to the introduction to each section for a description of the various stages involved. Since the whole setting is that of monoidal categories, we have included some relevant definitions in the introduction - see below. The general theory is interspersed with a detailed presentation of an example, namely $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s, which are characterized in Theorems 4.6 and 5.6. A preliminary version of this work appeared in  and it was the subject of the Ph.D. thesis . We are very grateful to Louis Crane for his suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this article.

To complete this introduction we recall some definitions concerning monoidal categories. For the background material on monoidal categories we refer the reader to the textbooks \[34, pp. 161-170\] and \[35, pp. 281-288\]:

###### Definition 1.1

A *monoidal category* is a sextuple $`(𝐂,,I,a,l,r)`$ consisting of a category $`𝐂`$, a bifunctor $`:𝐂\times 𝐂𝐂`$, called the monoidal product, an object $`I\mathrm{O}b(𝐂)`$, called the unit object, and natural isomorphisms $`a:()()`$ (associativity), $`l:I\mathrm{I}d_𝐂`$ (left unit) and $`r:I\mathrm{I}d_𝐂`$ (right unit), such that for all objects $`A,B,C`$ and $`D`$ the following diagrams:

and

commute. A monoidal category is often denoted simply by $`𝐂`$.
A monoidal category is said to be *strict*, if the associativity, left and right unit are all identities of the category. A strict monoidal category is denoted by $`(𝐂,,I)`$ or $`𝐂`$.

###### Remark 1.2

According to a result by Mac Lane, any monoidal category is monoidal equivalent to a strict monoidal category. (See \[34, pp. 256-257\] for the definition of monoidal equivalence and the proof. See also \[35, p. 291\].)
In the constructions of Sections 2-5 below, only strict monoidal categories will appear.

###### Definition 1.3

Let $`(𝐂,,I,a,l,r)`$ and $`(𝐃,^{},I^{},a^{},l^{},r^{})`$ be monoidal categories. A *monoidal functor* from $`𝐂`$ to $`𝐃`$ is a triple $`(F,\phi _2,\phi _0)`$, which consists of a functor $`F:𝐂𝐃`$, a natural transformation $`\phi _2:F()^{}F()F()`$ and a morphism $`\phi _0:I^{}F(I)`$, such that the following diagrams

and

and

commute. We will frequently write a monoidal functor $`(F,\phi _2,\phi _0)`$ simply as $`F`$.

The monoidal functor is said to be *strong*, if the natural transformation $`\phi _2`$ is a natural isomorphism, and the morphism $`\phi _0`$ is an isomorphism, and is said to be *strict* if they are identities.

###### Definition 1.4

A *monoidal natural transformation* $`\eta :(F,\phi _2,\phi _0)(G,\psi _2,\psi _0)`$ is a natural transformation $`\eta :FG`$ such that the following diagrams, for all objects $`A,B`$

and

commute.

###### Definition 1.5

Let $`(𝐂,,I,a,l,r)`$ be a monoidal category and $`\tau :𝐂\times 𝐂𝐂\times 𝐂`$ the flip functor, defined for all pairs of objects and morphisms by:

$$\tau ((A,B)\stackrel{(f,g)}{}(A^{},B^{}))=(B,A)\stackrel{(g,f)}{}(B^{},A^{})\text{.}$$

A *braiding* is a natural isomorphism

$$c:()\tau \text{,}$$

such that, for all triples $`(A,B,C)`$ of objects of the category, the following two hexagonal diagrams

and

commute.
A *braided monoidal category* $`𝐂`$ is a monoidal category endowed with a braiding, also denoted $`(𝐂,,I,a,l,r,c)`$, or $`(𝐂,,I,c)`$ if $`𝐂`$ is strict monoidal.
A braided monoidal category $`(𝐂,,I,a,l,r,c)`$ is called a *symmetric monoidal category* if the braiding $`c`$ satisfies:

$$c_{(B,A)}c_{(A,B)}=\mathrm{i}d_{AB}\text{,}$$

for all pairs $`(A,B)`$ of objects.

###### Remark 1.6

We note that the condition $`c_{(B,A)}c_{(A,B)}=\mathrm{i}d_{AB}`$ is equivalent to $`c_{(A,B)}=c_{(B,A)}^1`$, which implies that the second hexagonal diagram is equal to the first. Therefore a symmetric monoidal category is a monoidal category in which the first hexagonal diagram commutes and the symmetry condition holds.

Finally, we present the definition of a braided monoidal functor.

###### Definition 1.7

Let $`(𝐂,,I,a,l,r,c)`$ and $`(𝐃,^{},I^{},a^{},l^{},r^{},c^{})`$ be braided monoidal categories. A monoidal functor $`(F,\phi _2,\phi _0)`$ from $`𝐂`$ to $`𝐃`$ is said to be a *braided monoidal functor* if, for all pairs of objects $`(A,B)`$, the following diagram

commutes.

A *symmetric monoidal functor* is a braided monoidal functor between symmetric monoidal categories.

## 2 The topological category

The construction of the topological category will proceed in stages, which we will first describe informally. The starting point is a category which is large enough to contain all the objects one wishes to describe, called the topological starting category. This might be, for instance, the category of all smooth oriented manifolds with boundary. Within this category we then focus attention on a class of “larger objects” and a class of “subobjects”, by choosing a class of “inclusion” morphisms whose domains are the subobjects and whose codomains are the larger objects. For instance, the larger objects could be $`d`$-dimensional manifolds with boundary, and the subobjects ($`d1`$)-dimensional manifolds with empty boundary, with the inclusion morphisms mapping the subobjects into boundary components of the larger objects. The subobjects form a category, called the category of subobjects, with isomorphisms between subobjects as its morphisms. The objects of the topological category itself are triples consisting of a larger object, a subobject and an inclusion map between them. The morphisms between these objects are restricted to be of two types only: isomorphisms and gluing morphisms. The isomorphisms correspond to the respective larger objects and subobjects being isomorphic in a compatible way. The gluing morphisms correspond to gluing larger objects together along one or more pairs of subobjects, and are best described as morphisms from the objects before gluing to a copy of the objects after gluing. The main result that has to be established is that these morphisms close under suitably defined composition. There is an extra piece of structure which plays a crucial role throughout the construction, namely an endofunctor on the topological starting category, which generalizes the operation of changing orientation in the example of oriented manifolds.

We now proceed with the details of the construction.

###### Definition 2.1

A *topological starting category* is a triple $`(𝐂,F,P)`$, where $`𝐂`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal category $`(𝐂,,E,c)`$, $`F`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal forgetful functor from $`𝐂`$ to $`\mathrm{Top}`$ (the category of topological spaces and continuous maps with its standard monoidal structure and braiding) and $`P`$ is a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor $`(P,\pi _2,\pi _0)`$ on $`𝐂`$, such that

$$FP=F\text{and}F(\pi _2)=\mathrm{i}d\text{.}$$

Instead of $`(𝐂,F,P)`$ we will frequently write simply $`𝐂`$.

###### Remark 2.2

The forgetful functor $`F`$ justifies the adjective topological. It sends each object $`X`$ of $`𝐂`$ to its underlying topological space $`F(X)`$, sends each morphism of $`𝐂`$ to the underlying continuous map, sends $``$ to the disjoint union (or topological sum) of topological spaces, and sends $`E`$ to the empty space $`\mathrm{}`$.
One may think of the objects of $`𝐂`$ as topological spaces with some extra structure, e.g. oriented topological manifolds. The endofunctor $`P`$ acts on the extra structure, e.g. by changing the orientation, but leaves the underlying topological space unchanged. We do not require $`P^2=\mathrm{I}d`$, although the only examples we have in mind do have this property.

We will illustrate the constructions in Sections 2-5 with a simple example, which will keep returning.

Example: We take $`𝐂`$ to be the category whose objects are $`1`$-dimensional, compact, oriented, topological manifolds without boundary or $`2`$-dimensional, compact, oriented, topological manifolds with boundary111The category of manifolds with boundary is more accurately described in terms of a category whose objects are pairs $`(X,X)`$, where $`X`$ is the boundary of the manifold $`X`$. In our example, $`S^2`$, for instance, is regarded as a manifold with boundary corresponding to the pair $`(S^2,\mathrm{})`$., together with finite disjoint unions of these objects. We introduce the following symbols and a preferred presentation for some familiar objects:

* $`C_+`$ denotes the circle, identified with $`\{z:\left|z\right|=1\}`$ with anticlockwise orientation.
* $`D_+`$ denotes the disk, identified with $`\{z:\left|z\right|1\}`$ with the orientation induced by the standard orientation of the complex plane (given by the choice of coordinates $`(x,y)`$, where $`z=x+iy`$).
* $`A_+`$ denotes the annulus, identified with $`\{z:1\left|z\right|2\}`$ with the orientation induced by the standard orientation of the complex plane.
* $`P_+`$ denotes the pair-of-pants (i.e. the three holed sphere or trinion) identified with a disk in the complex plane with two holes removed, with the orientation induced by the standard orientation of the complex plane.
* $`S_+`$ denotes the $`2`$-sphere, $`S^2`$, identified with the unit sphere in $`^3`$ and with the orientation given by the choice of coordinates $`(x,y)`$ at $`(0,0,1)`$.
* Finally, $`T_+`$ denotes the torus $`S^1\times S^1`$, identified with$`\{(e^{i\theta },e^{i\phi })^2:0\theta ,\phi <2\pi \}`$ and with the orientation given by the choice of coordinates $`(\theta ,\phi )`$.

For each of these objects replacing the “$`+`$” suffix by a “$``$” denotes the same object with the opposite orientation. We will abbreviate a disjoint union of the form $`X_+X_{}\mathrm{}X_+`$ by $`X_{+\mathrm{}+}`$. We will equate $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n`$ with $`X_1\times \left\{1\right\}X_2\times \left\{2\right\}\mathrm{}X_n\times \left\{n\right\}`$. The objects:

$$\mathrm{},C_\pm ,D_\pm ,P_\pm \text{,}$$

play a fundamental role, since, up to isomorphism, all other objects can be obtained from these by disjoint union and gluing, as we shall see later.

The morphisms of $`𝐂`$ are orientation-preserving maps between the above objects, for instance $`f:C_+C_+`$, given by $`f(z)=z`$, or $`f:C_{}C_+`$, given by $`f(z)=\overline{z}`$. Since the orientation of a manifold with boundary induces an orientation on its boundary, the morphisms of $`𝐂`$ include orientation-preserving maps from the oriented circle to oriented $`2`$-dimensional manifolds with boundary whose image is contained in the boundary of the $`2`$-dimensional manifold, such as $`f:C_+D_+`$, given by $`f(z)=z`$. The monoidal product $``$ is the disjoint union, taken to be strictly associative, the unit object $`E`$ is $`\mathrm{}`$, also regarded as strict, i.e. $`X\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}X=X`$, and the braiding $`c_{(X,Y)}:XYYX`$ is the usual flip map which sends $`(x,1)`$ to $`(x,2)`$ and $`(y,2)`$ to $`(y,1)`$. The forgetful functor $`F`$ maps each oriented manifold to its underlying topological space and each orientation-preserving map to the underlying continuous map. Finally, the endofunctor $`P`$ reverses the orientation of the objects and leaves the morphisms unchanged in the sense that $`P(f)`$ and $`f`$ have the same transformation law, for any morphism $`f`$. Thus the endofunctor $`P`$ is involutive, i.e. $`P^2=\mathrm{I}d`$. The endofunctor $`P`$ is strict in this example, meaning that $`\pi _2`$ and $`\pi _0`$ are identities. Thus, in particular, $`P`$ leaves the unit object $`\mathrm{}`$ unchanged.$`\mathrm{}`$

Having chosen a topological starting category $`𝐂`$, our next goal is to introduce a subcategory of $`𝐂`$, which we call the category of subobjects of $`𝐂`$. The idea is to separate the objects into “larger” objects and “smaller” objects, the latter behaving like the boundary components of the larger objects. For this purpose we first formalize the notion of a subobject following .

###### Definition 2.3

Let $``$ be a non-empty class of monomorphisms of $`𝐂`$. An $``$-*subobject* of an object $`X`$ is a pair $`(A,m)`$, where $`m:AX`$ belongs to $``$.

The class $``$ plays the role of a class of “inclusion” maps from “smaller”, or “boundary”, objects into “larger” objects.

In Definition 2.5 we will be formulating properties for an appropriate class $``$, but first we need the following concepts:

###### Definition 2.4

Let $`(𝐂,F,P)`$ be a topological starting category.

1. An object $`A`$ of $`𝐂`$ is said to be *irreducible*, if $`F(A)`$ is non-empty and connected.
2. An object of $`𝐂`$ is said to be *factorized*, if it is of the form $`P^n(E)`$, with $`n`$ (where $`P^0:=\mathrm{I}d`$) or a finite monoidal product of irreducible objects.

###### Definition 2.5

We say that $``$ of Definition 2.3 is an *appropriate* class if it satisfies the following properties:

1. For any $`m`$, $`F(m)`$ is an embedding in $`\mathrm{Top}`$, i.e. a homeomorphism onto its image.
2. $``$ is closed under the monoidal product.
3. $``$ is closed under the endofunctor $`P`$.
4. The domain of any $`m`$ is either $`P^n(E)`$ with $`n`$ or any object that can be generated from irreducible objects by taking finite monoidal products and applying $`P`$.
5. (isomorphism-closure property)
If $`m`$ and $`f\mathrm{I}so(𝐂)`$222The class $`\mathrm{I}so(𝐂)`$ is the class of all isomorphisms of $`𝐂`$. such that $`mf`$ exists, then $`mf`$.
6. (subdivision property)
Let $`(A_i)_{iI}`$ be a family of irreducible objects, where $`I`$ is a finite ordered index set. We denote by $`A_I:=_{iI}A_i`$ the corresponding factorized object and set $`A_{\mathrm{}}:=E`$.
a) For any $``$-subobject $`(A_I,m)`$ of $`X`$ and any proper ordered subset $`J`$ of $`I`$ there exists a morphism $`s_{J,I}:A_JA_I`$ (independent of $`m`$) such that $`m_J:=ms_{J,I}`$ belongs to $``$, i.e. the following diagram

commutes.
Under the forgetful functor the morphisms $`F(s_{J,I}):F(A)_JF(A)_I`$ are the canonical monomorphisms.
b) For $`K`$ a proper ordered subset of $`J`$ one has:

$$s_{J,I}s_{K,J}=s_{K,I}\text{.}$$

c) For any finite ordered sets $`JI`$, $`LK`$, with $`I`$ and $`K`$ disjoint, one has:

$$s_{J,I}s_{L,K}=s_{JL,IK}\text{,}$$

where $`IK`$ denotes the finite ordered set consisting of the elements of $`I`$ followed by the elements of $`K`$.
d) For any $``$-subobjects $`(A_I,m)`$ and $`(A_I^{}^{},m^{})`$ with $`\mathrm{c}ard(I^{})=\mathrm{c}ard(I)`$, isomorphism $`\alpha :A_IA_I^{}^{}`$, and a proper ordered subset $`J^{}`$ of $`I^{}`$, there exists a proper ordered subset $`J`$ of $`I`$ with $`\mathrm{c}ard(J)=\mathrm{c}ard(J^{})`$ and an isomorphism $`\alpha _{J,J^{}}:=_{iJ}\alpha _i:A_JA_J^{}^{}`$ (independent of $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$), such that the following diagram

commutes.

###### Remark 2.6

The intuitive content of the subdivision property is that when a collection of objects form a subobject of $`X`$ any subcollection of them also do, with the respective elements of $``$ related in the appropriate way.
The condition d) says that an isomorphism $`\alpha `$ induces a one-to-one correspondence between connected components of the domain and codomain subobjects, and isomorphisms $`\alpha _i`$ between corresponding components. Since $`\alpha _{J,J^{}}`$ is unique by the commutativity of the diagram in $``$-6d) and the fact that $`s_{J^{},I^{}}`$ is a monomorphism (which in its turn follows from $``$-6a)), for $`KJ`$ and $`K^{}J^{}`$ we have, from $``$-6b), $`(\alpha _{J,J^{}})_{K,K^{}}=\alpha _{K,K^{}}`$ and we use the simpler expression on the right hand side when it occurs.

Example: We choose $``$ to be the class of monomorphisms whose domain is either $`\mathrm{}`$ or a finite disjoint union of oriented circles and whose codomain is either $`\mathrm{}`$ or an oriented surface with boundary, such that each circle in the domain is mapped isomorphically to a boundary component of the codomain surface. Examples of morphisms in $``$ are the empty maps from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, to $`T_\pm `$ or to $`S_\pm `$; the maps $`C_\pm D_\pm `$ sending $`z`$ to $`z`$, and the map $`C_+A_+`$, sending $`(z,1)`$ to $`z`$ and $`(z,2)`$ to $`2z`$. The class $``$ clearly satisfies the properties 1)-6) above. The morphisms $`s_{J,I}`$ in the subdivision property are the canonical monomorphisms, e.g. for any $`m`$ with domain $`C_{++}`$ and $`I=\{1,2,3,4\}`$, $`J=\{2,3\}`$ one has $`s_{J,I}:C_+C_{++}`$ given by $`(z,1)(z,2)`$ and $`(z,2)(z,3)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 2.7

Given a topological starting category $`(𝐂,F,P)`$ and an appropriate class of monomorphisms $``$, we define a symmetric, strict monoidal category $`(𝒮(𝐂),,E,c)`$, also written $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ for short, as follows:

1. the class of objects of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ is the subclass of objects of $`𝐂`$ which are the domain of some $`m`$,
2. the morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ are the isomorphisms of $`𝐂`$ restricted to the objects of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$,
3. the composition, identity morphisms, monoidal product $``$, unit object $`E`$ and braiding $`c`$ are inherited from $`𝐂`$.

We define a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor $`P`$ on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ as the restriction to $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ of $`P`$ defined on $`𝐂`$. The *category of subobjects*, is the pair $`(𝒮(𝐂),P)`$, where $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ denotes the category with its symmetric, monoidal structure and $`P`$ denotes the above monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$.

###### Theorem 2.8

$`(𝒮(𝐂),,E,c)`$ is indeed a symmetric, strict monoidal category, and $`P`$ restricts to a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$.

