Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2016

    I have added to the entry split idempotent the statement (here) that in a triangulated category in which the direct sum of two triangles is a triangle, then idempotents split.

    (Maybe that should rather go into the entry Cauchy complete category?)

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2016
    • (edited Jul 12th 2016)

    I have used this to write out a full proof (here) of the “Adams universal coefficient theorem”, namely the statement that for EE a homotopy ring spectrum such that E (E)E_\bullet(E) is flat over π (E)\pi_\bullet(E) and XX a spectrum such that E (X)E_\bullet(X) is projective over π (E)\pi_\bullet(E), then

    [X,EY] Hom E (E) (E (X),E (Y)) [X, E \wedge Y]_\bullet \overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} Hom^\bullet_{E_\bullet(E)}( E_\bullet(X), E_\bullet(Y) )

    is an isomorphism, where on the right we have the graded hom of comodule homomorphisms over the dual EE-Steenrod algebra.

    The proof in Adams 74, p. 323 of this fact invokes the stronger statement that under these conditions and for ZZ any homotopy EE-module spectrum then also

    [X,Z] Hom π (E)(E (X),π (Z)) [X, Z]_\bullet \simeq Hom_{\pi_\bullet(E)}( E_\bullet(X), \pi_\bullet(Z) )

    is an isomorphism (where what is needed for the above is only the case that ZZ is a free module spectrum EYE \wedge Y ), but this stronger statement (which is really what Adams calles the UCT) holds only under much more restrictive conditions. The general proof of the above I am deducing from Schwede 12, chapter II, prop. 6.20, which however at the end is vague about how the conclusion via idempotent splitting in Ho(Spectra)Ho(Spectra) follows. (It looks like there may have been a copy-and-pasting mismatch in the compilation of that proof.) It’s precisely that result by Bökstedt-Neemn in #1 above which concludes that proof.

  1. The proof in Bokstedt-Neeman of idempotent completeness for triangulated categories appeals to the existence and exactness of arbitrary direct sums, not just binary direct sums, since it uses totalizations to construct the splittings. The proposition is false under the weaker hypothesis. Remark 3.2 in Schnurer’s “Homotopy categories and idempotent completeness, weight structures and weight complex functors” gives a counter-example.

    Anonymous

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2019

    thanks for fixing the prop, but then we should also point to that counterexample, for good measure – have added the remark here

    diff, v15, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)