« first day (1961 days earlier)      last day (1442 days later) » 

1:09 AM
@AaronMazel-Gee In their review of infinity-categories they assert (Lemma 3.2.4) that it "follows by unwinding the definitions"...
 
@AaronMazel-Gee Gaitsgory-Rozenblyum is not a good source. The appendices of that book rely on extremely difficult unproven combinatorial lemmas
It's maybe possible that Johnson-Freyd and Scheimbauer have proven some of them, but not enough to give you what Gaitsgory-Rozenblyum assert in the appendix
See 0.4 "Status of the assertions" math.harvard.edu/~gaitsgde/GL/Basics.pdf
Some of this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06526
may be applicable, but I don't think they prove enough to give you what G-R assert.
 
 
12 hours later…
1:20 PM
Sorry for a stupid question. How can we deduce that $H\mathbb Q\otimes_{\mathbb S}H\mathbb Q\cong H\mathbb Q$?
 
@FrankScience I can see two ways of proving that. One is via rational homotopy theory (use the fact that the homotopy groups of $H\mathbb{Q}\otimes_{\mathbb{S}}H\mathbb{Q}$ are given by $\mathrm{colim}_n H_{*-n}(K(\mathbb{Q},n); \mathbb{Q})$ to deduce that they are concentrated in degree 0)
The other, and maybe more natural, is to show that $H\mathbb{Q}$ is $\mathbb{S}$ with all primes inverted, since all positive homotopy groups of $\mathbb{S}$ are torsion
In particular, $-\otimes_{\mathbb{S}}H\mathbb{Q}$ is a smashing localization
 
Thanks
 

« first day (1961 days earlier)      last day (1442 days later) »