Proof. One just has to check that the composition, identity morphisms, monoidal structure and braiding indeed restrict to $`𝒮(𝐂)`$. For the composition and identity morphisms this is clear. The monoidal product is defined in $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ because of property 2 of $``$. The unit object $`E`$ of $`𝐂`$ is an object of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$, due to property $``$-6a), since $``$ is non-empty. The braiding isomorphisms restricted to the objects of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ are morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ because of property 5 (isomorphism-closure property) of $``$. The functor $`P`$ closes on the objects of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ because of $``$-3), and on the morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ because, being a functor, $`P`$ maps isomorphisms to isomorphisms. Thus $`P`$ defines an endofunctor on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$. For any $`A,B\mathrm{O}b(𝒮(𝐂))`$, $`P(A)P(B)`$ and $`P(AB)`$ are objects of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ by $``$-2) and $``$-3), and thus $`\pi _{2(A,B)}`$, which is an isomorphism since $`P`$ is strong monoidal, is a morphism of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$. Likewise $`\pi _0`$ is a morphism of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ and, looking at Definition (1.3), it is clear that $`(P,\pi _2,\pi _0)`$ is strong monoidal on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$. It is also clearly symmetric.

###### Remark 2.9

Using the isomorphism-closure property of $``$, any object of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ is isomorphic to a factorized object of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$, via a string of morphisms which are monoidal products of identity morphisms and morphisms of the form $`P^k(\pi _{2(X,X^{})}^1)`$, with $`k`$. We will proceed from now on to write all objects of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ as if they were factorized and let the necessary isomorphisms to achieve this be understood.

We will distinguish two special cases of morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$.

###### Definition 2.10

A morphism of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ is called:

1. a *permuting isomorphism*, if it is of the form

$$p_\sigma :A_1\mathrm{}A_nA_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}A_{\sigma (n)}\text{,}$$

where $`A_i`$ are irreducible subobjects and $`\sigma `$ is a permutation of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, and it is generated, via the monoidal product and composition, by identity morphisms and braidings only. Because of naturality, a permuting isomorphism may always be written as a composition of elementary permuting isomorphisms of the form:

$$(\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}\mathrm{i}d_{A_j})c_{(A_i,A_{i+1})}(\underset{j=i+2}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{i}d_{A_j})\text{.}$$
2. an *order-preserving isomorphism*, if it is of the form

$$\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n:A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_nA_1^{}A_2^{}\mathrm{}A_n^{}\text{,}$$

where $`A_i,A_i^{}`$ are irreducible subobjects and each $`\alpha _i:A_iA_i^{}`$ is an isomorphism of $`𝐂`$.

Example: The category $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ has as objects the empty space $`\mathrm{}`$, the circles $`C_\pm `$ and finite disjoint unions of these circles. The morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$, apart from the identity morphism for $`\mathrm{}`$, are orientation-preserving automorphisms of circles and finite disjoint unions of these morphisms, as well as isomorphisms such as $`\alpha :C_+C_{++}`$, given by $`(z,1)(\overline{z},2)`$, $`(z,2)(z,1)`$, which is the composition of a braiding (i.e. a permuting isomorphism) and an order-preserving isomorphism.$`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to construct the topological category $`𝒞`$, which will be the domain category for the TQFT functor.

###### Definition 2.11

Let $`𝒪`$ be a class of triples $`(X,A,m)`$, where $`(A,m)`$ is an $``$-subobject of $`X`$, satisfying:

1. $`(E,E,\mathrm{id}_E)`$ $`𝒪`$.
2. $`(X,A,m)`$, $`(X^{},A^{},m^{})𝒪`$ implies $`(XX^{},AA^{},mm^{})𝒪`$.
3. $`(X,A,m)𝒪`$ implies $`(P(X),P(A),P(m))𝒪`$.
4. $`(XX^{},AA^{},mm^{})𝒪`$ implies $`(X^{}X,A^{}A,m^{}m)𝒪`$.

We define $`𝒞`$ to be the category with $`\mathrm{Ob}(𝒞)=𝒪`$, morphisms consisting of two classes, isomorphisms and gluing morphisms, defined below (Definition 2.12 and Definition 2.14), and composition and identity morphisms defined below (Definition 2.16 and 2.19).

Example: For our example we choose the class of objects of $`𝒞`$ to be all triples $`(X,A,m)`$, where $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{}`$ or a finite disjoint union of oriented circles isomorphic to $`X`$ and the image of $`m`$ is $`X`$. Thus for example we have the following objects:

* $`X=A=\mathrm{}`$ and $`m=\mathrm{i}d_{\mathrm{}}`$,
* $`X=S_\pm `$ or $`T_\pm `$ (the sphere or the torus, with either orientation), $`A=\mathrm{}`$, and $`m`$ is the corresponding empty map,
* $`X=A_+`$ (the annulus with positive orientation), $`A=C_+`$ and $`m`$ is given by $`m(z,1)=z`$, $`m(z,2)=2z`$.

Note that, in this example, we do not admit objects having, e.g. $`X=A_+`$ and $`A=C_+`$, where $`A`$ only corresponds to part of the boundary of $`X`$, although the general theory does not forbid this.$`\mathrm{}`$

The morphisms of $`𝒞`$ are restricted to be of two types, isomorphisms and gluing morphisms. We start by defining the isomorphisms:

###### Definition 2.12

Let $`(X,A,m)`$ and $`(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ be two objects of $`𝒞`$. An isomorphism between them is a pair $`(f,\alpha )`$, where $`f:XX^{}`$ is an isomorphism in $`𝐂`$ and $`\alpha :AA^{}`$ is a morphism of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$, such that the following diagram

is commutative.

###### Remark 2.13

Two general types of isomorphisms are:

* $`(\mathrm{i}d_X,\mathrm{i}d_A)`$ for any $`(X,A,m)\mathrm{O}b(𝒞)`$.
* $`(c_{(X,X^{})},c_{(A,A^{})}):(XX^{},AA^{},mm^{})(X^{}X,A^{}A,m^{}m)`$ for any $`(X,A,m),(X^{},A^{},m^{})\mathrm{O}b(𝒞)`$.

Example:  Some examples of isomorphisms of $`𝒞`$, apart from the ones in the above remark, are:

* the reverse map

$$(r,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,m_+)(D_{},C_{},m_{})\text{,}$$

where $`m_\pm :C_\pm D_\pm `$ are given by $`m_\pm (z)=z`$, $`r:D_+D_{}`$ is given by $`r(z)=\overline{z}`$ and $`\alpha :C_+C_{}`$ is given by $`\alpha (z)=\overline{z}`$.
* the following morphism, which can be interpreted as a reordering of the two boundary components of the annulus:

$$(\mathrm{i}d_{A_+},c_{(C_{},C_+)}):(A_+,C_+,m)(A_+,C_+,m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`m(z,1)=z=m^{}(z,2)`$ and $`m(z,2)=2z=m^{}(z,1)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

Next we define the other class of morphisms of $`𝒞`$, which we call gluing morphisms. We recall the notation $`A_I:=_{iI}A_i`$ for a finite ordered index set, from property 6 of $``$. Also we set $`P(A)_I:=_{iI}P(A_i)`$.

###### Definition 2.14

Let $`(X,A,m)`$, $`(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ be objects of $`𝒞`$, where $`A:=A_N`$ for some finite ordered index set $`N`$. Let $`I`$, $`J`$ and $`R`$ be disjoint ordered subsets of $`N`$, with $`I`$, $`J`$ non-empty and of the same cardinality, and such that, as sets, $`N=IJR`$. A gluing morphism from $`(X,A,m)`$ to $`(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ is a triple $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$, where $`X\stackrel{f}{}X^{}`$ is a morphism of $`𝐂`$, and $`\phi :A_IP(A)_J`$ and $`\alpha :A_RA^{}`$ are morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$, such that:

1. $`fm_R=m^{}\alpha `$,
2. $`F(fm_I)`$ is a (topological) embedding, the images of $`F(fm_I)`$ and $`F(fm_R)`$ are separated in $`F(X^{})`$, and the image under $`F(f)`$ of $`\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(F(m_I)))`$ is closed in $`F(X^{})`$, where $`\mathrm{C}ls`$ is the closure.
3. $`F(fm_J)F(\phi )=F(fm_I)`$,
4. $`F(X)\mathrm{I}m(F(m_{IJ}))`$ is isomorphic to $`F(X^{})\mathrm{I}m(F(fm_I))`$, via $`F(f)`$.

###### Remark 2.15

Let us refer to the connected components of $`A`$, $`A^{}`$, etc. as boundaries, although they are not necessarily boundary components of topological manifolds. Intuitively we are gluing the boundaries $`A_I`$ to the boundaries $`A_J`$ and the remaining boundaries $`A_R`$ are not glued. The gluing morphism itself is really the morphism $`f`$ from $`X`$ “before gluing” to $`X^{}`$, which is a copy of the quotient space “after gluing” (see figure below). Note that the gluing can involve gluing together disconnected spaces as well as self-gluing of a connected space. The morphisms $`\phi `$ and $`\alpha `$ give supplementary information about how the boundaries are glued together, and how the boundaries of $`X`$ which are not glued map to the boundary of $`X^{}`$. We note that different choices of $`I`$, $`J`$ and $`\phi `$ may be associated with the same morphisms $`f`$ and $`\alpha `$, since we may reorder $`A_I`$ and $`A_J`$ using permuting isomorphisms and compose $`\phi `$ with the respective inverse isomorphisms to make a different $`\phi `$. Condition i) of the definition says that the boundaries of $`X`$ which are not glued are isomorphic to the boundaries of $`X^{}`$, via $`\alpha `$. Conditions ii)-iv) are purely topological and capture the intuitive idea of gluing. Conditions ii) and iii) say that the glued boundaries map $`2:1`$ onto their image in $`X^{}`$, which is isomorphic to each half of the glued boundaries. This image has to be separated from the boundaries of $`X^{}`$ to avoid problems when composing two gluing morphisms. Note that $`F(\phi )`$ in iii) is defined in the obvious way by regarding $`\phi `$ as a morphism of $`𝐂`$. (Indeed the forgetful functor $`F`$ on $`𝐂`$ restricts to the subcategory $`𝒮(𝐂)`$.) Finally, condition iv) says that, topologically, everything that is not glued in $`X`$ is isomorphic to everything in $`X^{}`$ that is not the image of the glued boundaries.

Example:  Gluing morphisms can arise from the gluing together of separate objects, or the self-gluing of a single object, as well as a combination of both types of gluing.

1. The gluing together of two discs to give a sphere $`S`$ may be described by the gluing morphism:

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,m)(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`m(z,1)=(z,1)`$, $`m(z,2)=(z,2)`$, $`m^{}`$ is the empty map, and

$$I=\left\{1\right\}\text{}J=\left\{2\right\}\text{}R=\mathrm{}\text{.}$$

The morphisms $`f`$, $`\phi `$ and $`\alpha `$ are given by (writing $`z=x+iyD`$):

$`f(z,1)`$ $`=`$ $`(x,y,\sqrt{1\left|z\right|^2})\text{ , }f(z,2)=(x,y,\sqrt{1\left|z\right|^2})`$
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}d_C_{}\text{ , }\alpha =\mathrm{i}d_{\mathrm{}}\text{.}`$
2. A similar example is the gluing of a disc into one of the holes of a pair-of-pants $`P`$ to give an annulus $`A`$. For convenience we take $`P`$ to be

$$P=A\{z:\left|z+\frac{3}{2}\right|<\frac{1}{4}\}\text{.}$$

The gluing morphism is then:

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(D_+P_+,C_{++},m)(A_+,C_+,m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`m(z,1)=(z,1)`$, $`m(z,2)=(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{z}{4},2)`$, $`m(z,3)=(z,2)`$, $`m(z,4)=(2z,2)`$, $`m^{}(z,1)=z`$, $`m^{}(z,2)=2z`$ and

$$I=\left\{1\right\}\text{,}J=\left\{2\right\}\text{,}R=\{3,4\}\text{.}$$

The morphisms $`f`$, $`\phi `$ and $`\alpha `$ are given by:

$$f(z,1)=\frac{3}{2}+\frac{z}{4}\text{,}f(z,2)=z\text{,}\phi =\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}\text{,}\alpha =\alpha _1\alpha _2=\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}\text{.}$$
3. An example of a self-gluing is the gluing morphism from the annulus to the torus:

$$(g,\psi ,\beta ):(A_+,C_+,m^{})(T_+,\mathrm{},m^{\prime \prime })\text{,}$$

where $`m^{}`$ is as in b) and $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ is the empty map, and

$$I=\left\{1\right\}\text{,}J=\left\{2\right\}\text{,}R=\mathrm{}\text{.}$$

The morphisms $`g`$, $`\psi `$ and $`\beta `$ are given by:

$$g(z)=(\frac{z}{\left|z\right|},e^{2\pi i(2\left|z\right|)})\text{,}\psi =\mathrm{i}d_C_{}\text{,}\beta =\mathrm{i}d_{\mathrm{}}\text{.}$$
4. Finally we can glue a disc to a pair-of-pants simultaneously with the self-gluing of its remaining boundary components via the following gluing morphism:

$$(h,\chi ,\gamma ):(D_+P_+,C_{++},m)(T_+,\mathrm{},m^{\prime \prime })\text{,}$$

where $`m`$, $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ are as in b) and c), and

$$I=\{1,3\}\text{,}J=\{2,4\}\text{,}R=\mathrm{}\text{.}$$

The morphisms $`h`$, $`\chi `$ and $`\gamma `$ are given by:

$`h(z,1)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{2}+\frac{z}{4}}{\left|\frac{3}{2}+\frac{z}{4}\right|}},e^{2\pi i(2\left|\frac{3}{2}+\frac{z}{4}\right|)})\text{,}h(z,2)=({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\left|z\right|}},e^{2\pi i(2\left|z\right|)})\text{,}`$
$`\chi :=\chi _1\chi _2=\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}\text{,}\gamma =\mathrm{i}d_{\mathrm{}}\text{.}\mathrm{}`$

Next we define the composition of morphisms in $`𝒞`$:

###### Definition 2.16

Let $`(X,A,m)`$, $`(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ and $`(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })`$ be objects of $`𝒞`$.

* (isomorphism-isomorphism)

Let $`(f,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ and $`(g,\beta ):(X^{},A^{},m^{})(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })`$ be isomorphisms. Then we define:

$$(g,\beta )(f,\alpha )=(gf,\beta \alpha )\text{.}$$
* (gluing - isomorphism)

Let $`(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ be a gluing morphism with $`\phi :A_IP(A)_J`$, $`\alpha :A_RA^{}`$ and let $`(g,\beta ):(X^{},A^{},m^{})(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })`$ be an isomorphism. Then we define:

$$(g,\beta )(f,\phi ,\alpha )=(gf,\phi ,\beta \alpha )\text{.}$$
* (isomorphism - gluing)

Let $`(f,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ be an isomorphism and let $`(g,\psi ,\beta ):(X^{},A^{},m^{})(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })`$ be a gluing morphism with $`\psi :A_I^{}^{}P(A^{})_J^{}`$ and $`\beta :A_R^{}^{}A^{\prime \prime }`$. By property $``$-6d), corresponding to $`I^{}`$, $`J^{}`$ and $`R^{}`$, there exist ordered sets $`I`$, $`J`$, $`R`$ and isomorphisms

$`\alpha _{I,I^{}}:A_IA_I^{}^{}\text{,}`$
$`\alpha _{J,J^{}}:A_JA_J^{}^{}\text{,}`$
$`\alpha _{R,R^{}}:A_RA_R^{}^{}\text{.}`$
Then we define:

$$(g,\psi ,\beta )(f,\alpha )=(gf,P(\alpha ^1)_{J,J^{}}\psi \alpha _{I,I^{}},\beta \alpha _{R,R^{}})\text{,}$$

where $`P(\alpha ^1)_{J,J^{}}`$ is defined to be the isomorphism $`_{iJ}P(\alpha _i^1)`$, and the $`\alpha _i`$’s are the factor isomorphisms of property $``$-6d).
* (gluing - gluing)

Let $`(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ and $`(g,\psi ,\beta ):(X^{},A^{},m^{})(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })`$ be gluing morphisms with

$`\phi :A_IP(A)_J\text{,}`$
$`\alpha :A_RA^{}\text{,}`$
$`\psi :A_I^{}^{}P(A^{})_J^{}\text{,}`$
$`\beta :A_R^{}^{}A^{\prime \prime }\text{,}`$
By property $``$-6d), corresponding to $`I^{}`$, $`J^{}`$ and $`R^{}`$, there exist $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$, ordered subsets of $`R`$, and isomorphisms:

$$\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}:A_{\stackrel{~}{I}}A_I^{}^{}\text{ , }\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J},J^{}}:A_{\stackrel{~}{J}}A_J^{}^{}\text{ and }\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}:A_{\stackrel{~}{R}}A_R^{}^{}\text{.}$$

Then we define:

$$(g,\psi ,\beta )(f,\phi ,\alpha )=(gf,\phi (P(\alpha ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J},J^{}}\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}),\beta \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}})\text{.}$$

Example: The composition

$$(g,\psi ,\beta )(f,\phi ,\alpha )=(gf,\phi P(\alpha _2^1)\psi \alpha _1,\mathrm{i}d_{\mathrm{}})$$

from $`(D_+P_+,C_{++},m)`$ to $`(T_+,\mathrm{},m^{\prime \prime })`$ from our previous example b) and c) is equal to $`(h,\chi ,\gamma )`$ from the same example d), as is easily checked.$`\mathrm{}`$

The main result concerning the morphisms of $`𝒞`$ is:

###### Theorem 2.17

The class of morphisms of $`𝒞`$ is closed under the above composition.

Proof. We will just show this for the gluing-gluing case of Definition 2.16. The other combinations are proved analogously. Let $`(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ and $`(g,\psi ,\beta ):(X^{},A^{},m^{})(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })`$ be gluing morphisms, where $`\phi :A_IP(A)_J`$, $`\alpha :A_RA^{}`$, $`\psi :A_I^{}^{}P(A^{})_J^{}`$ and $`\beta :A_R^{}^{}A^{\prime \prime }`$.
i) Set $`A=A_N`$ and $`A^{}=A_N^{}^{}`$, where $`N`$, $`N^{}`$ are ordered index sets. By property $``$-6d) there exist an ordered set $`\stackrel{~}{R}R`$ and an isomorphism $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}`$ such that $`\alpha s_{\stackrel{~}{R},R}=s_{R^{},N^{}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}`$. Thus

$`fm_{\stackrel{~}{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`fm_Rs_{\stackrel{~}{R},R}`$
$`=`$ $`m^{}\alpha s_{\stackrel{~}{R},R}`$
$`=`$ $`m^{}s_{R^{},N^{}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`m_R^{}^{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}\text{,}`$
where we use i) for the gluing morphism $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ in the second equality. Here and below we use $``$-6a) and the simplified notation in Remark 2.6 without comment. Composing this equation with $`g`$ and using i) for the gluing morphism $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$ we have:

$$(gf)m_{\stackrel{~}{R}}=gm_R^{}^{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}=m^{\prime \prime }(\beta \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}})\text{.}$$

To simplify the notation for the proof of the topological conditions, we will omit writing the forgetful functor $`F`$ and consider all objects and morphisms to be in $`\mathrm{Top}`$.
ii) First we show that $`(gf)m_I:A_IX^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`(gf)m_{\stackrel{~}{I}}:A_{\stackrel{~}{I}}X^{\prime \prime }`$ are topological embeddings and then we show that $`\mathrm{I}m((gf)m_I)`$ and $`\mathrm{I}m((gf)m_{\stackrel{~}{I}})`$ are separated in $`X^{\prime \prime }`$, thus concluding that $`(gf)m_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ is a topological embedding.
It is straightforward to show $`\mathrm{I}m(m_{I\stackrel{~}{I}})=\mathrm{I}m(m_I)\mathrm{I}m(m_{\stackrel{~}{I}})`$, using the commutativities $`m_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}s_{I,I\stackrel{~}{I}}=m_I`$ and $`m_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}s_{\stackrel{~}{I},I\stackrel{~}{I}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ and bearing in mind that $`s_{I,I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ and $`s_{\stackrel{~}{I},I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ are the canonical monomorphisms in $`\mathrm{Top}`$. Thus we have:

$$\mathrm{I}m((gf)m_{I\stackrel{~}{I}})=\mathrm{I}m((gf)m_I)\mathrm{I}m((gf)m_{\stackrel{~}{I}})\text{.}$$

Now $`(gf)m_I`$ is an embedding since $`fm_I`$ is an embedding by ii) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ and $`g`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{I}m(fm_I)X^{}\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$ is an isomorphism by iv) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$. Furthermore $`(gf)m_{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ is an embedding, since by the property $``$-6d) there exist an ordered set $`\stackrel{~}{I}R`$ and an isomorphism $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}`$ such that $`\alpha s_{\stackrel{~}{I},R}=s_{I^{},N^{}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}`$. Thus we derive

$`fm_{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ $`=`$ $`fm_Rs_{\stackrel{~}{I},R}`$
$`=`$ $`m^{}\alpha s_{\stackrel{~}{I},R}`$
$`=`$ $`m^{}s_{I^{},N^{}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`m_I^{}^{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}\text{,}`$
which on composing with $`g`$, gives $`gfm_{\stackrel{~}{I}}=gm_I^{}^{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}`$. Now since $`gm_I^{}^{}`$ is an embedding from ii) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$, and $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}`$ is an isomorphism, we conclude that $`gfm_{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ is an embedding.

Next we show that $`\mathrm{I}m((gf)m_I)`$ and $`\mathrm{I}m((gf)m_{\stackrel{~}{I}})`$ are separated in $`X^{\prime \prime }`$, which, together with the previous results proves that $`(gf)m_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ is an embedding. For this we set $`C:=\mathrm{I}m(fm_I)`$ and $`D:=\mathrm{I}m(fm_{\stackrel{~}{I}})=\mathrm{I}m(m_I^{}^{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}})=\mathrm{I}m(m_I^{}^{})`$. We need to show that $`\mathrm{C}ls(g(C))g(D)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`g(C)\mathrm{C}ls(g(D))=\mathrm{}`$. We have, by iv) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$, $`\mathrm{C}ls(g(C))=g(\mathrm{C}ls(C))X^{\prime \prime }g(D)`$, since $`\mathrm{C}ls(C)X^{}\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$, by ii) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$. Thus $`\mathrm{C}ls(g(C))g(D)=\mathrm{}`$. To show $`g(C)\mathrm{C}ls(g(D))=\mathrm{}`$, we have:

$`g(C)\mathrm{C}ls(g(D))`$ $`=`$ $`g(C)g(\mathrm{C}ls(D))`$
$`=`$ $`(g(C)g(D))(g(C)g(\mathrm{C}ls(D)D))`$
$`=`$ $`g(C)g(\mathrm{C}ls(D)D)`$
$`=`$ $`g(C(\mathrm{C}ls(D)D))`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\text{.}`$
The first equality follows from ii) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$, which says that $`g(\mathrm{C}ls(D))`$ is closed in $`X^{\prime \prime }`$, since $`g(D)g(\mathrm{C}ls(D))`$, hence $`\mathrm{C}ls(g(D))g(\mathrm{C}ls(D))`$ and hence, because $`g`$ is continuous, $`\mathrm{C}ls(g(D))=g(\mathrm{C}ls(D))`$. The second follows from properties of operations on sets. The third is clear since we have $`g(C)g(D)=\mathrm{}`$. The fourth follows from the fact that $`g`$ restricted to $`X^{}\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$ is an isomorphism, by iv) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$ and by the fact that $`\mathrm{C}ls(D)DX^{}\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$. This inclusion comes from the fact that $`(\mathrm{C}ls(D)D)\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$ is indeed empty, since $`A_I^{}^{}`$ and $`A_J^{}^{}`$ are separated in $`A_I^{}^{}A_J^{}^{}`$ and $`m_{I^{}J^{}}^{}`$ is an embedding by $``$-1). The final equality follows from ii) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$, since $`C=\mathrm{I}m(fm_I)`$ and $`D=\mathrm{I}m(fm_{\stackrel{~}{I}})\mathrm{I}m(fm_R)`$ are separated in $`X^{}`$.

Now we show that $`\mathrm{I}m(gfm_{I\stackrel{~}{I}})`$ and $`\mathrm{I}m(m^{\prime \prime })`$ are separated in $`X^{\prime \prime }`$. This holds since $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{I}m(m_R^{}^{})\mathrm{I}m(m^{})`$ are separated in $`X^{}`$, by ii) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$, and $`g`$ is an isomorphism restricted to $`X^{}\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$, so that $`g(C)`$ and $`\mathrm{I}m(gm_R^{}^{})=\mathrm{I}m(m^{\prime \prime }\beta )=\mathrm{I}m(m^{\prime \prime })`$ are separated, by iv) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$. Furthermore $`\mathrm{I}m(gfm_{\stackrel{~}{I}})=g(D)`$ and $`\mathrm{I}m(m^{\prime \prime })`$ are separated in $`X^{\prime \prime }`$, by ii) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$.

It remains to show that $`(gf)(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_I)))`$ and $`(gf)(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_{\stackrel{~}{I}})))`$ are closed. For this we have:

$$(gf)(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_I)))=g(\mathrm{C}ls(C))=\mathrm{C}ls(g(C))\text{,}$$

which is closed. The first equality follows from the fact that $`f(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_I)))`$ is closed, by ii) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ and the fact that $`C=\mathrm{I}m(fm_I)f(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_I)))`$, hence, because $`f`$ is continuous, $`\mathrm{C}ls(C)=f(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_I)))`$. The second follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{C}ls(C)X^{}\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$ and from iv) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$. For $`(gf)(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_{\stackrel{~}{I}})))`$ we have:

$$(gf)(\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_{\stackrel{~}{I}})))=g(\mathrm{C}ls(f(\mathrm{I}m(m_{\stackrel{~}{I}}))))=g(\mathrm{C}ls(D))\text{,}$$

which is closed by ii) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$. The first equality follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{C}ls(\mathrm{I}m(m_{\stackrel{~}{I}}))X\mathrm{I}m(m_{IJ})`$ and from iv) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$.
iii) We must show $`(gfm_{J\stackrel{~}{J}})(\phi (\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}}))=gfm_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$. Let $`xA_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$. Then either there exists $`yA_I`$ such that $`x=s_{I,I\stackrel{~}{I}}(y)`$ or there exists $`zA_{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ such that $`x=s_{\stackrel{~}{I},I\stackrel{~}{I}}(z)`$, since the morphisms $`s_{I,I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ and $`s_{\stackrel{~}{I},I\stackrel{~}{I}}`$ are the canonical monomorphisms in $`\mathrm{Top}`$. In the first case we have:

$`m_{J\stackrel{~}{J}}(\phi (\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}}))(x)`$ $`=`$ $`m_{J\stackrel{~}{J}}(\phi (\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}}))s_{I,I\stackrel{~}{I}}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`m_{J\stackrel{~}{J}}s_{J,J\stackrel{~}{J}}\phi (y)`$
$`=`$ $`m_J\phi (y)`$
using $``$-6d) in the second equality. Thus

$`(gfm_{J\stackrel{~}{J}})(\phi (\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}}))(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(gfm_J\phi )(y)`$
$`=`$ $`(gfm_I)(y)`$
$`=`$ $`(gfm_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}s_{I,I\stackrel{~}{I}})(y)`$
$`=`$ $`(gfm_{I\stackrel{~}{I}})(x)\text{,}`$
using (iii) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ in the second equality. In the second case we have:

$`m_{J\stackrel{~}{J}}(\phi (\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}}))(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{J\stackrel{~}{J}}(\phi (\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}}))s_{\stackrel{~}{I},I\stackrel{~}{I}})(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(m_{J\stackrel{~}{J}}s_{\stackrel{~}{J},J\stackrel{~}{J}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}})(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{J}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}})(z)\text{,}`$
using property $``$-6d) in the second equality. Thus

$`(gfm_{J\stackrel{~}{J}})(\phi (\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}}))(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(gfm_{\stackrel{~}{J}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J}J^{}}^1\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}})(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(gm_J^{}^{}\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}})(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(gm_I^{}^{}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}I^{}})(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(gfm_{\stackrel{~}{I}})(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(gfm_{I\stackrel{~}{I}}s_{\stackrel{~}{I},I\stackrel{~}{I}})(z)`$
$`=`$ $`(gfm_{I\stackrel{~}{I}})(x)\text{,}`$
using (i) for $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ and $``$-6d) in the second and fourth equalities and (iii) for $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$ in the third equality.
iv) Finally for this condition we have:

$`X\mathrm{I}m(m_{IJ\stackrel{~}{I}\stackrel{~}{J}})`$ $``$ $`(X^{}\mathrm{I}m(fm_{IJ}))\mathrm{I}m(fm_{\stackrel{~}{I}\stackrel{~}{J}})`$
$`=`$ $`(X^{}\mathrm{I}m(fm_I))\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{})`$
$`=`$ $`(X^{}\mathrm{I}m(m_{I^{}J^{}}^{}))\mathrm{I}m(fm_I)`$
$``$ $`(X^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{I}m(gm_I^{}^{}))\mathrm{I}m(gfm_I)`$
$`=`$ $`(X^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{I}m(gfm_I))\mathrm{I}m(gfm_{\stackrel{~}{I}})`$
$`=`$ $`(X^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{I}m(gfm_I))\mathrm{I}m(gfm_{\stackrel{~}{I}})`$
$`=`$ $`X^{\prime \prime }(\mathrm{I}m(gfm_I)\mathrm{I}m(gfm_{\stackrel{~}{I}}))`$
$`=`$ $`X^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{I}m(gfm_{I\stackrel{~}{I}})\text{.}`$
These equalities and isomorphisms are proved by using iv) for the gluing morphisms $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ and $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$ and general properties of the operation of difference of sets.

Furthermore we have:

###### Theorem 2.18

The composition in $`𝒞`$ is associative.

Proof. We will show this for the case of three gluing morphisms. The other combinations are easily checked. We will consider the gluing morphisms

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`\phi :A_IP(A)_J`$, $`\alpha :A_RA^{}`$,

$$(g,\psi ,\beta ):(X^{},A^{},m^{})(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })\text{,}$$

where $`\psi :A_I^{}^{}P(A^{})_J^{}`$, $`\beta :A_R^{}^{}A^{\prime \prime }`$ and

$$(h,\rho ,\gamma ):(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })(X^{\prime \prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime \prime })\text{,}$$

where $`\rho :A_{I^{\prime \prime }}^{\prime \prime }P(A^{\prime \prime })_{J^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`\gamma :A_{R^{\prime \prime }}^{\prime \prime }A^{\prime \prime \prime }`$.
By the property $``$-6d) applied to $`\alpha `$, corresponding to the ordered subsets $`I^{}`$, $`J^{}`$, $`R^{}`$, there exist ordered subsets $`\stackrel{~}{I},\stackrel{~}{J},\stackrel{~}{R}R`$, and isomorphisms $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}`$, $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{J},J^{}}`$, $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}`$. By the same property applied to $`\beta `$, corresponding to $`I^{\prime \prime }`$, $`J^{\prime \prime }`$, $`R^{\prime \prime }`$ there exist ordered subsets $`\stackrel{~}{I}^{},\stackrel{~}{J}^{},\stackrel{~}{R}^{}R^{}`$ and isomorphisms $`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{I}^{},I^{\prime \prime }}`$, $`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{J}^{},J^{\prime \prime }}`$, $`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{R}^{},R^{\prime \prime }}`$. Moreover, applying property $``$-6d) to $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}}`$ corresponding to the subsets $`\stackrel{~}{I}^{},\stackrel{~}{J}^{},\stackrel{~}{R}^{}R^{}`$ there exist ordered subsets $`\widehat{I},\widehat{J},\widehat{R}R`$ and isomorphisms $`\alpha _{\widehat{I},\stackrel{~}{I}^{}}`$, $`\alpha _{\widehat{J},\stackrel{~}{J}^{}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\widehat{R},\stackrel{~}{R}^{}}`$. For one side of the associativity equation, we have (denoting composition by juxtaposition for simplicity of notation):

$`(h,\rho ,\gamma )\left((g,\psi ,\beta )(f,\phi ,\alpha )\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(h,\rho ,\gamma )(gf,\phi (P(\alpha ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J},J^{}}\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}}),\beta \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}})`$
$`=`$ $`(h(gf),\phi (P(\alpha ^1)_{_{\stackrel{~}{J},J^{}}}\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}})(P(\beta \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}})_{\widehat{J},J^{\prime \prime }}^1`$
$`\rho (\beta \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}})_{\widehat{I},I^{\prime \prime }}),\gamma (\beta \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{R},R^{}})_{\widehat{I},I^{\prime \prime }})`$
$`=`$ $`(h(gf),\phi (P(\alpha ^1)_{_{\stackrel{~}{J},J^{}}}\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}})(P(\alpha ^1)_{\widehat{J},\stackrel{~}{J}^{}}`$
$`P(\beta ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J}^{},J^{\prime \prime }}\rho \beta _{\stackrel{~}{I^{}},I^{\prime \prime }}\alpha _{\widehat{I},\stackrel{~}{I}^{}}),\gamma (\beta _{\stackrel{~}{R}^{},R^{\prime \prime }}\alpha _{\widehat{R},\stackrel{~}{R}^{}}))\text{.}`$
For the other side we have:

$`\left((h,\rho ,\gamma )(g,\psi ,\beta )\right)(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(hg,\psi (P(\beta ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J^{}},J^{\prime \prime }}\rho \beta _{\stackrel{~}{I^{}},I^{\prime \prime }}),\gamma \beta _{\stackrel{~}{R^{}},R^{\prime \prime }})(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$
$`=`$ $`((hg)f,\phi ((P(\alpha ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J}\widehat{J},J^{}\stackrel{~}{J}^{}}(\psi P(\beta ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J}^{},J^{\prime \prime }}\rho \beta _{\stackrel{~}{I}^{},I^{\prime \prime }})`$
$`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I}\widehat{I},I^{}\stackrel{~}{I}^{}},(\gamma \beta _{\stackrel{~}{R}^{},R^{\prime \prime }})\alpha _{\widehat{R},\stackrel{~}{R}^{}})`$
$`=`$ $`((hg)f,\phi (P(\alpha ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J},J^{}}\psi \alpha _{\stackrel{~}{I},I^{}})(P(\alpha ^1)_{\widehat{J},\stackrel{~}{J}^{}}`$
$`P(\beta ^1)_{\stackrel{~}{J}^{},J^{\prime \prime }}\rho \beta _{\stackrel{~}{I}^{},I^{\prime \prime }}\alpha _{\widehat{I},\stackrel{~}{I}^{}}),(\gamma \beta _{\stackrel{~}{R}^{},R^{\prime \prime }})\alpha _{\widehat{R},\stackrel{~}{R}^{}})\text{,}`$
using the interchange law in the third equality. The two expressions are equal because of the associativity of composition in $`𝐂`$.

###### Definition 2.19

Let $`(X,A,m)\mathrm{O}b(𝒞)`$. The identity morphism on $`(X,A,m)`$ is defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{i}d_{(X,A,m)}=(\mathrm{i}d_X,\mathrm{i}d_A):(X,A,m)(X,A,m)\text{.}$$

###### Theorem 2.20

$`𝒞`$ of Definition 2.11 is a category.

Proof. This follows from the results already shown above and the fact that the morphisms of Definition 2.19 obviously satisfy the requirements to be identity morphisms.

###### Definition 2.21

A monoidal product, unit object and braiding on $`𝒞`$ are defined as follows:
monoidal product on objects:

$$(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})=(XX^{},AA^{},mm^{})\text{,}$$

monoidal product on morphisms:

$`(f,\alpha )(g,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`(fg,\alpha \beta )\text{,}`$
$`(f,\phi ,\alpha )(g,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`(fg,\phi ,\alpha \beta )\text{,}`$
$`(f,\alpha )(g,\psi ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`(fg,\psi ,\alpha \beta )\text{,}`$
$`(f,\phi ,\alpha )(g,\psi ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`(fg,\phi \psi ,\alpha \beta )\text{,}`$
unit object:

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=(E,E,\mathrm{i}d_E)$$

braiding:

$$c_{((X,A,m),(X^{},A^{},m^{}))}=(c_{(X,X^{})},c_{(A,A^{})})\text{.}$$

###### Theorem 2.22

$`(𝒞,,\stackrel{~}{E},c)`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal category.

Proof. The monoidal product on $`𝒞`$ closes on objects by 2) of Definition 2.11, and clearly the four morphisms in Definition 2.21 are isomorphisms or gluing morphisms, so the monoidal product closes on morphisms too. The monoidal product is strictly associative in $`𝒞`$, since it is strictly associative in $`𝐂`$ and $`𝒮(𝐂)`$. The unit object $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is an object of $`𝒞`$ because of 1) of Definition 2.11, and is obviously a strict unit, since $`E`$ is a strict unit in $`𝐂`$ and $`𝒮(𝐂)`$. The braiding defined in Definition 2.21 is well-defined because of 4) of Definition 2.11 and is a braiding, because $`c`$ is a braiding in $`𝐂`$ and $`𝒮(𝐂)`$. It also clearly satisfies the symmetry condition.

For some TQFT functors only the endofunctor $`P`$ on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ will play a role. For others we need a corresponding endofunctor on $`𝒞`$.

###### Definition 2.23

The endofunctor $`(P,\pi _2,\pi _0)`$ on $`𝐂`$ extends to an endofunctor $`(𝐏,\pi _2,\pi _0)`$ on $`𝒞`$ as follows:
on objects:

$$𝐏(X,A,m)=(P(X),P(A),P(m))\text{,}$$

on morphisms

$`𝐏(f,\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(P(f),P(\alpha ))\text{,}`$
$`𝐏(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(P(f),P(\phi ),P(\alpha ))\text{,}`$
and the natural isomorphism $`\pi _2`$ and the isomorphism $`\pi _0`$ are given by:

$`\pi _{2((X,A,m),(X^{},A^{},m^{}))}`$ $`=`$ $`(\pi _{2(X,X^{})},\pi _{2(A,A^{})})\text{,}`$
$`\pi _0`$ $`=`$ $`(\pi _0,\pi _0)\text{.}`$
###### Theorem 2.24

$`(𝐏,\pi _2,\pi _0)`$ is a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒞`$.

Proof. The natural isomorphism $`\pi _{2((X,A,m),(X^{},A^{},m^{}))}`$ and the isomorphism $`\pi _0`$ have domain and codomain in $`\mathrm{O}b(𝒞)`$, because of $`1)`$, $`2)`$ and $`3)`$ of Definition 2.11, and are isomorphisms of $`𝒞`$ since $`P`$ is strong monoidal and because of the naturality of $`\pi _2`$. The naturality of $`\pi _2`$ also follows directly from the naturality of $`\pi _2`$, by combining two commuting diagrams. The conditions on $`\pi _2`$ and $`\pi _0`$ follow directly from combining two corresponding diagrams for $`\pi _2`$ and $`\pi _0`$.

We can now conclude this section by defining two types of topological categories, corresponding to two types of algebraic categories and two types of TQFT functors, as we shall see later.

###### Definition 2.25

Let $`(𝐂,F,P)`$ be a topological starting category, $``$ be an appropriate class of monomorphisms and $`𝒪`$ be a class of objects of $`𝒞`$ satisfying Definition 2.11.

The *topological category* for these data is the pair $`(𝒞,P)`$, where $`𝒞`$ denotes the symmetric, strict monoidal category $`(𝒞,,\stackrel{~}{E},c)`$ and $`P`$ is the monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ defined in Definition 2.7.
The *full topological category* for these data is the pair $`(𝒞,𝐏)`$, where $`𝒞`$ is as before and $`𝐏`$ is the monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒞`$ defined in Definition 2.23.

Thus we have achieved our objective for this section, namely to define a general-purpose topological category capable of describing gluing and change of orientation in a generalized sense. Although the notation for the objects and morphisms of the topological category is a little cumbersome, it allows all features of a gluing operation to be specified clearly. The topological gluing operation lies at the heart of TQFT, and the topological category we have constructed distills out precisely that feature, suppressing all morphisms which do not fit into the scheme of gluing. Indeed the gluing is described at the lowest categorical level, namely at the level of morphisms, and the only extra structures on the category are the symmetric monoidal structure and, of course, the endofunctor representing change of orientation. This structure is about as simple as it can be, given the broad scope of the framework.

## 3 The algebraic category

The construction of the algebraic category in this section again proceeds in several stages, like in the previous section. The starting point is a category, the algebraic starting category, whose objects are (finite-dimensional) $`K`$-modules, where $`K`$ is a ring, possibly endowed with further structures such as an inner product. Then we introduce a so-called evaluation on each object, which behaves very much like a hermitian structure on a $`K`$-module. This gives rise to a category called the evaluation-preserving category, which has the same objects as the algebraic starting category, and whose morphisms are isomorphisms preserving the evaluations. The evaluation-preserving category is the algebraic counterpart to the category of subobjects which appears in the construction of the topological category. The algebraic category itself has as its objects pairs consisting of an object of the algebraic starting category and an element of its underlying $`K`$-module. The morphisms of the algebraic category are morphisms of the algebraic starting category preserving the elements. (Thus a morphism implies an equation, and these equations will be crucial later on in determining TQFT functors.) Again there is an extra piece of structure which plays a role throughout the construction, coming from an endofunctor on the algebraic starting category. In the example, this is given by the operation of replacing a $`K`$-module by the same module with the same addition, but with a different scalar multiplication which uses the complex conjugate.

We now proceed with the details of the construction.

###### Definition 3.1

An *algebraic starting category* is a triple $`(𝐃,G,Q)`$, where $`𝐃`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal category $`(𝐃,,I,c)`$, $`G`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal forgetful functor from $`𝐃`$ to $`K`$-$`\mathrm{Mod}`$ (the category whose objects are finitely generated $`K`$-modules, where $`K`$ is a fixed commutative ring with unit, and whose morphisms are $`K`$-homomorphisms) with its standard monoidal structure (tensor product) and braiding, and $`Q`$ is a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor $`(Q,\theta _2,\theta _0)`$ on $`𝐃`$.

###### Remark 3.2

The forgetful functor $`G`$ justifies the adjective algebraic. It sends each object $`V`$ of $`𝐃`$ to an underlying finitely generated $`K`$-module $`G(V)`$ and each morphism $`f`$ of $`𝐃`$ to an underlying $`K`$-homomorphism $`G(f)`$. We may think of $`Q`$ as assigning to each module $`V`$ its “conjugate” module, a notion which will become clear in the example.

Example: Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over $``$. We denote by $`\overline{V}`$ the vector space which has the same elements and addition operation as $`V`$, but a different operation of scalar multiplication denoted $`\overline{}`$, defined by $`c\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }x=\overline{c}x`$, where $`c`$, $`xV`$, $`\overline{c}`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`c`$ and scalar multiplication in $`V`$ is denoted by juxtaposition. (We remark that the example could equally well be carried through using any commutative ring with an involution, instead of $``$ and the operation of conjugation.) The objects of $`𝐃`$ are finite-dimensional complex vector spaces generated by $``$ and $`V`$ via the operation of tensor products, and the unary operation ‘-’ just introduced. Thus an example of an object of $`𝐃`$ is $`\overline{V\overline{V}}`$. The motivation for taking this class of objects for $`𝐃`$, instead of simply all finite-dimensional vector spaces over $``$, is that it is of minimal size for providing a good target category for the TQFT’s in our example333Roughly speaking, for the description of the TQFT functor we only need to give one vector space for each type of irreducible subobject on the topological side, and in this example there are just two types: positively oriented circles and negatively oriented circles.. The morphisms of $`𝐃`$ are $``$-linear maps between the objects of $`𝐃`$. The monoidal structure is given by the tensor product $``$, taken to be strict (thus, e.g. $`V=V`$), and the unit object $`I`$, also strict, is $``$. The braiding is given by the usual flip map

$$c_{(W,Y)}:WYYW\text{,}wyyw\text{,}$$

extended by linearity, which clearly satisfies the condition to be a symmetry. The forgetful functor $`G`$ formally maps each object of $`𝐃`$ to the corresponding module over $``$, regarded as a commutative ring, instead of a field, but $`G`$ will be treated as the identity functor from now on.

The endofunctor $`Q`$ acts on objects by

$$Q(W)=\overline{W}\text{.}$$

Before describing the action of $`Q`$ on morphisms it is useful to introduce the following “identity” map,

$$k_W:W\overline{W},$$

defined by $`k_W(x)=x`$ for all $`x`$ in $`W`$. Note that, although it preserves addition, $`k_W`$ is not a morphism of $`𝐃`$, since $`k_W(cx)=cx=\overline{c}\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{}x=\overline{c}\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{}k_W(x)`$. We now define

$$Q(Y\stackrel{f}{}W)=\overline{Y}\stackrel{Q(f)}{}\overline{W}\text{,}$$

where

$$Q(f)=k_Wfk_Y^1$$

is a linear map, i.e. a morphism of $`𝐃`$, as is easily checked. Finally the corresponding isomorphism

$$\theta _0:\overline{}$$

is given by

$$\theta _0(z)=k_{}(\overline{z})$$

(note the conjugation in the argument which ensures that $`\theta _0`$ is linear), and the natural isomorphism $`\theta _2`$ is given by isomorphisms

$$\theta _{2(Y,W)}:\overline{Y}\overline{W}\overline{YW},$$

where

$$\theta _{2(Y,W)}=k_{YW}(k_Y^1k_W^1)\text{,}$$

is again a morphism of $`𝐃`$. Here the tensor product of $`k_Y^1`$ and $`k_W^1`$ is defined by

$$ywk_Y^1(y)k_W^1(w)$$

which is well-defined and preserves addition, but not scalar multiplication. We omit the details of the simple check that $`(Q,\theta _2,\theta _0)`$ satisfies the definition of a monoidal endofunctor.$`\mathrm{}`$

We next introduce another category, which we denote by $`𝒮(𝐃)`$, and which will correspond to the category $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ of the previous section, when we start to talk about TQFT functors in the next section. $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ has the same class of objects as $`𝐃`$, but its morphisms are restricted to a certain subclass of morphisms, namely isomorphisms preserving the so-called evaluations, which we now introduce.

###### Definition 3.3

A *choice of evaluations* on an algebraic starting category $`(𝐃,G,Q)`$ is an assignment to each $`V\mathrm{O}b(𝐃)`$ of a morphism $`e_V:Q(V)VI`$ such that:

* (multiplicativity axiom)

for each pair of objects $`(V,W)`$ of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$

$$e_{VW}(\theta _{2(V,W)}\mathrm{i}d_{VW})(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(V,Q(W))}\mathrm{i}d_W)=e_Ve_W\text{,}$$

i.e. the following diagram

(where $`t=(\theta _{2(V,W)}\mathrm{i}d_{VW})(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(V,Q(W))}\mathrm{i}d_W)`$)

is commutative.
* (conjugation axioms)

a) for each object $`V`$ of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$,

$$Q(e_V)\theta _{2(Q(V),V)}=\theta _0e_{Q(V)}\text{,}$$

i.e. the following diagram

is commutative.

b) for each pair $`(V,W)`$ of objects of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$,

$$e_{Q(VW)}(Q(\theta _{2(V,W)})\theta _{2(V,W)})=e_{Q(V)Q(W)}\text{.}$$

c) for the unit object $`I`$,

$$e_{Q(I)}(Q(\theta _0)\theta _0)=e_I\text{.}$$

Example: Because the objects of $`𝐃`$ in the example are generated from $`V`$ and $``$ by taking tensor products and applying $`Q`$, it is enough to specify $`e_V`$, since the other evaluations follow from the axioms. Let $`(e_i)_i`$ be a basis of $`V`$, and denote by $`(\overline{e}_i)_i`$ the same basis regarded as a basis of $`\overline{V}`$. Then we set

$$e_V(\overline{e}_ie_j)=a_{ij}\text{,}$$

where $`a_{ij}`$. Now, by the conjugation axiom a), $`e_{\overline{V}}`$ is given by the composition $`\theta _0^1\overline{e_V}\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}`$. A short calculation using the previous definitions gives:

$$e_{\overline{V}}(e_i\overline{e}_j)=\overline{a}_{ij}\text{.}$$

Similar calculations using the multiplicativity axiom with $`W=`$ give

$$e_{}(k_{}(r)s)=\overline{r}s,$$

and for $`e_\overline{}`$ we find

$$e_\overline{}(rk_{}(s))=r\overline{s}.$$

Finally to obtain, e.g. $`e_{V\overline{V}}`$, we apply the multiplicativity axiom to get

$$e_{V\overline{V}}(\overline{e_i\overline{e}_j}e_k\overline{e}_l)=a_{ik}\overline{a}_{jl}\text{.}$$

We still need to check that the conjugation axioms b) and c) are satisfied by these choices. For c) we have:

$`e_\overline{}(\overline{\theta }_0\theta _0)(k_{}(r)s)`$ $`=`$ $`e_\overline{}((k_\overline{}\theta _0k_{}^1)\theta _0)(k_{}(r)s)`$
$`=`$ $`e_\overline{}(k_\overline{}k_{}(\overline{r})k_{}(\overline{s}))`$
$`=`$ $`e_\overline{}(\overline{r}k_{}(\overline{s}))`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{r}s`$
$`=`$ $`e_{}(k_{}(r)s)\text{,}`$
and we leave the check of b) to the reader.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 3.4

Given a choice of evaluations $`(e_V)_{V\mathrm{O}b(𝐃)}`$ on an algebraic starting category $`(𝐃,G,Q)`$, we define a symmetric, strict monoidal category $`(𝒮(𝐃),,I,c)`$, also written $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ for short, as follows:

1. $`\mathrm{O}b(𝒮(𝐃))=\mathrm{O}b(𝐃)`$,
2. the morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ are the isomorphisms of $`𝐃`$ which preserve the evaluations, in the following sense:

$$e_W(Q(f)f)=e_V\text{,}$$

for $`f:VW`$ belonging to $`\mathrm{I}so(𝐃)`$,
3. the composition, identity morphisms, monoidal product $``$, unit object $`I`$ and the braiding $`c`$ are inherited from $`𝐃`$.

###### Theorem 3.5

$`(𝒮(𝐃),,I,c)`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal category.

Proof. $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ is a category, since clearly all identity morphisms are morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$, and since $`\mathrm{M}or(𝒮(𝐃))`$ is closed under composition: for $`f:VW`$ and $`g:WU`$ morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ we have:

$`e_U(Q(gf)(gf))`$ $`=`$ $`e_U((Q(g)Q(f))(gf))`$
$`=`$ $`e_U((Q(g)g)(Q(f)f))`$
$`=`$ $`e_W(Q(f)f)`$
$`=`$ $`e_V`$
using the interchange law in the second equality. $`\mathrm{M}or(𝒮(𝐃))`$ is closed under the monoidal product since, for two morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ $`f:VW`$ and $`g:UY`$, we have:

$`e_{WY}(Q(fg)fg)`$ $`=`$ $`(e_We_Y)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(Y),W)}\mathrm{i}d_Y)`$
$`(\theta _{2(W,Y)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{WY})(Q(fg)fg)`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_Y)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(Y),W)}\mathrm{i}d_Y)`$
$`(Q(f)Q(g)fg)(\theta _{2(V,U)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VU})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_Y)(Q(f)fQ(g)g)`$
$`(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(U),V)}\mathrm{i}d_U)(\theta _{2(V,U)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VU})`$
$`=`$ $`((e_W(Q(f)f))(e_Y(Q(g)g)))`$
$`(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(U),V)}\mathrm{i}d_U)(\theta _{2(V,U)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VU})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_Ve_U)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(U),V)}\mathrm{i}d_U)`$
$`(\theta _{2(V,U)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VU})`$
$`=`$ $`e_{VU}\text{.}`$
The first equality is the multiplicativity axiom, the second is the interchange law and the naturality of $`\theta _2`$, the third is the interchange law and the naturality of the braiding, the fourth is the interchange law, the fifth is the preservation of the evaluations by $`f`$ and $`g`$, and the last is again the multiplicativity axiom. Since we are assuming strictness the structural isomorphisms are identities and thus $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ is monoidal.

Finally $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ is symmetric since for any pair of objects $`(V,W)`$ of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$, $`c_{(V,W)}`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{M}or(𝒮(𝐃))`$. To show this we need the following equation (writing composition as juxtaposition):

$`c_{(Q(V)V,Q(W)W)}(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(W),V)}\mathrm{i}d_W)=`$
$`=`$ $`(((\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(V),W)})(c_{(Q(V),Q(W))}\mathrm{i}d_W))\mathrm{i}d_V)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)Q(W)}c_{(V,W)})\text{.}`$
which may be easily derived, using the commutativity of the second hexagonal diagram of the braiding and then the commutativity of the first hexagonal diagram, composing with the expression $`\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(W),V)}\mathrm{i}d_W`$, and applying the interchange law twice.
Then we have:

$`e_{VW}`$ $`=`$ $`(e_Ve_W)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(W),V)}\mathrm{i}d_W)(\theta _{2(V,W)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VW})`$
$`=`$ $`c_{(I,I)}(e_Ve_W)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(W),V)}\mathrm{i}d_W)(\theta _{2(V,W)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VW})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_V)c_{(Q(V)V,Q(W)W)}(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)}c_{(Q(W),V)}\mathrm{i}d_W)(\theta _{2(V,W)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VW})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_V)(((\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(V),W)})(c_{(Q(V),Q(W))}\mathrm{i}d_W))\mathrm{i}d_V)`$
$`(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)Q(W)}c_{(V,W)})(\theta _{2(V,W)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VW})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_V)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(V),W)}\mathrm{i}d_V)(c_{(Q(V),Q(W))}\mathrm{i}d_{WV})`$
$`(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(V)Q(W)}c_{(V,W)})(\theta _{2(V,W)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VW})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_V)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(V),W)}\mathrm{i}d_V)(c_{(Q(V),Q(W))}c_{(V,W)})`$
$`(\theta _{2(V,W)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{VW})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_V)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(V),W)}\mathrm{i}d_V)(c_{(Q(V),Q(W))}\theta _{2(V,W)}^1)c_{(V,W)})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_V)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(V),W)}\mathrm{i}d_V)((\theta _{2(W,V)}^1Q(c_{(V,W)}))c_{(V,W)})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_V)(\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(V),W)}\mathrm{i}d_V)(\theta _{2(W,V)}^1\mathrm{i}d_{WV})`$
$`(Q(c_{(V,W)})c_{(V,W)})`$
$`=`$ $`e_{WV}(Q(c_{(V,W)})c_{(V,W)})\text{.}`$
The first equality is the multiplicativity condition of the evaluation, the second is the insertion of the identity $`c_{(I,I)}`$, the third is the naturality of the braiding, the fourth is Equation (3), the fifth is the insertion of $`\mathrm{i}d_V`$ and the interchange law, the sixth and seventh is the interchange law, the eighth is the naturality of $`\theta _2`$, the ninth is the insertion of $`\mathrm{i}d_{VW}`$ and the interchange law, and the last is the multiplicativity condition of the evaluation.

