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 deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite 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 sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeAug 21st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a clarifying clause to [[infinity-field]] so it now reads >The [[Morava K-theory]] [[A-∞ rings]] $K(n)$ are essentially the only $A_\infty$-fields. See at _[Morava K-theory -- As infinity-Fields](Morava+K-theory#AsInfinityFields)_, where $K(0) \simeq H \mathbb{Q}$ and we define $K(\infty)$ as $H \mathbb{F}_p$. This is from Lurie's lectures. What precisely does he mean? He says in [lecture 24](http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/252xnotes/Lecture24.pdf) that for $k$ any field that its E-M spectrum $H k$ is an infinity-field, so the "essentially" is doing some work. Is the idea that all infinity-fields are $K(n)$-modules (cor 10, lecture 25), so the $K(n)$ essentially cover things? On another point, would there be a higher form of the rational/p-adic fracturing of $\mathbb{Z}$, involving the $K(n)$?

   I added a clarifying clause to infinity-field so it now reads

   The Morava K-theory A-∞ rings $K(n)$ are essentially the only $A_\infty$-fields. See at Morava K-theory – As infinity-Fields, where $K(0) \simeq H \mathbb{Q}$ and we define $K(\infty)$ as $H \mathbb{F}_p$.

   This is from Lurie’s lectures. What precisely does he mean? He says in lecture 24 that for $k$ any field that its E-M spectrum $H k$ is an infinity-field, so the “essentially” is doing some work. Is the idea that all infinity-fields are $K(n)$-modules (cor 10, lecture 25), so the $K(n)$ essentially cover things?

   On another point, would there be a higher form of the rational/p-adic fracturing of $\mathbb{Z}$, involving the $K(n)$?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeAug 21st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexMaybe it's like how every ordinary field has prime subfield either $\mathbb{Q}$ or $\mathbb{F}_p$. But it would be rather misleading to say these are "essentially the only fields", wouldn't it?

   Maybe it’s like how every ordinary field has prime subfield either $\mathbb{Q}$ or $\mathbb{F}_p$. But it would be rather misleading to say these are “essentially the only fields”, wouldn’t it?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 21st 2014
   • (edited Aug 21st 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. I suppose you are quite right. I have changed "essentially the only" to "the basic" now. But the "essentially the only" comes from that lecture which you point to, which in its final remark 13 says: > We will later see that every field satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 9 for some $0 \lt n \lt \infty$. In other words, the Morava K-theories $K(n)$ are essentially the only examples of fields in the stable homotopy category (provided that we allow the cases $n = 0$ and $n = \infty$). But I agree with you, that what prop. 9 actually says is much more like what you say in #2. (Unless I am missing something. I was confused about this point before. Maybe we are lucky and an expert sets us straigth, if necessary.)

   Thanks. I suppose you are quite right. I have changed “essentially the only” to “the basic” now.

   But the “essentially the only” comes from that lecture which you point to, which in its final remark 13 says:

   We will later see that every field satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 9 for some $0 \lt n \lt \infty$. In other words, the Morava K-theories $K(n)$ are essentially the only examples of fields in the stable homotopy category (provided that we allow the cases $n = 0$ and $n = \infty$).

   But I agree with you, that what prop. 9 actually says is much more like what you say in #2.

   (Unless I am missing something. I was confused about this point before. Maybe we are lucky and an expert sets us straigth, if necessary.)