Why was it reasonable to ask what the higher K-groups are? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-21T02:38:20Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/67595 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/67595/why-was-it-reasonable-to-ask-what-the-higher-k-groups-are Why was it reasonable to ask what the higher K-groups are? James D. Taylor 2011-06-12T18:50:53Z 2011-06-14T22:41:48Z <p>To say I am a novice in $K$-theory is to overstate my experience with the field. I've been reading the various wiki articles so as to have some preparation before jumping in, and I couldn't answer the following question to myself:</p> <p>I understand that $K$-theory had started with the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch in mind, and that the only thing that was needed for that purpose from $K$-theory was just to define the Grothendieck Group ($K_0$). Once the idea of the Grothendieck group was established, this was generalized to topological spaces, as well as for other kinds of modules. Then comes the step I don't understand -- it seems that people were then trying to find the higher $K$-groups that would make $K$-theory into a cohomological theory. Milnor came up with Milnor $K$-theory, which I understand from wiki is different from later notions of higher $K$-theory. But why would one leap from the concept of the Grothendieck group to thinking that this construction is the $0^{th}$ step in a cohomological theory? What was the context/motivation for that?</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/67595/why-was-it-reasonable-to-ask-what-the-higher-k-groups-are/67606#67606 Answer by André Henriques for Why was it reasonable to ask what the higher K-groups are? André Henriques 2011-06-12T21:36:49Z 2011-06-14T22:41:48Z <p>After having defined <i>K</i><sub>0</sub>, a natural things to do is to study its functoriality properties. You do that, and you notice some exact sequences... that you happen to be able to extend a bit by using the functors <i>K</i><sub>1</sub>, and then later <i>K</i><sub>2</sub>.</p> <p>It is then natural (specially if you know what cohomology is) to try to find long exact sequences that extend the above sequences... A lot of people tried to do that.<br><br></p> <p>Quillen's brilliant idea was to <i>define</i> algebraic <i>K</i>-theory as the homotopy groups of an appropriately constructed space. In that way, the long exact sequences came as natural consequences of known long exact sequences in topology. <br> Slogan: <i>Homotopy theory is the mother of all long exact sequences.</i><br><br></p> <p><i>Aside:</i> I also recommend reading Thomason's work on algebraic <i>K</i>-theory of schemes: it's beautifully written!</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/67595/why-was-it-reasonable-to-ask-what-the-higher-k-groups-are/67609#67609 Answer by Richard Borcherds for Why was it reasonable to ask what the higher K-groups are? Richard Borcherds 2011-06-12T22:00:16Z 2011-06-12T22:00:16Z <p>The idea of considering higher K-groups comes from topology, and is due to Atiyah, Bott, and Hirzebruch. Atiyah and Hirzebruch defined topological K theory and observed that Bott periodicity says that $K(X)$ is more or less the same as $K(S^2X)$. This suggested to them defining a generalized cohomology theory of period 2 by using all the groups $K(S^nX)$ (this was the first example of a generalized cohomology theory). Once one realizes that topological $K^0$ can be extended to topological $K^n$, it does not take much imagination to suggest that algebraic $K^0$ also has an extension to algebraic $K^n$. (Of course, finding this extension was much harder than guessing it existed.)</p>