Suppose we are given a cocomplete closed symmetric monoidal stable $(\infty,1)$-category $\mathcal{C}$ with suspension $\Sigma$, and let $X \in \mathcal{C}$ be dualizable. I'd like to create a new stable cocomplete symmetric monoidal category $\mathcal{C}[\Sigma X^{-1}]$ together with a symmetric monoidal exact and continuous functor $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C}[\Sigma X^{-1}]$ with the following property: For any symmetric monoidal stable category $\mathcal{D}$,the induced functor $Fun_{ex,cont}^{\otimes}(\mathcal{C}[\Sigma X^{-1}], \mathcal{D}) \to Fun_{ex,cont}^{\otimes}(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D})$ induces an equivalence of $Fun_{ex,cont}^{\otimes}(\mathcal{C}[\Sigma X^{-1}], \mathcal{D})$ with the full subcategory of $Fun_{ex,cont}^{\otimes}(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D})$ consisting of functors $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ that send $\Sigma X$ to an invertible object in $\mathcal{D}$. Here the notation $Fun_{ex,cont}^{\otimes}(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D})$ denotes the category of monoidal functors that are both exact and continuous.

My idea was to localize at the set of maps $(\Sigma (\iota)) \otimes id_Y$, where $\iota$ is the map $X \otimes X^* \to \mathbb{1}$ coming from duality data for $X$. Here $Y$ ranges over all objects in $\mathcal{C}$. However, I have no idea if the resulting category would satisfy all the requirements listed above.

EDIT: Inverting $\Sigma X$ is clearly equivalent to inverting $X$.


In the case where $\mathcal{C}$ is presentable, this is constructed in proposition 2.9 of

Robalo, Marco, $K$-theory and the bridge from motives to noncommutative motives, Adv. Math. 269, 399-550 (2015). ZBL1315.14030.

Note that if $\mathcal{C}$ is stable, so is $\mathcal{C}[X^{-1}]$, since $\mathcal{C}$ contains an inverse for $S^1$ and $\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{C}[X^{-1}]$ is symmetric monoidal.

Furthermore, corollary 2.22 shows that if $X$ is a symmetric object (i.e. the cyclic permutation acts trivially on $X^{\otimes n}$ for some $n>1$), then $\mathcal{C}[X^{-1}]$ can be obtained as a category of spectrum objects, i.e. as the $\infty$-category $$\operatorname{Stab}_X(\mathcal{C}):=\operatorname{colim}\left(\mathcal{C}\xrightarrow{X\otimes - }\mathcal{C}\xrightarrow{X\otimes-}\cdots\right)\cong \operatorname{lim}\left(\mathcal{C}\xleftarrow{\operatorname{hom}(X,-)}\mathcal{C}\xleftarrow{\operatorname{hom}(X,-)}\cdots\right)$$ where the first colimit is taken in $\mathrm{Pr}^L$.

To see an example where the latter identification does not hold, take $\mathcal{C}=\mathrm{Sp}$ and $X=\mathbb{S}\oplus \mathbb{S}$. Then it can be shown that $\mathcal{C}[X^{-1}]=0$ (indeed every additive $\infty$-category where the functor $y\mapsto y\oplus y$ is fully faithful is 0), but $\operatorname{Stab}_X\mathcal{C}$ is not 0, since its K-theory is $K(\mathbb{S})[1/2]$. For more discussion of this particular example see this paper.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ If $X$ is not symmetric I assume the categories will not coincide. Will $Stab_X(\mathcal{C})$ be symmetric monoidal and stable when $X$ is not cyclic? $\endgroup$ – leibnewtz Feb 25 '19 at 7:58
  • $\begingroup$ @leibnewtz No, indeed. That's exactly the problem in proving the identification in general. This is discussed carefully in that section of Marco's paper $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Feb 25 '19 at 7:59

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.