Example: Regarding the morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$, we will consider in detail the morphisms from $`V`$ to $`V`$. Let $`f:VV`$ be given by

$$f(e_j)=b_{ij}e_i\text{,}$$

(using the summation convention over repeated indices). The condition for $`f`$ to be a morphism of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$

$$e_V(\overline{f}f)=e_V$$

corresponds to the matrix equation:

$$\overline{B}^TAB=A\text{,}$$

where $`A=\left[a_{ij}\right]`$ is the matrix corresponding to the evaluation and $`B=\left[b_{ij}\right]`$ is the matrix corresponding to $`f`$. Here we use

$$\overline{f}(\overline{e}_i)=\overline{b}_{ki}\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{}\overline{e}_k$$

and

$$e_V(\overline{b}_{ki}\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{}\overline{e}_kb_{lj}e_l)=\overline{b}_{ki}b_{lj}a_{kl}\text{.}$$

In particular, if $`A`$ is the identity matrix then $`B`$ is a unitary matrix. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 3.6

We define a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor $`Q`$ on $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ as the restriction to $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ of $`Q`$ defined on $`𝐃`$. The *evaluation-preserving category* is the pair$`(𝒮(𝐃),Q)`$, where $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ denotes the category with its symmetric, monoidal structure and $`Q`$ denotes the above monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒮(𝐃)`$.

###### Theorem 3.7

$`Q`$ indeed restricts to a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒮(𝐃)`$.

Proof. The conjugation axioms b) and c) imply that $`\theta _{2(V,W)}`$ for any $`V`$, $`W`$ and $`\theta _0`$ are morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$. Therefore it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{M}or(𝒮(𝐃))`$ is closed under $`Q`$. Let $`f:VW`$ be a morphism of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$. Since $`f`$ is an isomorphism, $`Q(f)`$ is an isomorphism too.

Then we have:

$`e_{Q(W)}(Q(Q(f))Q(f))`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _0^1Q(e_W)\theta _{2(Q(W),W)}(Q(Q(f))Q(f))`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _0^1Q(e_W)Q(Q(f)f)\theta _{2(Q(V),V)}`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _0^1Q(e_V)\theta _{2(Q(V),V)}`$
$`=`$ $`e_{Q(V)}\text{,}`$
using the conjugation axiom a) in the first and last equalities and the naturality of $`\theta _2`$ in the second equality.

The evaluation-preserving category will play an important role in representing topological isomorphisms when we come to describing the TQFT functor. However the actual codomain category $`𝒟`$ of the TQFT is constructed directly from the algebraic starting category $`𝐃`$.

###### Definition 3.8

The category $`𝒟`$ is defined as follows:

1. the objects of $`𝒟`$ are all pairs of the form $`(V,x)`$, where $`V\mathrm{O}b(𝐃)`$ and $`xG(V)`$, the underlying $`K`$-module of $`V`$.
2. the morphisms of $`𝒟`$ from $`(V,x)`$ to $`(W,y)`$ are all triples $`(f,x,y)`$, where $`f\mathrm{M}or_𝐃(V,W)`$, $`xG(V)`$ and $`yG(W)`$, such that $`G(f)(x)=y`$.
(We will frequently write simply $`f:(V,x)(W,y)`$ for morphisms of $`𝒟`$, and say that the morphisms of $`𝒟`$ preserve elements.)
3. composition and identity morphisms are given by:

$`(g,y,z)(f,x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(gf,x,z)\text{,}`$
$`\mathrm{i}d_{(V,x)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{i}d_V,x,x)\text{.}`$

A monoidal product, unit object and braiding on $`𝒟`$ are defined as follows:
monoidal product on objects:

$$(V,x)(W,y)=(VW,xy)\text{,}$$

monoidal product on morphisms:

$$(f,x,y)(g,z,w)=(fg,xz,yw)\text{,}$$

unit object:

$$\stackrel{~}{I}:=(I,i)\text{, where }i\text{ is the unit element of }G(I)\text{,}$$

braiding:

$$c_{((V,x),(W,y))}=(c_{(V,W)},xy,yx)\text{.}$$

It is straightforward to show:

###### Theorem 3.9

$`(𝒟,,\stackrel{~}{I},c)`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal category.

For some TQFT functors only the endofunctor $`Q`$ on $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ will play a role. For others we need a corresponding endofunctor on $`𝒟`$.

###### Definition 3.10

Given an assignment:
for any $`V\mathrm{O}b(𝐃)`$ and any $`xG(V)`$, an element $`x_{Q(V)}`$ of $`G(Q(V))`$, such that:

1. for any $`(f,x,y)\mathrm{M}or_𝒟((V,x),(W,y))`$

$$G(Q(f))(x_{Q(V)})=y_{Q(W)}\text{,}$$
2. for any $`V,W\mathrm{O}b(𝐃)`$, $`xG(V)`$, $`yG(W)`$

$$G(\theta _{2(V,W)})(x_{Q(V)}y_{Q(W)})=(xy)_{Q(VW)}\text{,}$$
3. $`G(\theta _0)(i)=i_{Q(I)}`$,

we define a strong monoidal endofunctor $`(𝐐,\theta _2,\theta _0)`$, called an *extension* of $`Q`$ on $`𝒟`$, as follows:
on objects:

$$𝐐(V,x)=(Q(V),x_{Q(V)})\text{,}$$

on morphisms:

$$𝐐(f,x,y)=(Q(f),x_{Q(V)},y_{Q(W)})\text{,}$$

and the natural isomorphism $`\theta _2`$ and the isomorphism $`\theta _0`$ are given by:

$$\theta _{2((V,x),(W,y))}=(\theta _{2(V,W)},x_{Q(V)}y_{Q(W)},(xy)_{Q(VW)})\text{,}$$

$$\theta _0=(\theta _0,i,i_{Q(I)})\text{.}$$

###### Theorem 3.11

$`(𝐐,\theta _2,\theta _0)`$ defines a symmetric, strong monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒟`$.

Proof. Conditions a), b) and c) guarantee that the relevant morphisms preserve elements, i.e. belong to $`\mathrm{M}or(𝒟)`$.

Example: For our example the objects, morphisms and monoidal structure of $`𝒟`$ are clear from the general theory. An endofunctor $`𝐐`$ on $`𝒟`$ is given by the assignment:

$$x_{Q(V)}:=k_V(x)\text{.}$$

It is easy to check that the conditions for the extension apply:
for $`f:(V,x)(W,y)`$,

$$Q(f)(x_{Q(V)})=(k_Wfk_V^1)(k_V(x))=k_W(y)=y_{Q(W)}$$

and, for the structural morphisms of $`𝐐`$,

$`\theta _{2(V,W)}(x_{\overline{V}}y_{\overline{W}})`$ $`=`$ $`k_{VW}(k_V^1k_W^1)(k_V(x)k_W(y))`$
$`=`$ $`k_{VW}(xy)`$
$`=`$ $`(xy)_{\overline{VW}}`$
and

$$\theta _0(1)=k_{}(\overline{1})=k_{}(1)=1_\overline{}\text{.}\mathrm{}$$

We are now able to give the formal definition of the two types of algebraic category which will appear as target categories for the TQFT functors.

###### Definition 3.12

Let $`(𝐃,G,Q)`$ be an algebraic starting category and $`(e_V)_{V\mathrm{O}b(𝐃)}`$ be a choice of evaluations on $`(𝐃,G,Q)`$. The *algebraic category* for these data is the pair $`(𝒟,Q)`$, where $`𝒟`$ denotes the symmetric, strict monoidal category $`(𝒟,,\stackrel{~}{I},c)`$ and $`Q`$ is the monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ defined in Definition 3.6.

Given, in addition, an assignment $`(V,x)x_{Q(V)}`$ satisfying conditions a)-c) of Definition 3.10, the *full algebraic category* for these data is the pair $`(𝒟,𝐐)`$, where $`𝒟`$ is as before and $`𝐐`$ is the monoidal endofunctor on $`𝒟`$ defined in Definition 3.10.

Having constructed these two types of algebraic category, corresponding to the two types of topological category defined at the end of Section 2, we are now ready to proceed to the definition of TQFT functors in the next section. However, since the example we have been using in this section is not the most generic, we will conclude with another, more generic, example of an algebraic category based on the category of hermitian spaces.

###### Example 3.13

Let $`𝐃`$ be the category whose objects are hermitian linear spaces, i.e. pairs $`(V,h)`$, where $`V`$ is a finite dimensional vector space over the field $`𝕂`$ with an involution $`j`$ and $`h:V\times V𝕂`$ is a non-degenerate hermitian form on $`V`$ (linear in the first argument and $`j`$-semilinear in the second). The morphisms are just linear maps. The monoidal product of two objects $`(V,h)`$ and $`(W,h^{})`$ is defined to be the pair $`(VW,hh^{})`$, where $`hh^{}`$ is the hermitian form given by:

$$(hh^{})(x_1y_1,x_2y_2)=h(x_1,x_2)h^{}(y_1,y_2)\text{.}$$

The unit object is the pair $`(𝕂,h_1)`$, where $`h_1:𝕂\times 𝕂𝕂`$ is defined by $`(x,y)xj(y)`$. Clearly $`𝐃`$ is a symmetric monoidal category with the obvious braiding $`c`$. The monoidal endofunctor $`(Q,\theta _2,\theta _0)`$ is defined as follows. On objects we have $`Q(V,h)=(V^j,h^j)`$, where $`V^j`$ is the involution vector space (i.e. the same additive group as $`V`$ and with scalar multiplication $`_j`$ given by $`\alpha _jx=j(\alpha )x`$, where scalar multiplication in $`V`$ is denoted by juxtaposition), and $`h^j`$ is related to $`h`$ by

$$h(x,y)=h^j(k_V(y),k_V(x))\text{,}$$

where, for each $`V`$, $`k_V:VV^j`$ is the $`j`$-semilinear ‘identity’ map, satisfying for each $`\alpha 𝕂`$ and $`xV`$, $`k_V(\alpha x)=j(\alpha )_jx`$ (see \[21, p. 63\] for an equivalent condition for Hilbert spaces). On morphisms $`Q`$ acts as follows: for $`f:(V,h)(W,h^{})`$ we have $`Q(f):(V^j,h^j)(W^j,h^j)`$, with

$$Q(f)=k_Wfk_V^1\text{.}$$

The isomorphisms $`\theta _2`$ and $`\theta _0`$ are given by:

$$\theta _{2((V,h),(W,h^{}))}=k_{VW}(k_V^1k_W^1)$$

and

$$\theta _0(\alpha )=k_𝕂(j(\alpha ))\text{, for all }\alpha 𝕂\text{.}$$

Then $`(Q,\theta _2,\theta _0)`$ defines a monoidal endofunctor on $`𝐃`$ in the same way as in the previous example, where $`𝕂`$ was $``$ and $`j`$ was complex conjugation.
To define the category $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ we must first specify evaluations $`e_{(V,h)}`$, for each object $`(V,h)`$. These may be given in terms of the hermitian structures by:

$$e_{(V,h)}(xy)=h(y,k_V^1(x))\text{.}$$

This choice of evaluations indeed satisfies the multiplication and conjugation axioms. The multiplication axiom follows directly from the definition of $`(V,h)(W,h^{})`$. The conjugation axiom a) is derived by acting on $`xk_V(y)VV^j`$:

$`Q(e_{(V,h)})\theta _{2((V^j,h^j),(V,h))}(xk_V(y))`$ $`=`$ $`Q(e_{(V,h)})(k_{V^jV}(k_V(x)y))`$
$`=`$ $`k_𝕂(e_{(V,h)}(k_V(x)y))`$
$`=`$ $`k_𝕂(h(y,x))`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _0(h(x,y))`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _0(h^j(k_V(y),k_V(x)))`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _0e_{(V^j,h^j)}(xk_V(y))\text{.}`$
The conjugation axiom b) reads:

$$e_{Q((V,h)(W,h^{}))}(Q(\theta _{2((V,h),(W,h^{}))})\theta _{2((V,h),(W,h^{}))})=e_{(V^j,h^j)(W^j,h^j)}\text{.}$$

This equality is proved by applying both sides to $`k_{V^jW^j}(k_V(x)k_W(y))k_V(z)k_W(w)`$ (using the multiplicativity axiom on the right hand side) to obtain $`h(x,z)h^{}(y,w)`$ in both cases. Details are left to the reader.
The conjugation axiom c)

$$e_{Q(𝕂,h_1)}(Q(\theta _0)\theta _0)=e_{(𝕂,h_1)}$$

is derived by acting on $`k_𝕂(\alpha )\beta 𝕂^j𝕂`$:

$`e_{(𝕂^j,h_1^j)}(Q(\theta _0)\theta _0)(k_𝕂(\alpha )\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`e_{(𝕂^j,h_1^j)}(j(\alpha )k_𝕂(j(\beta )))`$
$`=`$ $`h_1^j(k_𝕂(j(\beta )),k_𝕂(j(\alpha )))`$
$`=`$ $`h_1(j(\alpha )j(\beta ))`$
$`=`$ $`h_1(\beta ,\alpha )`$
$`=`$ $`e_{_{(𝕂,h_1)}}(k_𝕂(\alpha )\beta )\text{.}`$
The morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ are the isomorphisms of $`𝐃`$ which preserve the evaluations: for $`f:(V,h)(W,h^{})`$ we have $`e_{(W,h^{})}(Q(f)f)=e_{(V,h)}`$. This condition translates to the condition that $`f`$ preserves the hermitian structures:

$$h^{}(f(x),f(y))=h(x,y)\text{,}$$

for all $`(x,y)V\times V`$. The construction of $`𝒟`$ and an endofunctor $`𝐐`$ on $`𝒟`$ proceed in an analogous fashion to the previous example. As a final remark we note that this example could easily be adapted to categories of real or complex vector spaces endowed with inner products, giving rise to a consistent choice of evaluations in the same way as above.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 TQFT functors

In this section we will be constructing a class of functors from the topological category to the algebraic category (not yet the respective full categories, which will be done in the next section). The first stage is to define a so-called pre-TQFT functor from the category of subobjects to the evaluation-preserving category, which can be thought of as an algebraic representation of topological isomorphisms amongst subobjects. A TQFT functor from the topological category to the algebraic category is a specific type of extension of the pre-TQFT functor. Its action on isomorphisms is determined by the pre-TQFT functor, and its action on gluing morphisms is given essentially by evaluations on the algebraic side. To take account of the extra structure of the endofunctors in both categories, the definition also involves a natural isomorphism which interpolates between the endofunctors and the pre-TQFT functor. This natural isomorphism makes it possible for some features on the algebraic side to be richer than on the topological side (in contrast with the usual purpose of a functor to simplify things). Thus, for instance, in the example of $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s, $`P`$ acts trivially on the empty set, whereas $`Q`$ acts non-trivially on $``$, and the natural isomorphism provides the additional flexibility for this to be so. In our analysis of the example of $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s at the end of the section we prove a theorem which characterizes a class of TQFT functors for this case.

We now proceed with the details of the construction.

###### Definition 4.1

Given a category of subobjects $`(𝒮(𝐂),P)`$ and an evaluation–preserving category $`(𝒮(𝐃),Q)`$, as introduced in Definitions 2.7 and 3.6 respectively, a *pre-TQFT functor* from $`(𝒮(𝐂),P)`$ to $`(𝒮(𝐃),Q)`$ is a pair $`(Z^{},\eta )`$, where $`Z^{}:𝒮(𝐂)𝒮(𝐃)`$ is a strict symmetric, monoidal functor, denoted on objects by $`Z^{}(A)=V_A`$ and on morphisms by $`Z^{}(\alpha )=Z_\alpha ^{}`$, and $`\eta `$ is a monoidal natural isomorphism

$$\eta :(Z^{}P,Z_{\pi _2}^{},Z_{\pi _0}^{})(QZ^{},\theta _2,\theta _0)$$

from the monoidal functor $`Z^{}P`$ to the monoidal functor $`QZ^{}`$, i.e. $`\eta `$ is a natural isomorphism between the functors $`Z^{}P`$ and $`QZ^{}`$ such that the following two diagrams, for each pair $`(A,B)`$ of objects in $`𝒮(𝐂)`$,

and

commute in $`𝒮(𝐃)`$.

###### Remark 4.2

Thus the pre-TQFT functor $`Z^{}`$ respects the endofunctors $`P`$ and $`Q`$ only up to monoidal natural isomorphism. The need for this weakening will be clear from the following example.

Example: In our example a pre-TQFT functor $`Z^{}`$ is given by the following assignments on objects:

$$V_{C_+}=V\text{,}V_C_{}=\overline{V}\text{,}V_{\mathrm{}}=\text{and}V_{AB}=V_AV_B\text{.}$$

The last two assignments express the strictness of $`Z^{}`$. On (iso)morphisms $`\alpha :C_+C_+`$, $`Z_\alpha ^{}:VV`$ is a morphism of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$, i.e. given by a matrix $`B_\alpha `$ with respect to the basis $`(e_i)_i`$ of $`V`$, satisfying $`\overline{B}_\alpha ^TAB_\alpha =A`$, where $`A`$ corresponds to the evaluation on $`V`$ (see the example on page 3). Similar statements hold for $`\alpha :C_+C_{}`$, $`C_{}C_+`$ and $`C_{}C_{}`$, e.g., in the first case, $`Z_\alpha ^{}`$ is given by $`B_\alpha `$ satisfying $`\overline{B}_\alpha ^T\overline{A}B_\alpha =A`$.

