I have often heard that it is not known whether or not the Brown-Peterson spectrum $BP$ is an $E_\infty$-ring spectrum. Though I see that this is a somewhat natural question to ask, I have often wondered what would the practical consequences of an answer to this question would be.

In particular, I am wondering what would a positive answer to this question mean for homotopy theory. Are there computations we would be able to do that we couldn't do before? What would be the take away if $BP$ did not admit an $E_\infty$-ring structure?

I would also appreciate any references on this problem. Thanks!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See the first page of Johnson-Noel's "For complex orientations preserving power operations, p-typicality is atypical", which has a brief paragraph about this. $\endgroup$
    – user97187
    Aug 14, 2016 at 21:05
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Since this question was asked, Tyler Lawson has shown that at $p = 2$, $\mathit{BP}$ is not an $E_n$ algebra for $n\ge 12$, thus providing a negative answer to this conjecture at 2. $\endgroup$ May 19, 2017 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ Since Arun's comment, Andrew Senger has shown $BP$ is not $\mathbb{E}_{2(p^2+2)}$ for odd primes, providing a negative answer in general. $\endgroup$ Dec 6, 2023 at 23:40

1 Answer 1


I suppose I should try to answer since the question of whether or not $BP$ is an $E_{\infty}$ ring spectrum was Problem 1 of "Problems in infinite loop space theory'', http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/PAPERS/16.pdf, written in 1974, two years after $E_{\infty}$ ring spectra were first defined. At the time, we were hoping for some good way of starting from the relevant group law and manufacturing $BP$ from it. The example "in nature'' that led to the definition of $E_{\infty}$ ring spectra was $MU$, so it was impossible not to be intrigued by the question.
Some things proven since with $MU$ might be streamlined if we could start with $BP$, such as the construction of Morava $K$-theory. However, Basterra and Mandell proved that $BP$ is an $E_4$-spectrum, compatibly with $MU$, which is enough for such applications. I'm still intrigued by the question, although I admit to having no applications in mind.

  • $\begingroup$ Just a personal curiosity, but do you know of any application that requires $BP$ to be more than $E_1$? $\endgroup$ Aug 15, 2016 at 12:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well certainly one wants the category of $BP$-modules to be symmetric monoidal under the smash product, which won't come from $E_1$, and one wants to know how which Dyer-Lashof operations are preserved from $MU$ (not all, of course). $\endgroup$
    – Peter May
    Aug 15, 2016 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterMay, what is the general belief amongst homotopy theorists regarding an answer to this question? Is there evidence pointing one way or the other? $\endgroup$
    – CWcx
    Aug 16, 2016 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ I doubt there is a consensus. It is $E_4$ compatibly with $MU$, but if it is $E_{\infty}$, then it only is so incompatibly with $MU$. I have no strong feeling, but I would hazard a guess that it is not $E_{\infty}$. $\endgroup$
    – Peter May
    Aug 16, 2016 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ It is worth pointing out that if $BP$ is $E_{\infty}$ then Andy Baker has constructed it (if I recall correctly). arxiv.org/abs/1204.4878 Also, @PeterMay, is this arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3336v1.pdf the reference you had in mind with your above comment about the Quillen idempotent being $E_4$? I don't recall them getting more than $E_3$, but maybe you mean a different paper. $\endgroup$ Aug 24, 2016 at 11:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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