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

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory kan 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 natural nforum nlab nonassociative 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

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
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2018

    renamed from “geometric fixed points” to “geometric fixed point spectrum”, which is clearly the better/right entry title

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2018

    added the statement (here) that the geometric fixed point spectrum of an equivariant suspension spectrum constitues exactly the “first” summand in the tom Dieck splitting of the plain fixed point spectrum

    added the same remark also in at tom Dieck splitting

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018
    • (edited Sep 18th 2018)

    Is there a “partial” geometric fixed point construction?

    For NGN \subset G a normal subgroup inclusion, is there a functor

    Φ N:GSpectraG/NSpectra \Phi^N \;\colon\; G Spectra \longrightarrow G/N Spectra

    such that

    Φ NΣ G XΣ G/N X \Phi^N \Sigma^\infty_G X \;\simeq\; \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X

    ?

    And if so, does this participate in a “partial” tom Dieck splitting with the relative homotopy fixed point functor

    F N:GSpectraG/NSpectra F^N \;\colon\; G Spectra \longrightarrow G/N Spectra

    such that

    F NΣ G XΣ G/N X F^N \Sigma^\infty_G X \simeq \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X \;\vee\; \cdots

    ?

    [ edit: found the answer to the first question: very bottom of p. 40 here ]

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018
    • (edited Sep 18th 2018)

    I have tried to write out a proof that

    the NN-fixed point comparison map

    (Σ G S V) G 0(*)AAp VAA(Φ NΣ G S V) G/N 0(*)=(Σ G/N S 0) G/N 0(*)=A(G/N) (\Sigma^\infty_G S^V)^0_{G}(\ast) \overset{\phantom{AA} p_V \phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow} (\Phi^N \Sigma^\infty_G S^V)^0_{G/N}(\ast) = (\Sigma^\infty_{G/N} S^0)^0_{G/N}(\ast) = A(G/N)

    from the GG-equivariant stable cohomotopy of the point in RO(G)-degree VV to the G/NG/N-equivariant stable cohomotopy in degree 0 is surjective (here)

    Maybe there is a gap where I am claiming that the triangular diagram is a colimiting cone in two ways (the apex certainly is, but do I know from this that the component maps p Vp_V really coincide?)

    But need to run now, will check or else delete later

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018

    Yes, of course, it works: one p Vp_V is surjective by the argument given in the entry. But then, by the universal property of the colimit, it factors through the other p Vp_V followeded by an endo map (of finite abelian groups!) For the latter to be surjective it must be an iso.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018

    Yes, of course, it works: one p Vp_V is surjective by the argument given in the entry. But then, by the universal property of the colimit, it factors through the other p Vp_V followeded by an endo map (of finitely generated free abelian groups!) For the latter to be surjective it must be an iso.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2018
    • (edited Sep 19th 2018)

    okay, I have polished and completed (I think) the proof of that claim (now here):


    Let GG be a finite group. Then the canonical comparison morphism exhibits the GG-equivariant stable cohomotopy group of the point in any RO(G)-degree VV that has trivial NN-fixed points (V N=0V^N = 0) as a group extension of the G/NG/N-equivariant stable cohomotopy of the point in RO(G/N)-degree zero:

    𝕊 G V(*)AepiA𝕊 G/N 0(*)A(G/N). \mathbb{S}_G^{V}(\ast) \overset { \phantom{A} \text{epi} \phantom{A} } {\longrightarrow} \mathbb{S}_{G/N}^0(\ast) \simeq A(G/N) \,.

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2018
    • (edited Sep 19th 2018)

    Tom Bachmann kindly confirms (here) that one more remaining gap that I noticed, labeled by double question marks (here), can be filled. But I still need to understand the argument he provides…

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2018
    • (edited Sep 19th 2018)

    I was instead thinking about arguing to bridge that remaining gap (here) as follows, but not sure yet:

    The proof of prop. II 9.13 on Lewis-May-Steinberger shows that the map in question, which I want to see is surjective, is induced by tensoring with the map

    S 0E˜[N]. S^0 \longrightarrow \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N] \,.

    But earlier around Prop. 9.4, they seem to show that tensoring with this map is what induces the localization of GG-spectra to G/NG/N-spectra.

    This would reduce me to arguing that the localization functor is full. Isn’t that the case?

    Will have to think more about this. But now I need to go offline for tonight.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2018

    added pointer to

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2018
    • (edited Sep 20th 2018)

    I brought in a batch of further lemmas from Lewis-May-Steinberger 86, II.9 in a new subsection now titled “In terms of smashing localization” (here).

    (This section is currently bare bones, using notation from LMS without introducing it. )

    Then I used this (in this prop.) to make fully explicit the colimiting degree-0 component that is implicit in the proof of LMS II Prop. 9.13, showing that this is, up to equivalence, given by [N]\mathcal{F}[N]'-localization:

    p E N(X):E ε *α(ε X) =Hom GSpectra(ε Σ G/N X,Σ G S εαE) Hom GSpectra(ε Σ G/N X,Σ G S εαS 0E) locHom GSpectra(ε Σ G/N X,Σ G S εαE˜[N]E) Hom G/NSpectra(Σ G/N X,(Σ G S ε *αE˜[N]E) N) Hom G/NSpectra(Σ G/N X,(S ε *α) N(E˜[N]E) N) Hom G/NSpectra(Σ G/N X,S αΦ NE) =(Φ NE) α(X) \begin{aligned} p_E^N(X) \;\colon\; E^{\epsilon^\ast \alpha}(\epsilon^\sharp X) & = Hom_{G Spectra}\left( \epsilon^\sharp \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X \;,\; \Sigma^\infty_G S^{\epsilon \alpha} \wedge E \right) \\ & \simeq Hom_{G Spectra}\left( \epsilon^\sharp \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X \;,\; \Sigma^\infty_G S^{\epsilon \alpha} \wedge S^0 \wedge E \right) \\ & \overset{ loc }{\longrightarrow} Hom_{G Spectra}\left( \epsilon^\sharp \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X \;,\; \Sigma^\infty_G S^{\epsilon \alpha} \wedge \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N]\wedge E \right) \\ & \simeq Hom_{G/N Spectra}\left( \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X \;,\; \left( \Sigma^\infty_G S^{\epsilon^\ast \alpha} \wedge \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N] \wedge E \right)^N \right) \\ & \simeq Hom_{G/N Spectra}\left( \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X \;,\; \left( S^{\epsilon^\ast \alpha} \right)^N \wedge \left( \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N] \wedge E \right)^N \right) \\ & \simeq Hom_{G/N Spectra}\left( \Sigma^\infty_{G/N} X \;,\; S^{\alpha} \wedge \Phi^N E \right) \\ & = (\Phi^N E)^{\alpha}(X) \end{aligned}

    diff, v22, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2018
    • (edited Sep 20th 2018)

    [ removed ]

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 21st 2018
    • (edited Sep 21st 2018)

    brought in yet more lemmas from LMS86 (also added introduction of more of the notation) such as to extract this corollary (here):


    On hom-sets of G-spaces Ho GSpaces(X,Y)Ho_{G Spaces}(X,Y), postcomposing with the smashing (S 0E˜[N])Y(S^0 \to \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N]) \wedge Y is isomorphic to restricting along X NXX^N \hookrightarrow X: The following is a commuting square (by nature of the hom-functor) and the right and bottom morphisms are bijections by this Lemma:

    Ho GSpaces(X,Y) Ho GSpaces(X NN,Y) Ho GSpaces(X N,Y) Ho GSpaces(X N,Y N) Ho GSpaces(X,(S 0E˜[N])Y) Ho GSpaces(X N,(S 0E˜[N])Y) Ho GSpaces(X,E˜[N]Y) Ho GSpaces(X NX,E˜[N]Y) Ho GSpaces(X N,E˜[N]Y) \array{ Ho_{G Spaces} \big( X, Y \big) & \overset{ Ho_{G Spaces} \big( X^N \hookrightarrow N, Y \big) }{ \longrightarrow } & Ho_{G Spaces}\big( X^N, Y \big) &\simeq& Ho_{G Spaces}\big( X^N, Y^N \big) \\ {}^{ \mathllap{ Ho_{G Spaces}( X, (S^0 \to \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N]) \wedge Y ) } } \big\downarrow && {}^{\mathllap{\simeq}}\big\downarrow {}^{ \mathrlap{ Ho_{G Spaces}( X^N, (S^0 \to \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N]) \wedge Y ) } } \\ Ho_{G Spaces}\big( X, \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N] \wedge Y \big) & \underoverset {\simeq} { Ho_{G Spaces} \big( X^N \hookrightarrow X, \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N] \wedge Y \big) } {\longrightarrow} & Ho_{G Spaces}\big( X^N, \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N] \wedge Y \big) }

    This then I used to finish off the argument at the beginning of my inductive proof (here) of surjectivity of 𝕊 G V(*)𝕊 G/N 0(*)\mathbb{S}^V_G(\ast) \to \mathbb{S}^0_{G/N}(\ast) (whenever V N=0V^N = 0), for the case V=0V = 0:


    In this case the identification with the Burnside ring (via this Prop.) applies also to the domain cohomology group:

    𝕊 G V(*)limVGRepHo GSpaces(S V,S V)A(G), \mathbb{S}_G^V(\ast) \;\simeq\; \underset{\underset{V \in G Rep}{\longrightarrow}}{\lim} Ho_{G Spaces}\big(S^V, S^V \big) \simeq A(G) \,,

    By this Prop. the comparison morphism acts on this by smashing the codomain of the hom-sets with (S 0E˜[N])(S^0 \to \tilde E \mathcal{F}[N]). But by this Corollary this is equivalent to restricting to NN-fixed point spaces so that the comparison map becomes simply the projection of Burnside rings

    A(G) limVGRep Ho GSpaces(S V,S V) 𝕊 G 0(*) () N limVGRepHo GSpaces(S V,S V(S 0E˜[E])) = limVGRepHo GSpaces((S V) NS V,S V) p 𝕊 N(*) A(G/N) limWG/NRep Ho G/NSpaces(S W,S W) 𝕊 G/N 0(*) \array{ A(G) &\simeq& \underset{\underset{ V \in G Rep }{\longrightarrow}}{\lim} & Ho_{G Spaces}\big( S^V, S^V \big) &\simeq& \mathbb{S}^0_G(\ast) \\ {}^{\mathllap{ (-)^N }}\big\downarrow && \big\downarrow {}^{{}_{ \mathrlap{ \array{ \underset{\underset{V \in G Rep}{\longrightarrow}}{\lim} Ho_{G Spaces}\big( S^V, S^V \wedge (S^0 \to \tilde E\mathcal{F}[E]) \big) \\ = \\ \underset{\underset{V \in G Rep}{\longrightarrow}}{\lim} Ho_{G Spaces}\big( (S^V)^N \hookrightarrow S^V, S^V \big) } } } } & && \big\downarrow{}^{ \mathrlap{ p_\mathbb{S}^N(\ast) } } \\ A(G/N) &\simeq& \underset{\underset{ W \in G/N Rep }{\longrightarrow}}{\lim} & Ho_{G/N Spaces}\big( S^W, S^W \big) &\simeq& \mathbb{S}^0_{G/N}(\ast) }

    sending any G-set KK to its subset K NK^N of NN-fixed points regarded with its residual G/NG/N-action.

    This is clearly surjective.


    diff, v24, 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)