In Proposition 5.13 (ii) in Scholze's [Perfectoid Spaces](https://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/scholze/PerfectoidSpaces.pdf), we have $R \to S$ a morphism of $\Bbb F_p$-algebras and the **assumption** that the relative Frobenius $\Phi_{S/R}$ induces an isomorphism $R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R^{\Bbb L} S \to S_{(\Phi)}$ in $D(R)$, the derived category of $R$-modules. Here $R_{(\Phi)}$ is the ring $R$ with the $R$-algebra structure given by the Frobenius $R \to R$, and $S_{(\Phi)}$ is similarly defined.

Then they go on to claim, in the proof of (ii), that this **assumption** says that $\Phi_{S^\bullet/R}: R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R S^\bullet \to S^\bullet_{(\Phi)}$ induces a quasi-isomorphism of simplicial algebras, where $S^\bullet$ is a simplicial resolution of $S$ by free $R$-algebras. I do not understand why. My guess is that this is because the complex $R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R^{\Bbb L} S \in D(R)$ in the assumption is constructed by taking such a resolution of $S$, so $R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R^{\Bbb L} S \triangleq R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R S^\bullet \in D(R)$, and then $S^\bullet_{(\Phi)} \to S_{(\Phi)}$ is a quasi-isomorphism because $S^\bullet_{(\Phi)}$ is a resolution of $S_{(\Phi)}$, so in $D(R)$ we have $R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R S^\bullet \triangleq R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R^{\Bbb L} S \cong S_{(\Phi)} \cong S^\bullet_{(\Phi)}$?

After that, they say that this implies that $\Phi_{S^\bullet/R}: R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R S^\bullet \to S^\bullet_{(\Phi)}$ gives an isomorphism $R_{(\Phi)} \otimes_R^{\Bbb L} \Bbb L_{S/R} \cong \Bbb L_{S_{(\Phi)}/R_{(\Phi)}}$. I also do not understand why. According to the same paper, the complex $\Bbb L_{S/R}$ is defined to be $\Omega^{1}_{S^\bullet/R} \otimes_{S^\bullet} S$, but I do not see a relation. The reference for this part is Lemma 6.5.9 of [Gabber–Romero](https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0201175.pdf), which references Proposition II.1.2.6.2 of [Illusie's *Complexe Cotangent et Déformations I*](https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540056867), but I do not see how to apply the proposition to this situation.

Finally, both Scholze and Gabber–Romero claim that $\Bbb L_{S_{(\Phi)}/R_{(\Phi)}} \cong \Bbb L_{S/R}$, but I do not know why. I think it is because $R_(\Phi)$ is defined to be $R$ as a ring, and the map $R_{(\Phi)} \to S_{(\Phi)}$ as rings should be the same as the map $R \to S$ as rings, so their modules of Kähler differentials should be the same.