Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: KK-theory

Bottom of Page

1 to 27 of 27

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2012
    • (edited Apr 2nd 2013)

    added to KK-theory brief remark and reference to relation to stable ∞\infty-categories / triangulated categories

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2013

    I had added some more references at KK-theory.

    (I also expanded the Idea-section a little, but it’s still stubby and needs attention.)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2013

    Have been further adding bits and pieces to KK-theory. But still not really coherent.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013

    :-) should KK-theory be a double letter theory now that we have letter theory?!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013
    • (edited Apr 3rd 2013)

    I think of KK theory rather as a bicycle theory.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013
    • (edited Apr 3rd 2013)

    GG-theory mentioned in letter theory is in fact classical – I think it is the KK-theory of the category of coherent sheaves over a scheme (there are two standard kinds of algebraic KK-theories – one for locally free and another for coherent sheaves). I do not see the point to make the letter theories which do not exist from the list into the question mark links, it is misleading.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013

    Which letter theories provably don’t exist?

    You just added one more, G-theory. But, yeah, it’s an intentionally whimsical entry. I thought that’s clear enough.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013
    • (edited Apr 3rd 2013)

    But, yeah, it’s an intentionally whimsical entry.

    Still, my point is why not listing nonexisting letter theories WITHOUT CREATING link. You know, false links clutter the list of all wanted entries (nonexisting entries which we seriously intend to create in future) with trash. (I know that the call to all entries list is now temporarily disabled but the lists for given category do list referred nonexisting entries)

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013

    Sure. No objection.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013

    Spanier wrote about S-theory. Duality and S-theory. I guess it didn’t take off.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013

    Thanks. Anyway, worthwhile to record: S-theory.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013

    I have further worked on KK-theory and now it is beginning to look like a coherent entry, I think.

    There is now the standard definition pretty much in full detail.

    Then there is a section stating the universal characterization of KK as the additive, split-exact homotopy-invariant localization of C’Alg at the compact operators.

    Also added a bunch more commented references.

    Still just a start, but at least now it’s a decent start, I think.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2013

    Added a brief remark section Relation to operator K-cohomology, K-homology, twisted K-theory and a pointer to the article by Tu+Xu+LaurentGengoux on KK-theory of differentiable stacks. Also a smilar paragraph at groupoid convolution algebra.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013

    I have re-organized and expanded the Idea-section at KK-theory.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2013

    added further commented references to KK-theory. Also added a section with some remarks on excision and the relation to E-theory.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2013
    • (edited May 17th 2013)

    I have added some pointers to presentatiosn of KK-groups in terms of spans/correspondences of spaces (“topological presentation”), in

    Does anyone have more on this topic? It is tempting to wonder if this is pointing to a more general and more abstract statement.

    Notably if we allow spans/correspondences of differentiable stacks and more generally allow the correspondence space to be a smooth groupoid, how far can we get with modelling KK-classes between the corresponding convolution algebras?

    And once we talk about a kind of quotient on something like the (infinity,1)-category of spans Span 1(Smooth∞Grpd)Span_1(Smooth \infty Grpd) in smooth infinity-groupoids in the first place, what might be a (more) elegant universal characterization?

    It is tempting to think of the stabilization Span 1(Smooth∞Grpd)→Stab(Span 1(Smooth∞Grpd))Span_1(Smooth \infty Grpd) \to Stab(Span_1(Smooth \infty Grpd)), but I don’t know.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2013

    Hm, now that I said this, it made me think that KK-theory should be closely related to motivic cohomology:

    in both cases one considers an abelianization/stabilization of correspondences of the relevant spaces.

    Hm. Looking around, I see that Grigory Garkusha has been writing about relating/identifying flavors of motivic cohomology and (algebraic) KK-theory, here.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2013

    That rings bells. Remembering that E-theory is not that distantly related to (strong) shape theory, and there is the Lurie form of Strong Shape theory, perhaps the place to look would be in the C*-algebra versions of strong shape but in a smooth setting. (I do not understand the motivic stuff enough to be more certain.)

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2013

    Hmm, I see Garkusha has been working with Mike Prest who works in model theory. The latter appeared in the model theory/category theory thread, and is someone trying to develop a functorial model theory.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2013

    On that line (but a bit off thread) see here. The group in WIMCS working on this area is very active.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2013
    • (edited May 19th 2013)

    Meyer’s arXiv preprint Categorical aspects of bivariant K-theory (arXiv:math/0702145) (quoted in KK-theory) has in fact being published in K-theory and noncommutative geometry, pp. 1–40, edited by Guillermo Cortiñas, Joachim Cuntz, Max Karoubi, Ryszard Nest, Charles A. Weibel, Eur. Math. Soc, 2008

    Yes, Urs, Grigory Garkusha has been working on a variant of motivic theory, so called K-motives; in addition to use of his own work, there is an ongoing collaboration he has with Ivan Panin, a strong algebraic geometer from Sankt Petersburg. Grigory asked me if I can help on a certain technical issue related to Barrat-Eccles operad, lifting certain tensor product to modules over that operad which are in the same time modules in the sense of certain spectral category (i.e. categories enriched over ring spectra). The tensor product structure is almost obvious, but up to certain natural isomorphisms, which seem to be a sort of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-distributive law. Work of Elmendorf and Mandell on permutative categories seem to touch a version of the same abstract problem in terms of a different version of the E ∞E_\infty-operad and mainly dwelling on E 4E_4-truncation. I worked a bit on that problem in April 2012 but not enough afterwards to finish it; the question (in somewhat simplified form) is posted here: pdf and (as far as I remember the motivation) its solution would be a step in establishing a crucial property of an important spectral sequence which would be useful to attack a major open conjecture in algebraic geometry (on which I am not an expert). I hope to return to that problem soon (Grigory would also like to hear from anybody who has advices toward an effective solution to this problem (as it is motivated by computation, one needs to have explicit recipes).)

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2013

    added some basic Examples

    (had more in mind, but am being interrupted now…)

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2013
    • (edited Aug 6th 2013)

    earlier today I had added to the references at KK-theory the note

    • Michael Joachim, Stephan Stolz, An enrichment of KK-theory over the category of symmetric spectra, Münster J. of Math. 2 (2009), 143–182 (pdf)

    This produces an enrichment 𝕂𝕂\mathbb{KK} of the KK category in KUKU-module spectra and a symmetric monoidal enriched functor

    𝕂𝕂→KUMod \mathbb{KK} \to KU Mod

    sending a C *C^\ast-algebra to its operator K-theory spectrum.

    This induces some evident questions:

    • Does this spectrum-enrichment 𝕂𝕂\mathbb{KK} present a stable ∞\infty-category structure?

    • To which extent is the functor 𝕂𝕂→KUMod\mathbb{KK} \to KU Mod full and/or faithful?

    If anyone has any further insights on this, I’d be most grateful for a hint.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2013
    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2013

    I started to add to the section Triangulated and spectrum enriched strucure some of the infor provided on MO. Not done yet, but have to interrupt now.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2022

    a commenter on MO kindly points out that the old question of realizing KK-theory as the homotopy category of a stable ∞\infty-category seems to finally have been answered:

    (now Bunke, Engel & Land 2021 in the entry)

    diff, v75, current

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2024

    pointer

    diff, v77, current

1 to 27 of 27

  1.