Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeJun 8th 2025
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexDeleted the entire article, here is its former content: ##Tentative## If [[group cohomology]] studies morphism between [[Eilenberg-MacLane object]]s /[[Eilenberg-MacLane space|spaces]] $[K(A, n), K(B, m)]$, usually in the case $n = 1$, one might imagine **group homotopy** would study $[M(A, n), M(B, m)]$, especially for $m = 1$, where the $M(A, n)$ are [[Moore space|Moore spaces]]. (Or should we take co-Moore spaces?) One difference is that $K(G, 1)$ is defined for nonabelian $G$, whereas $M(G, 1)$ is only defined for abelian $G$. +-- {: .query} [[David Corfield]]: An asymmetry in the structure and co-structure of the circle? $S^1$ is both $K(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ and $M(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$, and supports an abelian group structure but a nonabelian [[cogroup]] structure, so first cohomology must be abelian, but not necessarily first homotopy. [[Urs Schreiber]]: might it be more an asymmetry in the definition: since [[Moore space]] involves [[homology]] which is (in the sense described there) the _abelian_ version of [[homotopy]]. [[David Corfield]]: some people, e.g., Hatcher, talk of homotopy with coefficients as probing spaces with co-Moore spaces, based on cohomology, so I'm not sure if your point is right. The ordinary homotopy groups come from maps out of co-Moore spaces for $G = \mathbb{Z}$, i.e., the spheres. These are all cogroups, but not abelian in the case of the 1-sphere. Cohomology groups come from mapping into E-M spaces. In the case of $K(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ we again have the circle, but this time it supports an abelian group. I guess $K(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ comes from forming loop spaces from above, higher $n$, so will be abelian, whereas $M(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ comes from suspending from below, and only goes abelian at the second stage. =-- According to Baues, the groups $[M(A, n), M(B, m)]$ are not at all understood. This is clear, since for $A = B = \mathbb{Z}$, these are the homotopy groups of the spheres. >Need to say something about homology decomposition and homotopy decomposition (see Baues, <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xoM5DxQZihQC">Homotopy Types</a>. Homology decomposition fails to be natural, but Baues introduces 'boundary invariants' which are natural. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/group+homotopy+%3E+history/5">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/group+homotopy+%3E+history/5">v5</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/group+homotopy+%3E+history">current</a>

   Deleted the entire article, here is its former content:

   Tentative

   If group cohomology studies morphism between Eilenberg-MacLane objects /spaces $[K(A, n), K(B, m)]$, usually in the case $n = 1$, one might imagine group homotopy would study $[M(A, n), M(B, m)]$, especially for $m = 1$, where the $M(A, n)$ are Moore spaces. (Or should we take co-Moore spaces?)

   One difference is that $K(G, 1)$ is defined for nonabelian $G$, whereas $M(G, 1)$ is only defined for abelian $G$.

   +– {: .query}

   David Corfield: An asymmetry in the structure and co-structure of the circle? $S^1$ is both $K(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ and $M(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$, and supports an abelian group structure but a nonabelian cogroup structure, so first cohomology must be abelian, but not necessarily first homotopy.

   Urs Schreiber: might it be more an asymmetry in the definition: since Moore space involves homology which is (in the sense described there) the abelian version of homotopy.

   David Corfield: some people, e.g., Hatcher, talk of homotopy with coefficients as probing spaces with co-Moore spaces, based on cohomology, so I’m not sure if your point is right. The ordinary homotopy groups come from maps out of co-Moore spaces for $G = \mathbb{Z}$, i.e., the spheres. These are all cogroups, but not abelian in the case of the 1-sphere. Cohomology groups come from mapping into E-M spaces. In the case of $K(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ we again have the circle, but this time it supports an abelian group. I guess $K(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ comes from forming loop spaces from above, higher $n$, so will be abelian, whereas $M(\mathbb{Z}, 1)$ comes from suspending from below, and only goes abelian at the second stage.

   =–

   According to Baues, the groups $[M(A, n), M(B, m)]$ are not at all understood. This is clear, since for $A = B = \mathbb{Z}$, these are the homotopy groups of the spheres.

   Need to say something about homology decomposition and homotopy decomposition (see Baues, Homotopy Types. Homology decomposition fails to be natural, but Baues introduces ’boundary invariants’ which are natural.

   diff, v5, current