Conversation started Nov 18, 2013 at 4:22.
Nov 18, 2013 04:22
Hi @Drew, I think the statement that the Picard group of the stable homotopy category is $\mathbb{Z}$ can be proved as follows: first, you argue that an invertible spectrum is compact, e.g., because the sphere is compact and tensoring with an invertible spectrum (as an autoequivalence) preserves compact objects. Now you need to show that the homology of your spectrum is $\mathbb{Z}$ concentrated in one dimension. So "tensor up" over $S^0 \to H \mathbb{Z}/p$ (i.e., consider mod $p$ homology).
Invertible objects in $H \mathbb{Z}/p$-modules are concentrated in one dimension since you have a K\"unneth theorem; now all that's left is to see that everything fits together at each prime. More generally, this argument can be used to show that the Picard group of modules over a connective $E_\infty$-ring (with $\pi_0 $ noetherian and connected, say) is given by the Picard group of $\pi_0$ times $\mathbb{Z}$ (for suspension).
One way to streamline this argument is to use the theory of flatness for modules over connective structured ring spectra. There's a nice criterion for flatness: if $A$ is an $A_\infty$-ring with $\pi_0 A$ noetherian commutative, then an $A$-module $M$ is flat if for every field $k$ equipped with a map $\pi_0 A \to k$, the relative tensor product $M \otimes_A k$ is discrete.
@AkhilMathew: Thanks! That's really nice. The Hopkins-Mahwoald-Sadosfsky argument by induction over the Postnikov tower always felt too complicated
This lets you argue that, in the connective case, invertible objects are automatically flat (which means that the Picard group is "algebraic"). I think this argument (more or less) is in a paper by Baker-Richter "Invertible modules for commutative S-algebras with residue fields."
I'm not sure I ever understood the HMS argument.
It's slightly expanded on by Strickland in his 'p-adic interpolation' paper
At least I think its meant to be the same argument
Interesting, I'll take a look.
I think in a fit of excitement earlier, I sent Niles Johnson an e-mail that didn't make any sense.
Nov 18, 2013 04:29
Ha! Email is so permanent.
Yeah, I just went back and read it and was like "What the hell am I talking about?"
Ugh. And it just makes you seem crazier if you send a follow-up e-mail telling the person to disregard your last e-mail.
@AkhilMathew How does one show that the map Pic(R) -> Pic(pi_0 R) is surjective for general connective R?
Hi @TylerLawson; I think you can argue this way: an element in $Pic( \pi_0 R)$ is projective, and any projective $\pi_* R$-module can be realized by an $R$-module (by explicitly writing it as a retract of a free $R$-module).
So in particular, I don't think one needs connectivity for this to happen.
Ah, yes. Thank you.
 
Conversation ended Nov 18, 2013 at 4:32.