Timeline for Why did Ravenel define a ring spectrum to be flat if its smash-square splits into copies of itself?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2023 at 17:10 | vote | accept | Doron Grossman-Naples | ||
| Jan 25, 2023 at 5:07 | comment | added | Tyler Lawson | But I forgot Adams writes this slick argument that, in the flat case, the Kunneth pairing is a natural transformation between homology theories that is an isomorphism for the sphere. So yes; there's no smash product over E and no general Kunneth but there's a way around it! | |
| Jan 25, 2023 at 5:03 | comment | added | Tyler Lawson | @kiran Ah, sneaky. There is a condition (the Adams-Atiyah condition) intermediate between (1) and (3) that enables you to get Kenneth spectral sequences - like in Tom Goodwillie's answer, it involves being a filtered colimit. I had thought this was used to get the result in question. | |
| Jan 25, 2023 at 3:05 | comment | added | Nicholas Kuhn | I was going to write a comment about the year too. Doug is writing his books in the mid to late 1980's, when, e.g. Jacob Lurie was in elementary school. | |
| Jan 25, 2023 at 1:26 | comment | added | kiran | Why does (3) require highly-structured associativity? That definition appears in Adams blue book from the 70s which, it was my understanding, doesn't deal with any high structure | |
| Jan 25, 2023 at 0:39 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | +1 for "maybe it is 1992" | |
| Jan 25, 2023 at 0:36 | history | edited | Tyler Lawson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2023 at 0:28 | history | answered | Tyler Lawson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |