Obstructions to realisation of dual finite spectra as suspension spectra











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












Suppose $X$ is a finite dimensional CW-complex with top cell at dimmension $n$ and consider its S-dual denoted by $DX$. I wonder if there are any obstructions to find a space $Y$ and an interger $kgeqslant n$ so that
$$Sigma^kD(X)simeqSigma^infty Y_+ ?$$
For example, in the case of $X=S^m$ the answer is positive.



EDIT In the case of finite dimensional projective spaces, one may start from spaces $mathbb{R}P_m^n$ and choosing $m$ and $n$ in accordance with James periodicity, we can actually compute such a $k$.



The question is that is there any such $k$ for a given CW-complex of finite type (which of course after Neil's answer below I realise the answer is positive if one is to choose $k$ enough large, and obstructions are for specific $k$'s)



I would be very grateful for any references.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite












    Suppose $X$ is a finite dimensional CW-complex with top cell at dimmension $n$ and consider its S-dual denoted by $DX$. I wonder if there are any obstructions to find a space $Y$ and an interger $kgeqslant n$ so that
    $$Sigma^kD(X)simeqSigma^infty Y_+ ?$$
    For example, in the case of $X=S^m$ the answer is positive.



    EDIT In the case of finite dimensional projective spaces, one may start from spaces $mathbb{R}P_m^n$ and choosing $m$ and $n$ in accordance with James periodicity, we can actually compute such a $k$.



    The question is that is there any such $k$ for a given CW-complex of finite type (which of course after Neil's answer below I realise the answer is positive if one is to choose $k$ enough large, and obstructions are for specific $k$'s)



    I would be very grateful for any references.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite











      Suppose $X$ is a finite dimensional CW-complex with top cell at dimmension $n$ and consider its S-dual denoted by $DX$. I wonder if there are any obstructions to find a space $Y$ and an interger $kgeqslant n$ so that
      $$Sigma^kD(X)simeqSigma^infty Y_+ ?$$
      For example, in the case of $X=S^m$ the answer is positive.



      EDIT In the case of finite dimensional projective spaces, one may start from spaces $mathbb{R}P_m^n$ and choosing $m$ and $n$ in accordance with James periodicity, we can actually compute such a $k$.



      The question is that is there any such $k$ for a given CW-complex of finite type (which of course after Neil's answer below I realise the answer is positive if one is to choose $k$ enough large, and obstructions are for specific $k$'s)



      I would be very grateful for any references.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Suppose $X$ is a finite dimensional CW-complex with top cell at dimmension $n$ and consider its S-dual denoted by $DX$. I wonder if there are any obstructions to find a space $Y$ and an interger $kgeqslant n$ so that
      $$Sigma^kD(X)simeqSigma^infty Y_+ ?$$
      For example, in the case of $X=S^m$ the answer is positive.



      EDIT In the case of finite dimensional projective spaces, one may start from spaces $mathbb{R}P_m^n$ and choosing $m$ and $n$ in accordance with James periodicity, we can actually compute such a $k$.



      The question is that is there any such $k$ for a given CW-complex of finite type (which of course after Neil's answer below I realise the answer is positive if one is to choose $k$ enough large, and obstructions are for specific $k$'s)



      I would be very grateful for any references.







      at.algebraic-topology






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago

























      asked 2 days ago









      user51223

      1,331617




      1,331617






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          Firstly, you say that the answer is negative for finite-dimensional projective spaces. However, in this case, and for any finite complex $X$, the answer will be positive if we take $k$ sufficiently large. Perhaps you are just thinking of the case $k=n$? Anyway, I will assume that we have fixed some particular $kgeq n$ and we want to know whether $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum.



          The most obvious point is that $H^*(Sigma^kD(X);mathbb{F}_p)$ needs to be an unstable module over the Steenrod algebra. This is easy to check if you have a good understanding of $H^*(X;mathbb{F}_p)$ as a Steenrod module. Similarly, the module $M=K^0(Sigma^kDX)$ has naturally defined Adams operations $psi^qcolon Mto M[q^{-1}]$, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then these will lift in a compatible way to give operations $psi^qcolon M to M$. If this does not settle the question then one can consider additive unstable operations in $BP$ theory or $MU$ theory. These are harder to handle explicitly but the basic slogan is as follows: $MU^*(Sigma^kDX)$ is functorial for isomorphisms of formal groups, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then this extends to give functoriality for all homomorphisms of formal groups.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for correcting me on my statement about projective spaces for your comments on the general case. I will edit the statement about the projective spaces.
            – user51223
            2 days ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f316221%2fobstructions-to-realisation-of-dual-finite-spectra-as-suspension-spectra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          Firstly, you say that the answer is negative for finite-dimensional projective spaces. However, in this case, and for any finite complex $X$, the answer will be positive if we take $k$ sufficiently large. Perhaps you are just thinking of the case $k=n$? Anyway, I will assume that we have fixed some particular $kgeq n$ and we want to know whether $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum.



