15
$\begingroup$

It is well-known that one can detect based loopspaces using the machinery of operads. Namely, given a group-like space $X$ with an action of $\mathbb{E}_n$-operad, then it is homotopy equivalent as an $\mathbb{E}_n$-space to $\Omega^n Y$ for some space $Y$.

Is anyone aware of a similar recognition principle for free loopspaces? Namely, is there some operad-like structure that if a space $X$ admits an action of this structure, then it is an $n$-fold free loopspace $\mathcal{L}^n Y$ for a space $Y$, which up to a weak equivalence is recovered from this action?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You should check this arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6989v2.pdf $\endgroup$ – Ilias A. Feb 22 '15 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Amrani Thanks for the reference. I was hoping for a more ``manageable'' model. Is there a less abstract model $\Theta_{S^1_+}$-space? @Sanath The use of operads is not strictly necessary, however, I am looking for something in the same spirit. $\endgroup$ – Nerses Aramian Feb 22 '15 at 21:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Great question. Some thoughts: (1) the free loop space of $X$ carries a $\mathrm{Diff}(S^1) \simeq S^1 \rtimes \mathbb Z/2$ action by rotating (and reflecting) the circle, and (2) the target, I think, can be reconstructed as the homotopy fixed points of this action. If I were to drop the orientation reversal, you would be asking: given a homotopy $S^1$-space $X$, when is $X = \mathrm{maps}(S^1,\mathrm{maps}_{S^1}(*,X))$? $\endgroup$ – Theo Johnson-Freyd Feb 23 '15 at 0:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Being a bit cavalier with hom-tensor adjunctions, I guess this is asking: give $G = S^1$ the trivial left $G$ action; then when is $\mathrm{maps}_G(G,X) \simeq X$ as $G$-spaces, where the $G$-action on $\mathrm{maps}_G(G,X)$ is via the usual (right) $G$-action on $G$. I am reminded of the following characterization: a monoid $M$ is a group iff the diagonal $M$ action on $M \times M$ is isomorphic (via some probably-non-identity map on $M \times M$) to the action which acts just on the left factor and trivially on the right. $\endgroup$ – Theo Johnson-Freyd Feb 23 '15 at 0:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Nerses: what motivates you to recognise free loop spaces? Why not something in a different direction, like suspension recognition? $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Feb 24 '15 at 19:34
6
$\begingroup$

Edit, 2/25/15: Well, after discussing it with Nerses in the comments, it seems I was wrong; taking homotopy fixed points does work! (If you're already guaranteed that the space is a free loop space, that is.) The argument is at the end. Most of my original answer is below.


First, there is a general machine you can try to run in situations like this to see what structure is available: in any category with finite coproducts, the functor $\text{Hom}(c, -)$ naturally acquires the structure of a model of the Lawvere theory whose $n$-ary operations are given by maps $c \to nc$, where

$$nc = \bigsqcup_{i=1}^n c$$

denotes the coproduct of $n$ copies of $c$. This is because $\text{Hom}(nc, -) \cong \text{Hom}(c, -)^n$, and by the Yoneda lemma, natural transformations $\text{Hom}(c, -)^n \to \text{Hom}(c, -)$ are naturally in bijection with homomorphisms $c \to nc$.

If you run this machine in the homotopy category of pointed spaces with $S^1$ the circle, you get that $\text{Hom}(S^1, -)$ naturally acquires the structure of a model of a Lawvere theory which turns out to be the Lawvere theory of groups, as expected. Similarly, for $S^n, n \ge 2$ you get the Lawvere theory of abelian groups. (Details here; other examples here and here.)

Unfortunately, any version of this machine in unpointed spaces suffers from the same problem: in unpointed spaces, the coproduct is the disjoint union, so e.g. morphisms from a circle $S^1$ into a disjoint union $n S^1$ of $n$ circles factor through the inclusion of one of the connected components. This means that the resulting Lawvere theory has no interesting $n$-ary operations, and that everything is determined by the unary operations, or by morphisms $S^1 \to S^1$.

And this is just not a lot of data. Consider the case that $Y = BG$ is the classifying space of a discrete group $G$. Then $LY = LBG$ is the classifying space of the groupoid $G/G$, the adjoint quotient of $G$, which has objects the elements of the group and morphisms given by conjugation. This is equivalent to the disjoint union of the classifying spaces $B C_G(g)$ of the centralizers of a representative of each conjugacy class of $G$. A map $S^1 \to S^1$ of degree $k$ sends the conjugacy class of $g \in G$ to the conjugacy class of $g^k$, but otherwise the different conjugacy classes don't interact, so I don't see any hope for gluing them back together via a procedure like taking homotopy fixed points.


Edit, 2/25/15: Now for the argument. I was being silly. It's very straightforward:

Theorem: Let $S$ be a topological group and let $Y$ be a space. Then the space of $S$-homotopy fixed points for the natural action of $S$ on the mapping space $[S, Y]$ is weakly equivalent to $Y$.

Sketch. By the universal property, $S$-homotopy fixed points for the natural action of $S$ on $[S, Y]$ is weakly equivalent to the mapping space $[S/S, Y]$, where $S/S$ now denotes the homotopy quotient of the natural action of $S$ on itself by translation (not conjugation). But $S/S$ is a point. $\Box$

But because I was so confused about the case $S = S^1, Y = BG$ I want to go through it in detail. First let's describe explicitly what the action of $S^1$ on

$$LBG = B(G/G) = \bigsqcup_{[g]} B C_G(g)$$

is, where the union runs over all conjugacy classes $[g]$ of $G$. One of my confusions is that I forgot that taking $g$ to be the identity gave a copy of $BG$ sitting inside $LBG$ to aim for; what happens when we take homotopy fixed points is that all of the other connected components just disappear, rather than becoming spliced back together.

Giving an action of $S^1$ on each component amounts to writing down a map $S^1 \to \text{Aut}(B C_G(g))$ for each $[g]$, hence (after taking $\pi_1$) writing down a map $\mathbb{Z} \to Z(C_G(g))$. Of course there is only one natural candidate for such a map, which is the map sending a generator $1 \in \mathbb{Z}$ to $g \in Z(C_G(g))$. The action of $S^1$ on $B C_G(g)$ obtained in this way is encoded in a fiber sequence

$$B C_G(g) \to E \to B S^1$$

where $E$ is the homotopy quotient of $B C_G(g)$ by this action, and the homotopy fixed points of the action are homotopy sections of the map $E \to BS^1$. The long exact sequence in homotopy applied to this fiber sequence is

$$1 \to \pi_2(E) \to \pi_2(BS^1) \cong \mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{g} C_G(g) \to \pi_1(E) \to 1$$

and we conclude that $\pi_2(E) \cong |g| \mathbb{Z}$ if $g$ has finite order $|g|$ in $C_G(g)$ and that $\pi_2(E) \cong 0$ if $g$ has infinite order. It follows that the map $\pi_2(E) \to \pi_2(BS^1)$ has no homotopy sections unless $g$ is the identity, so in fact only the conjugacy class of the identity contributes to homotopy fixed points. In this case the action of $S^1$ is trivial, $E = BG \times BS^1$, and hence the space of homotopy sections is the space of maps $BS^1 \to BG$. But since $\pi_1(BS^1)$ vanishes this is just $BG$ itself.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The paper linked to by Amrani Ilias works in pointed spaces and allows a bit more structure than the approach above, using not just coproducts of copies of $c$ but also suspensions (in a setting where that makes sense, e.g. an $\infty$-category). But the fact that it's working in pointed spaces is crucial; it's using the based suspension. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 23 '15 at 5:14
  • $\begingroup$ I haven't looked at the paper very carefully, but does the space have to be connected? Can't we just take the maps from $S^1_+$? $\endgroup$ – Nerses Aramian Feb 23 '15 at 5:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Nerses: that doesn't fix anything. The copy of $S^1$ is disconnected from the basepoint so the wedge sum is just the disjoint union with a basepoint added. You still don't get any interesting $n$-ary operations. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 23 '15 at 5:55
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the comment by Theo. Isn't it true that if we take $Y$ an $S^1$-space, then $Y^{hS^1}$ is the homotopy limit of the cosimplicial space $\mathcal{L}^\bullet Y$, where we use the $S^1$-action to twist the coface maps (in the discrete case this is the complex that computes the group cohomology)? If it is true then in the case, when $Y=\mathcal{L}X$, we get that $(\mathcal{L}X)^{hS^1}$ is equivalent to $\mathrm{Map}(\mathrm{hocolim}({(S^1)^{(\times \bullet+1)}}),X)$, where $\mathrm{hocolim}({(S^1)^{(\times \bullet+1)}})$ is just a point. $\endgroup$ – Nerses Aramian Feb 25 '15 at 6:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Nerses: it seems I spoke too soon. I think you're right and I'm wrong! My apologies. I'll edit in details. I failed to recognize that homotopy fixed points on some connected component could be empty. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 25 '15 at 8:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.