There are some further restrictions on the matrices $`B_\alpha `$, e.g. from functoriality we have

$$B_{\alpha \beta }=B_\alpha B_\beta \text{ and }B_{\mathrm{i}d_{C_\pm }}=I\text{.}$$

Also, for $`\alpha :C_+C_{}`$ given by $`\alpha (z)=\overline{z}`$, we have $`P(\alpha )=\alpha ^1`$ and hence the corresponding matrix satisfies $`\overline{B}_\alpha B_\alpha =I`$. However, we will not study the many possibilities in depth, since the extension to a TQFT functor will impose strong extra conditions on the choices for $`Z_\alpha ^{}`$. As regards monoidal products and braidings, since $`Z^{}`$ is a strict symmetric, monoidal functor we have:

$$Z_{\alpha \beta }^{}=Z_\alpha ^{}Z_\beta ^{}\text{and}Z_{c_{(A,B)}}^{}=c_{(V_A,V_B)}\text{.}$$

The monoidal natural isomorphism $`\eta `$ is given as follows. For $`\mathrm{}`$

$$\eta _{\mathrm{}}:Z^{}P(\mathrm{})=QZ^{}(\mathrm{})=\overline{}\text{}\eta _{\mathrm{}}=\theta _0\text{,}$$

for irreducible subobjects

$$\eta _{C_\pm }:Z^{}P(C_\pm )QZ^{}(C_\pm )\text{}\eta _{C_+}=\mathrm{i}d_{\overline{V}}\text{ and }\eta _C_{}=\mathrm{i}d_V\text{,}$$

and for monoidal products $`AB`$ with $`A`$ and $`B`$ irreducible

$$\eta _{AB}:Z^{}P(AB)=V_{P(A)}V_{P(B)}QZ^{}(AB)=\overline{V}_{AB}$$

is given by:

$$\eta _{AB}=\theta _{2(V_A,V_B)}(\eta _A\eta _B)\text{.}$$

Thus $`\eta `$ plays the role of interpolating between the monoidal features of “change of orientation” on the topological side (where $`\pi _2`$ and $`\pi _0`$ are trivial), and “passing to the conjugate module” on the algebraic side (where $`\theta _2`$ and $`\theta _0`$ are non-trivial).$`\mathrm{}`$

We now come to our main definition, namely the definition of a TQFT functor, which is a suitable extension of a pre-TQFT functor to a functor from $`𝒞`$ to $`𝒟`$.

###### Definition 4.3

Given a topological category $`(𝒞,P)`$, an algebraic category $`(𝒟,Q)`$ and a pre-TQFT functor $`(Z^{},\eta )`$ from $`(𝒮(𝐂),P)`$ to $`(𝒮(𝐃),Q)`$, a *TQFT functor* from $`(𝒞,P)`$ to $`(𝒟,Q)`$ extending $`(Z^{},\eta )`$ is a pair $`(Z,\eta )`$, where $`\eta `$ is as before and $`Z`$ is a symmetric, strict monoidal functor from $`𝒞`$ to $`𝒟`$ determined by assignments:

1. to each object $`(X,A,m)`$ of $`𝒞`$ an object $`Z(X,A,m)=(V_A,Z_{(X,A,m)})`$ of $`𝒟`$, where $`V_A=Z^{}(A)`$, and such that, for any pair of objects $`(X,A,m)`$, $`(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ of $`𝒞`$

$$Z_{(XX^{},AA^{},mm^{})}=Z_{(X,A,m)}Z_{(X^{},A^{},m^{})}\text{,}$$
2. to each isomorphism $`(f,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ of $`𝒞`$ the isomorphism $`Z_{(f,\alpha )}:(V_A,Z_{(X,A,m)})(V_A^{},Z_{(X^{},A^{},m^{})})`$, given by:

$$Z_{(f,\alpha )}=Z_\alpha ^{}$$

and to each gluing morphism of $`𝒞`$, $`(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$, where $`\phi :A_IP(A)_J`$ and $`\alpha :A_RA^{}`$, the morphism $`Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}:(V_A,Z_{(X,A,m)})(V_A^{},Z_{(X^{},A^{},m^{})})`$, given by:

$$Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}=(e_{V_{A_J}}Z_\alpha ^{})p^{}((\eta _{A_J}Z_\phi ^{})\mathrm{i}d_{V_{A_J}V_{A_R}})p\text{,}$$

where $`p:V_AV_{A_I}V_{A_J}V_{A_R}`$ and $`p^{}:Q(V_A)_JV_{A_J}V_{A_R}(_{jJ}(Q(V_{A_j})V_{A_j}))V_{A_R}`$ are the appropriate permuting isomorphisms, and denoting $`Q(V_A)_J:=_{jJ}Q(V_{A_j})`$, $`e_{V_{A_J}}:=_{jJ}e_{V_{A_j}}`$ and $`\eta _{A_J}:=_{jJ}\eta _{A_j}`$.
3. to the unit object $`(E,E,\mathrm{i}d_E)`$, the object

$$Z(E,E,\mathrm{i}d_E)=(I,i)\text{.}$$

###### Remark 4.4

A TQFT functor is then given by choosing the elements $`Z_{(X,A,m)}`$ consistently. Apart from the monoidal restrictions in $`Z1)`$ and $`Z3)`$, every morphism of $`𝒞`$ gives rise to an equation for the elements $`Z_{(X,A,m)}`$ through the condition $`Z2)`$. Neither $`Z_{(f,\alpha )}`$ nor $`Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}`$ depend explicitly on $`f`$, apart from the fact that $`f`$ makes up a valid morphism of $`𝒞`$, together with $`\alpha `$, or $`\phi `$ and $`\alpha `$. The formula for $`Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}`$ may be loosely described by saying that gluing on the topological side corresponds to evaluation on the algebraic side.

###### Theorem 4.5

A choice of assignments satisfying $`Z1)`$-$`Z3)`$ determines a symmetric, strict monoidal functor $`Z`$ from $`𝒞`$ to $`𝒟`$.

Proof. We show that $`Z2)`$ is functorial for the composition of two gluing morphisms. The other cases of composition can easily be checked. To simplify the proof we consider the special case of the following gluing morphisms $`(X,A,m)\stackrel{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}{}(X^{},A^{},m^{})\stackrel{(g,\psi ,\beta )}{}(X^{\prime \prime },A^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime })`$, where $`A=_{i=1,\mathrm{},5}A_i`$, $`A^{}=_{i=3,4,5}A_i^{}`$, $`\phi :A_1P(A_2)`$, $`\psi :A_3^{}P(A_4^{})`$, $`\alpha =_{i=3,4,5}\alpha _i`$, with $`\alpha _i:A_iA_i^{}`$ and $`\beta :A_5^{}A^{\prime \prime }`$. We redefine the respective objects by $`V_{A_1}=V`$, $`V_{A_2}=W`$, $`V_{A_3}=X`$, $`V_{A_4}=Y`$, $`V_{A_5}=T`$, $`V_{A_3^{}}=X^{}`$, $`V_{A_4^{}}=Y^{}`$, $`V_{A_5^{}}=T^{}`$ and $`V_{A_5^{\prime \prime }}=T^{\prime \prime }`$, and write $`\theta `$ instead of $`\theta _2`$. In the following calculations composition is denoted by juxtaposition, and compositions are performed before the monoidal product inside any bracketed expression:

$`Z_{(g,\psi ,\beta )}Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`(e_Y^{}Z_\beta ^{})(\eta _{A_4^{}}Z_\psi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{Y^{}T^{}})(e_WZ_\alpha ^{})(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WXYT})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_Y^{}Z_\beta ^{})(\eta _{A_4^{}}Z_\psi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{Y^{}T^{}})(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W)Z_\alpha ^{})`$
$`=`$ $`e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W)e_Y^{}(\eta _{A_4^{}}Z_\psi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_Y^{})(Z_{\alpha _3}^{}Z_{\alpha _4}^{})Z_{\beta \alpha _5}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W)e_Y^{}(\eta _{A_4^{}}Z_{\psi \alpha _3}^{}Z_{\alpha _4}^{})Z_{\beta \alpha _5}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W)e_Y^{}(\eta _{A_4^{}}Z_{P(\alpha _4)}^{}Z_{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}Z_{\alpha _4}^{})Z_{\beta \alpha _5}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W)e_Y^{}(Q(Z_{\alpha _4}^{})\eta _{A_4}Z_{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}Z_{\alpha _4}^{})Z_{\beta \alpha _5}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W)e_Y^{}(Q(Z_{\alpha _4}^{})Z_{\alpha _4}^{})(\eta _{A_4}Z_{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}\mathrm{i}d_Y)Z_{\beta \alpha _5}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W)e_Y(\eta _{A_4}Z_{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}\mathrm{i}d_Y)Z_{\beta \alpha _5}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_YZ_{\beta \alpha _5}^{})(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W\eta _{A_4}Z_{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})\text{.}`$
The first equality is the definition of the gluing morphism, the second, third and fourth are the interchange law, the fifth is the equation $`P(\alpha _4)\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\psi \alpha _3`$, the sixth is the naturality of $`\eta `$, and the seventh, eight and ninth are the interchange law.

For the other side, we have:

$`Z_{(gf,\phi \stackrel{~}{\psi },\beta \alpha _5)}`$ $`=`$ $`(e_We_YZ_{\beta \alpha _5}^{})(\mathrm{i}d_Wc_{(Q(Y),W)}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})`$
$`((\eta _{A_2}\eta _{A_4})Z_{\phi \stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WYT})(\mathrm{i}d_Vc_{(W,X)}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_YZ_{\beta \alpha _5}^{})(\mathrm{i}d_Wc_{(Q(Y),W)}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})`$
$`(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\eta _{A_4}Z_{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WYT})(\mathrm{i}d_Vc_{(W,X)}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_YZ_{\beta \alpha _5}^{})(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W\eta _{A_4}Z_{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})\text{.}`$
The first equality is the definition of the gluing morphism, the second is the interchange law, and the third is the naturality and the symmetry of $`c`$. The functor $`Z`$ preserves identity morphisms, since by $`Z2)`$

$$Z(\mathrm{i}d_X,\mathrm{i}d_A)=Z^{}(\mathrm{i}d_A)=\mathrm{i}d_{V_A}\text{.}$$

Therefore we conclude that $`Z`$ is a functor.

The functor $`Z`$ is strict monoidal on objects from $`Z1)`$ and $`Z3)`$. To simplify the proof that $`Z`$ is monoidal on morphisms, we just consider the monoidal product of the following two gluing morphisms $`(X,_{i=1,2,3}A_i,m)\stackrel{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}{}(X^{},A_3^{},m^{})`$ and $`(Y,_{i=1,2,3}B_i,n)\stackrel{(g,\psi ,\beta )}{}(Y^{},B_3^{},n^{})`$, where $`\phi :A_1P(A_2)`$ , $`\psi :B_1P(B_2)`$, $`\alpha :A_3A_3^{}`$ and $`\beta :B_3B_3^{}`$, and we set $`V_{A_1}=V`$, $`V_{A_2}=W`$, $`V_{A_3}=S`$, $`V_{B_1}=X`$, $`V_{B_2}=Y`$ and $`V_{B_3}=T`$.

We have:

$`Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )(g,\psi ,\beta )}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{(fg,\phi \psi ,\alpha \beta )}`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_YZ_{\alpha \beta }^{})p^{}((\eta _{A_2}\eta _{B_2})(Z_\phi ^{}Z_\psi ^{})\mathrm{i}d_{WYST})p`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_YZ_\alpha ^{}Z_\beta ^{})p^{}(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\eta _{B_2}Z_\psi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WYST})p`$
$`=`$ $`(e_We_YZ_\alpha ^{}Z_\beta ^{})\stackrel{~}{p}(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WS}\eta _{B_2}Z_\psi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_WZ_\alpha ^{}e_YZ_\beta ^{})(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WS}\eta _{B_2}Z_\psi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})`$
$`=`$ $`(e_WZ_\alpha ^{})(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WS})(e_YZ_\beta ^{})(\eta _{B_2}Z_\psi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{YT})`$
$`=`$ $`Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}Z_{(g,\psi ,\beta )}`$
where, in the second, third and fourth equalities $`p`$, $`p^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ are the permuting isomorphisms

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}d_V(c_{(W,X)}\mathrm{i}d_{YS})(\mathrm{i}d_Wc_{(S,XY)})\mathrm{i}d_T\text{,}`$
$`p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)}c_{(Q(Y),W)}\mathrm{i}d_{YST}\text{,}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}d_{Q(W)W}c_{(S,Q(Y)Y)}\mathrm{i}d_T\text{,}`$
and we use naturality of the braiding in the third and fourth equalities, and the interchange law in the second and fifth equalities. Finally, since $`Z^{}`$ is symmetric $`Z`$ is also symmetric:

$`Z(c_{((X,A,m),(X^{},A^{},m^{}))})`$ $`=`$ $`Z((c_{(X,X^{})},c_{(A,A^{})}))`$
$`=`$ $`Z^{}(c_{(A,A^{})})`$
$`=`$ $`c_{(Z^{}(A),Z^{}(A^{}))}`$
$`=`$ $`c_{((Z^{}(A),Z_{(X,A,m)}),(Z^{}(A^{}),Z_{(X^{},A^{},m^{})}))}`$
$`=`$ $`c_{(Z_{(X,A,m)},Z_{(X^{},A^{},m^{})})}\text{.}`$
This completes the proof.

Example: The possibility of extending a pre-TQFT functor $`Z^{}`$ to a TQFT functor $`Z`$ imposes strong restrictions on $`Z^{}`$ as we will now discuss.

We consider first the gluing morphism

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,m)(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})$$

corresponding to the gluing together of two disks to make a sphere, with $`\phi =\mathrm{i}d_C_{}`$, described on page 2. Set $`Z_{(D_+,C_+,m_+)}=d_ie_iV`$ (again, and also in what follows, using the summation convention over repeated indices) and $`Z_{(D_{},C_{},m_{})}=\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_j\overline{V}`$, where $`m=m_+m_{}`$. Then by $`Z1)`$ and $`Z2)`$

$`Z_{(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}(\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_jd_ie_i)`$
$`=`$ $`e_V(Z_{\mathrm{i}d_C_{}}^{}\mathrm{i}d_V)(\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_jd_ie_i)`$
$`=`$ $`e_V(\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_jd_ie_i)=\delta _jd_ia_{ji}\text{,}`$
where $`a_{ij}`$ are the entries of the matrix corresponding to $`e_V`$ \- see page 3. Now suppose we glue the two disks together “with a twist”, i.e. with a different identification along their boundaries. The result is still a sphere and the process is described by a gluing morphism of the form:

$$(g,\psi ,\beta ):(D_+,C_+,m)(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`\psi :C_{}C_{}`$ is no longer $`\mathrm{i}d_C_{}`$ and $`g`$ is chosen to be compatible with $`\psi `$. This gives rise to the equation:

$`Z_{(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{(g,\psi ,\beta )}(\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_jd_ie_i)`$
$`=`$ $`e_V(Z_\psi ^{}(\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_j)d_ie_i)`$
$`=`$ $`b_{kj}\delta _jd_ia_{ki}\text{,}`$
where $`B_\psi =[b_{ij}]`$ is the matrix representing $`Z_\psi ^{}`$ with respect to the bases $`(\overline{e}_i)_i`$. More generally, for the gluing together of any two objects of the form $`(X,C_{},m_1)`$ and $`(Y,C_+,m_2)`$, we have, setting

$$Z_{(X,C_{},m_1)}=x_j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_j\text{and}Z_{(Y,C_+,m_2)}=y_ie_i\text{,}$$

the equation

$$b_{kj}x_jy_ia_{ki}=x_ky_ia_{ki}\text{,}$$

for any $`B_\psi =[b_{ij}]`$. Therefore we will impose the following requirement on $`Z^{}`$:

$$\text{for all }\psi \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_{},C_{})\text{}Z_\psi ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_{\overline{V}}\text{,}$$

which in turn implies, setting $`\phi =P(\psi ):C_+C_+`$ and using $`Z_\phi ^{}=\overline{Z_\psi ^{}}`$,

$$\text{for all }\phi \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_+,C_+)\text{}Z_\phi ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_V\text{.}$$

Before considering constraints on $`Z_\phi ^{}`$ for the remaining morphisms of $`𝒮(𝐂)`$, we will derive a constraint on $`e_V`$, by considering gluing two disks together with their order swapped, described by the gluing morphism:

$$(h,\chi ,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,m_+m_{})(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`h(z,1)=f(z,2)`$ and $`h(z,2)=f(z,1)`$ (see above and page 2) and $`\chi =\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}`$. Applying the TQFT functor we get the equation:

$`Z_{(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{(h,\chi ,\alpha )}(d_ie_i\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_j)`$
$`=`$ $`e_{\overline{V}}(d_ie_i\delta _j\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_j)`$
$`=`$ $`d_i\delta _j\overline{a}_{ij}\text{,}`$
using the relation between $`e_V`$ and $`e_{\overline{V}}`$ described on page 3 in the last equality. Comparing with the previous equation for $`Z_{(S_+,\mathrm{},m^{})}`$, it is natural to impose

$$A=\overline{A}^T\text{,}$$

for the matrix $`A`$ corresponding to the evaluation.

Now, given any $`\alpha \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_+,C_{})`$ and $`\beta \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_{},C_+)`$, we have from the requirements above:

$$Z_\alpha ^{}Z_\beta ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_{\overline{V}}\text{and}Z_\beta ^{}Z_\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_V\text{.}$$

Thus $`Z_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`Z_\beta ^{}`$ are independent of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively, and represented by the matrices $`B`$ and $`B^1`$, respectively, with respect to the bases $`(e_i)_i`$ and $`(\overline{e}_i)_i`$ of $`V`$ and $`\overline{V}`$. Furthermore, from the example starting on page 4, we have the condition $`\overline{B}B=I`$, and so a natural choice is

$$B=I\text{,}$$

assuming that this choice satisfies the condition for $`Z_\alpha ^{}`$ to belong to $`\mathrm{M}or(𝒮(𝐃))`$, namely $`\overline{B}^T\overline{A}B=A`$. Thus we must have:

$$\overline{A}=A\text{,}$$

whilst we already had $`\overline{A}^T=A`$, so that $`A`$ has to be symmetric and real. A natural choice, which also ensures non-degeneracy of the evaluation on $`V`$, is $`A=I`$.

Summarizing the above considerations, we will from now on restrict our attention to TQFT functors $`(Z,\eta )`$ which extend the pre-TQFT functor $`(Z^{},\eta )`$, where $`Z^{}`$ satisfies:

for all $`\alpha \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_+,C_+)\text{}Z_\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_V`$
for all $`\alpha \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_{},C_{})\text{}Z_\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_{\overline{V}}`$
for all $`\alpha \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_+,C_{})\text{}Z_\alpha ^{}(e_i)=\overline{e}_i`$ (4.1)
for all $`\alpha \mathrm{M}or_{𝒮(𝐂)}(C_{},C_+)\text{}Z_\alpha ^{}(\overline{e}_i)=e_i\text{,}`$
where $`\eta `$ (introduced in the example starting on page 4) satisfies:

$`\eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _0\text{,}`$
$`\eta _{C_+}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}d_{\overline{V}}\text{and}\eta _C_{}=\mathrm{i}d_V\text{,}`$
$`\eta _{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{2(V_A,V_B)}(\eta _A\eta _B)\text{,}`$ (4.2)
and for which the evaluation in the algebraic category is given by:

$$e_V(\overline{e}_ie_j)=\delta _{ij}\text{,}$$
(4.3)
where $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kronecker symbol.

Having made these choices, we investigate some relations arising from topological isomorphisms. Consider first the isomorphism

$$(f,\alpha ):(S_+,\mathrm{},m)(S_{},\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ are the respective empty maps, $`\alpha =\mathrm{i}d_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`f`$ is given by $`(x,y,z)(x,y,z)`$. Under the TQFT functor $`(f,\alpha )`$ goes to the morphism of $`𝒟`$:

$$Z_{(f,\alpha )}:(,Z_{(S_+,\mathrm{},m)})(,Z_{(S_{},\mathrm{},m^{})})\text{.}$$

Since $`Z_{(f,\alpha )}=Z_\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_{}`$, this implies the equation:

$$Z_{(S_+,\mathrm{},m)}=Z_{(S_{},\mathrm{},m^{})}\text{.}$$

A similar argument applied to the torus (and indeed to any manifold with empty boundary, as we will see shortly) gives:

$$Z_{(T_+,\mathrm{},m)}=Z_{(T_{},\mathrm{},m^{})}\text{.}$$

Next we will consider four objects in $`𝒞`$ associated with the disk $`D`$:

$$(D_+,C_+,m_1)\text{}(D_{},C_{},m_2)\text{}(D_+,C_{},m_3)\text{}(D_{},C_+,m_4)\text{,}$$

where $`m_1(z)=m_2(z)=z`$ and $`m_3(z)=m_4(z)=\overline{z}`$. Let $`Z_{(D_+,C_+,m_1)}=d_ie_iV`$. The isomorphism

$$(\mathrm{i}d_D,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,m_1)(D_+,C_{},m_3)\text{,}$$

where $`\alpha :C_+C_{}`$ is given by $`\alpha (z)=\overline{z}`$, yields the equation:

$$Z_{(D_+,C_{},m_3)}=Z_\alpha ^{}(d_ie_i)=d_i\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_i\overline{V}$$

(using the third equation of (4.1) above for $`Z_\alpha ^{}`$). The reverse map described in the example on page 2:

$$(r,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,m_1)(D_{},C_{},m_2)\text{,}$$

with $`r(z)=\alpha (z)=\overline{z}`$, gives rise to the equation:

$$Z_{(D_{},C_{},m_2)}=d_i\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_i\overline{V}\text{.}$$

Similarly

$$Z_{(D_{},C_+,m_4)}=d_ie_iV\text{.}$$

Thus it is enough to fix $`Z`$ of one of the objects in order to determine $`Z`$ of the other three.

Also, taking different monomorphisms $`m`$ does not introduce anything new. For instance, consider the object $`(D_+,C_+,\stackrel{~}{m})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{m}m_1`$. Then there exists an automorphism $`\alpha :C_+C_+`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_1\alpha `$, i.e. we have an isomorphism

$$(\mathrm{i}d_D,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,\stackrel{~}{m})(D_+,C_+,m_1)\text{.}$$

Since $`Z_{(\mathrm{i}d_D,\alpha )}=Z_\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{i}d_V`$ by the first equation of (4.1) above, we have

$$Z_{(D_+,C_+,\stackrel{~}{m})}=Z_{(D_+,C_+,m_1)}=d_ie_iV\text{,}$$

for any $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$.

The annulus can appear as an object of $`𝒞`$ in sixteen different versions, by varying the orientation of the annulus, the orientations of the two subobject circles and the two ways of associating the subobject circles to the boundary circles of the annulus. These are all related by isomorphisms, which means that after choosing $`Z`$ of one of them, $`Z`$ of all the other combinations is determined. For instance, the isomorphism:

$$(\mathrm{i}d_{A_+},c_{(C_{},C_+)}):(A_+,C_+,m)(A_+,C_+,m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`m(z,1)=z=m^{}(z,2)`$ and $`m(z,2)=2z=m^{}(z,1)`$, implies the equation:

$$Z_{(A_+,C_+,m^{})}=c_{(\overline{V},V)}(Z_{(A_+,C_+,m)})$$

(since $`Z^{}`$ and $`Z`$ are symmetric monoidal). To pass to the other orientation of the annulus, we have the isomorphism:

$$(f,c_{(C_{},C_+)}):(A_+,C_+,m)(A_{},C_+,m^{\prime \prime })\text{,}$$

where $`f(re^{i\theta })=(3r)e^{i\theta }`$, and $`m`$ is given by $`m(z,1)=z=m^{\prime \prime }(z,1)`$ and $`m(z,2)=2z=m^{\prime \prime }(z,2)`$, which implies the equation:

$$Z_{(A_{},C_+,m^{\prime \prime })}=c_{(\overline{V},V)}(Z_{(A_+,C_+,m)})\text{.}$$

Finally we give a couple more examples of equations arising from gluing morphisms before giving a general result. The gluing morphism from the annulus to the torus

$$(g,\psi ,\beta ):(A_+,C_+,m)(T_+,\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

described in example c) on page c), leads to the relation:

$$Z_{(T_+,\mathrm{},m^{})}=Z_{(g,\psi ,\beta )}(Z_{(A_+,C_+,m)})\text{.}$$

Writing

$$Z_{(A_+,C_+,m)}=c_{ij}\overline{e}_ie_j\overline{V}V$$

and using Condition $`Z2)`$ and Equation (4.3) this determines $`Z_{(T_+,\mathrm{},m^{})}`$ in terms of $`Z_{(A_+,C_+,m)}`$:

$$Z_{(T_+,\mathrm{},m^{})}=c_{ii}\text{.}$$

The gluing together of two annuli to make an annulus, may be described by the gluing morphism:

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(A_{++},C_{++},mm)(A_+,C_+,m)\text{,}$$

with $`m`$ as above, $`f`$ given by

$$f(re^{i\theta },1)=\frac{r+1}{2}e^{i\theta }\text{ and }f(re^{i\theta },2)=\frac{r+2}{2}e^{i\theta }\text{,}$$

$`I=\left\{2\right\}`$, $`J=\left\{3\right\}`$, $`\phi =\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}`$ and $`\alpha =\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}`$. The corresponding morphism in $`𝒟`$ implies the condition:

$$Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}(c_{ik}c_{lj}\overline{e}_ie_k\overline{e}_le_j)=c_{ij}\overline{e}_ie_j\text{,}$$

which, using Condition $`Z2)`$ and the equation $`e_{\overline{V}}(e_k\overline{e}_l)=\overline{\delta }_{kl}=\delta _{kl}`$ (coming from Equation (4.2) and the example on page 3) leads to the well-known constraint on the components $`c_{ij}`$:

$$c_{ik}c_{kj}=c_{ij}\text{.}$$

To conclude the example in this section we will now proceed to characterize the TQFT functors $`Z`$ under the Conditions (4.1)-(4.3) above. First of all we show how various different topological gluing scenarios give the same algebraic result. Suppose we have a gluing morphism

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(X,C_+,m)(X^{},\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`X`$ is a $`2`$-manifold with two circles as its boundary, and $`I=\left\{1\right\}`$, $`J=\left\{2\right\}`$, $`\phi =\mathrm{i}d_C_{}`$ and $`\alpha =\mathrm{i}d_{\mathrm{}}`$. Fixing $`f`$, we can change the orientation of the boundary circles of the domain object:

$$(f,\psi ,\alpha ):(X,C_+,\overline{m})(X^{},\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

with $`I=\left\{1\right\}`$, $`J=\left\{2\right\}`$, $`\psi =P(\phi )=\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}`$, $`\overline{m}(z,1)=m(\overline{z},1)`$ and $`\overline{m}(z,2)=m(\overline{z},2)`$, or permute the boundary components in either orientation

$$(f,\chi ,\alpha ):(X,C_+,m_c)(X^{},\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`m_c=mc_{(C_+,C_{})}`$, $`I=\left\{2\right\}`$, $`J=\left\{1\right\}`$, $`\chi =\mathrm{i}d_C_{}`$ and

$$(f,\rho ,\alpha ):(X,C_+,\overline{m}_c)(X^{},\mathrm{},m^{})\text{,}$$

where $`\overline{m}_c=\overline{m}c_{(C_{},C_+)}`$, $`I=\left\{2\right\}`$, $`J=\left\{1\right\}`$, $`\rho =\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}`$. As we have seen above, isomorphisms between the different objects built from $`X`$ imply relations. If $`Z_{(X,C_+,m)}=x_{ij}\overline{e}_ie_j`$ then

$`Z_{(X,C_+,\overline{m})}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{ij}e_i\overline{e}_j\text{,}`$
$`Z_{(X,C_+,m_c)}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{ij}e_j\overline{e}_i\text{,}`$
$`Z_{(X,C_+,\overline{m}_c)}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{ij}\overline{e}_je_i\text{.}`$
However, applying the TQFT functor to the previous gluing morphisms, these elements are all mapped to $`Z_{(X^{},\mathrm{},m^{})}=x_{ii}`$, since $`e_V(\overline{e}_ie_j)=\delta _{ij}=e_{\overline{V}}(e_i\overline{e}_j)`$.
The same independence of the description holds for objects $`X`$ with more than two boundary circles when we glue two of the boundary components together.

We will shortly be needing the following result on decomposing surfaces. Let $`X`$ be a surface of genus $`g`$ with $`n`$ boundary circles. A marking on $`X`$ is a set of $`3g3+n`$ non-contractible pairwise non-isotopic circles on $`X`$, considered up to isotopy. Cutting along these circles decomposes $`X`$ into $`2g2+n`$ pairs-of-pants. The only surfaces for which there is no such pants decomposition are the sphere $`S`$, the disk $`D`$, the annulus $`A`$ and the torus $`T`$. In \[37, Lemma 1.2\] Kohno proved that any two markings of $`X`$ can be obtained from each other by a finite sequence of moves of the following two types:

Now we can state our general result:

###### Theorem 4.6

TQFT functors $`(Z,\eta )`$, which extend $`(Z^{},\eta )`$ for which the Conditions (4.1)-(4.3) hold, are in 1-1 correspondence with pairs of complex-valued tensors $`d_i`$, $`p_{ijk}`$ satisfying the relations:

1. $`p_{ijk}p_{klm}=p_{ilk}p_{kjm}`$,
2. $`p_{ijk}=p_{jik}=p_{ikj}`$,
3. $`d_kp_{kij}d_j=d_i`$,
4. $`d_kp_{kij}p_{jlm}=p_{ilm}`$.

Proof. Given such a TQFT functor $`(Z,\eta )`$, we define $`d_i`$, $`p_{ijk}`$ by

$`Z_{(D_+,C_+,m)}`$ $`=`$ $`d_ie_i\text{,}`$
$`Z_{(P_+,C_{+++},m^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{ijk}e_ie_je_k\text{.}`$
Relation 1 comes from looking at the two different ways of obtaining the “quaternion” surface $`Q`$ in the type $`I`$ move above by gluing two pairs-of-pants. Let us label the boundary circles of $`Q`$ by $`i`$, $`j`$, $`m`$ and $`l`$, starting from the top left hand component and going round anticlockwise. Consider the object $`(Q_+,C_{++++},m_{ijlm})`$, where the notation $`m_{ijlm}`$ means that the first circle get mapped to the boundary component labelled $`i`$, and so on. This object is obtained from a gluing morphism, say $`(f,\phi ,\alpha )`$, with domain $`(P_{++},C_{+++++},m_{ijknlm})`$ and via a different gluing morphism , say $`(g,\psi ,\beta )`$, from $`(P_{++},C_{+++++},m_{knijlm})`$.
Now, applying the TQFT functor, we get the equations

$`Z_{(Q_+,C_{++++},m_{ijlm})}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}(p_{ijk}p_{nlm}e_ie_j\overline{e}_ke_ne_le_m)`$
$`=`$ $`p_{ijk}p_{klm}e_ie_je_le_m`$
and

$`Z_{(Q_+,C_{++++},m_{ijlm})}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{(g,\psi ,\beta )}(p_{ilk}p_{njm}\overline{e}_ke_ne_ie_je_le_m)`$
$`=`$ $`p_{ilk}p_{kjm}e_ie_je_le_m\text{,}`$
and thus we have Relation 1.

The first equality in Relation 2 follows by applying $`Z`$ to the isomorphism

$$(\mathrm{i}d_{P_+},c_{(C_+,C_+)}\mathrm{i}d_{C_+}):(P_+,C_{+++},m_{ijk})(P_+,C_{+++},m_{jik})$$

giving

$$(c_{(V,V)}\mathrm{i}d_V)(p_{ijk}e_ie_je_k)=p_{jik}e_je_ie_k$$

i.e.

$$p_{ijk}=p_{jik}\text{.}$$

The second equality in Relation 2 is proved in identical fashion.

The third relation is shown by considering a gluing morphism

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(P_+D_{++},C_{+++},m_{lkmji})(D_+,C_+,m_i)\text{,}$$

with the boundary circles labelled as in Fig. 4.3 and with $`I=\{1,3\}`$, $`J=\{2,4\}`$.

Applying $`Z`$ gives the equation:

$$Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}(d_kp_{lim}d_j\overline{e}_le_k\overline{e}_me_je_i)=d_ie_i$$

i.e.

$$d_kp_{kij}d_j=d_i\text{.}$$

Finally the fourth relation is shown by considering a gluing morphism

$$(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(D_+P_{++},C_{+++++},m_{krjsilm})(P_+,C_{+++},m)\text{,}$$

with the boundary circles labelled as in Fig. 4.4 and with $`I=\{1,3\}`$, $`J=\{2,4\}`$.

Applying $`Z`$ gives:

$$Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )}(d_rp_{kis}p_{jlm}\overline{e}_ke_r\overline{e}_je_se_ie_le_m)=p_{ilm}e_ie_le_m$$

i.e.

$$d_kp_{kij}p_{jlm}=p_{ilm}\text{.}$$

Conversely, given tensors $`d_i`$, $`p_{ijk}`$, satisfying Relations 1-4, we define a TQFT functor $`Z`$ as follows. Any object of $`𝒞`$ is of the form

$$(X_\pm ,C_{\pm \pm \pm \mathrm{}},m_{ijk\mathrm{}})\text{,}$$

where the boundary circles have been marked $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ etc.. Set

$$Z_{(X_\pm ,C_{\pm \pm \pm \mathrm{}},m_{ijk\mathrm{}})}=x_{ijk\mathrm{}}\underset{i}{\overset{\left(\mathrm{\_}\right)}{e}}\underset{j}{\overset{\left(\mathrm{\_}\right)}{e}}\underset{k}{\overset{\left(\mathrm{\_}\right)}{e}}\mathrm{}\text{,}$$

where $`\underset{i}{\overset{(\mathrm{\_})}{e}}`$ denotes $`e_i`$ or $`\overline{e}_i`$ depending on the orientation of the corresponding subobject circle $`C_\pm `$. The tensors $`x_{ijk\mathrm{}}`$ are given as follows:

empty set $`\mathrm{}`$ $`1`$    sphere $`S`$ $`d_id_i`$  disk $`D`$ $`d_i`$  annulus $`A`$ $`d_kp_{kij}`$  torus $`T`$ $`d_kp_{kii}`$
and for any other connected object $`X`$, by taking a pants decomposition of $`X`$, labelling all circles in the decomposition, assigning a tensor to each labelled pair-of-pants and summing over all repeated indices (circles which are not in the boundary of $`X`$). This is well-defined because of the Kohno result above. For objects with more than one connected component we multiply the tensors associated to each connected component.

It remains to show that these assignments are consistent with the $`Z2)`$ axiom for $`Z`$. For isomorphisms which change a subobject component from $`C_+`$ to $`C_{}`$, or vice-versa, such as $`(f,\alpha ):(D_+,C_+,m)(D_+,C_{},\overline{m})`$, where $`m(z)=z`$, $`\overline{m}(z)=\overline{z}`$, $`f=\mathrm{i}d_{D_+}`$ and $`\alpha (z)=\overline{z}`$, the components of the tensor are unchanged (since $`Z_\alpha ^{}(e_i)=\overline{e}_i`$). For isomorphisms which are the identity on $`X`$ and permute the boundary components, the consistency condition is the complete symmetry of the tensor $`x_{ijk\mathrm{}}`$ under interchanges of indices. This is clear for the annulus and the pair-of-pants because of Relation 2, and for the general case one can show symmetry under the interchange of any pair of indices corresponding to boundary circles in the same connected component of $`X`$ by repeated application of Relations 1 and 2, until the indices both belong to the same pants tensor in the expression. For any $`X`$ one can construct an isomorphism $`(X,A,m)(P(X),A^{},m^{})`$ by reflecting in a plane of symmetry (see Fig. 4.5) so that the tensors for $`X_+`$ and $`X_{}`$ are the same.

To show consistency with Condition $`Z2)`$ for gluing morphisms, it is enough to consider gluing morphisms which glue two boundary circles together, since any gluing morphism involving more than two circles can be written as a composition of such gluing morphisms. We will consider the six combinations of gluing together two objects, both of which are the disk, the annulus or $`X`$, where $`X`$ denotes a surface with non-empty boundary admitting a pants decomposition.

1. $`disk+disksphere`$
The consistency condition is an identity:

$$d_id_i=d_id_i\text{.}$$
2. $`disk+annulusdisk`$
The consistency condition is

$$d_jd_kp_{kij}=d_i\text{,}$$

which holds because of Relation 3.
3. $`annulus+annulusannulus`$
The consistency condition is

$$d_kp_{kij}d_lp_{ljm}=d_kp_{kim}\text{,}$$

which holds because of Relation 4.
4. $`disk+X_{g,n}X_{g,n1}`$, where the indices $`g`$ and $`n`$ denote the genus and the number of boundary components, respectively.
If $`X=X_{0,3}=P`$, then $`X_{0,2}=A`$ and the consistency condition is an identity:

$$d_kp_{kij}=d_kp_{kij}\text{.}$$

Likewise, if $`X`$ is $`X_{1,1}`$, then $`X_{1,0}=T`$ and we have an identity:

$$d_kp_{kii}=d_kp_{kii}\text{.}$$

Otherwise $`X`$ has a pants decomposition into two or more pairs-of-pants and consistency follows from Relation 4 (see Fig. 4.6).
5. $`annulus+X_{g,n}X_{g,n\text{.}}`$
Consistency again follows from Relation 4 since suppose the annulus is attached to a boundary circle labelled $`j`$ of $`X_{g,n}`$, belonging to a pair-of-pants labelled with $`j`$, $`l`$ and $`m`$ in some chosen pants decomposition. Then

$$d_kp_{kij}p_{jlm}=p_{ilm}\text{.}$$
6. $`X_{g,n}+X_{g^{},n^{}}^{}X_{g+g^{},n+n^{}2}^{\prime \prime }`$.
Here consistency is immediate since pants decompositions of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ induce a pants decomposition of $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ and the formulae for the corresponding tensors are clearly compatible.

## 5 Hermitian TQFT’s

The TQFT functors of the previous section did not involve the full topological and algebraic categories, i.e. in terms of the internal structure on the categories, they only took account of the endofunctors $`P`$ and $`Q`$ defined on $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ and $`𝒮(𝐃)`$, respectively. In this final section we will define TQFT functors from a full topological category to a full algebraic category, which involve extended endofunctors $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐐`$ defined on $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$, respectively. This is achieved by extending the natural isomorphism $`\eta :Z^{}PQZ^{}`$ to a natural isomorphism $`\eta :Z𝐏𝐐Z`$.

Indeed we have seen in Section 2 that the monoidal endofunctor $`P`$ defined on $`𝐂`$ and $`𝒮(𝐂)`$ extends to a monoidal endofunctor $`𝐏`$ on $`𝒞`$ (Definition 2.23), and in Section 3 that, under certain conditions, the monoidal endofunctor $`Q`$ defined on $`𝐃`$ and $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ extends to a monoidal endofunctor $`𝐐`$ on $`𝒟`$ (Definition 3.10). When $`Q`$ extends in this way, we can consider extending the natural isomorphism $`\eta :Z^{}PQZ^{}`$ to a natural isomorphism $`\eta :Z𝐏𝐐Z`$.

###### Definition 5.1

Given an extension $`𝐐`$ of $`Q`$, the *extension* of $`\eta `$ corresponding to $`𝐐`$ (if it exists) is the monoidal natural isomorphism $`\eta :Z𝐏𝐐Z`$ satisfying, for every $`(X,A,m)\mathrm{O}b(𝒞)`$,

$$\eta _{(X,A,m)}:=\eta _A\text{.}$$

For $`\eta _{(X,A,m)}`$ to belong to $`\mathrm{M}or(𝒟)`$, we have the necessary condition,

$$\eta _A(Z_{𝐏(X,A,m)})=(Z_{(X,A,m)})_{Q(V_A)}\text{.}$$
(5.1)
This condition is also sufficient:

###### Theorem 5.2

If $`\eta _A(Z_{𝐏(X,A,m)})=(Z_{(X,A,m)})_{Q(V_A)}`$ holds for every $`(X,A,m)\mathrm{O}b(𝒞)`$, then $`\eta `$ as defined above is a monoidal natural isomorphism from $`Z𝐏`$ to $`𝐐Z`$.

Proof. For isomorphisms $`(f,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ the naturality of $`\eta `$ follows from the naturality of $`\eta :Z^{}PQZ^{}`$ for $`\alpha `$, since $`Z_{𝐏(f,\alpha )}`$ and $`𝐐(Z_{(f,\alpha )})`$ are morphisms of $`𝒟`$, i.e. preserve elements, and $`\eta _{(X,A,m)}`$, $`\eta _{(X^{},A^{},m^{})}`$ preserve elements by Equation (5.1).

For gluing morphisms $`(f,\phi ,\alpha ):(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})`$ the naturality of $`\eta `$ is given by

$$𝐐(Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )})\eta _{(X,A,m)}=\eta _{(X^{},A^{},m^{})}Z_{P(f,\phi ,\alpha )}\text{,}$$

where again all morphisms preserve elements. For simplicity we will take $`A=_{i=1,2,3}A_i`$, $`\phi :A_1P(A_2)`$ and $`\alpha :A_3A^{}`$, set $`V_{A_1}=V`$, $`V_{A_2}=W`$, $`V_{A_3}=Y`$, $`V_A^{}=Y^{}`$, $`V_{P(A_2)}=W_P`$ and $`V_{P(A_3)}=Y_P`$, and denote $`\pi _2`$, $`\theta _2`$ by $`\pi `$ and $`\theta `$, respectively. We prove the equivalent equation:

$$𝐐(Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )})\eta _{(X,A,m)}Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2,A_3)}}^{}=\eta _{(X^{},A^{},m^{})}Z_{P(f,\phi ,\alpha )}Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2,A_3)}}^{}\text{,}$$

where

$$Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2,A_3)}}^{}=Z_{\pi _{(A_1A_2,A_3)}}^{}(Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2)}}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{Y_P})\text{.}$$

We have (writing composition as juxtaposition and denoting $`Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2,A_3)}}^{}`$ by $`Z_\pi ^{}`$):

$`𝐐(Z_{(f,\phi ,\alpha )})\eta _{(X,A,m)}Z_\pi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`Q((e_WZ_\alpha ^{})(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WY}))\eta _{A_1A_2A_3}Z_\pi ^{}`$
$`=`$ $`Q((e_WZ_\alpha ^{})(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WY}))\theta _{(VW,Y)}(\theta _{(V,W)}\mathrm{i}d_{Q(Y)})`$
$`(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2}\eta _{A_3})`$
$`=`$ $`Q(e_WZ_\alpha ^{})Q(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_{WY}))\theta _{(VW,Y)}`$
$`(\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})\eta _{A_3})`$
$`=`$ $`Q(e_WZ_\alpha ^{})\theta _{(Q(W)W,Y)}(Q(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W\mathrm{i}d_{Q(Y)})`$
$`(\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})\eta _{A_3})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(I,Y^{})}(Q(e_W)Q(Z_\alpha ^{}))(Q(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W\mathrm{i}d_{Q(Y)})`$
$`(\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})\eta _{A_3})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(I,Y^{})}(Q(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W))Q(Z_\alpha ^{}))`$
$`(\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})\eta _{A_3})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(I,Y^{})}(Q(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W))\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})Q(Z_\alpha ^{})\eta _{A_3}`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(I,Y^{})}(Q(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W))\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})\eta _A^{}Z_{P(\alpha )}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(I,Y^{})}(\theta _0e_{W_P}(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{W_P})\eta _A^{}Z_{P(\alpha )}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(I,Y^{})}(\theta _0\eta _A^{})(e_{W_P}(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{W_P})Z_{P(\alpha )}^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(I,Y^{})}(\theta _0\eta _A^{})(e_{W_P}Z_{P(\alpha )}^{})(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{W_PY_P})`$
$`=`$ $`\eta _A^{}(e_{W_P}Z_{P(\alpha )}^{})(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{W_PY_P})`$
$`=`$ $`\eta _{(X^{},A^{},m^{})}Z_{P(f,\phi ,\alpha )}\text{.}`$
The first and the last equalities are definitions, the second and ninth are shown in Lemma 5.3, the third, sixth, seventh, tenth and eleventh are the interchange law, the fourth and fifth are the naturality of $`\theta `$, the eighth is the naturality of $`\eta `$, and the twelfth is part of the definition of $`Q`$ being a monoidal functor. Finally, since $`\eta :Z^{}PQZ^{}`$ is monoidal we also have the corresponding equations for $`\eta :Z𝐏𝐐Z`$:

$$\theta _{(Z(X,A,m),Z(X^{},A^{},m^{}))}(\eta _{(X,A,m)}\eta _{(X^{},A^{},m^{})})=\eta _{(X,A,m)(X^{},A^{},m^{})}Z_{\pi _{((X,A,m),(X^{},A^{},m^{}))}}$$

and the equation

$$\eta _{(E,E,\mathrm{i}d_E)}Z_{\pi _0}=\theta _0$$

in which all the morphisms preserve elements.

We now prove the required lemma:

###### Lemma 5.3

Under the previous hypotheses, we have:

$$Q(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W))\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})=\theta _0e_{W_P}(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{W_P})$$

and

$$\eta _{A_1A_2A_3}Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2,A_3)}}^{}=\theta _{(VW,Y)}(\theta _{(V,W)}\mathrm{i}d_{Q(Y)})(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2}\eta _{A_3})\text{.}$$

Proof. To show the first equation we compose both sides with $`(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{})^1\mathrm{i}d_{W_P}`$. Then we have:

$`\theta _0e_{W_P}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _0e_{Q(W)}(Q(\eta _{A_2})\eta _{A_2})`$
$`=`$ $`Q(e_W)\theta _{(Q(W),W)}(Q(\eta _{A_2})\eta _{A_2})`$
$`=`$ $`Q(e_W)\theta _{(Q(W),W)}(Q(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{})\mathrm{i}d_W)(Q(Z_{\phi ^1}^{})\eta _{A_2})`$
$`=`$ $`Q(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W))\theta _{(V,W)}(Q(Z_{\phi ^1}^{})\eta _{A_2})`$
$`=`$ $`Q(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W))\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{})^1\eta _{A_2})`$
$`=`$ $`Q(e_W(\eta _{A_2}Z_\phi ^{}\mathrm{i}d_W))\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})(\eta _{P(A_2)}Z_{P(\phi )}^{})^1\mathrm{i}d_{W_P})\text{.}`$
The first is the fact that $`\eta _{A_2}`$ is a morphism of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$, the second is the conjugation axiom of the evaluation map, the third is the interchange law, the fourth is the naturality of $`\theta `$, the fifth is the naturality of $`\eta `$ and the sixth is the interchange law.
Now we prove the second equation:

$`\eta _{A_1A_2A_3}Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2,A_3)}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{(VW,Y)}(\eta _{A_1A_2}\eta _{A_3})(Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2)}}^{}\mathrm{i}d_{Y_P})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(VW,Y)}(\eta _{A_1A_2}Z_{\pi _{(A_1,A_2)}}^{}\eta _{A_3})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(VW,Y)}(\theta _{(V,W)}(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2})\eta _{A_3})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{(VW,Y)}(\theta _{(V,W)}\mathrm{i}d_{Q(Y)})(\eta _{A_1}\eta _{A_2}\eta _{A_3})`$
using the monoidal property of $`\eta `$ in the first and third equalities and the interchange law in the second and fourth equalities.

Example: Recall from Section 3 that in our example an extension of $`Q`$ to $`𝒟`$ is given by:

$$𝐐(V,x)=(\overline{V},k_V(x))\text{,}$$

and a corresponding condition on morphisms. Consider an object $`(X,C_+,m)`$ of $`𝒞`$, with a single boundary component. Then the Condition (5.1) for this object is:

$$\eta _{C_+}(Z_{(P(X),C_{},P(m))})=k_V(Z_{(X,C_+,m)})\text{.}$$

Now $`\eta _{C_+}=\mathrm{i}d_{\overline{V}}`$, so imposing the Conditions (4.1)-(4.3) as in Section 4, and bearing in mind the relation between $`Z_{(X,C_+,m)}`$ and $`Z_{(P(X),C_{},P(m))}`$ (see the discussion relating to Fig. 4.5), we have, setting $`Z_{(X,C_+,m)}=x_ie_i`$,

$$x_i\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }e_i=k_V(x_ie_i)=\overline{x}_i\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }e_i\text{,}$$

i.e. the tensor $`x_i`$ is real.

For an object with empty boundary $`(X,\mathrm{},m)`$ the Condition (5.1) is:

$$\eta _{\mathrm{}}(Z_{(P(X),\mathrm{},P(m))})=k_{}(Z_{(X,\mathrm{},m)})\text{.}$$

Setting $`Z_{(X,\mathrm{},m)}=x`$ we have $`Z_{(P(X),\mathrm{},P(m))}=x`$ also, and using $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}=\theta _0`$ we get:

$$\theta _0(x)=k_{}(x)$$

i.e.

$$k_{}(\overline{x})=k_{}(x)$$

so that $`x`$ has to be real.

Finally, we will consider an object $`(X,C_+,m)`$ with two boundary components (but the reasoning can be extended to any number of components). The Condition (5.1) for this object reads:

$$\eta _{C_+}(Z_{(P(X),C_+,P(m))})=(Z_{(X,C_+,m)})_{Q(\overline{V}V)}\text{.}$$

Setting $`Z_{(X,C_+,m)}=x_{ij}\overline{e}_ie_j`$ we have $`Z_{(P(X),C_+,P(m))}=x_{ij}e_i\overline{e}_j`$. On the left hand side we use:

$$\eta _{C_+}=\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}(\eta _C_{}\eta _{C_+})=\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}$$

and on the right hand side:

$`(x_{ij}\overline{e}_ie_j)_{Q(\overline{V}V)}`$ $`=`$ $`((x_{ij}\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_i)e_j)_{Q(\overline{V}V)}`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}((x_{ij}\text{ }\overline{}\text{ }\overline{e}_i)_{Q(\overline{V})}(e_j)_{Q(V)})`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}((\overline{x}_{ij}e_i)\overline{e}_j)`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}(\overline{x}_{ij}e_i\overline{e}_j)\text{.}`$
Thus we get

$$\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}(x_{ij}e_i\overline{e}_j)=\theta _{2(\overline{V},V)}(\overline{x}_{ij}e_i\overline{e}_j)\text{,}$$

i.e. the components $`x_{ij}`$ are again real.$`\mathrm{}`$

We now introduce some terminology to describe TQFT’s for which $`\eta `$ extends to $`\eta `$. First we define the notion of an algebraic category with hermitian structure, based on the example in Section 3.

###### Definition 5.4

We say that the full algebraic category $`(𝒟,𝐐)`$ has a hermitian structure if:

1. $`K`$ has an involution, $`j:KK`$,
2. The endofunctor $`Q`$ on $`𝐃`$ acts on the underlying $`K`$-modules and their morphisms as follows: for objects $`V`$ of $`𝐃`$

$$G(Q(V))=G(V)^j\text{,}$$

where $`G(V)^j`$ denotes the $`K`$-module with the same underlying set and addition as $`G(V)`$ and scalar multiplication $`_j`$ given by $`\alpha _jx=j(\alpha )x`$, where scalar multiplication in $`G(V)`$ is denoted by juxtaposition. For morphisms $`f:VW`$ of $`𝐃`$:

$$G(Q(f))=k_{G(W)}G(f)k_{G(V)}^1\text{,}$$

where $`k_{G(V)}:G(V)G(V)^j`$ is the $`j`$-semilinear map given by $`k_{G(V)}(x)=x`$, for all $`xG(V)`$,
3. for every object $`V`$ of $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ the evaluation is non-degenerate, in the sense that the associated adjoint homomorphisms

$$G(Q(V))G(V)^{}\text{ and }G(V)G(Q(V))^{}\text{,}$$

are isomorphisms, where $`G(V)^{}=\mathrm{H}om(G(V),K)`$,
4. $`𝐐:𝒟𝒟`$ is given, in terms of Definition 3.10, by

$$x_{Q(V)}=k_{G(V)}(x)\text{.}$$

###### Definition 5.5

Let $`(Z,\eta ):(𝒞,P)(𝒟,Q)`$ be a TQFT functor and $`𝐐`$ be an extension of $`Q`$. If $`\eta `$ extends to $`\eta :Z𝐏𝐐Z`$, we say that the pair $`(Z,\eta )`$ is a *full TQFT functor* from $`(𝒞,𝐏)`$ to $`(𝒟,𝐐)`$.
If in addition, $`𝒟`$ has a hermitian structure, $`(Z,\eta )`$ is said to be a *hermitian TQFT*.
A hermitian TQFT for which $`K=`$, $`j`$ is complex-conjugation and the evaluation is positive definite for every object $`𝒮(𝐃)`$ (i.e. the bilinear map $`Q(V)\times VK`$, corresponding to the evaluation, is positive definite) is called a *unitary* TQFT.

Example: The category $`𝒟`$ has hermitian structure both in our main example (see page 3), if we ensure that $`e_V`$ is non-degenerate, and in the Example 3.13 of hermitian linear spaces.

For the $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s considered in the previous section, our discussion above about the conditions for $`\eta `$ to extend to $`\eta `$ gives rise to the following characterization of unitary TQFT’s:

###### Theorem 5.6

Unitary TQFT’s of the type considered in Theorem 4.6 are in 1-1 correspondence with pairs of real-valued tensors $`d_i`$, $`p_{ijk}`$ satisfying the Relations 1-4 there.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.7

In  Atiyah defined $`(d+1)`$-dimensional TQFT’s over $``$, for which $`X`$ is a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional oriented differentiable manifold with boundary $`A`$, and $`V_A`$ is a finite-dimensional complex vector space, with $`Z_XV_A`$. Our Condition (5.1) corresponds to Atiyah’s hermitian axiom

$$Z_X=\overline{Z}_X\text{,}$$

where $`X`$ denotes $`X`$ with opposite orientation, and $`\overline{Z}_X`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`Z_X`$ when $`A=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`V_A=`$, and $`k_{V_A}(Z_X)`$ otherwise.
For a hermitian TQFT the evaluation on $`V_A`$ gives rise to a hermitian form on $`V_A`$ and induces an isomorphism

$$V_AV_A^{}\text{,}$$

where $`A`$ denotes $`A`$ with opposite orientation, which is the involutory axiom of Atiyah’s paper.

## 6 Final Comments

The example of $`2`$-dimensional TQFT’s was useful for illustrating the formalism, but describes a rather straightforward topological setup. In future work we hope to use our framework to gain new insight into more substantial examples, in particular Stallings manifolds  in $`3`$-dimensional topology, which are obtained by self-gluing from manifolds of the form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }I`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`2`$-dimensional, and parallel transport for gerbes . An interesting avenue on the algebraic side would be to try and incorporate infinite-dimensional vector spaces into the approach.