6
$\begingroup$

Does anything happen if I forget and tensor back up along a highly connective map of $E_{\infty}$-rings?

Here's what I mean precisely: Let $f \colon A \to B$ be a $n$-connective map between connective $E_{\infty}$-rings, with $n \geq 1$. Here $n$-connective means that $\pi_i (fib(f))=0$ for $i < n$. Roughly, $f$ is a very surjective map, and if we let $fib(f)=I$, then $B$ is roughly $A/I$.

Now let's take a $B$-module $M$. We can forget the $B$-module structure and view it as an $A$-module. Then we can tensor it back up again to get $B \otimes _A M$. By adjunction there is a canonical map $m \colon B \otimes _A M \to M$, which is the multiplication map. How far is this map from being an equivalence?

The case I am really interested is when $f \colon A \to B$ is a square-zero extension obtained from a $n$-connective derivation $\eta \colon L_B \to M[1]$. Then $fib(f)$ can be identified with $M$, and so additonally has the structure of a $B$-module. Does anything special happen in this case?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

(Derived) tensoring preserves fiber sequences. In particular, there is a fiber sequence $$ fib(f) \otimes_A M \to M \to B \otimes_A M. $$ If you allow additional assumptions, you can say more about this. For instance, if $A$ and $B$ are connective, then the Kunneth/hypertor spectral sequence $$ Tor^{\pi_*A} (\pi_* fib(f), \pi_* M) \Rightarrow \pi_*(fib(f) \otimes_A M) $$ will tell you that the connectivity of the fiber is the sum of the connectivity of $M$ and the connectivity of $f$ (in the terminology that you're using). Roughly, then, you find that the map $M \to B \otimes_A M$ is an isomorphism on the same number of homotopy groups that $A \to B$ is.

In the special case where $fib(f)$ is $M$ itself, you're getting a fiber sequence $$ M \otimes_A M \to M \to B \otimes_A M. $$ However, the map on the left is the multiplication map, which is zero by the square-zero assumption, and so this degenerates to an equivalence $$ B \otimes_A M \simeq M \vee (M \otimes_A M)[1]. $$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Great, that was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks a lot! $\endgroup$ Mar 13, 2012 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ I'm still puzzled by something. In the first part of your argument (not the square-zero part) it is never used that $M$ has the structure of a $B$-module, and the argument is in fact valid for any $A$-module. In the case of discrete rings, when I can really identify $B$ with $A/I$, your first fiber sequence becomes $IM \to M \to M/IM$. If $M$ is an $A/I$-module, $IM$ is actually zero. Does nothing remotely similar hold in homotopical algebra? $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2012 at 10:12
  • $\begingroup$ Ah! I missed the B-module portion of the hypothesis. In that case, you can in fact use the module structure to split the cofiber sequence I listed above, and find a similar identity: $B \otimes_A M \simeq M \vee fib(f) \otimes_A M[1]$. Is that along the lines of what you were thinking? (In the case you listed, you don't actually have $IM = 0$ in the derived setting, because you might have elements representing higher relations.) $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2012 at 14:12
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is what I was hoping for. Thanks a lot again! $\endgroup$ Mar 14, 2012 at 14:56

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.