          The most obvious point is that $H^*(Sigma^kD(X);mathbb{F}_p)$ needs to be an unstable module over the Steenrod algebra. This is easy to check if you have a good understanding of $H^*(X;mathbb{F}_p)$ as a Steenrod module. Similarly, the module $M=K^0(Sigma^kDX)$ has naturally defined Adams operations $psi^qcolon Mto M[q^{-1}]$, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then these will lift in a compatible way to give operations $psi^qcolon M to M$. If this does not settle the question then one can consider additive unstable operations in $BP$ theory or $MU$ theory. These are harder to handle explicitly but the basic slogan is as follows: $MU^*(Sigma^kDX)$ is functorial for isomorphisms of formal groups, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then this extends to give functoriality for all homomorphisms of formal groups.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for correcting me on my statement about projective spaces for your comments on the general case. I will edit the statement about the projective spaces.
            – user51223
            2 days ago















          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          Firstly, you say that the answer is negative for finite-dimensional projective spaces. However, in this case, and for any finite complex $X$, the answer will be positive if we take $k$ sufficiently large. Perhaps you are just thinking of the case $k=n$? Anyway, I will assume that we have fixed some particular $kgeq n$ and we want to know whether $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum.



          The most obvious point is that $H^*(Sigma^kD(X);mathbb{F}_p)$ needs to be an unstable module over the Steenrod algebra. This is easy to check if you have a good understanding of $H^*(X;mathbb{F}_p)$ as a Steenrod module. Similarly, the module $M=K^0(Sigma^kDX)$ has naturally defined Adams operations $psi^qcolon Mto M[q^{-1}]$, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then these will lift in a compatible way to give operations $psi^qcolon M to M$. If this does not settle the question then one can consider additive unstable operations in $BP$ theory or $MU$ theory. These are harder to handle explicitly but the basic slogan is as follows: $MU^*(Sigma^kDX)$ is functorial for isomorphisms of formal groups, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then this extends to give functoriality for all homomorphisms of formal groups.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks for correcting me on my statement about projective spaces for your comments on the general case. I will edit the statement about the projective spaces.
            – user51223
            2 days ago













          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted






          Firstly, you say that the answer is negative for finite-dimensional projective spaces. However, in this case, and for any finite complex $X$, the answer will be positive if we take $k$ sufficiently large. Perhaps you are just thinking of the case $k=n$? Anyway, I will assume that we have fixed some particular $kgeq n$ and we want to know whether $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum.



          The most obvious point is that $H^*(Sigma^kD(X);mathbb{F}_p)$ needs to be an unstable module over the Steenrod algebra. This is easy to check if you have a good understanding of $H^*(X;mathbb{F}_p)$ as a Steenrod module. Similarly, the module $M=K^0(Sigma^kDX)$ has naturally defined Adams operations $psi^qcolon Mto M[q^{-1}]$, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then these will lift in a compatible way to give operations $psi^qcolon M to M$. If this does not settle the question then one can consider additive unstable operations in $BP$ theory or $MU$ theory. These are harder to handle explicitly but the basic slogan is as follows: $MU^*(Sigma^kDX)$ is functorial for isomorphisms of formal groups, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then this extends to give functoriality for all homomorphisms of formal groups.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Firstly, you say that the answer is negative for finite-dimensional projective spaces. However, in this case, and for any finite complex $X$, the answer will be positive if we take $k$ sufficiently large. Perhaps you are just thinking of the case $k=n$? Anyway, I will assume that we have fixed some particular $kgeq n$ and we want to know whether $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum.



          The most obvious point is that $H^*(Sigma^kD(X);mathbb{F}_p)$ needs to be an unstable module over the Steenrod algebra. This is easy to check if you have a good understanding of $H^*(X;mathbb{F}_p)$ as a Steenrod module. Similarly, the module $M=K^0(Sigma^kDX)$ has naturally defined Adams operations $psi^qcolon Mto M[q^{-1}]$, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then these will lift in a compatible way to give operations $psi^qcolon M to M$. If this does not settle the question then one can consider additive unstable operations in $BP$ theory or $MU$ theory. These are harder to handle explicitly but the basic slogan is as follows: $MU^*(Sigma^kDX)$ is functorial for isomorphisms of formal groups, and if $Sigma^kDX$ is a suspension spectrum then this extends to give functoriality for all homomorphisms of formal groups.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          Neil Strickland

          35.9k692185




          35.9k692185












          • Thanks for correcting me on my statement about projective spaces for your comments on the general case. I will edit the statement about the projective spaces.
            – user51223
            2 days ago


















          • Thanks for correcting me on my statement about projective spaces for your comments on the general case. I will edit the statement about the projective spaces.
            – user51223
            2 days ago
















          Thanks for correcting me on my statement about projective spaces for your comments on the general case. I will edit the statement about the projective spaces.
          – user51223
          2 days ago




          Thanks for correcting me on my statement about projective spaces for your comments on the general case. I will edit the statement about the projective spaces.
          – user51223
          2 days ago


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f316221%2fobstructions-to-realisation-of-dual-finite-spectra-as-suspension-spectra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

          Alcedinidae

          Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?