6
$\begingroup$

Can we construct the category of spectra (or maybe just its homotopy category) from the category of pointed topological spaces using some kind of localization combined with other categorical constructions?

[The first part of the original question was wrong for a trivial reason pointed out by Reid Barton.]

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know the answer, but I have a related question. What if we let $f$ be the wedge of the maps $X\to \Omega \Sigma X$ (representing suspension) for all countable CW complexes X, and then apply Bousfield/Farjoun localization $L_f$? It seems to me that, for the purposes of mapping in finite complexes, we have inverted the suspension operation. $\endgroup$
    – Jeff Strom
    Commented Mar 1, 2010 at 0:46

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
9
$\begingroup$

[Removed a paragraph relating to an earlier version of the question]

You can construct Spectra categorically by adjoining an inverse to the endofunctor Σ of Top as a presentable (∞,1)-category. Inverting an endofunctor is a very different operation than inverting maps! It's like the difference between forming ℤ[1/p] and ℤ/(p).

Here is one way to verify the claim. To invert the endomorphism Σ of Top we should form the colimit, in the (∞,1)-category Pres of presentable categories and colimit-preserving functors, of the sequence Top → Top → ... where all the functors in the diagram are Σ. A basic fact about Pres is that we can compute such a colimit by forming the diagram (on the opposite index category) formed by the right adjoints of these functors, and taking its limit as a diagram of underlying (∞,1)-categories [HTT 5.5.3.18]. The functors in the limit cone will have left adjoints which are the functors to the colimit in Pres. In our case we obtain the sequence Top ← Top ← ... where the functors are Ω, and the limit of this sequence is precisely the classical definition of (Ω-)spectrum: a sequence of spaces Xn with equivalences Xn → ΩXn+1.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Minor quible. Don't you only get connective spectra by starting with Top and inverting the suspension functor? Also a question: If you start with Top and invert the loops functor do you also get the category of (connective) spectra? $\endgroup$
    – Chris Schommer-Pries
    Commented Feb 24, 2010 at 4:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's even worse than that, you only get the category of suspension spectra. Also, I had some other argument written here about inverting the loop functor which suffered from me accidentally getting an adjunction on the wrong side. Remember, kids: no Math Overflow late at night. $\endgroup$
    – Tyler Lawson
    Commented Feb 24, 2010 at 5:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I should have mentioned that I'm working in the world of presentable (∞,1)-categories. I'm pretty sure my new statement is correct. $\endgroup$
    – Reid Barton
    Commented Feb 24, 2010 at 5:28
  • $\begingroup$ Is the operation of adjoining an inverse to an endofunctor explained somewhere in Lurie's papers or anywhere else? $\endgroup$
    – Dmitri Pavlov
    Commented Feb 24, 2010 at 5:42
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know of a specific place where it is written down, but invertibility of an endofunctor is an (∞,1)-categorical (as opposed to (∞,2)-categorical) notion, so it's directly analogous to the situation in classical algebra. $\endgroup$
    – Reid Barton
    Commented Feb 24, 2010 at 6:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .