Symmetric spectra

By Mark Hovey, Brooke Shipley, and Jeff Smith

Abstract

The stable homotopy category, much studied by algebraic topologists, is a closed symmetric monoidal category. For many years, however, there has been no well-behaved closed symmetric monoidal category of spectra whose homotopy category is the stable homotopy category. In this paper, we present such a category of spectra; the category of symmetric spectra. Our method can be used more generally to invert a monoidal functor, up to homotopy, in a way that preserves monoidal structure. Symmetric spectra were discovered at about the same time as the category of -modules of Elmendorf, Kriz, Mandell, and May, a completely different symmetric monoidal category of spectra.

Introduction

Stable homotopy theory studies spectra as the linear approximation to spaces. Here, “stable” refers to the consideration of spaces after inverting the suspension functor. This approach is a general one: one can often create a simpler category by inverting an operation such as suspension. In this paper we study a particularly simple model for inverting such operations which preserves product structures. The combinatorial nature of this model means that it is easily transported, and hence may be useful in extending the methods of stable homotopy theory to other settings.

The idea of a spectrum is a relatively simple one: Freudenthal’s suspension theorem implies that the sequence of homotopy classes of maps

is eventually constant for finite-dimensional pointed CW-complexes and , where is the reduced suspension of . This suggests forming a stable category where the suspension functor is an isomorphism. The standard way to do this is to define a spectrum to be a sequence of pointed spaces together with structure maps . This was first done by Lima Reference Lim59 and later generalized by Whitehead Reference Whi62. The suspension functor is not an isomorphism in the category of spectra, but becomes an isomorphism when we invert the stable homotopy equivalences. The resulting homotopy category of spectra is often called the stable homotopy category and has been extensively studied, beginning with the work of Boardman Reference Vog70 and Adams Reference Ada74 and continuing to this day. Notice that this definition of a spectrum can be applied to any situation where one has an operation on a category that one would like to invert; however, this simplest construction does not preserve the smash product structure coming from spaces.

One of the stable homotopy category’s basic features is that it is symmetric monoidal. There is a smash product, built from the smash product of pointed spaces and analogous to the tensor product of modules, that is associative, commutative, and unital, up to coherent natural isomorphism. However, the category of spectra defined above is not symmetric monoidal. This has been a sticking point for almost forty years now. Indeed, it was long thought that there could be no symmetric monoidal category of spectra; see Reference Lew91, where it is shown that a symmetric monoidal category of spectra cannot have all the properties one might like.

Any good symmetric monoidal category of spectra allows one to perform algebraic constructions on spectra that are impossible without such a category. This is extremely important, for example, in the algebraic -theory of spectra. In particular, given a good symmetric monoidal category of spectra, it is possible to construct a homotopy category of monoids (ring spectra) and of modules over a given monoid.

In this paper, we describe a symmetric monoidal category of spectra, called the category of symmetric spectra. The ordinary category of spectra as described above is the category of modules over the sphere spectrum. The sphere spectrum is a monoid in the category of sequences of spaces, but it is not a commutative monoid, because the twist map on is not the identity. This explains why the ordinary category of spectra is not symmetric monoidal, just as in algebra where the usual internal tensor product of modules is defined only over a commutative ring. To make the sphere spectrum a commutative monoid, we need to keep track of the twist map, and, more generally, of permutations of coordinates. We therefore define a symmetric spectrum to be a sequence of pointed simplicial sets together with a pointed action of the permutation group on and equivariant structure maps . We must also require that the iterated structure maps be -equivariant. This idea is due to the third author; the first and second authors joined the project later.

At approximately the same time as the third author discovered symmetric spectra, the team of Elmendorf, Kriz, Mandell, and May Reference EKMM97 also constructed a symmetric monoidal category of spectra, called -modules. Some generalizations of symmetric spectra appear in Reference MMSS98a. These many new symmetric monoidal categories of spectra, including -modules and symmetric spectra, are shown to be equivalent in an appropriate sense in Reference MMSS98b and Reference Sch98. Another symmetric monoidal category of spectra sitting between the approaches of Reference EKMM97 and of this paper is developed in Reference DS. We also point out that symmetric spectra are part of a more general theory of localization of model categories Reference Hir99; we have not adopted this approach, but both Reference Hir99 and Reference DHK have influenced us considerably.

Symmetric spectra have already proved useful. In Reference GH97, symmetric spectra are used to extend the definition of topological cyclic homology from rings to schemes. Similarly, in Reference Shi, Bökstedt’s approach to topological Hochschild homology Reference Bök85 is extended to symmetric ring spectra, without connectivity conditions. And in Reference SS, it is shown that any linear model category is Quillen equivalent to a model category of modules over a symmetric ring spectrum.

As mentioned above, since the construction of symmetric spectra is combinatorial in nature it may be applied in many different situations. Given any well-behaved symmetric monoidal model category, such as chain complexes, simplicial sets, or topological spaces, and an endofunctor on it that respects the monoidal structure, one can define symmetric spectra. This more general approach is explored in Reference Hov98b. In particular, symmetric spectra may be the logical way to construct a model structure for Voevodsky’s stable homotopy of schemes Reference Voe97.

In this paper, we can only begin the study of symmetric spectra. The most significant loose end is the construction of a model category of commutative symmetric ring spectra; such a model category has been constructed by the third author in work in progress. It would also be useful to have a stable fibrant replacement functor, as the usual construction does not work in general. A good approximation to such a functor is constructed in Reference Shi.

At present the theory of -modules of Reference EKMM97 is considerably more developed than the theory of symmetric spectra. Their construction appears to be significantly different from symmetric spectra; however, Reference Sch98 shows that the two approaches define equivalent stable homotopy categories and equivalent homotopy categories of monoids and modules, as would be expected. Each approach has its own advantages. The category of symmetric spectra is technically much simpler than the -modules of Reference EKMM97; this paper is almost entirely self-contained, depending only on some standard results about simplicial sets. As discussed above, symmetric spectra can be built in many different circumstances, whereas -modules appear to be tied to the category of topological spaces. There are also technical differences reflecting the result of Reference Lew91 that there are limitations on any symmetric monoidal category of spectra. For example, the sphere spectrum is cofibrant in the category of symmetric spectra, but is not in the category of -modules. On the other hand, every -module is fibrant, a considerable technical advantage. Also, the -modules of Reference EKMM97 are very well suited to the varying universes that arise in equivariant stable homotopy theory, whereas we do not yet know how to realize universes in symmetric spectra. For a first step in this direction see Reference SS.

Organization

The paper is organized as follows. We choose to work in the category of simplicial sets. In the first section, we define symmetric spectra, give some examples, and establish some basic properties. In Section 2 we describe the closed symmetric monoidal structure on the category of symmetric spectra, and explain why such a structure cannot exist in the ordinary category of spectra. In Section 3 we study the stable homotopy theory of symmetric spectra. This section is where the main subtlety of the theory of symmetric spectra arises: we cannot define stable equivalence by using stable homotopy isomorphisms. Instead, we define a map to be a stable equivalence if it is a cohomology isomorphism for all cohomology theories. The main result of this section is that symmetric spectra, together with stable equivalences and suitably defined classes of stable fibrations and stable cofibrations, form a model category. As expected, the fibrant objects are the -spectra; i.e., symmetric spectra such that each is a Kan complex and the adjoint of the structure map is a weak equivalence. In Section 4, we prove that the stable homotopy theories of symmetric spectra and ordinary spectra are equivalent. More precisely, we construct a Quillen equivalence of model categories between symmetric spectra and the model category of ordinary spectra described in Reference BF78.

In Section 5 we discuss some of the properties of symmetric spectra. In particular, in Section 5.1, we tie up a loose end from Section 3 by establishing two different model categories of symmetric spectra where the weak equivalences are the level equivalences. We characterize the stable cofibrations of symmetric spectra in Section 5.2. In Section 5.3, we show that the smash product of symmetric spectra interacts with the model structure in the expected way. This section is crucial for the applications of symmetric spectra, and, in particular, is necessary to be sure that the smash product of symmetric spectra does define a symmetric monoidal structure on the stable homotopy category. We establish that symmetric spectra are a proper model category in Section 5.5, and use this to verify the monoid axiom in Section 5.4. The monoid axiom is required to construct model categories of monoids and of modules over a given monoid; see Reference SS97. In Section 5.6, we define semistable spectra, which are helpful for understanding the difference between stable equivalences and stable homotopy equivalences.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dan Christensen, Bill Dwyer, Phil Hirschhorn, Dan Kan, Haynes Miller, John Palmieri, Charles Rezk, and Stefan Schwede for many helpful conversations about symmetric spectra.

Notation.

We now establish some notation we will use throughout the paper. Many of the categories in this paper have an enriched Hom as well as a set-valued Hom. To distinguish them: in a category , the set of maps from to is denoted ; in a simplicial category , the simplicial set of maps from to is denoted or ; in a category with an internal Hom, the object in of maps from to is denoted or . In case is the category of modules over a commutative monoid , we also use for the internal Hom.

1. Symmetric spectra

In this section we construct the category of symmetric spectra over simplicial sets. We begin this section by recalling the basic facts about simplicial sets in Section 1.1, then we define symmetric spectra in Section 1.2. We describe the simplicial structure on the category of symmetric spectra in Section 1.3. The homotopy category of symmetric -spectra is described in Section 1.4.

1.1. Simplicial sets

We recall the basics. Consult Reference May67 or Reference Cur71 for more details.

The category has the ordered sets for as its objects and the order preserving functions as its maps. The category of simplicial sets, denoted , is the category of functors from to the category of sets. The set of -simplices of the simplicial set , denoted , is the value of the functor at . The standard -simplex is the contravariant functor . Varying gives a covariant functor . By the Yoneda lemma, and the contravariant functor is naturally isomorphic to .

Let be a discrete group. The category of -simplicial sets is the category of functors from to , where is regarded as a category with one object. A -simplicial set is therefore a simplicial set with a left simplicial -action, i.e., a homomorphism .

A basepoint of a simplicial set is a distinguished -simplex . The category of pointed simplicial sets and basepoint preserving maps is denoted . The simplicial set has a single simplex in each degree and is the terminal object in . A basepoint of is the same as a map . The disjoint union adds a disjoint basepoint to the simplicial set . For example, the -sphere is . A basepoint of a -simplicial set is a -invariant -simplex of . The category of pointed -simplicial sets is denoted .

The smash product of the pointed simplicial sets and is the quotient that collapses the simplicial subset to a point. For pointed -simplicial sets and , let be the quotient of by the diagonal action of . For pointed simplicial sets , , and , there are natural isomorphisms , and . In the language of monoidal categories, the smash product is a symmetric monoidal product on the category of pointed simplicial sets. We recall the definition of symmetric monoidal product, but for more details see Reference ML71, VII or Reference Bor94, 6.1.

Definition 1.1.1.

A symmetric monoidal product on a category is: a bifunctor ; a unit ; and coherent natural isomorphisms (the associativity isomorphism), (the twist isomorphism), and (the unit isomorphism). The product is closed if the functor has a right adjoint for every . A (closed) symmetric monoidal category is a category with a (closed) symmetric monoidal product.

Coherence of the natural isomorphisms means that all reasonable diagrams built from the natural isomorphisms also commute Reference ML71. When the product is closed, the pairing is an internal Hom. For example, the smash product on the category of pointed simplicial sets is closed. For , the pointed simplicial set of maps from to is . For pointed -simplicial sets and , the simplicial subset of -equivariant pointed maps is .

1.2. Symmetric spectra

Let be the simplicial circle , obtained by identifying the two vertices of .

Definition 1.2.1.

A spectrum is

(1)

a sequence of pointed simplicial sets; and

(2)

a pointed map for each .

The maps are the structure maps of the spectrum. A map of spectra is a sequence of pointed maps such that the diagram

is commutative for each . Let denote the category of spectra.

Replacing the sequence of pointed simplicial sets by a sequence of pointed topological spaces in 1.2.1 gives the original definition of a spectrum (due to Whitehead and Lima). The categories of simplicial spectra and of topological spectra are discussed in the work of Bousfield and Friedlander Reference BF78.

A symmetric spectrum is a spectrum to which symmetric group actions have been added. Let be the group of permutations of the set , with . As usual, embed as the subgroup of with acting on the first elements of and acting on the last elements of . Let be the -fold smash power of the simplicial circle with the left permutation action of .

Definition 1.2.2.

A symmetric spectrum is

(1)

a sequence of pointed simplicial sets;

(2)

a pointed map for each ; and

(3)

a basepoint preserving left action of on such that the composition

of the maps is -equivariant for and .

A map of symmetric spectra is a sequence of pointed maps such that is -equivariant and the diagram

is commutative for each . Let denote the category of symmetric spectra.

Remark 1.2.3.

In part three of Definition 1.2.2, one need only assume that the maps and are equivariant; since the symmetric groups are generated by transpositions , if and are equivariant then all the maps are equivariant.

Example 1.2.4.

The symmetric suspension spectrum of the pointed simplicial set is the sequence of pointed simplicial sets with the natural isomorphisms as the structure maps and the diagonal action of on coming from the left permutation action on and the trivial action on . The composition is the natural isomorphism which is -equivariant. The symmetric sphere spectrum is the symmetric suspension spectrum of the -sphere; is the sequence of spheres with the natural isomorphisms as the structure maps and the left permutation action of on .

Example 1.2.5.

The Eilenberg-Mac Lane spectrum is the sequence of simplicial abelian groups , where is the free abelian group on the non-basepoint -simplices of . We identify the basepoint with . The symmetric group acts by permuting the generators, and one can easily verify that the evident structure maps are equivariant. One could replace by any ring.

Remark 1.2.6.

As explained in Reference GH97, Section 6, many other examples of symmetric spectra arise as the -theory of a category with cofibrations and weak equivalences as defined by Waldhausen Reference Wal85, p.330.

A symmetric spectrum with values in a simplicial category is obtained by replacing the sequence of pointed simplicial sets by a sequence of pointed objects in . In particular, a topological symmetric spectrum is a symmetric spectrum with values in the simplicial category of topological spaces.

By ignoring group actions, a symmetric spectrum is a spectrum and a map of symmetric spectra is a map of spectra. When no confusion can arise, the adjective “symmetric” may be dropped.

Definition 1.2.7.

Let be a symmetric spectrum. The underlying spectrum is the sequence of pointed simplicial sets with the same structure maps as but ignoring the symmetric group actions. This gives a faithful functor .

Since the action of on is non-trivial for , it is usually impossible to obtain a symmetric spectrum from a spectrum by letting act trivially on . However, many of the usual functors to the category of spectra lift to the category of symmetric spectra. For example, the suspension spectrum of a pointed simplicial set is the underlying spectrum of the symmetric suspension spectrum of .

Many examples of symmetric spectra and of functors on the category of symmetric spectra are constructed by prolongation of simplicial functors.

Definition 1.2.8.

A pointed simplicial functor or -functor is a pointed functor and a natural transformation of bifunctors such that the composition is the unit isomorphism and the diagram of natural transformations

is commutative. A pointed simplicial natural transformation, or -natural transformation, from the -functor to the -functor is a natural transformation such that .

Definition 1.2.9.

The prolongation of a -functor is the functor defined as follows. For a symmetric spectrum, is the sequence of pointed simplicial sets with the composition as the structure map and the action of on obtained by applying the functor to the action of on . Since is a -functor, each map is equivariant and so is a symmetric spectrum. For a map of symmetric spectra, is the sequence of pointed maps . Since is an -functor, is a map of spectra. Similarly, we can prolong an -natural transformation to a natural transformation of functors on .

Proposition 1.2.10.

The category of symmetric spectra is bicomplete (every small diagram has a limit and a colimit).

Proof.

For any small category , the limit and colimit functors are pointed simplicial functors; for and there is a natural isomorphism

and a natural map

A slight generalization of prolongation gives the limit and the colimit of a diagram of symmetric spectra.

In particular, the underlying sequence of the limit is and the underlying sequence of the colimit is .

1.3. Simplicial structure on

For a pointed simplicial set and a symmetric spectrum , prolongation of the -functor defines the smash product and prolongation of the -functor defines the power spectrum . For symmetric spectra and , the pointed simplicial set of maps from to is .

In the language of enriched category theory, the following proposition says that the smash product is a closed action of on . We leave the straightforward proof to the reader.

Proposition 1.3.1.

Let be a symmetric spectrum. Let and be pointed simplicial sets.

(1)

There are coherent natural isomorphisms and .

(2)

is the left adjoint of the functor .

(3)

is the left adjoint of the functor .

The evaluation map is the adjoint of the identity map on . The composition pairing

is the adjoint of the composition

of two evaluation maps. In the language of enriched category theory, a category with a closed action of is the same as a tensored and cotensored -category. The following proposition, whose proof we also leave to the reader, expresses this fact.

Proposition 1.3.2.

Let , , and be symmetric spectra and let be a pointed simplicial set.

(1)

The composition pairing is associative.

(2)

The adjoint of the isomorphism is a left and a right unit of the composition pairing.

(3)

There are natural isomorphisms

Proposition 1.3.1 says that certain functors are adjoints, whereas Proposition 1.3.2 says more; they are simplicial adjoints.

The category of symmetric spectra satisfies Quillen’s axiom SM7 for simplicial model categories.

Definition 1.3.3.

Let and be maps of pointed simplicial sets. The pushout smash product is the natural map on the pushout

induced by the commutative square

Let be a map of symmetric spectra and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets. The pushout smash product is defined by prolongation, .

Recall that a map of simplicial sets is a weak equivalence if its geometric realization is a homotopy equivalence of CW-complexes. One of the basic properties of simplicial sets, proved in Reference Qui67, II.3, is:

Proposition 1.3.4.

Let and be monomorphisms of pointed simplicial sets. Then is a monomorphism, which is a weak equivalence if either or is a weak equivalence.

Prolongation gives a corollary for symmetric spectra. A map of symmetric spectra is a monomorphism if is a monomorphism of simplicial sets for each .

Definition 1.3.5.

A map of symmetric spectra is a level equivalence if is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets for each .

Corollary 1.3.6.

Let be a monomorphism of symmetric spectra and let be a monomorphism of pointed simplicial sets. Then is a monomorphism, which is a level equivalence if either is a level equivalence or is a weak equivalence.

By definition, a -simplex of is a map , but and so a -simplex of is a map . A -simplex of is a simplicial homotopy from to where and are the two inclusions . Simplicial homotopy generates an equivalence relation on and the quotient is . A map is a simplicial homotopy equivalence if it has a simplicial homotopy inverse, i.e., a map such that is simplicially homotopic to the identity map on and is simplicially homotopic to the identity map on . If is a simplicial homotopy equivalence of symmetric spectra, then each of the maps is a simplicial homotopy equivalence, and so each of the maps is a weak equivalence. Every simplicial homotopy equivalence is therefore a level equivalence. The converse is false; a map can be a level equivalence and NOT a simplicial homotopy equivalence.

1.4. Symmetric -spectra

The stable homotopy category can be defined using -spectra and level equivalences.

Definition 1.4.1.

A Kan complex (see Example 3.2.6) is a simplicial set that satisfies the Kan extension condition. An -spectrum is a spectrum such that for each the simplicial set is a Kan complex and the adjoint of the structure map is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.

Let be the full subcategory of -spectra. The homotopy category is obtained from by formally inverting the level equivalences. By the results in Reference BF78, the category is naturally equivalent to Boardman’s stable homotopy category (or any other). Likewise, let be the full subcategory of symmetric -spectra (i.e., symmetric spectra for which is an -spectrum). The homotopy category is obtained from by formally inverting the level equivalences. Since the forgetful functor preserves -spectra and level equivalences, it induces a functor . As a corollary of Theorem 4.2.5, the functor is a natural equivalence of categories. Thus the category is naturally equivalent to Boardman’s stable homotopy category. To describe an inverse of , let be the functor that takes a spectrum to the -space of its associated -spectrum. For any spectrum , the symmetric spectrum is the value of the prolongation of the -functor at the symmetric sphere spectrum ; the underlying sequence is . The functor preserves -spectra, preserves level equivalences, and induces a functor which is a natural inverse of .

The category of symmetric -spectra has major defects. It is not closed under limits and colimits, or even under pushouts and pullbacks. The smash product, defined in Section 2, of symmetric -spectra is a symmetric spectrum but not an -spectrum, except in trivial cases. For these reasons it is better to work with the category of all symmetric spectra. But then the notion of level equivalence is no longer adequate; the stable homotopy category is a retract of the homotopy category obtained from by formally inverting the level equivalences but many symmetric spectra are not level equivalent to an -spectrum. One must enlarge the class of equivalences. The stable equivalences of symmetric spectra are defined in Section 3.1. By Theorem 4.2.5, the homotopy category obtained from by inverting the stable equivalences is naturally equivalent to the stable homotopy category.

2. The smash product of symmetric spectra

In this section we construct the closed symmetric monoidal product on the category of symmetric spectra. A symmetric spectrum can be viewed as a module over the symmetric sphere spectrum , and the symmetric sphere spectrum (unlike the ordinary sphere spectrum) is a commutative monoid in an appropriate category. The smash product of symmetric spectra is the tensor product over .

The closed symmetric monoidal category of symmetric sequences is constructed in Section 2.1. A reformulation of the definition of a symmetric spectrum is given in Section 2.2 where we recall the definition of monoids and modules in a symmetric monoidal category. In Section 2.3 we see that there is no closed symmetric monoidal smash product on the category of (non-symmetric) spectra.

2.1. Symmetric sequences

Every symmetric spectrum has an underlying sequence of pointed simplicial sets with a basepoint preserving left action of on ; these are called symmetric sequences. In this section we define the closed symmetric monoidal category of symmetric sequences of pointed simplicial sets.

Definition 2.1.1.

The category has the finite sets for () as its objects and the automorphisms of the sets as its maps. Let be a category. A symmetric sequence of objects in is a functor , and the category of symmetric sequences of objects in is the functor category .

A symmetric sequence is a sequence of pointed simplicial sets with a basepoint preserving left action of on . The category is a product category. In particular, .

Proposition 2.1.2.

The category of symmetric sequences in is bicomplete.

Proof.

The category is bicomplete, so the functor category is bicomplete.

Definition 2.1.3.

The tensor product of the symmetric sequences is the symmetric sequence

The tensor product of the maps and in is given by for , and .

The tensor product of symmetric sequences has the universal property for “bilinear maps”:

Proposition 2.1.4.

Let be symmetric sequences. Then there is a natural isomorphism

The twist isomorphism for is the natural map given by for , , and , where is the -shuffle given by for and for . The map defined without the shuffle permutation is not a map of symmetric sequences.

Remark 2.1.5.

There is another way of describing the tensor product and the twist isomorphism. The category is a skeleton of the category of finite sets and isomorphisms. Hence every symmetric sequence has an extension, which is unique up to isomorphism, to a functor on the category of all finite sets and isomorphisms. The tensor product of two such functors and is the functor defined on a finite set as

For an isomorphism the map is the coproduct of the isomorphisms . The twist isomorphism is the map that sends the summand of to the summand of by switching the factors.

Lemma 2.1.6.

The tensor product is a symmetric monoidal product on the category of symmetric sequences .

Proof.

The unit of the tensor product is the symmetric sequence . The unit isomorphism is obvious. The associativity isomorphism is induced by the associativity isomorphism in and the natural isomorphism

The twist isomorphism is described in Remark 2.1.5. The coherence of the natural isomorphisms follows from coherence of the natural isomorphisms for the smash product in .

We now introduce several functors on the category of symmetric sequences.

Definition 2.1.7.

The evaluation functor is given by and . The free functor is the left adjoint of the evaluation functor . The smash product of and is the symmetric sequence with the diagonal action of that is trivial on . The pointed simplicial set of maps from to is the pointed simplicial set .

For each , the free symmetric sequence is and the free functor is . So, for a pointed simplicial set , and for . In particular, , and is the unit of the tensor product .

We leave the proof of the following basic proposition to the reader.

Proposition 2.1.8.

There are natural isomorphisms:

(1)

for .

(2)

for and .

(3)

for and .

(4)

for .

A map of symmetric sequences is a level equivalence if each of the maps is a weak equivalence. Since is a product category, a map of symmetric sequences is a monomorphism if and only if each of the maps is a monomorphism.

Proposition 2.1.9.

Let be a symmetric sequence, let be a map of symmetric sequences and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets.

(1)

preserves colimits.

(2)

If is a monomorphism, then is a monomorphism.

(3)

If is a level equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

(4)

If is a monomorphism, then is a monomorphism for .

(5)

If is a weak equivalence, then is a level equivalence for .

Proof.

Parts (1), (2) and (3) follow from the definition of and the corresponding properties for the smash product of pointed simplicial sets. For Parts (4) and (5) use the isomorphism .

By part three of Proposition 2.1.8, . As varies, is a functor , and for , the symmetric sequence is naturally isomorphic to .

Definition 2.1.10.

Let and be symmetric sequences. The symmetric sequence of maps from to is

Theorem 2.1.11.

The tensor product is a closed symmetric monoidal product on the category of symmetric sequences.

Proof.

The tensor product is a symmetric monoidal product by Lemma 2.1.6. The product is closed if there is a natural isomorphism

for symmetric sequences and .

By Proposition 2.1.4, a map of symmetric sequences is a collection of -equivariant maps . This is adjoint to a collection of -equivariant maps . So there is a natural isomorphism

By Proposition 2.1.8, the functor sending to is the functor sending to which by definition is . Combining the isomorphisms gives the natural isomorphism that finishes the proof.

2.2. Symmetric spectra

In this section we apply the language of “monoids” and “modules” in a symmetric monoidal category to the category of symmetric sequences. See Reference ML71Reference Bor94 for background on monoidal categories. In this language, the symmetric sequence of spheres is a commutative monoid in the category of symmetric sequences and a symmetric spectrum is a (left) -module.

Consider the symmetric sphere spectrum . By Proposition 2.1.4, the natural -equivariant maps give a pairing . The adjoint of the identity map is a two-sided unit of the pairing. The diagram of natural isomorphisms

commutes, showing that is an associative pairing of symmetric sequences.

In the language of monoidal categories, is a monoid in the category of symmetric sequences and a symmetric spectrum is a left -module.

Proposition 2.2.1.

The category of symmetric spectra is naturally equivalent to the category of left -modules.

Proof.

A pairing is the same as a collection of -equivariant maps . If is a left -module, there is a spectrum for which is the underlying symmetric sequence and the structure maps are the maps . The compositions are the -equivariant maps . Conversely, for a symmetric spectrum, the map of symmetric sequences corresponding to the collection of -equivariant maps , where is the natural isomorphism , makes a left -module. These are inverse constructions and give a natural equivalence of categories.

Moreover, is a commutative monoid, i.e., , where is the twist isomorphism. To see this, one can use either the definition of the twist isomorphism or the description given in Remark 2.1.5. Then, as is the case for commutative monoids in the category of sets and for commutative monoids in the category of abelian groups (i.e., commutative rings), there is a tensor product , having as the unit. This gives a symmetric monoidal product on the category of -modules. The smash product of is the symmetric spectrum .

The smash product on the category of symmetric spectra is a special case of the following lemma.

Lemma 2.2.2.

Let be a symmetric monoidal category that is cocomplete and let be a commutative monoid in such that the functor preserves coequalizers. Then there is a symmetric monoidal product on the category of -modules with as the unit.

We leave the proof of this lemma to the reader; the main point is the following definition.

Definition 2.2.3.

The smash product of symmetric spectra and is the symmetric spectrum . The tensor product is the colimit in symmetric sequences of the diagram

For a left -module the composition is the right action of ; since is commutative, the two actions commute and is an -bimodule. Hence, the tensor product is a left -module.

Apply Lemma 2.2.2 to the commutative monoid in the bicomplete category of symmetric sequences to obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 2.2.4.

The smash product is a symmetric monoidal product on the category of symmetric spectra.

Next, some important functors on the category of symmetric spectra.

Definition 2.2.5.

The functor gives the free -module generated by the symmetric sequence . For each , the evaluation functor is given by and . The free functor is the left adjoint of the evaluation functor . The functor is the right adjoint of the evaluation functor .

The functor is left adjoint to the forgetful functor . The free functor is the composition of the left adjoints (Definition 2.1.7) and . Thus, for and , the left -module is naturally isomorphic to the left -module . In particular, is naturally isomorphic to the symmetric spectrum defined by prolongation in Section 1.3. Furthermore is the symmetric suspension spectrum of , and is the symmetric sphere spectrum . For a pointed simplicial set , is the symmetric sequence , which is a left -module since is a right -module.

We leave the proof of the following proposition to the reader.

Proposition 2.2.6.

There are natural isomorphisms:

(1)

for .

(2)

for and .

(3)

for and .

Proposition 2.2.7.

Let be a map of pointed simplicial sets.

(1)

preserves colimits.

(2)

If is a monomorphism, then is a monomorphism.

(3)

If is a weak equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

Proof.

Use the isomorphism and Proposition 2.1.9.

The internal Hom on the category of symmetric spectra is a special case of the following lemma.

Lemma 2.2.8.

Let be a closed symmetric monoidal category that is bicomplete and let be a commutative monoid in . Then there is a function -module , natural for , such that the functor is left adjoint to the functor .

Again, we leave the proof of this lemma to the reader, but the main definition follows.

Definition 2.2.9.

Let and be symmetric spectra. The function spectrum is the limit of the diagram in

Combining Lemmas 2.2.2 and 2.2.8:

Theorem 2.2.10.

The smash product is a closed symmetric monoidal product on the category of symmetric spectra. In particular, there is a natural adjunction isomorphism

Proof.

The smash product is a symmetric monoidal product by Corollary 2.2.4. The adjunction isomorphism follows from Lemma 2.2.8.

The adjunction is also a simplicial adjunction and an internal adjunction.

Corollary 2.2.11.

There are natural isomorphisms

and

Remark 2.2.12.

We use Proposition 2.2.6 to give another description of the function spectrum . For a symmetric spectrum , the pointed simplicial set of maps is naturally isomorphic to . The symmetric spectrum is the -module and as varies, is a functor . The symmetric sequence is the underlying symmetric sequence of . In particular, the natural isomorphism is -equivariant. Applying this to and using Corollary 2.2.11, we find that the underlying symmetric sequence of is the symmetric sequence .

We must also describe the structure maps of from this point of view. Recall that , . Let be the adjoint of the identity map . The induced map is adjoint to the structure map . The map

is -equivariant; the induced map

is -equivariant and is adjoint to the structure map . In order to apply this to , use Proposition 2.2.6 and Corollary 2.2.11 to find a natural isomorphism

Using this natural isomorphism, we find that the structure maps of are the adjoints of the maps

induced by .

For example, is the -shifted spectrum; its underlying symmetric sequence is the sequence of pointed simplicial sets

with acting on by restricting the action of to the copy of that permutes the first elements of . The structure maps of the -shifted spectrum are the structure maps of . More generally, is the -shifted spectrum of .

2.3. The ordinary category of spectra

An approach similar to the last two sections can be used to describe (non-symmetric) spectra as modules over the sphere spectrum in a symmetric monoidal category. But in this case the sphere spectrum is not a commutative monoid, which is why there is no closed symmetric monoidal smash product of spectra.

Definition 2.3.1.

The category is the category with the non-negative integers as its objects and with the identity maps of the objects as its only maps. The category of sequences is the category of functors from to . An object of is a sequence of pointed simplicial sets and a map is a sequence of pointed simplicial maps .

Definition 2.3.2.

The graded smash product of sequences and is the sequence given in degree by

Lemma 2.3.3.

The category of sequences is a bicomplete category and the graded smash product is a symmetric monoidal product on .

Proposition 2.3.4.

The sequence whose th level is is a monoid in the category of sequences. The category of left -modules is isomorphic to the ordinary category of spectra, .

The twist map on is not the identity map and thus is not a commutative monoid in . In fact, is a free monoid (Section 4.3). Therefore the approach taken in Section 2.2 does not provide a closed symmetric monoidal smash product on the ordinary category of spectra.

3. Stable homotopy theory of symmetric spectra

To use symmetric spectra for the study of stable homotopy theory, one should have a stable model category of symmetric spectra such that the category obtained by inverting the stable equivalences is naturally equivalent to Boardman’s stable homotopy category of spectra (or to any other known to be equivalent to Boardman’s). In this section we define the stable model category of symmetric spectra. In Section 4 we show that it is Quillen equivalent to the stable model category of spectra discussed in Reference BF78.

In Section 3.1 we define the class of stable equivalences of symmetric spectra and discuss its non-trivial relationship to the class of stable equivalences of (non-symmetric) spectra. In Section 3.2 we recall the axioms and basic theory of model categories. In Section 3.3 we discuss the level structure in , and in Section 3.4 we define the stable model structure on the category of symmetric spectra which has the stable equivalences as the class of weak equivalences. The rest of the section is devoted to checking that the stable model structure satisfies the axioms of a model category.

3.1. Stable equivalence

One’s first inclination is to define stable equivalence using the forgetful functor ; one would like a map of symmetric spectra to be a stable equivalence if the underlying map of spectra is a stable equivalence, i.e., if induces an isomorphism of stable homotopy groups. The reader is warned: THIS WILL NOT WORK. Instead, stable equivalence is defined using cohomology; a map of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence if the induced map of cohomology groups is an isomorphism for every generalized cohomology theory . The two alternatives, using stable homotopy groups or using cohomology groups, give equivalent definitions on the category of (non-symmetric) spectra but not on the category of symmetric spectra.

It would be nice if the th cohomology group of the symmetric spectrum with coefficients in the symmetric -spectrum could be defined as , the set of simplicial homotopy classes of maps from to . But, even though the contravariant functor takes simplicial homotopy equivalences to isomorphisms, may not take level equivalences to isomorphisms. This is a common occurrence in simplicial categories, but is a problem as every level equivalence should induce an isomorphism of cohomology groups; a level equivalence certainly induces an isomorphism of stable homotopy groups. We introduce injective spectra as a class of spectra for which the functor behaves correctly.

Definition 3.1.1.

An injective spectrum is a symmetric spectrum that has the extension property with respect to every monomorphism of symmetric spectra that is a level equivalence. That is, for every diagram in

where is a monomorphism and a level equivalence there is a map such that .

Some examples of injective spectra follow. Recall that is the right adjoint of the evaluation functor . Also recall that a Kan complex has the extension property with respect to every map of pointed simplicial sets that is a monomorphism and a weak equivalence.

Lemma 3.1.2.

If the pointed simplicial set is a Kan complex, then is an injective spectrum. If is a symmetric sequence and is an injective spectrum, then is an injective spectrum.

Proof.

Since is left adjoint to , the spectrum has the extension property with respect to the monomorphism and level equivalence if and only if has the extension property with respect to the monomorphism and weak equivalence . Since is a Kan complex, it does have the extension property with respect to . Hence is injective.

Since the functor is the left adjoint of , the spectrum has the extension property with respect to the monomorphism and level equivalence if and only if has the extension property with respect to the map . There is a natural isomorphism of maps of symmetric sequences . Since is a monomorphism and a level equivalence, is a monomorphism and a level equivalence by Proposition 2.1.9. Thus is also a monomorphism and level equivalence of symmetric spectra. So is injective.

In fact, injective spectra are the fibrant objects of a model structure on for which every object is cofibrant (Section 5.1). In particular, as we will see in Corollary 5.1.3, there are enough injectives; every symmetric spectrum embeds in an injective spectrum by a map that is a level equivalence.

Definition 3.1.3.

A map of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence if is an isomorphism for every injective -spectrum .

There are two other ways to define stable equivalence.

Proposition 3.1.4.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra. The following conditions are equivalent:

is an isomorphism for every injective -spectrum ;

is a weak equivalence for every injective -spectrum ;

is a level equivalence for every injective -spectrum .

Proof.

Let be a pointed simplicial set and let be a symmetric -spectrum. The adjoints of the structure maps of are weak equivalences of Kan complexes. From Remark 2.2.12, for . The adjoints of the structure maps of are the weak equivalences of Kan complexes induced by the adjoints of the structure maps of . Therefore, is an -spectrum.

Now let be an injective -spectrum. Using the natural isomorphism and Lemma 3.1.2, is an injective spectrum. By the preceding paragraph, is an -spectrum. Hence and the -shifted spectrum are injective -spectra. Given a stable equivalence , we want to show that is a weak equivalence. Since

and the simplicial sets and are Kan complexes by Lemma 3.1.5, is a weak equivalence on the basepoint components. We must extend this to all components. To do so, note that is a weak equivalence for any injective -spectrum , since the loop space only depends on the basepoint component. Consider the commutative diagram

where the horizontal maps are induced by the map adjoint to the structure map of . Since is an injective -spectrum, this map is a level equivalence of injective spectra. By Lemma 3.1.6, it is a simplicial homotopy equivalence. Hence the horizontal maps in the diagram above are weak equivalences. Since the right-hand vertical map is a weak equivalence, so is the left-hand vertical map . Thus the first two conditions in the proposition are equivalent. Since , the second two conditions are equivalent.

Lemma 3.1.5.

Suppose is a symmetric spectrum and is an injective spectrum. Then the pointed simplicial set is a Kan complex. In particular, each pointed simplicial set is a Kan complex.

Proof.

Suppose that is a monomorphism and weak equivalence of simplicial sets. We must show that has the extension property with respect to . By adjointness, this is equivalent to showing that has the extension property with respect to . But is a monomorphism and level equivalence by Corollary 1.3.6 applied to the monomorphism and , so does have the required extension property.

The basic properties of injective spectra which are needed in the rest of this section are stated in the following lemma.

Lemma 3.1.6.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra.

(1)

If is an injective spectrum and is a level equivalence, then is an isomorphism of sets.

(2)

If is a map of injective spectra, is a level equivalence if and only if is a simplicial homotopy equivalence.

The proof uses the following construction.

Construction 3.1.7 (Mapping cylinder construction).

The mapping cylinder construction for maps of symmetric spectra is the prolongation of the reduced mapping cylinder construction for maps of pointed simplicial sets. Let and be the two inclusions . The cylinder spectrum of a map is the corner of the pushout square

Let . Let be the map on the pushout induced by the identity map on and the composition . Then , is a monomorphism, , and there is a simplicial homotopy from to the identity map of .

Proof of Lemma 3.1.6.

For part one of the lemma, let be a level equivalence and let be the mapping cylinder of . As above , is a monomorphism, and is a simplicial homotopy equivalence. Then is an isomorphism and, if is an isomorphism, the composition is an isomorphism. The map is a monomorphism which, by the 2-out-of-3 property, is a level equivalence. By the extension property of with respect to , the map is surjective. The inclusion of the boundary is a monomorphism. By Corollary 1.3.6, the map

is a monomorphism and a level equivalence. The extension property of with respect to implies that if are maps such that and are simplicially homotopic, then and are simplicially homotopic. So is a monomorphism and hence is an isomorphism.

For the second part of the lemma, if is a simplicial homotopy equivalence, each is a simplicial homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets and so each is a weak equivalence. Conversely, suppose is a level equivalence of injective spectra. By part one, is an isomorphism. The inverse image of the equivalence class of the identity map is an equivalence class of maps . Since is injective, is an isomorphism. Hence each map in the equivalence class is a simplicial homotopy inverse of .

Restricting part one of Lemma 3.1.6 to injective -spectra gives:

Corollary 3.1.8.

Every level equivalence of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence.

Next recall the definition of stable homotopy equivalence in the category of (non-symmetric) spectra .

Definition 3.1.9.

For each integer the th homotopy group of the spectrum (or symmetric spectrum) is the colimit

of the directed system given by the compositions

of the suspension homomorphism and the map induced by .

A map of spectra is a stable homotopy equivalence if is an isomorphism. For example, every level equivalence in is a stable homotopy equivalence as it induces an isomorphism of homotopy groups. We do not define stable equivalence of symmetric spectra in this way; as the following example shows, a stable equivalence of symmetric spectra need not induce an isomorphism of homotopy groups.

Example 3.1.10.

The map (see 2.2.12) is the adjoint of the identity map . The th space of is , which is a wedge of copies of . One can calculate that is an infinite direct sum of copies of the integers , whereas is . So is not an isomorphism of homotopy groups and thus is not a stable homotopy equivalence of (non-symmetric) spectra. But is a stable equivalence of symmetric spectra. For a symmetric -spectrum , , , and the induced map is adjoint to the structure map . So is a weak equivalence for every -spectrum , including the injective ones, and so is a stable equivalence. By the same argument, the maps are stable equivalences.

The forgetful functor does not preserve stable equivalences. On the other hand, the functor does reflect stable equivalences.

Theorem 3.1.11.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra such that is an isomorphism of homotopy groups. Then is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

To ease notation, let , so that for and . In particular and there is a natural map induced by the map discussed in Example 3.1.10 and Remark 2.2.12. The maps give a directed system. Let

and let be the natural map from to the colimit.

Let be an injective -spectrum. Since is an -spectrum, the map

is a level equivalence for each and the map is a level equivalence. Since is injective, the proof of part one of Lemma 3.1.6 applied to shows that there is a map such that the composition is simplicially homotopic to the identity map on , though the other composite may not be simplicially homotopic to the identity map on . There is a natural transformation sending the map to the map ; there is a natural transformation induced by composition with the map . Since is simplicially homotopic to the identity map on , the composition of the natural transformations is the identity natural transformation of the functor . In the diagram

the composition of the horizontal maps is the identity, showing that is a retract of .

Let be a symmetric spectrum that is a level Kan complex, i.e., each is a Kan complex. Since the functor commutes with filtered colimits, the homotopy group of the pointed simplicial set is naturally isomorphic to the homotopy group of the symmetric spectrum . A warning: even though the groups and are abstractly isomorphic, the structure map of the symmetric spectrum need not induce an isomorphism between them. In particular, despite its similarity to the standard construction of the -spectrum associated to a (non-symmetric) spectrum, need not be an -spectrum and need not induce an isomorphism of homotopy groups.

Now, let be a map of symmetric spectra such that is an isomorphism. Assume as well that and are level Kan complexes. Then is a level equivalence. By Corollary 3.1.8, is an isomorphism for every injective -spectrum . Thus , which is a retract of , is an isomorphism for every injective -spectrum , and so is a stable equivalence.

To finish the proof, let be a map of arbitrary symmetric spectra such that is an isomorphism. For every simplicial set there is a natural weak equivalence where is a Kan complex. There are several such functors: can be Kan’s functor; can be the total singular complex of the geometric realization; or can be constructed using a simplicial small object argument. In each case, is an -functor and is an -natural transformation. By prolongation, for every symmetric spectrum there is a natural level equivalence where is a level Kan complex. In the commutative diagram

the horizontal maps are stable equivalences by 3.1.8; the map is a stable equivalence by the preceding paragraph; hence is a stable equivalence.

As a corollary some of the standard results about spectra translate into results about symmetric spectra.

Definition 3.1.12.

Let be a pair of symmetric spectra where is a subspectrum of . The th relative homotopy group of the pair is the colimit

of the relative homotopy groups of the pointed pairs of simplicial sets .

Lemma 3.1.13 (Stable excision).

Let be a pair of symmetric spectra with a subspectrum of . The map of homotopy groups is an isomorphism.

Proof.

Consider the diagram:

Let be a pair of pointed simplicial sets. By the homotopy excision theorem the map is an isomorphism when . So the middle vertical arrow in the diagram is an isomorphism when and hence the map of colimits is an isomorphism.

Theorem 3.1.14.
(1)

Let be a map of symmetric spectra such that is a Kan fibration for each and let be the fiber over the basepoint. Then the map is a stable equivalence.

(2)

A map of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence if and only if its suspension is a stable equivalence.

(3)

For symmetric spectra and such that is a level Kan complex, a map is a stable equivalence if and only its adjoint is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

By stable excision, the map induces an isomorphism of homotopy groups and hence is a stable equivalence by Theorem 3.1.11.

For part two, let be an injective -spectrum. By Lemma 3.1.2, the spectra , and are injective -spectra. If is a stable equivalence of symmetric spectra, then the map

is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets and so is a stable equivalence. Conversely if is a stable equivalence, then the map

is a weak equivalence. The map is a level equivalence of injective spectra and thus a simplicial homotopy equivalence, by Lemma 3.1.6. So, for every symmetric spectrum , the induced map

is a simplicial homotopy equivalence. Therefore is a weak equivalence, and so is a stable equivalence.

For part three, let be a map and let be the adjoint of . The diagram

is commutative where the map is the evaluation map. By part one applied to the prolongation of the path fibration, the map is a stable equivalence; by part two, is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence. Therefore is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence.

Once we have the stable model category of symmetric spectra, part three of this theorem tells us that it really is stable; i.e., that the suspension functor is an equivalence of model categories.

3.2. Model categories

In this section we recall the definition and the basic properties of model categories; see Reference DS95, Reference Hov98a, or Reference DHK for a more detailed introduction.

Definition 3.2.1.

An ordered pair of maps in the category has the lifting property if every commutative square

in extends to a commutative diagram

We also say that has the left lifting property with respect to and that has the right lifting property with respect to . More generally, if and are classes of maps in , the pair has the lifting property if every pair with and has the lifting property. We also say that has the left lifting property with respect to and that has the right lifting property with respect to .

It would be more accurate to say that the pair has the lifting-extension property but we prefer the shorter term.

Definition 3.2.2.

Let and be maps in a category . The map is a retract of if it is a retract in the category of arrows, i.e., if there is a commutative diagram

such that the horizontal compositions are the identity maps. A class of maps is closed under retracts if whenever is a retract of and is in the class, then is in the class.

Definition 3.2.3.

A model category is a category with three distinguished classes of maps—the class of weak equivalences, the class of cofibrations, and the class of fibrations—that satisfy the model category axioms below. We call a map that is both a cofibration and a weak equivalence a trivial cofibration, and we call a map that is both a fibration and a weak equivalence a trivial fibration.

M1

Limit axiom. The category is bicomplete (closed under arbitrary small limits and colimits).

M2

Two-out-of-three axiom. Let and be maps in such that is defined. If two of , and are weak equivalences, then the third is a weak equivalence.

M3

Retract axiom. The class of weak equivalences, the class of cofibrations, and the class of fibrations are closed under retracts.

M4

Lifting axiom. A cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to every trivial fibration. A fibration has the right lifting property with respect to every trivial cofibration.

M5

Factorization axiom. Every map has a factorization where is a cofibration and is a trivial fibration and a factorization where is a trivial cofibration and is a fibration.

Three classes of maps that satisfy axioms M2, M3, M4 and M5 are a model structure on the category. One should keep in mind that a category can have more than one model structure; there can even be distinct model structures with the same class of weak equivalences.

A bicomplete category has an initial object and a terminal object . In a model category, an object is cofibrant if the unique map is a cofibration and an object is fibrant if the unique map is a fibration. A model category is pointed if the unique map is an isomorphism.

The following proposition is standard; see Reference Hov98a, Lemma 1.1.9.

Proposition 3.2.4 (The Retract Argument).

Let be a category and let be a factorization in .

(1)

If has the right lifting property with respect to , then is a retract of .

(2)

If has the left lifting property with respect to , then is a retract of .

The following proposition is a converse to the lifting axiom.

Proposition 3.2.5 (Closure property).

In a model category:

(1)

The cofibrations are the maps having the left lifting property with respect to every trivial fibration.

(2)

The trivial cofibrations are the the maps having the left lifting property with respect to every fibration.

(3)

The fibrations are the maps having the right lifting property with respect to every trivial cofibration.

(4)

The trivial fibrations are the maps having the right lifting property with respect to every cofibration.

Proof.

Use the factorization axiom and the retract argument.

In particular, any two of the three classes of maps in a model category determine the third. For example, a weak equivalence is a map that factors as a trivial cofibration composed with a trivial fibration.

Example 3.2.6.

We recall the standard model structure on the category of simplicial sets Reference Qui67, II.3. A weak equivalence is a map whose geometric realization is a homotopy equivalence of CW-complexes. The cofibrations are the monomorphisms and every simplicial set is cofibrant. Recall, the standard -simplex is . The boundary of is the subfunctor of non-surjective maps. For , the th horn of is the subfunctor of maps for which is not in the image. Geometrically, is obtained from the boundary of by removing the th face. The fibrations are the Kan fibrations, the maps that have the right lifting property with respect to the maps for and ; the fibrant simplicial sets are the Kan complexes, the simplicial sets that satisfy the Kan extension condition. A map is a trivial fibration (a fibration and a weak equivalence) if and only if it has the right lifting property with respect to the maps . It follows that the pointed weak equivalences, the pointed monomorphisms, and the pointed (Kan) fibrations are a model structure on the category of pointed simplicial sets.

When constructing a model category, the factorization axiom can be the hardest to verify. After some preliminary definitions, Lemma 3.2.11 constructs functorial factorizations in the category of symmetric spectra.

Definition 3.2.7.

Let be a class of maps in a category .

(1)

A map is -injective if it has the right lifting property with respect to every map in . The class of -injective maps is denoted .

(2)

A map is -projective if it has the left lifting property with respect to every map in . The class of -projective maps is denoted .

(3)

A map is an -cofibration if it has the left lifting property with respect to every -injective map. The class of -cofibrations is the class and is denoted .

(4)

A map is an -fibration if it has the right lifting property with respect to every -projective map. The class of -fibrations is the class and is denoted .

Injective and projective are dual notions; an -injective map in is an -projective map in ; an -fibration in is an -cofibration in . The class and the class are analogous to the orthogonal complement of a set of vectors. This analogy helps explain the following proposition, whose proof we leave to the reader.

Proposition 3.2.8.

Let and be classes of maps in a category .

(1)

If , then and .

(2)

Repeating the operations: , , , and .

(3)

The following conditions are equivalent:

The pair has the lifting property.

.

.

The pair has the lifting property.

The pair has the lifting property.

(4)

The classes and are subcategories of and are closed under retracts.

(5)

The class is closed under base change. That is, if

is a pullback square and is an -injective map, then is an -injective map.

(6)

The class is closed under cobase change. That is, if

is a pushout square and is an -projective map, then is an -projective map.

Corollary 3.2.9.

Let be a class of maps in a category . The class is a subcategory of that is closed under retracts and cobase change. The class is a subcategory of that is closed under retracts and base change.

Another useful elementary lemma about the lifting property is the following.

Lemma 3.2.10.

Let be a functor that is left adjoint to the functor . If is a class of maps in and is a class of maps in , the pair has the lifting property if and only if the pair has the lifting property.

The next lemma is used repeatedly to construct factorizations.

Lemma 3.2.11 (Factorization Lemma).

Let be a set of maps in the category . There is a functorial factorization of every map of symmetric spectra as an -cofibration followed by an -injective map.

The factorization lemma is proved using the transfinite small object argument. We begin by showing that every symmetric spectrum is suitably small.

Recall that an ordinal is, by recursive definition, the well-ordered set of all smaller ordinals. In particular, we can regard an ordinal as a category. A cardinal is an ordinal of larger cardinality than all smaller ordinals.

Definition 3.2.12.

Let be an infinite cardinal. An ordinal is -filtered if every set consisting of ordinals less than such that has cardinality greater than .

Every -filtered ordinal is a limit ordinal. In fact, since is infinite, every -filtered ordinal is a limit ordinal for which there is no countable set of ordinals less than such that . The smallest -filtered ordinal is the first ordinal of cardinality greater than . For example, is the smallest -filtered ordinal. If and is -filtered, then is -filtered.

Define the cardinality of a spectrum to be the cardinality of its underlying set . Then the cardinality of is always infinite, which is convenient for the following lemma.

Proposition 3.2.13.

Let be a simplicial spectrum of cardinality . Let be a -filtered ordinal and let be an -indexed diagram of symmetric spectra. Then the natural map

is an isomorphism.

Proof.

Every symmetric spectrum has a presentation as a coequalizer

of free symmetric spectra in the category . The symmetric spectra and have the same cardinality. So the proposition follows once it is proved for free symmetric spectra. There is a natural isomorphism . The functors have the property claimed for .

This fact is the heart of the proposition. To begin the proof of it, suppose we have a map , where is an -indexed diagram of -simplicial sets. For each simplex of , we can choose an ordinal and a simplex such that is the image of . Because is -filtered, we can then find one ordinal and a map factoring . The map may not be simplicial or equivariant, but, again using the fact that is -filtered, we can go out far enough in the colimit so that will be both simplicial and equivariant. We leave the details to the reader.

Since is infinite, for every countable set of ordinals that are strictly less than , the ordinal is strictly less than . Therefore, the countable product of functors has the property claimed for and the proposition is proved.

Proof of Lemma 3.2.11.

We begin by constructing a functorial factorization

of such that is an -cofibration and . For a map in , let be the set of commutative squares

Let

By the definition of , there is a commutative square

Let be the pushout , let be the map , and let be the natural map on the pushout. By construction, the map is an -cofibration and . However, the map need not be an -injective map.

Use transfinite induction to define functorial factorizations of

for every ordinal . The induction starts at with , , and . For a successor ordinal , , , and . For a limit ordinal, , and .

The map is an -cofibration for each ; the required lift is constructed by transfinite induction. The proof of the lemma is completed by finding an ordinal for which is an -injective map. Let

be a commutative square with . If the map factors as for , then by construction there is a lift and, since , a lift . Let be the cardinality of and let . Let be a -filtered ordinal. Then for every and hence is an -injective map.

3.3. Level structure

Prolongation of the model structure on (see 3.2.6) gives the level structure on the category of symmetric spectra. It is not a model structure but it is a basic tool in the construction of the stable model structure. Its use is already implicit in Sections 1.3 and 3.1.

Definition 3.3.1.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra.

(1)

The map is a level equivalence if each map is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.

(2)

The map is a level (trivial) cofibration if each map is a (trivial) cofibration of simplicial sets.

(3)

The map is a level (trivial) fibration if each map is a (trivial) fibration of simplicial sets.

The level cofibrations are the monomorphisms of symmetric spectra. Next, we characterize the level fibrations and trivial fibrations.

Definition 3.3.2.
(1)

Let denote the set of maps for and . Let .

(2)

Let denote the set of maps for . Let .

Proposition 3.3.3.

The level fibrations are the -injective maps. The level trivial fibrations are the -injective maps.

Proof.

A map is a level (trivial) fibration if and only if is a (trivial) Kan fibration for each . But is a (trivial) Kan fibration if and only if it has the right lifting property with respect to the class () . Then by adjunction, is a level (trivial) fibration if and only if has the right lifting property with respect to the class () .

The level structure is not a model structure; it satisfies the two-out-of-three axiom, the retract axiom, and the factorization axiom but not the lifting axiom. A model structure is determined by any two of its three classes and so the level structure is overdetermined. In Section 5.1 we prove there are two “level” model structures with the level equivalences as the weak equivalences: one that is generated by the level equivalences and the level cofibrations and one that is generated by the level equivalences and the level fibrations. In any case, the level homotopy category obtained by inverting the level equivalences is not the stable homotopy category of spectra.

The pushout smash product (Definition 1.3.3) has an adjoint construction.

Definition 3.3.4.

Let and be maps of pointed simplicial sets. The map

is the map to the fiber product induced by the commutative square

Let be a map of pointed simplicial sets and let be a map of symmetric spectra. Then is the map of symmetric spectra that is defined by prolongation, .

Proposition 3.3.5.
(1)

If is a monomorphism and is a Kan fibration, then is a Kan fibration. If, in addition, either or is a weak equivalence, then is a weak equivalence.

(2)

If is a monomorphism and is a level fibration, then is a level fibration. If, in addition, either is a weak equivalence or is a level equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

Proof.

Part one is a standard property of simplicial sets, proved in Reference Qui67, II.3. Part two follows from part one by prolongation.

Definition 3.3.6.

Let and be maps in a category . Then is the natural map of sets to the fiber product

coming from the commutative square

A pair has the lifting property if and only if is surjective.

Definition 3.3.7.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra. Then is the natural map to the fiber product

Proposition 3.3.8.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets. There are natural isomorphisms

In fact this proposition holds in any simplicial model category.

Proof.

Let and be maps in and let be a map in . Using adjunction and the defining property of pushouts and of pullbacks, each of the three maps in the proposition is naturally isomorphic to the map from to the limit of the diagram:

Corollary 3.3.9.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets. The following are equivalent:

has the lifting property.

has the lifting property.

has the lifting property.

3.4. Stable model category

In this section we define the stable cofibrations and the stable fibrations of symmetric spectra. The main result is that the class of stable equivalences, the class of stable cofibrations, and the class of stable fibrations are a model structure on .

Recall that is a level trivial fibration if is a trivial Kan fibration for each .

Definition 3.4.1.

A map of symmetric spectra is a stable cofibration if it has the left lifting property with respect to every level trivial fibration. A map of symmetric spectra is a stable trivial cofibration if it is a stable cofibration and a stable equivalence. A symmetric spectrum is stably cofibrant if is a stable cofibration.

The basic properties of the class of stable cofibrations are next.

Proposition 3.4.2.
(1)

The class of stable cofibrations is the class .

(2)

The class of stable cofibrations is a subcategory that is closed under retracts and closed under cobase change.

(3)

If is a cofibration of pointed simplicial sets and , then is a stable cofibration. In particular, is stably cofibrant for .

(4)

If is a stable cofibration and is a cofibration, then the pushout smash product is a stable cofibration.

(5)

If is a stable cofibration and is a level fibration, then is a Kan fibration.

Proof.

The stable cofibrations are the maps having the left lifting property with respect to the level trivial fibrations, which by Proposition 3.3.3 are the -injective maps. So the stable cofibrations are the -cofibrations.

Every class has the properties stated in part two.

Suppose is a level trivial fibration, and is a cofibration. Then has the left lifting property with respect to the trivial Kan fibration . By adjunction, has the left lifting property with respect to . Hence is a stable cofibration. In particular, for every pointed simplicial set , the map is a stable cofibration, and so is stably cofibrant.

Now suppose is a stable cofibration and is a cofibration. Then, given a level trivial fibration , the map is a level trivial fibration by Proposition 3.3.5. Therefore the pair has the lifting property. Then by Corollary 3.3.9, the pair has the lifting property, and so is a stable cofibration.

Finally, suppose is a stable cofibration and is a level fibration. Given a trivial cofibration , is a level trivial fibration by Proposition 3.3.5. Therefore, the pair has the lifting property. Then, by Corollary 3.3.9, the pair has the lifting property. Therefore is a Kan fibration.

The next definition is natural in view of the closure properties in a model category; see Proposition 3.2.5.

Definition 3.4.3.

A map of symmetric spectra is a stable fibration if it has the right lifting property with respect to every map that is a stable trivial cofibration. A map of symmetric spectra is a stable trivial fibration if it is a stable fibration and a stable equivalence. A spectrum is stably fibrant if the map is a stable fibration.

Theorem 3.4.4.

The category of symmetric spectra with the class of stable equivalences, the class of stable cofibrations, and the class of stable fibrations is a model category.

Proof.

The category is bicomplete by Proposition 1.2.10. The two-out-of-three axiom and the retract axiom are immediate consequences of the definitions. By definition, has the lifting property when is a stable trivial cofibration and is a stable fibration. The lifting axiom for a stable cofibration and a stable trivial fibration is verified in Corollary 3.4.7. The two parts of the factorization axiom are verified in Corollary 3.4.6 and Lemma 3.4.8.

Lemma 3.4.5.

A map is a stable trivial fibration if and only if it is a level trivial fibration.

Proof.

Suppose is a level trivial fibration. By definition, every stable cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to and in particular every stable trivial cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to . So is a stable fibration which is a level equivalence and hence a stable equivalence. So is a stable trivial fibration.

Conversely, suppose is a stable trivial fibration. Recall that at this point we do not know that has the right lifting property with respect to stable cofibrations. By Lemma 3.2.11, can be factored as with an -cofibration and an -injective map. Since is a level equivalence, it is a stable equivalence. By the two-out-of-three property, is a stable equivalence. Therefore, is a stable trivial cofibration and has the left lifting property with respect to . By the Retract Argument 3.2.4, is a retract of and so is a level trivial fibration.

Corollary 3.4.6.

Every map of symmetric spectra has a factorization as a stable cofibration followed by a stable trivial fibration .

Proof.

By the Factorization Lemma 3.2.11, every map in can be factored as with an -cofibration and an -injective map. Then is a stable cofibration and is a level trivial fibration, which, by Lemma 3.4.5, means that is a stable trivial fibration.

Corollary 3.4.7.

A stable cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to every stable trivial fibration.

Proof.

By Lemma 3.4.5 every stable trivial fibration is a level trivial fibration. By definition, stable cofibrations have the left lifting property with respect to every level trivial fibration.

The following lemma will finish the proof of Theorem 3.4.4.

Lemma 3.4.8.

Every map of symmetric spectra has a factorization as a stable trivial cofibration followed by a stable fibration .

To prove the lemma we need a set of maps such that a -cofibration is a stable trivial cofibration and a -injective map is a stable fibration. Using the Factorization Lemma with the set will prove Lemma 3.4.8. The set is defined in 3.4.9 and Corollary 3.4.16 verifies its properties. This takes up the rest of the section.

The maps used in the definition below appeared in the description of the function spectrum in Remark 2.2.12. They are stable equivalences (see Example 3.1.10) but are not stable cofibrations or even level cofibrations. We modify them to get the set .

Definition 3.4.9.

Let be the adjoint of the identity map and let be the map , so that . The mapping cylinder construction 3.1.7 gives a factorization where is a simplicial homotopy equivalence and is a level cofibration. For , let , i.e., is the set of maps for . Let and, finally, let .

Lemma 3.4.10.

For each , the map is a stable trivial cofibration.

Proof.

The map is a stable equivalence (Example 3.1.10) and the simplicial homotopy equivalence is a stable equivalence. Using the factorization and the two-out-of-three property of stable equivalences, is a stable equivalence.

Next we show that is a stable cofibration. The mapping cylinder can also be defined as the corner in the pushout square

where is the inclusion on the second factor, and come from the two inclusions , and is the natural map to the pushout. Using the properties of stable cofibrations in Proposition 3.4.2, we find that the map is a stable cofibration and, by cobase change, that is a stable cofibration. Let be the cofibration . Then is a stable cofibration and, by cobase change, is a stable cofibration. Thus the composition is a stable cofibration.

Next we characterize the -injective maps.

Definition 3.4.11.

A commutative square of simplicial sets

where and are fibrations is a homotopy pullback square if the following equivalent conditions hold:

The induced map is a weak equivalence.

For every -simplex , the map of fibers is a weak equivalence.

Lemma 3.4.12.

A map of symmetric spectra is -injective if and only if is a level fibration and the diagram

is a homotopy pullback square for each , where the horizontal maps are the adjoints of the structure maps.

Proof.

Since and , a map is -injective if and only if it is -injective and -injective for each . By Proposition 3.3.3, the -injective maps are the level fibrations. By definition, is a -injective map if and only if has the right lifting property with respect to the class . Then, by Corollary 3.3.9, is -injective if and only if has the right lifting property with respect to the class . Hence, is -injective if and only if is a trivial Kan fibration. If is a level fibration, is a Kan fibration by Proposition 3.4.2. So, a level fibration is -injective if and only if is a weak equivalence. Taken together, is -injective if and only if is a level fibration and is a weak equivalence for each .

For each , the map has a simplicial homotopy inverse for which is the identity map on (see 3.1.7). Then is simplicially homotopic to . Since is a simplicial deformation retract of , is a simplicial deformation retract of and is a simplicial deformation retract of . Therefore, is a weak equivalence if and only if is a weak equivalence.

The map

is naturally isomorphic to the map

induced by the diagram . If is a level fibration, then by definition the diagram is a homotopy pullback square if and only if the map is a weak equivalence.

Combining the conclusions of the three paragraphs completes the proof.

Corollary 3.4.13.

The map is -injective if and only if is an -spectrum.

We also get the following corollary, which is not needed in the sequel. Its proof uses properness (see Section 5.5).

Corollary 3.4.14.

A level fibration between two -spectra is -injective.

Lemma 3.4.15.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra. If is -injective and is a stable equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

Proof.

Suppose is a -injective stable equivalence. In particular, is a level fibration. Let be the fiber over the basepoint. Since the class is closed under base change, the map is -injective and is an -spectrum. The map factors as . The map is a stable equivalence by Theorem 3.1.14. Since is a stable equivalence, is a stable equivalence.

A Barratt-Puppe type sequence for symmetric spectra is constructed by prolongation to give the diagram

Let be an injective -spectrum. Since the map is a level equivalence, after applying to this sequence we can rewrite the terms involving the homotopy cofiber as . This gives an exact sequence

Since is a stable equivalence, is an isomorphism by definition, and is an isomorphism by part two of Theorem 3.1.14. Hence, for every injective -spectrum , and so, by part two of Theorem 3.1.14, for every injective -spectrum . By Corollary 5.1.3, there is a level equivalence where is an injective spectrum; since is an -spectrum, is an injective -spectrum. By Lemma 3.1.6, . So is simplicially homotopic to and is level equivalent to .

This does not finish the argument as the base of the fibration need not be connected. Since is -injective,

is a homotopy pullback square for each . The proof is completed by showing that is a trivial Kan fibration for every which implies that is a trivial Kan fibration for every . For a pointed simplicial set , let denote the connected component of the basepoint. If is a pointed Kan fibration, then is a Kan fibration; if the fiber over the basepoint is contractible, then is a trivial Kan fibration. In particular, is a trivial Kan fibration and, therefore, is a trivial fibration. Since for any pointed simplicial set , is a trivial Kan fibration for every .

The next corollary finishes the proof of Lemma 3.4.8.

Corollary 3.4.16.

The -cofibrations are the stable trivial cofibrations and the -injective maps are the stable fibrations.

Proof.

Every level trivial fibration is -injective since it satisfies the condition in Lemma 3.4.12. Thus, a -cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to every level trivial fibration, and hence a -cofibration is a stable cofibration. Let be an -spectrum. The maps and , where is the inclusion, are -injective by Lemma 3.4.12. Let be an injective -spectrum and be a -cofibration. Since has the left lifting property with respect to , is surjective. Since has the left lifting property with respect to , is injective. So is an isomorphism and every -cofibration is a stable trivial cofibration.

Conversely, let be a stable trivial cofibration. By the Factorization Lemma 3.2.11, factors as where is a -cofibration and is a -injective map. We have just seen that is a stable equivalence. So, the -injective map is a stable equivalence and by Lemma 3.4.15, is a level equivalence. Therefore the stable cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to the map . By the Retract Argument 3.2.4, is a -cofibration.

Let be the class of stable fibrations. Since is the class of stable trivial cofibrations, one has by the definition of stable fibrations that . But by Proposition 3.2.8 (2). In other words, the stable fibrations are the -injective maps.

In particular, Lemma 3.4.12 characterizes the stable fibrations. The stably fibrant objects are the -spectra by Corollary 3.4.13. Corollary 3.4.16 finishes the proof of Lemma 3.4.8 and the verification of the axioms for the stable model category of symmetric spectra.

4. Comparison with the Bousfield-Friedlander category

The goal of this section is to show that the stable homotopy theory of symmetric spectra and the stable homotopy theory of spectra are equivalent. We begin in Section 4.1 by recalling the general theory of Quillen equivalences of model categories. In Section 4.2 we provide a brief recap of the stable homotopy theory of (non-symmetric) spectra and we show that the forgetful functor from symmetric spectra to spectra is part of a Quillen equivalence. The left adjoint of plays very little role in this proof, beyond its existence, so we postpone its construction to Section 4.3.

4.1. Quillen equivalences

In this section, we briefly recall Quillen functors and Quillen equivalences between model categories.

Definition 4.1.1.

Let and be model categories. Let and be functors such that is left adjoint to . The adjoint pair of functors and is a Quillen adjoint pair if preserves cofibrations and preserves fibrations. We refer to the functors in such a pair as left and right Quillen functors. A Quillen adjoint pair is a Quillen equivalence if for every cofibrant object and every fibrant object , a map is a weak equivalence if and only if its adjoint is a weak equivalence.

The definition of a Quillen adjoint pair can be reformulated.

Lemma 4.1.2.

Let and be a pair of functors between model categories such that is left adjoint to .

(1)

preserves cofibrations if and only if preserves trivial fibrations.

(2)

preserves trivial cofibrations if and only if preserves fibrations.

This lemma is an immediate corollary of Lemma 3.2.10; see also Reference DS95, 9.8. A useful lemma associated to these questions is Ken Brown’s lemma.

Lemma 4.1.3 (Ken Brown’s Lemma).

Let be a functor between model categories.

(1)

If takes trivial cofibrations between cofibrant objects to weak equivalences, then preserves all weak equivalences between cofibrant objects.

(2)

If takes trivial fibrations between fibrant objects to weak equivalences, then preserves all weak equivalences between fibrant objects.

For the proof of this lemma, see Reference DS95, 9.9.

In particular, a left Quillen functor preserves weak equivalences between cofibrant objects, and a right Quillen functor preserves weak equivalences between fibrant objects.

The following proposition is the reason Quillen equivalences are important.

Proposition 4.1.4.

A Quillen adjoint pair of functors between model categories induces an adjoint pair of functors on the homotopy categories which is an adjoint equivalence if and only if the adjoint pair of functors is a Quillen equivalence.

For the proof of this proposition, see Reference DS95, Theorem 9.7.

We now describe a useful sufficient condition for a Quillen adjoint pair to be a Quillen equivalence.

Definition 4.1.5.

Suppose is a functor between model categories. For any full subcategory of , we say that detects and preserves weak equivalences of if a map in is a weak equivalence if and only if is.

In practice, very few functors detect and preserve weak equivalences on the whole category. However, many functors detect and preserve weak equivalences between cofibrant objects or fibrant objects, so the next lemma is often useful. Before stating it, we need a definition.

Definition 4.1.6.

Suppose is a model category. A fibrant replacement functor on is a functor whose image lies in the full subcategory of fibrant objects, together with a natural weak equivalence .

There is a dual notion of a cofibrant replacement functor, but we do not use it. Fibrant replacement functors are usually obtained by using a version of the Factorization Lemma 3.2.11 appropriate for to functorially factor the map into a trivial cofibration followed by a fibration. We have already used fibrant replacement functors in in the proof of Theorem 3.1.11.

Lemma 4.1.7.

Suppose is a left Quillen functor with right adjoint , and suppose is a fibrant replacement functor on . Suppose detects and preserves weak equivalences between fibrant objects and the composition is a weak equivalence for all cofibrant objects of . Then the pair is a Quillen equivalence.

There is also a dual statement, but this is the criterion we use.

Proof.

Suppose is a map, where is cofibrant and is fibrant. Consider the commutative diagram below:

The top composite is the adjoint of . The map is a weak equivalence between fibrant objects, so is a weak equivalence. The composite is a weak equivalence by hypothesis. Thus is a weak equivalence if and only if is a weak equivalence. But detects and preserves weak equivalences between fibrant objects, so is a weak equivalence if and only if is a weak equivalence. Since is a natural weak equivalence, is a weak equivalence if and only if is a weak equivalence.

4.2. The Quillen equivalence

In this section we first recall from Reference BF78 the stable homotopy theory of (non-symmetric) spectra. The goal of this section is to show that the forgetful functor from symmetric spectra to spectra is part of a Quillen equivalence. Obviously this requires that have a left adjoint . We will assume the existence of in this section, and construct in Section 4.3.

Definition 4.2.1.

Suppose is a map of spectra.

(1)

The map is a stable equivalence if is an isomorphism where .

(2)

The map is a stable cofibration if is a monomorphism and the induced map is a monomorphism for all .

(3)

The map is a stable fibration if is a level fibration and

is a homotopy pullback square for each .

Theorem 4.2.2 (Reference BF78).

The stable equivalences, stable cofibrations, and stable fibrations define a model structure on .

Before turning to the Quillen equivalence we need the following proposition.

Proposition 4.2.3.

If a map in is a level fibration and, for all , the diagram

is a homotopy pullback square, then is a stable fibration.

The most elegant way to prove this proposition is to follow the development of Section 3 for spectra. Theorem 3.1.11 becomes stronger in this situation; we find that stable equivalences coincide with stable homotopy isomorphisms. The above proposition is then the analogue of Lemma 3.4.12.

Proposition 4.2.4.

The functors and its left adjoint are a Quillen adjoint pair.

Proof.

Proposition 4.2.3 implies that preserves stable fibrations. The stable trivial fibrations in and in are the level trivial fibrations; see Reference BF78, A.8 ii. So preserves stable trivial fibrations as well.

Theorem 4.2.5.

The functor and its left adjoint form a Quillen equivalence of the stable model categories.

We prove this theorem by using Lemma 4.1.7. In particular, we need to understand stable equivalences between stably fibrant objects.

Lemma 4.2.6.

Suppose is a stable equivalence between stably fibrant objects in either or . Then is a level equivalence.

Proof.

Factor as a stably trivial cofibration, , followed by a stable fibration, . Since is a stable equivalence, is also. Hence, is a level trivial fibration by Lemma 3.4.5. Also, is a stably trivial cofibration between stably fibrant objects, hence it is a strong deformation retract; see Reference Qui67, II p. 2.5. To see this, note that has the left lifting property with respect to , so the lift constructs a homotopy inverse to . Because the simplicial structure is given on levels, a strong deformation retract here is a level equivalence. So both and are level equivalences, hence so is .

Corollary 4.2.7.

detects and preserves stable equivalences between stably fibrant objects.

Let denote a fibrant replacement functor in , obtained by factoring into a stable trivial cofibration followed by a stable fibration. By Lemma 4.1.7 and Corollary 4.2.7, to prove Theorem 4.2.5 it suffices to show that is a stable equivalence for all cofibrant (non-symmetric) spectra . We prove this in several steps.

Definition 4.2.8.

Given a simplicial set , define to be the (non-symmetric) spectrum whose th level is for and the basepoint otherwise, with the obvious structure maps. This defines a functor left adjoint to the evaluation functor .

Note that . Also, since , the left adjoints satisfy .

Lemma 4.2.9.

The map is a stable equivalence when for any .

Proof.

Consider the functor on simplicial sets , where is a simplicial fibrant replacement functor. Because is simplicial we can prolong it to a functor on . The map induces an isomorphism on stable homotopy. Also is an -spectrum since is a weak equivalence for any . Hence is level equivalent to , so induces an isomorphism in stable homotopy. Since is a level equivalence and is a stable homotopy equivalence, the lemma follows.

Because both and are stable model categories, the following lemma is expected.

Lemma 4.2.10.

Suppose is a cofibrant spectrum in . Then the map is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

For notational convenience, we write for and for in this proof, for a (possibly symmetric) spectrum. Consider the stable trivial cofibration in . By Theorem 3.1.14, part three, is also a stable equivalence. By the lifting property of the stable trivial cofibration and the 2-out-of-3 property, there is a stable equivalence . This map is a stable equivalence between stably fibrant objects, so by Corollary 4.2.7, is a stable equivalence.

So is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence. Since and commute, is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence by part three of Theorem 3.1.14 for (non-symmetric) spectra. But, since commutes with , the left adjoint commutes with , so we have a natural isomorphism . This completes the proof.

Lemma 4.2.11.

Let be a stable equivalence between cofibrant spectra in . Then is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

Consider the following commuting square:

Since is a left Quillen functor by Proposition 4.2.4, it preserves trivial cofibrations. Hence, by Ken Brown’s Lemma 4.1.3, preserves stable equivalences between cofibrant objects. Hence is a stable equivalence. takes stable equivalences to level equivalences, by Lemma 4.2.6. So is a level equivalence since preserves level equivalences. Hence the top and bottom maps are stable equivalences, so the right map is a stable equivalence if and only if the left map is.

Using the preceding three lemmas we can extend Lemma 4.2.9 to any cofibrant strictly bounded below spectrum.

Definition 4.2.12.

Define a spectrum to be strictly bounded below if there is an such that for all the structure map is an isomorphism.

Lemma 4.2.13.

Suppose is cofibrant and strictly bounded below. Then the map is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

Suppose is strictly bounded below at . Then we have a map which is the identity on all levels . In particular, is a stable homotopy equivalence. Applying Lemma 4.2.11, this shows that to prove the lemma it is enough to show that is a stable equivalence. But there is an evident map which is the identity map above level , and so is a stable equivalence. Lemmas 4.2.9, 4.2.10, and 4.2.11 complete the proof.

We now extend this lemma to all cofibrant objects, completing the proof of Theorem 4.2.5. First, we need to recall a basic fact about simplicial sets. Recall that the homotopy group of a pointed simplicial set is defined to be , where is a fibrant replacement functor. This ensures that weak equivalences are homotopy isomorphisms. If is already a Kan complex, is simplicially homotopy equivalent to , and so . Since the simplicial sets and are finite, the colimit of a sequence of Kan complexes is again a Kan complex. Since the simplicial sets and are finite, homotopy commutes with filtered colimits of Kan complexes, and in particular with transfinite compositions of maps of Kan complexes.

In fact, homotopy commutes with transfinite compositions of arbitrary monomorphisms of simplicial sets. To see this, apply the geometric realization to get a sequence of cofibrations of CW complexes. Since homotopy commutes with such transfinite compositions, the result follows.

Lemma 4.2.14.

Suppose is a cofibrant object of . Then the map is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

Let denote the truncation of at . That is, we have for and for . Then the are strictly bounded below and cofibrant, and there are monomorphisms with . Thus each map is a stable equivalence.

We claim that the induced map is a stable equivalence. To see this, note that

Since homotopy commutes with transfinite compositions of monomorphisms, we find that . Similarly, since homotopy of Kan complexes commutes with arbitrary filtered colimits, we find . It follows that is a stable homotopy equivalence, as required.

We now examine the relationship between and . Since is a left adjoint, . Each map is a stable trivial cofibration; by Lemma 4.2.15 below then is a stable equivalence.

We now claim that is an -spectrum, and thus is stably fibrant. Indeed, is a level Kan complex by the comments preceding this lemma. Similarly, . Since homotopy of Kan complexes commutes with filtered colimits, it follows that is an -spectrum.

Hence the stable equivalence extends to a stable equivalence . By Lemma 4.2.6, this map is actually a level equivalence. Since preserves level equivalences and colimits, the map is also a level equivalence. We have seen above that the map is a stable equivalence, so must also be a stable equivalence.

Lemma 4.2.15.

Suppose given two sequential colimits in , and with each level fibrant and commuting maps which are stable equivalences. Then is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

We inductively define a new sequence and maps and . Define . Having defined , define by factoring the map into a stable trivial cofibration to followed by a stable fibration . Then the induced map is a stable trivial cofibration, by a lifting argument. On the other hand, each map is a stable equivalence, by the two-out-of-three axiom. In fact, the maps are stable trivial fibrations, and hence level equivalences. Since homotopy of level Kan complexes commutes with filtered colimits, we find that is a level equivalence, and therefore that is a stable equivalence.

Remark 4.2.16.

It follows from the results of Section 5.3 that the smash product on induces a smash product on . The handicrafted smash products of Reference Ada74 induce a smash product on . We now consider to what extent the equivalence induced by preserves these smash products. Since is a simplicial functor, there is a natural isomorphism for all (arbitrary desuspensions of) suspension spectra . On the other hand, in either or , is determined by the collection of for all finite spectra mapping to . To be precise, is the minimal weak colimit Reference HPS97 of the . As an equivalence of categories, preserves minimal weak colimits, so there is an isomorphism . However, we do not know if this is natural, as the minimal weak colimit is only a weak colimit. This isomorphism is natural up to phantom maps, however.

4.3. Description of

This short section is devoted to the construction of the left adjoint to the forgetful functor .

Recall that, in any cocomplete symmetric monoidal category , the free monoid or tensor algebra generated by an object is , where is the unit and is the coproduct. The multiplication on is the concatenation . Similarly, the free commutative monoid on an object is .

Recall that the evaluation functor has a left adjoint , where is at level and the basepoint everywhere else. Similarly, the evaluation functor has a left adjoint , where is at level and the basepoint everywhere else.

Lemma 4.3.1.

In the category of sequences, the sphere spectrum is the tensor algebra on the sequence . In the category of symmetric sequences, the sphere symmetric spectrum is the free commutative monoid on the symmetric sequence .

Proof.

The first statement follows directly from the definitions. In the category of symmetric sequences, , so is in degree . Therefore is in degree . Since we already know is a commutative monoid, the map induces a map which is an isomorphism.

This lemma explains why left -modules and right -modules are equivalent in the category of sequences, since this is true for any tensor algebra. This lemma also explains why Remark 1.2.3 holds, since an analogous statement holds for any free commutative monoid.

Now, the forgetful functor has a left adjoint , defined by , so that the th level of is just . The functor is monoidal; that is, there is a natural isomorphism compatible with the associativity and unit isomorphisms. However, is definitely not a symmetric monoidal functor; this natural isomorphism is not compatible with the commutativity isomorphisms. This explains how can be commutative in yet is not commutative in .

Since is a monoidal functor, preserves monoids and modules, and so defines a functor -mod, left adjoint to the forgetful functor . On the other hand, the map of monoids defines the usual adjoint pair of induction and restriction. Induction takes a (left) -module to , where the tensor product uses the right action of on determined by . It follows that the left adjoint of the forgetful functor is .

5. Additional properties of symmetric spectra

In this section we discuss some properties of the category of symmetric spectra. In Section 5.1, we consider the level model structures on . In particular, we show that every symmetric spectrum embeds in an injective spectrum by a level equivalence, completing the proof that the stable structures define a model structure on . In Section 5.2 we characterize the stable cofibrations. In Sections 5.3 and 5.4, we study the relationship between the stable model structure on and the smash product. This is necessary for constructing model categories of monoids, algebras, and modules, as is done in Reference SS97. In Section 5.5, we show that the stable model structure on is proper. Finally, in Section 5.6 we define semistable spectra and investigate their relationship to stable homotopy equivalences.

5.1. Level model structure

In this section we construct the two level model structures on the category of symmetric spectra.

Definition 5.1.1.

A projective cofibration of symmetric spectra is a map that has the left lifting property with respect to every level trivial fibration. The projective cofibrations are the stable cofibrations from Section 3.4. The projective level structure on is the class of level equivalences, the class of projective cofibrations, and the class of level fibrations. An injective fibration of symmetric spectra is a map that has the right lifting property with respect to every level trivial cofibration (the adjective “injective” refers to the lifting properties of the map and not to its being a monomorphism). The injective level structure is the class of level equivalences, the class of level cofibrations, and the class of injective fibrations.

Theorem 5.1.2.

The projective level structure and the injective level structure are model structures on the category of symmetric spectra.

Proof.

The category of symmetric spectra is bicomplete. The class of level equivalences has the two-out-of-three property. The retract axiom holds by construction in both the projective and injective level structures.

We now prove the lifting and factorization axioms, beginning with the projective level structure. We use the sets of maps and defined in Definition 3.3.2. The lifting axiom for a projective cofibration and a level trivial fibration holds by definition. The other lifting and factorization axioms follow by identifying the respective classes in terms of and . By part (4) of Lemma 5.1.4, an -cofibration is a projective cofibration which is a level equivalence and an -injective map is a level fibration. Since has the lifting property for any class , the lifting axiom for a map that is both a level equivalence and a projective cofibration and a map that is a level fibration follows by setting . Moreover, every map can be factored as the composition of an -cofibration and an -injective map. Similarly, every map can be factored as the composition of an -cofibration and an -injective map, by Lemma 3.2.11. By part (3) of Lemma 5.1.4, an -cofibration is a projective cofibration and an -injective map is a level trivial fibration.

Now consider lifting and factorization for the injective level model structure. Here we use a set containing a map from each isomorphism class of monomorphisms with a countable symmetric spectrum, and a set containing a map from each isomorphism class of level trivial cofibrations with a countable symmetric spectrum. The lifting axiom for a level trivial cofibration and an injective fibration holds by definition. By part (5) of Lemma 5.1.4, a -cofibration is a level cofibration and a -injective map is an injective fibration that is a level equivalence. Since has the lifting property for any class , the lifting axiom for a level cofibration and a map that is both an injective fibration and a level equivalence follows with . Also, every map can be factored as the composition of a -cofibration followed by a -injective map, by Lemma 3.2.11. Similarly, every map can be factored as the composition of a -cofibration and a -injective map. By part (6) of Lemma 5.1.4, a -cofibration is a level trivial cofibration and a -injective map is an injective fibration.

Corollary 5.1.3.

Every symmetric spectrum embeds in an injective spectrum by a map that is a level equivalence.

Proof.

For a symmetric spectrum , the map is the composition of a level trivial cofibration and an injective fibration . The fibrant object is an injective spectrum.

Some parts of the next lemma have already been proved. They are repeated for easy reference. Recall that is the right adjoint of the evaluation functor .

Lemma 5.1.4.
(1)

Let be the class of Kan fibrations and let . Then a map is -projective if and only if it is a level trivial cofibration.

(2)

Let be the class of trivial Kan fibrations and let . Then a map is -projective if and only if it is a level cofibration.

(3)

Let be the set defined in 3.3.2. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is a level trivial fibration. A map is an -cofibration if and only if it is a projective cofibration.

(4)

Let be the set defined in 3.3.2. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is a level fibration. A map is an -cofibration if and only if it is a projective cofibration and a level equivalence.

(5)

Let be a set containing a map from each isomorphism class of monomorphisms with a countable symmetric spectrum. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is an injective fibration and a level equivalence. A map is a -cofibration if and only if it is a level cofibration.

(6)

Let be a set containing a map from each isomorphism class of level trivial cofibrations with a countable symmetric spectrum. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is an injective fibration. A map is a -cofibration if and only if it is a level trivial cofibration.

Proof.

Parts (1) and (2): By adjunction, a map has the left lifting property with respect to the class () if and only if for each the map has the left lifting property with respect to (). But has the left lifting property with respect to () if and only if is a trivial cofibration (arbitrary cofibration), i.e., if and only if is a level trivial cofibration (arbitrary level cofibration).

Part (3) is proved in Propositions 3.3.3 and 3.4.2.

Part (4): The first claim is proved in Proposition 3.3.3. Every -cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to level fibrations, so is in particular a projective cofibration by part (3). Every map in is a level trivial cofibration by Proposition 2.2.7, so is -projective by part (1). So every -cofibration is also -projective and hence is a level trivial cofibration by part (1) again. So in particular it is a level equivalence.

Conversely, suppose is a projective cofibration and a level equivalence. We can factor as the composition of an -cofibration and an -injective map , by Lemma 3.2.11. By the two-out-of-three property, is a level equivalence. Therefore the projective cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to the level trivial fibration . By the Retract Argument 3.2.4, is a retract of , and so is an -cofibration.

For part (5), first note that, by part (2), every -cofibration is a level cofibration. Conversely, suppose is a level cofibration. Then is a -cofibration if, for every -injective map and commutative square

there is a lift making the diagram commute. Let be the partially ordered set of partial lifts: an object of is a pair such that and the diagram

is commutative. We define if and extends . Every chain in has an upper bound and so Zorn’s lemma gives a maximum . Suppose is strictly contained in . Then, by taking the subspectrum generated by a simplex not in , we find a countable subspectrum (by Lemma 5.1.6 below) such that the level cofibration is not an isomorphism. By construction, the map is isomorphic to a map in . By cobase change, is a -cofibration. Thus extends to a partial lift on , contradicting the maximality of . Therefore , and so is a -cofibration.

We now identify . Since , every -injective map has the right lifting property with respect to every monomorphism. In particular, every -injective map is an injective fibration. Let be a map having the right lifting property with respect to every monomorphism. Let be a lift in the diagram

Then is the identity map on . To study the composite , let be the monomorphism . The diagram

is commutative since and has a lift since is a monomorphism. The lift is a simplicial homotopy from to the identity on . Therefore is a simplicial homotopy equivalence and in particular is a level equivalence. Conversely suppose is both an injective fibration and a level equivalence. We can factor as the composition of a -cofibration and a -injective map . By the two-out-of-three property, is a level equivalence. The level trivial cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to the injective fibration . By the Retract Argument 3.2.4, is a retract of and so is a -injective map.

The proof of part (6) is similar, though slightly more complex. By part (1), every -cofibration is a level trivial cofibration. Conversely, suppose is a level trivial cofibration. Then is a -cofibration if, for every -injective map and commutative square

there is a lift making the diagram commute. We again let be the partially ordered set of partial lifts: an object of is a pair such that , and the diagram

is commutative, but we also require that the inclusion is a weak equivalence. We define as before. Every chain in has an upper bound (using the fact that a transfinite composition of level trivial cofibrations is a level trivial cofibration) and so Zorn’s lemma gives a maximum . The inclusion is a level trivial cofibration, so, by the two-out-of-three property, the inclusion is a weak equivalence. If is strictly contained in , Lemma 5.1.7, proved below, applied to the countable subspectrum of generated by a simplex not in , gives a countable subspectrum of such that the monomorphism is a weak equivalence but is not an isomorphism. By construction, is isomorphic to a map in . By cobase change, is a -cofibration. So extends to a partial lift on . This is a contradiction since is maximal. Thus , and so is a -cofibration.

Since , the -injective maps are the injective fibrations.

Corollary 5.1.5.

Every injective fibration is a level fibration and every projective cofibration is a level cofibration.

Proof.

By Proposition 2.2.7, every map in is a level cofibration. Therefore, by part (2) of Lemma 5.1.4, every projective cofibration is a level cofibration. By Proposition 2.2.7, every map in is a level trivial cofibration. Therefore every injective fibration is a level fibration.

The following lemmas are used in the proof of Lemma 5.1.4.

Lemma 5.1.6.

Let be a spectrum, and suppose is a simplex of for some . Then the smallest subspectrum of containing is countable.

Proof.

First note that if is a countable collection of simplices in a simplicial set , then the smallest subsimplicial set of containing is also countable. Indeed, we need only include all degeneracies of all faces of simplices in , of which there are only countably many. Similarly, if is a countable collection of simplices in a -simplicial set , then the smallest sub--simplicial set containing is countable. Indeed, we only need to include the orbits of all degeneracies of all faces of simplices in .

Now, let denote the sub--simplicial set of generated by . We have just seen that is countable. We then inductively define to be the smallest sub--simplicial set of containing the image of . Then each is countable, and the define a subspectrum of containing .

It follows in similar fashion that the smallest subspectrum of a spectrum containing any countable collection of simplices of is countable.

We need a similar lemma for inclusions which are level equivalences. To prove such a lemma, we need to recall from the comments before Lemma 4.2.14 that homotopy of simplicial sets commutes with transfinite compositions of monomorphisms. The same methods imply that relative homotopy commutes with transfinite compositions of monomorphisms.

Lemma 5.1.7.

Let be a level trivial cofibration of symmetric spectra. For every countable subspectrum of there is a countable subspectrum of such that and is a level trivial cofibration.

Proof.

Let be a pair of pointed simplicial sets and let be a -simplex of . For , let denote the relative homotopy set of the pair with the null element as the basepoint (ignore the group structure when ). To ease notation let be the pointed set . The inclusion is a weak equivalence if and only if for every and .

Now, construct a countable spectrum such that the map factors through the basepoint for every -simplex of and integer . Since and commutes with filtered colimits, for each homotopy class there is a finite simplicial subset such that sends to the basepoint. Since is countable, the set is countable. Let be the union of with all the finite simplicial sets . The are countable simplicial sets and generate a countable subspectrum of having the desired property.

Repeat the construction to get a sequence of countable subspectra of :

Let . The spectrum is countable. Since relative homotopy commutes with transfinite compositions of monomorphisms, is a set with only one element. Therefore the inclusion is a weak equivalence, and so is a level equivalence.

5.2. Stable cofibrations

The object of this section is to give a characterization of stable cofibrations in . To this end, we introduce the latching space.

Definition 5.2.1.

Define to be the symmetric spectrum such that for and . The structure maps are the evident ones. Given a symmetric spectrum , define the th latching space, , to be .

There is a map of symmetric spectra which is the identity on positive levels. This induces a natural transformation of pointed simplicial sets.

The following proposition uses a model structure on the category of pointed simplicial sets. A map of pointed simplicial sets is a -fibration if it is a Kan fibration of the underlying simplicial sets. Similarly, is a weak equivalence if it is a weak equivalence of the underlying simplicial sets. The map is a -cofibration if it is a monomorphism such that acts freely on the simplices of not in the image of . It is well-known, and easy to check, that the -cofibrations, the -fibrations, and the weak equivalences define a model structure on the category of pointed -simplicial sets.

Proposition 5.2.2.

A map in is a stable cofibration if and only if for all the induced map is a -cofibration.

Proof.

Suppose first that is a -cofibration for all . Suppose is a level trivial fibration. We show that has the left lifting property with respect to by constructing a lift using induction on . A partial lift defines a commutative square

Since the left vertical map is a -cofibration and the right vertical map is a trivial -fibration, there is a lift in this diagram and so we can extend our partial lift. Hence has the left lifting property with respect to , and so is a stable cofibration.

To prove the converse, note that is a left adjoint as a functor to pointed simplicial sets. Since the class of stable cofibrations is the class , it suffices to check that is a -cofibration for . More generally, suppose is a monomorphism of pointed simplicial sets. Since , we have , where the second is taken in . One can easily check that is an isomorphism when and is the map when . In both cases, is a -cofibration, as required.

5.3. Pushout smash product

In this section we consider the pushout smash product in an arbitrary symmetric monoidal category and apply our results to . We show that the projective level structure and the stable model structure on are both compatible with the symmetric monoidal structure. A monoid in is called a symmetric ring spectrum, and is similar to an -ring spectrum. Thus, there should be a stable model structure on the category of -modules. Similarly, there should be a model structure on the category of symmetric ring spectra and the category of commutative symmetric ring spectra. These issues are dealt with more fully in Reference SS97 and in work in progress of the third author. Their work depends heavily on the results in this section and in Section 5.4. The results of this section alone suffice to construct a stable model structure on the category of modules over a symmetric ring spectrum which is stably cofibrant. This section also contains brief descriptions of two other stable model structures on .

Definition 5.3.1.

Let and be maps in a symmetric monoidal category . The pushout smash product

is the natural map on the pushout defined by the commutative square

If is a closed symmetric monoidal category,

is the natural map to the fiber product defined by the commutative square

Definition 5.3.2.

A model structure on a symmetric monoidal category is called monoidal if the pushout smash product of two cofibrations and is a cofibration which is trivial if either or is.

In our situation, this is the correct condition to require so that the model structure is compatible with the symmetric monoidal structure. Since the unit, , is cofibrant in symmetric spectra this condition also ensures that the symmetric monoidal structure induces a symmetric monoidal structure on the homotopy category. For a more general discussion of monoidal model structures, see Reference Hov98a.

Recall, from Definition 3.3.6, the map of sets .

Proposition 5.3.3.

Let and be maps in a closed symmetric monoidal category . There is a natural isomorphism

Proof.

Use the argument in the proof of Proposition 3.3.8.

Proposition 5.3.4.

Let and be classes of maps in a closed symmetric monoidal category . Then

Proof.

Let . By hypothesis, has the lifting property. By adjunction, has the lifting property. By Proposition 3.2.8, has the lifting property. Then has the lifting property, by using adjunction twice. Thus has the lifting property, by Proposition 3.2.8. By adjunction, has the lifting property. So and the proposition is proved.

Corollary 5.3.5.

For classes , and in , if , then .

We now examine to what extent the pushout smash product preserves stable cofibrations and stable equivalences. To do so, we introduce a new class of maps in .

Definition 5.3.6.

Let be the class of monomorphisms in the category of symmetric sequences . A map of symmetric spectra is an -cofibration if it is an -cofibration. A symmetric spectrum is -cofibrant if the map is an -cofibration. A map is an -fibration if it has the right lifting property with respect to every map which is both an -cofibration and a stable equivalence.

Note that every stable cofibration is an -cofibration, since . On the other hand, by Proposition 2.1.9, every element of is a monomorphism, and so every -cofibration is a level cofibration. There is a model structure on , called the model structure, where the cofibrations are the -cofibrations and the weak equivalences are the stable equivalences. The fibrations, called -fibrations are those maps with the right lifting property with respect to -cofibrations which are also stable equivalences. Every -fibration is a stable fibration. This model structure will be used in a forthcoming paper by the third author to put a model structure on certain commutative -algebras.

We mention as well that there is a third model structure on where the weak equivalences are the stable equivalences, called the injective (stable) model structure. The injective cofibrations are the level cofibrations and the injective stable fibrations are all maps which are both injective fibrations and stable fibrations. In particular, the fibrant objects are the injective -spectra. The interested reader can prove this is a model structure using the methods of Section 3.4, replacing the set with the union of and the countable level cofibrations.

Theorem 5.3.7.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra.

(1)

If and are stable cofibrations, then is a stable cofibration.

(2)

If and are -cofibrations, then is an -cofibration.

(3)

If is an -cofibration and is a level cofibration, then is a level cofibration.

(4)

If is an -cofibration, is a level cofibration, and either or is a level equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

(5)

If is an -cofibration, is a level cofibration, and either or is a stable equivalence, then is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

Parts (1) through (4) of the proposition are proved using Corollary 5.3.5.

Part (1): Let . Then is the class of stable cofibrations. We have a natural isomorphism

for . By Proposition 1.3.4, is a monomorphism when and are. Part (3) of Proposition 3.4.2 then shows that . Now use the corollary.

Part (2): Let (recall that is the class of monomorphisms in ). By definition, is the class of -cofibrations. For and in , we have a natural isomorphism

where the first is taken in and the second is taken in . In degree ,

For , each map is a monomorphism, so it follows that is a monomorphism. Thus . Now use the corollary.

Part (3): Let and let be the class of level cofibrations. By part (5) of Lemma 5.1.4, . For and , we have a natural isomorphism of maps of symmetric sequences

where the first is taken in and the second is taken in . We have seen in the proof of part (2) that is a monomorphism of symmetric sequences if and are monomorphisms. Hence . Now use the corollary.

Part (4): First assume is a level trivial cofibration. Let and let be the class of level trivial cofibrations. By part (6) of Lemma 5.1.4, . Proposition 1.3.4 and the method used in the proof of part (2) imply that, if and are monomorphisms of symmetric sequences and is a level equivalence, then is a level equivalence. Recall that, for and , we have a natural isomorphism of maps of symmetric sequences

where the first is taken in and the second is in . Hence . Now use the corollary to prove part (4) when is a level equivalence.

It follows that, for any injective spectrum and an arbitrary -cofibration , the map is an injective fibration. Indeed, if is a level cofibration and a level equivalence, , and we have just seen that is a level cofibration and a level equivalence, so has the lifting property.

Now suppose is an -cofibration and a level equivalence. Then the map is an injective fibration and a level equivalence. Indeed, we have , by Remark 2.2.12. Since is -cofibrant, and is both a level equivalence and a level cofibration, we have just proved that is a level equivalence and a level cofibration. This shows that is an isomorphism; smashing with and using a similar argument shows that is an isomorphism.

Thus every level cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to the map . By adjunction, and , where is the inclusion, have the extension property with respect to every injective spectrum . It follows that is an isomorphism for every injective spectrum and hence that is a level equivalence.

Part (5): Because we are working in a stable situation, a level cofibration is a stable equivalence if and only if its cofiber is stably trivial. The map is a level cofibration by part (3). By commuting colimits, the cofiber of is the smash product of the cofiber of , which is -cofibrant, and the cofiber of . Let be an injective -spectrum. We will show that is a level trivial spectrum, and thus that is stably trivial.

First suppose that is a stable equivalence. Then is a level trivial spectrum which is also injective, by part (4) and the fact that is -cofibrant. Therefore is a level trivial spectrum, so is stably trivial and thus is a stable equivalence.

Now suppose that is a stable equivalence, so that is stably trivial. By adjunction . We claim that is an injective -spectrum. Indeed, we have already seen that is injective. From Remark 2.2.12, we have

Similarly, we have

Since is an -spectrum, is a level equivalence. Since is injective, both the source and target are injective, and so this map is a simplicial homotopy equivalence by Lemma 3.1.6. Hence is still a level equivalence, so is an injective -spectrum. Since is stably trivial, is a level trivial spectrum, so is stably trivial and thus is a stable equivalence.

Corollary 5.3.8.

The projective model structure and the stable model structure on are monoidal.

It also follows that the model structure on is monoidal, once it is proven to be a model structure. Neither the injective level structure nor the injective stable structure is monoidal.

Adjunction then gives the following corollary.

Corollary 5.3.9.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra.

(1)

If is a stable cofibration and is a stable fibration, then is a stable fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a stable equivalence.

(2)

If is a stable cofibration and is a level fibration, then is a level fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a level equivalence.

(3)

If is an -cofibration and is an -fibration, then is an -fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a stable equivalence.

(4)

If is an -cofibration and is an injective fibration, then is an injective fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a level equivalence.

(5)

If is a level cofibration and is an injective fibration, then is a level fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a level equivalence.

Corollary 5.3.10.

If is an -cofibrant symmetric spectrum, the functor preserves level equivalences and it preserves stable equivalences.

Proof.

Part (4) of Theorem 5.3.7 implies that preserves level trivial cofibrations. Lemma 4.1.3 then implies that it preserves level equivalences, since every symmetric spectrum is level cofibrant. An arbitrary stable equivalence can be factored as a stable trivial cofibration followed by a level equivalence. Part (5) of Theorem 5.3.7 implies that takes stable trivial cofibrations to stable equivalences.

5.4. The monoid axiom

In Reference SS97, techniques are developed to form model category structures for categories of monoids, algebras, and modules over a monoidal model category. One more axiom is required which is referred to as the monoid axiom. In this section we verify the monoid axiom for symmetric spectra. The results of Reference SS97 then immediately give a model structure on symmetric ring spectra. After proving the monoid axiom, we discuss the homotopy invariance of the resulting model categories of modules and algebras.

Let denote the class in consisting of all maps , where is a stable trivial cofibration and is some symmetric spectrum. The following theorem implies the monoid axiom for symmetric spectra.

Theorem 5.4.1.

Each map in , for as above, is a stable equivalence.

We then have the following two corollaries, which follow from Reference SS97, Theorem 3.1.

Corollary 5.4.2.

Suppose is a monoid in the category of symmetric spectra. Then there is a model structure on the category of -modules where a map is a weak equivalence (fibration) if and only if the underlying map of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence (stable fibration). Moreover, if is a commutative monoid, then this is a monoidal model category satisfying the monoid axiom.

Corollary 5.4.3.

Suppose is a commutative monoid in the category of symmetric spectra. Then there is a model structure on the category of -algebras where a homomorphism is a weak equivalence (fibration) if and only if the underlying map of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence (stable fibration). Any cofibration of -algebras whose source is cofibrant as an -module is a cofibration of -modules.

Taking gives a model structure on the category of monoids of symmetric spectra, the symmetric ring spectra.

Proof of Theorem 5.4.1.

Each map in is a level cofibration and a stable equivalence. This follows from parts (3) and (5) of Theorem 5.3.7 applied to an -cofibration and stable equivalence and the level cofibration . Let denote the class of maps , where is an injective -spectrum. By part (5) of Corollary 5.3.9 and Proposition 3.1.4, consists of level trivial fibrations. Equivalently, has the lifting property where is the class of stable cofibrations. Manipulations as in the proof of Proposition 5.3.4 show that also has the lifting property, and so consists of level trivial fibrations. In particular, this shows that maps in are stable equivalences.

We now show that the model categories of modules and algebras are homotopy invariant.

Lemma 5.4.4.

Suppose is a monoid in , and is cofibrant in the model category of left -modules. Then preserves level equivalences and stable equivalences of -modules.

Proof.

This is the analogue of Corollary 5.3.10 for -modules. It follows by proving the analogue of Theorem 5.3.7 for -modules.

Since , the sphere spectrum, is cofibrant in , Theorems 3.3 and 3.4 of Reference SS97 now apply to give the following theorem.

Theorem 5.4.5.

Suppose is a stable equivalence of monoids of symmetric spectra. Then induction and restriction induce a Quillen equivalence from the model category of -modules to the model category of -modules. If, in addition, and are commutative, then induction and restriction induce a Quillen equivalence from the model category of -algebras to the model category of -algebras.

5.5. Proper model categories

In this section we recall the definition of a proper model category and show that the stable model category of symmetric spectra is proper.

Definition 5.5.1.
(1)

A model category is left proper if, for every pushout square

with a cofibration and a weak equivalence, is a weak equivalence.

(2)

A model category is right proper if, for every pullback square

with a fibration and a weak equivalence, is a weak equivalence.

(3)

A model category is proper if it is both left proper and right proper.

The category of simplicial sets is a proper model category Reference BF78 (see Reference Hir99 for more details). Hence the category of pointed simplicial sets and both level model structures on are proper.

Theorem 5.5.2.

The stable model category of symmetric spectra is proper.

Proof.

Since every stable cofibration is a level cofibration, the stable model category of symmetric spectra is left proper by part one of Lemma 5.5.3. Since every stable fibration is a level fibration, the stable model category of symmetric spectra is right proper by part two of Lemma 5.5.3.

Lemma 5.5.3.
(1)

Let

be a pushout square with a level cofibration and a stable equivalence. Then is a stable equivalence.

(2)

Let

be a pullback square with a level fibration and a stable equivalence. Then is a stable equivalence.

Proof.

Part (1): Let be an injective -spectrum. Apply the functor to the pushout square. The resulting commutative square

is a pullback square of pointed simplicial sets with a weak equivalence, by Proposition 3.1.4. We claim that is a Kan fibration. Indeed, let denote the obvious map, and let denote a trivial cofibration of pointed simplicial sets. Then . We must show that has the lifting property. By Corollary 3.3.9, this is equivalent to showing that has the lifting property. But, by Proposition 1.3.4, is a level equivalence and a level cofibration. Since is injective, it follows that has the lifting property, and so is a Kan fibration. By properness for simplicial sets, is a weak equivalence. It follows that is a stable equivalence.

Part (2): Let be the fiber over the basepoint of the map . Since is a pullback of , is isomorphic to the fiber over the basepoint of the map . The maps , and are stable equivalences; so is a stable equivalence. Consider the Barratt-Puppe sequence (considered in the proof of Lemma 3.4.15)

and the analogous sequence for the pair . Given an injective -spectrum , apply the functor , and note that is naturally a group. The five-lemma then implies that is a stable equivalence. Part two of Theorem 3.1.14 shows that is a stable equivalence.

5.6. Semistable spectra

In this section we consider a subcategory of symmetric spectra called the semistable spectra. This subcategory sheds light on the difference between stable equivalences and stable homotopy equivalences of symmetric spectra. As in Section 1.4, the stable homotopy category is equivalent to the homotopy category of semistable spectra obtained by inverting the stable homotopy equivalences. Semistable spectra also play a role in Reference Shi.

Because stable equivalences are not always stable homotopy equivalences, the stable homotopy groups are not algebraic invariants of stable homotopy types. So the stable homotopy groups of a spectrum may not be “correct”. For any symmetric spectrum , though, if there is a map from to an -spectrum which induces an isomorphism in stable homotopy, then the stable homotopy groups of are the “correct” stable homotopy groups. In other words, these groups are isomorphic to the stable homotopy groups of the stable fibrant replacement of . Spectra with this property are called semistable.

Let denote a fibrant replacement functor in , obtained by factoring into a stable trivial cofibration followed by a stable fibration, as in Section 4.2.

Definition 5.6.1.

A semistable symmetric spectrum is one for which the stable fibrant replacement map, , is a stable homotopy equivalence.

Of course is always a stable equivalence, but not all spectra are semistable. For instance, is not semistable. Certainly any stably fibrant spectrum, i.e., an -spectrum, is semistable. In Section 3.1 we defined the functor and noted that, although it is similar to the standard -spectrum construction for (non-symmetric) spectra, it is not always an -spectrum and is not always a stable homotopy equivalence, even if is level fibrant. Let be a level fibrant replacement functor, the prolongation of a fibrant replacement functor for simplicial sets. The following proposition shows that on semistable spectra does have these expected properties.

Proposition 5.6.2.

The following are equivalent.

(1)

The symmetric spectrum is semistable.

(2)

The map is a stable homotopy equivalence.

(3)

is a stable homotopy equivalence.

(4)

is an -spectrum.

Before proving this proposition we need the following lemma.

Lemma 5.6.3.

Let . Then and are isomorphic groups, and induces a monomorphism .

Proof.

As noted in the proof of Theorem 3.1.11, and are isomorphic to the th classical stable homotopy group of . However, the map need not be an isomorphism. Indeed, is the map induced on the colimit by the vertical maps in the diagram

where the vertical maps are not the same as the horizontal maps, but differ from them by isomorphisms. The induced map on the colimit is injective in such a situation, though not necessarily surjective. For an example of this phenomenon, note that we could have , with the horizontal maps being the usual inclusions, but the vertical maps begin the inclusions that take to . Then the element of the colimit is not in the image of the colimit of the vertical maps.

Proof of Proposition 5.6.2.

First we show that (1) implies (2) by using the following diagram:

Since preserves stable homotopy equivalences, both vertical arrows are stable homotopy equivalences. The bottom map is a level equivalence since is an -spectrum. Hence the top map is also a stable homotopy equivalence.

Also, (2) easily implies (3). Since preserves stable homotopy equivalences, is a colimit of stable homotopy equivalences provided is a stable homotopy equivalence.

Next we show that (3) and (4) are equivalent. The map factors as where the first map here is an isomorphism by definition. Then by Lemma 5.6.3 we see that is an isomorphism if and only if is an isomorphism for each .

To see that (3) implies (1), consider the following diagram:

By (3) and (4) the left arrow is a stable homotopy equivalence to an -spectrum, . Since is an -spectrum the right arrow is a level equivalence. Since is a stable equivalence, the bottom map must also be a stable equivalence. But a stable equivalence between -spectra is a level equivalence, so the bottom map is a level equivalence. Hence the top map is a stable homotopy equivalence.

Two classes of semistable spectra are described in the following proposition. The second class includes the connective and convergent spectra.

Proposition 5.6.4.
(1)

If the classical stable homotopy groups of are all finite, then is semistable.

(2)

Suppose that is a level fibrant symmetric spectrum and there exists some such that induces an isomorphism for all for sufficiently large . Then is semistable.

Proof.

By Lemma 5.6.3, is a monomorphism between two groups which are isomorphic. In the first case these groups are finite, so this map must be an isomorphism. Hence is an -spectrum, so is semistable.

For the second part we also show that is an -spectrum. Since for fixed the maps are isomorphisms for large , is an isomorphism for each and .

The next proposition shows that stable equivalences between semistable spectra are particularly easy to understand.

Proposition 5.6.5.

Let be a map between two semistable symmetric spectra. Then is a stable equivalence if and only if it is a stable homotopy equivalence.

Proof.

Every stable homotopy equivalence is a stable equivalence by Theorem 3.1.11. Conversely, if is a stable equivalence, so is . Since stable equivalences between stably fibrant objects are level equivalences by Lemma 4.2.6, is in particular a stable homotopy equivalence. Since and are semistable, both maps and are stable homotopy equivalences. Hence is a stable homotopy equivalence.

Table of Contents

  1. Abstract
  2. Introduction
  3. Organization
  4. Acknowledgments
  5. 1. Symmetric spectra
    1. 1.1. Simplicial sets
    2. Definition 1.1.1.
    3. 1.2. Symmetric spectra
    4. Definition 1.2.1.
    5. Definition 1.2.2.
    6. Example 1.2.4.
    7. Example 1.2.5.
    8. Definition 1.2.7.
    9. Definition 1.2.8.
    10. Definition 1.2.9.
    11. Proposition 1.2.10.
    12. 1.3. Simplicial structure on
    13. Proposition 1.3.1.
    14. Proposition 1.3.2.
    15. Definition 1.3.3.
    16. Proposition 1.3.4.
    17. Definition 1.3.5.
    18. Corollary 1.3.6.
    19. 1.4. Symmetric -spectra
    20. Definition 1.4.1.
  6. 2. The smash product of symmetric spectra
    1. 2.1. Symmetric sequences
    2. Definition 2.1.1.
    3. Proposition 2.1.2.
    4. Definition 2.1.3.
    5. Proposition 2.1.4.
    6. Lemma 2.1.6.
    7. Definition 2.1.7.
    8. Proposition 2.1.8.
    9. Proposition 2.1.9.
    10. Definition 2.1.10.
    11. Theorem 2.1.11.
    12. 2.2. Symmetric spectra
    13. Proposition 2.2.1.
    14. Lemma 2.2.2.
    15. Definition 2.2.3.
    16. Corollary 2.2.4.
    17. Definition 2.2.5.
    18. Proposition 2.2.6.
    19. Proposition 2.2.7.
    20. Lemma 2.2.8.
    21. Definition 2.2.9.
    22. Theorem 2.2.10.
    23. Corollary 2.2.11.
    24. 2.3. The ordinary category of spectra
    25. Definition 2.3.1.
    26. Definition 2.3.2.
    27. Lemma 2.3.3.
    28. Proposition 2.3.4.
  7. 3. Stable homotopy theory of symmetric spectra
    1. 3.1. Stable equivalence
    2. Definition 3.1.1.
    3. Lemma 3.1.2.
    4. Definition 3.1.3.
    5. Proposition 3.1.4.
    6. Lemma 3.1.5.
    7. Lemma 3.1.6.
    8. Corollary 3.1.8.
    9. Definition 3.1.9.
    10. Example 3.1.10.
    11. Theorem 3.1.11.
    12. Definition 3.1.12.
    13. Lemma 3.1.13 (Stable excision).
    14. Theorem 3.1.14.
    15. 3.2. Model categories
    16. Definition 3.2.1.
    17. Definition 3.2.2.
    18. Definition 3.2.3.
    19. Proposition 3.2.4 (The Retract Argument).
    20. Proposition 3.2.5 (Closure property).
    21. Example 3.2.6.
    22. Definition 3.2.7.
    23. Proposition 3.2.8.
    24. Corollary 3.2.9.
    25. Lemma 3.2.10.
    26. Lemma 3.2.11 (Factorization Lemma).
    27. Definition 3.2.12.
    28. Proposition 3.2.13.
    29. 3.3. Level structure
    30. Definition 3.3.1.
    31. Definition 3.3.2.
    32. Proposition 3.3.3.
    33. Definition 3.3.4.
    34. Proposition 3.3.5.
    35. Definition 3.3.6.
    36. Definition 3.3.7.
    37. Proposition 3.3.8.
    38. Corollary 3.3.9.
    39. 3.4. Stable model category
    40. Definition 3.4.1.
    41. Proposition 3.4.2.
    42. Definition 3.4.3.
    43. Theorem 3.4.4.
    44. Lemma 3.4.5.
    45. Corollary 3.4.6.
    46. Corollary 3.4.7.
    47. Lemma 3.4.8.
    48. Definition 3.4.9.
    49. Lemma 3.4.10.
    50. Definition 3.4.11.
    51. Lemma 3.4.12.
    52. Corollary 3.4.13.
    53. Corollary 3.4.14.
    54. Lemma 3.4.15.
    55. Corollary 3.4.16.
  8. 4. Comparison with the Bousfield-Friedlander category
    1. 4.1. Quillen equivalences
    2. Definition 4.1.1.
    3. Lemma 4.1.2.
    4. Lemma 4.1.3 (Ken Brown’s Lemma).
    5. Proposition 4.1.4.
    6. Definition 4.1.5.
    7. Definition 4.1.6.
    8. Lemma 4.1.7.
    9. 4.2. The Quillen equivalence
    10. Definition 4.2.1.
    11. Theorem 4.2.2 (BF78).
    12. Proposition 4.2.3.
    13. Proposition 4.2.4.
    14. Theorem 4.2.5.
    15. Lemma 4.2.6.
    16. Corollary 4.2.7.
    17. Definition 4.2.8.
    18. Lemma 4.2.9.
    19. Lemma 4.2.10.
    20. Lemma 4.2.11.
    21. Definition 4.2.12.
    22. Lemma 4.2.13.
    23. Lemma 4.2.14.
    24. Lemma 4.2.15.
    25. 4.3. Description of
    26. Lemma 4.3.1.
  9. 5. Additional properties of symmetric spectra
    1. 5.1. Level model structure
    2. Definition 5.1.1.
    3. Theorem 5.1.2.
    4. Corollary 5.1.3.
    5. Lemma 5.1.4.
    6. Corollary 5.1.5.
    7. Lemma 5.1.6.
    8. Lemma 5.1.7.
    9. 5.2. Stable cofibrations
    10. Definition 5.2.1.
    11. Proposition 5.2.2.
    12. 5.3. Pushout smash product
    13. Definition 5.3.1.
    14. Definition 5.3.2.
    15. Proposition 5.3.3.
    16. Proposition 5.3.4.
    17. Corollary 5.3.5.
    18. Definition 5.3.6.
    19. Theorem 5.3.7.
    20. Corollary 5.3.8.
    21. Corollary 5.3.9.
    22. Corollary 5.3.10.
    23. 5.4. The monoid axiom
    24. Theorem 5.4.1.
    25. Corollary 5.4.2.
    26. Corollary 5.4.3.
    27. Lemma 5.4.4.
    28. Theorem 5.4.5.
    29. 5.5. Proper model categories
    30. Definition 5.5.1.
    31. Theorem 5.5.2.
    32. Lemma 5.5.3.
    33. 5.6. Semistable spectra
    34. Definition 5.6.1.
    35. Proposition 5.6.2.
    36. Lemma 5.6.3.
    37. Proposition 5.6.4.
    38. Proposition 5.6.5.

Mathematical Fragments

Definition 1.2.1.

A spectrum is

(1)

a sequence of pointed simplicial sets; and

(2)

a pointed map for each .

The maps are the structure maps of the spectrum. A map of spectra is a sequence of pointed maps such that the diagram

is commutative for each . Let denote the category of spectra.

Definition 1.2.2.

A symmetric spectrum is

(1)

a sequence of pointed simplicial sets;

(2)

a pointed map for each ; and

(3)

a basepoint preserving left action of on such that the composition

of the maps is -equivariant for and .

A map of symmetric spectra is a sequence of pointed maps such that is -equivariant and the diagram

is commutative for each . Let denote the category of symmetric spectra.

Remark 1.2.3.

In part three of Definition 1.2.2, one need only assume that the maps and are equivariant; since the symmetric groups are generated by transpositions , if and are equivariant then all the maps are equivariant.

Proposition 1.2.10.

The category of symmetric spectra is bicomplete (every small diagram has a limit and a colimit).

Proposition 1.3.1.

Let be a symmetric spectrum. Let and be pointed simplicial sets.

(1)

There are coherent natural isomorphisms and .

(2)

is the left adjoint of the functor .

(3)

is the left adjoint of the functor .

Proposition 1.3.2.

Let , , and be symmetric spectra and let be a pointed simplicial set.

(1)

The composition pairing is associative.

(2)

The adjoint of the isomorphism is a left and a right unit of the composition pairing.

(3)

There are natural isomorphisms

Definition 1.3.3.

Let and be maps of pointed simplicial sets. The pushout smash product is the natural map on the pushout

induced by the commutative square

Let be a map of symmetric spectra and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets. The pushout smash product is defined by prolongation, .

Proposition 1.3.4.

Let and be monomorphisms of pointed simplicial sets. Then is a monomorphism, which is a weak equivalence if either or is a weak equivalence.

Corollary 1.3.6.

Let be a monomorphism of symmetric spectra and let be a monomorphism of pointed simplicial sets. Then is a monomorphism, which is a level equivalence if either is a level equivalence or is a weak equivalence.

Proposition 2.1.4.

Let be symmetric sequences. Then there is a natural isomorphism

Remark 2.1.5.

There is another way of describing the tensor product and the twist isomorphism. The category is a skeleton of the category of finite sets and isomorphisms. Hence every symmetric sequence has an extension, which is unique up to isomorphism, to a functor on the category of all finite sets and isomorphisms. The tensor product of two such functors and is the functor defined on a finite set as

For an isomorphism the map is the coproduct of the isomorphisms . The twist isomorphism is the map that sends the summand of to the summand of by switching the factors.

Lemma 2.1.6.

The tensor product is a symmetric monoidal product on the category of symmetric sequences .

Definition 2.1.7.

The evaluation functor is given by and . The free functor is the left adjoint of the evaluation functor . The smash product of and is the symmetric sequence with the diagonal action of that is trivial on . The pointed simplicial set of maps from to is the pointed simplicial set .

Proposition 2.1.8.

There are natural isomorphisms:

(1)

for .

(2)

for and .

(3)

for and .

(4)

for .

Proposition 2.1.9.

Let be a symmetric sequence, let be a map of symmetric sequences and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets.

(1)

preserves colimits.

(2)

If is a monomorphism, then is a monomorphism.

(3)

If is a level equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

(4)

If is a monomorphism, then is a monomorphism for .

(5)

If is a weak equivalence, then is a level equivalence for .

Lemma 2.2.2.

Let be a symmetric monoidal category that is cocomplete and let be a commutative monoid in such that the functor preserves coequalizers. Then there is a symmetric monoidal product on the category of -modules with as the unit.

Corollary 2.2.4.

The smash product is a symmetric monoidal product on the category of symmetric spectra.

Proposition 2.2.6.

There are natural isomorphisms:

(1)

for .

(2)

for and .

(3)

for and .

Proposition 2.2.7.

Let be a map of pointed simplicial sets.

(1)

preserves colimits.

(2)

If is a monomorphism, then is a monomorphism.

(3)

If is a weak equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

Lemma 2.2.8.

Let be a closed symmetric monoidal category that is bicomplete and let be a commutative monoid in . Then there is a function -module , natural for , such that the functor is left adjoint to the functor .

Corollary 2.2.11.

There are natural isomorphisms

and

Remark 2.2.12.

We use Proposition 2.2.6 to give another description of the function spectrum . For a symmetric spectrum , the pointed simplicial set of maps is naturally isomorphic to . The symmetric spectrum is the -module and as varies, is a functor . The symmetric sequence is the underlying symmetric sequence of . In particular, the natural isomorphism is -equivariant. Applying this to and using Corollary 2.2.11, we find that the underlying symmetric sequence of is the symmetric sequence .

We must also describe the structure maps of from this point of view. Recall that , . Let be the adjoint of the identity map . The induced map is adjoint to the structure map . The map

is -equivariant; the induced map

is -equivariant and is adjoint to the structure map . In order to apply this to , use Proposition 2.2.6 and Corollary 2.2.11 to find a natural isomorphism

Using this natural isomorphism, we find that the structure maps of are the adjoints of the maps

induced by .

For example, is the -shifted spectrum; its underlying symmetric sequence is the sequence of pointed simplicial sets

with acting on by restricting the action of to the copy of that permutes the first elements of . The structure maps of the -shifted spectrum are the structure maps of . More generally, is the -shifted spectrum of .

Lemma 3.1.2.

If the pointed simplicial set is a Kan complex, then is an injective spectrum. If is a symmetric sequence and is an injective spectrum, then is an injective spectrum.

Proposition 3.1.4.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra. The following conditions are equivalent:

is an isomorphism for every injective -spectrum ;

is a weak equivalence for every injective -spectrum ;

is a level equivalence for every injective -spectrum .

Lemma 3.1.5.

Suppose is a symmetric spectrum and is an injective spectrum. Then the pointed simplicial set is a Kan complex. In particular, each pointed simplicial set is a Kan complex.

Lemma 3.1.6.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra.

(1)

If is an injective spectrum and is a level equivalence, then is an isomorphism of sets.

(2)

If is a map of injective spectra, is a level equivalence if and only if is a simplicial homotopy equivalence.

Construction 3.1.7 (Mapping cylinder construction).

The mapping cylinder construction for maps of symmetric spectra is the prolongation of the reduced mapping cylinder construction for maps of pointed simplicial sets. Let and be the two inclusions . The cylinder spectrum of a map is the corner of the pushout square

Let . Let be the map on the pushout induced by the identity map on and the composition . Then , is a monomorphism, , and there is a simplicial homotopy from to the identity map of .

Corollary 3.1.8.

Every level equivalence of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence.

Example 3.1.10.

The map (see 2.2.12) is the adjoint of the identity map . The th space of is , which is a wedge of copies of . One can calculate that is an infinite direct sum of copies of the integers , whereas is . So is not an isomorphism of homotopy groups and thus is not a stable homotopy equivalence of (non-symmetric) spectra. But is a stable equivalence of symmetric spectra. For a symmetric -spectrum , , , and the induced map is adjoint to the structure map . So is a weak equivalence for every -spectrum , including the injective ones, and so is a stable equivalence. By the same argument, the maps are stable equivalences.

Theorem 3.1.11.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra such that is an isomorphism of homotopy groups. Then is a stable equivalence.

Theorem 3.1.14.
(1)

Let be a map of symmetric spectra such that is a Kan fibration for each and let be the fiber over the basepoint. Then the map is a stable equivalence.

(2)

A map of symmetric spectra is a stable equivalence if and only if its suspension is a stable equivalence.

(3)

For symmetric spectra and such that is a level Kan complex, a map is a stable equivalence if and only its adjoint is a stable equivalence.

Proposition 3.2.4 (The Retract Argument).

Let be a category and let be a factorization in .

(1)

If has the right lifting property with respect to , then is a retract of .

(2)

If has the left lifting property with respect to , then is a retract of .

Proposition 3.2.5 (Closure property).

In a model category:

(1)

The cofibrations are the maps having the left lifting property with respect to every trivial fibration.

(2)

The trivial cofibrations are the the maps having the left lifting property with respect to every fibration.

(3)

The fibrations are the maps having the right lifting property with respect to every trivial cofibration.

(4)

The trivial fibrations are the maps having the right lifting property with respect to every cofibration.

Example 3.2.6.

We recall the standard model structure on the category of simplicial sets Reference Qui67, II.3. A weak equivalence is a map whose geometric realization is a homotopy equivalence of CW-complexes. The cofibrations are the monomorphisms and every simplicial set is cofibrant. Recall, the standard -simplex is . The boundary of is the subfunctor of non-surjective maps. For , the th horn of is the subfunctor of maps for which is not in the image. Geometrically, is obtained from the boundary of by removing the th face. The fibrations are the Kan fibrations, the maps that have the right lifting property with respect to the maps for and ; the fibrant simplicial sets are the Kan complexes, the simplicial sets that satisfy the Kan extension condition. A map is a trivial fibration (a fibration and a weak equivalence) if and only if it has the right lifting property with respect to the maps . It follows that the pointed weak equivalences, the pointed monomorphisms, and the pointed (Kan) fibrations are a model structure on the category of pointed simplicial sets.

Proposition 3.2.8.

Let and be classes of maps in a category .

(1)

If , then and .

(2)

Repeating the operations: , , , and .

(3)

The following conditions are equivalent:

The pair has the lifting property.

.

.

The pair has the lifting property.

The pair has the lifting property.

(4)

The classes and are subcategories of and are closed under retracts.

(5)

The class is closed under base change. That is, if

is a pullback square and is an -injective map, then is an -injective map.

(6)

The class is closed under cobase change. That is, if

is a pushout square and is an -projective map, then is an -projective map.

Lemma 3.2.10.

Let be a functor that is left adjoint to the functor . If is a class of maps in and is a class of maps in , the pair has the lifting property if and only if the pair has the lifting property.

Lemma 3.2.11 (Factorization Lemma).

Let be a set of maps in the category . There is a functorial factorization of every map of symmetric spectra as an -cofibration followed by an -injective map.

Definition 3.3.2.
(1)

Let denote the set of maps for and . Let .

(2)

Let denote the set of maps for . Let .

Proposition 3.3.3.

The level fibrations are the -injective maps. The level trivial fibrations are the -injective maps.

Proposition 3.3.5.
(1)

If is a monomorphism and is a Kan fibration, then is a Kan fibration. If, in addition, either or is a weak equivalence, then is a weak equivalence.

(2)

If is a monomorphism and is a level fibration, then is a level fibration. If, in addition, either is a weak equivalence or is a level equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

Definition 3.3.6.

Let and be maps in a category . Then is the natural map of sets to the fiber product

coming from the commutative square

Proposition 3.3.8.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets. There are natural isomorphisms

Corollary 3.3.9.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra and let be a map of pointed simplicial sets. The following are equivalent:

has the lifting property.

has the lifting property.

has the lifting property.

Proposition 3.4.2.
(1)

The class of stable cofibrations is the class .

(2)

The class of stable cofibrations is a subcategory that is closed under retracts and closed under cobase change.

(3)

If is a cofibration of pointed simplicial sets and , then is a stable cofibration. In particular, is stably cofibrant for .

(4)

If is a stable cofibration and is a cofibration, then the pushout smash product is a stable cofibration.

(5)

If is a stable cofibration and is a level fibration, then is a Kan fibration.

Theorem 3.4.4.

The category of symmetric spectra with the class of stable equivalences, the class of stable cofibrations, and the class of stable fibrations is a model category.

Lemma 3.4.5.

A map is a stable trivial fibration if and only if it is a level trivial fibration.

Corollary 3.4.6.

Every map of symmetric spectra has a factorization as a stable cofibration followed by a stable trivial fibration .

Corollary 3.4.7.

A stable cofibration has the left lifting property with respect to every stable trivial fibration.

Lemma 3.4.8.

Every map of symmetric spectra has a factorization as a stable trivial cofibration followed by a stable fibration .

Definition 3.4.9.

Let be the adjoint of the identity map and let be the map , so that . The mapping cylinder construction 3.1.7 gives a factorization where is a simplicial homotopy equivalence and is a level cofibration. For , let , i.e., is the set of maps for . Let and, finally, let .

Lemma 3.4.12.

A map of symmetric spectra is -injective if and only if is a level fibration and the diagram

is a homotopy pullback square for each , where the horizontal maps are the adjoints of the structure maps.

Corollary 3.4.13.

The map is -injective if and only if is an -spectrum.

Lemma 3.4.15.

Let be a map of symmetric spectra. If is -injective and is a stable equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

Corollary 3.4.16.

The -cofibrations are the stable trivial cofibrations and the -injective maps are the stable fibrations.

Lemma 4.1.3 (Ken Brown’s Lemma).

Let be a functor between model categories.

(1)

If takes trivial cofibrations between cofibrant objects to weak equivalences, then preserves all weak equivalences between cofibrant objects.

(2)

If takes trivial fibrations between fibrant objects to weak equivalences, then preserves all weak equivalences between fibrant objects.

Lemma 4.1.7.

Suppose is a left Quillen functor with right adjoint , and suppose is a fibrant replacement functor on . Suppose detects and preserves weak equivalences between fibrant objects and the composition is a weak equivalence for all cofibrant objects of . Then the pair is a Quillen equivalence.

Proposition 4.2.3.

If a map in is a level fibration and, for all , the diagram

is a homotopy pullback square, then is a stable fibration.

Proposition 4.2.4.

The functors and its left adjoint are a Quillen adjoint pair.

Theorem 4.2.5.

The functor and its left adjoint form a Quillen equivalence of the stable model categories.

Lemma 4.2.6.

Suppose is a stable equivalence between stably fibrant objects in either or . Then is a level equivalence.

Corollary 4.2.7.

detects and preserves stable equivalences between stably fibrant objects.

Lemma 4.2.9.

The map is a stable equivalence when for any .

Lemma 4.2.10.

Suppose is a cofibrant spectrum in . Then the map is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence.

Lemma 4.2.11.

Let be a stable equivalence between cofibrant spectra in . Then is a stable equivalence if and only if is a stable equivalence.

Lemma 4.2.14.

Suppose is a cofibrant object of . Then the map is a stable equivalence.

Lemma 4.2.15.

Suppose given two sequential colimits in , and with each level fibrant and commuting maps which are stable equivalences. Then is a stable equivalence.

Corollary 5.1.3.

Every symmetric spectrum embeds in an injective spectrum by a map that is a level equivalence.

Lemma 5.1.4.
(1)

Let be the class of Kan fibrations and let . Then a map is -projective if and only if it is a level trivial cofibration.

(2)

Let be the class of trivial Kan fibrations and let . Then a map is -projective if and only if it is a level cofibration.

(3)

Let be the set defined in 3.3.2. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is a level trivial fibration. A map is an -cofibration if and only if it is a projective cofibration.

(4)

Let be the set defined in 3.3.2. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is a level fibration. A map is an -cofibration if and only if it is a projective cofibration and a level equivalence.

(5)

Let be a set containing a map from each isomorphism class of monomorphisms with a countable symmetric spectrum. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is an injective fibration and a level equivalence. A map is a -cofibration if and only if it is a level cofibration.

(6)

Let be a set containing a map from each isomorphism class of level trivial cofibrations with a countable symmetric spectrum. Then a map is -injective if and only if it is an injective fibration. A map is a -cofibration if and only if it is a level trivial cofibration.

Lemma 5.1.6.

Let be a spectrum, and suppose is a simplex of for some . Then the smallest subspectrum of containing is countable.

Lemma 5.1.7.

Let be a level trivial cofibration of symmetric spectra. For every countable subspectrum of there is a countable subspectrum of such that and is a level trivial cofibration.

Proposition 5.3.4.

Let and be classes of maps in a closed symmetric monoidal category . Then

Corollary 5.3.5.

For classes , and in , if , then .

Theorem 5.3.7.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra.

(1)

If and are stable cofibrations, then is a stable cofibration.

(2)

If and are -cofibrations, then is an -cofibration.

(3)

If is an -cofibration and is a level cofibration, then is a level cofibration.

(4)

If is an -cofibration, is a level cofibration, and either or is a level equivalence, then is a level equivalence.

(5)

If is an -cofibration, is a level cofibration, and either or is a stable equivalence, then is a stable equivalence.

Corollary 5.3.9.

Let and be maps of symmetric spectra.

(1)

If is a stable cofibration and is a stable fibration, then is a stable fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a stable equivalence.

(2)

If is a stable cofibration and is a level fibration, then is a level fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a level equivalence.

(3)

If is an -cofibration and is an -fibration, then is an -fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a stable equivalence.

(4)

If is an -cofibration and is an injective fibration, then is an injective fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a level equivalence.

(5)

If is a level cofibration and is an injective fibration, then is a level fibration, which is a level equivalence if either or is a level equivalence.

Corollary 5.3.10.

If is an -cofibrant symmetric spectrum, the functor preserves level equivalences and it preserves stable equivalences.

Theorem 5.4.1.

Each map in , for as above, is a stable equivalence.

Lemma 5.5.3.
(1)

Let

be a pushout square with a level cofibration and a stable equivalence. Then is a stable equivalence.

(2)

Let

be a pullback square with a level fibration and a stable equivalence. Then is a stable equivalence.

Proposition 5.6.2.

The following are equivalent.

(1)

The symmetric spectrum is semistable.

(2)

The map is a stable homotopy equivalence.

(3)

is a stable homotopy equivalence.

(4)

is an -spectrum.

Lemma 5.6.3.

Let . Then and are isomorphic groups, and induces a monomorphism .

References

Reference [Ada74]
J. F. Adams, Stable homotopy and generalised homology, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.–London, 1974, x+373 pp. MR 53:6534
Reference [Bök85]
M. Bökstedt, Topological Hochschild homology, preprint, 1985.
Reference [Bor94]
Francis Borceux, Handbook of categorical algebra. 2. Categories and structures, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 51, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. MR 96g:18001b
Reference [BF78]
A. K. Bousfield and E. M. Friedlander, Homotopy theory of -spaces, spectra, and bisimplicial sets, Geometric applications of homotopy theory (Proc. Conf., Evanston, Ill., 1977), II (M. G. Barratt and M. E. Mahowald, eds.), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 658, Springer, Berlin, 1978, pp. 80–130. MR 80e:55021
Reference [Cur71]
Edward B. Curtis, Simplicial homotopy theory, Advances in Math. 6 (1971), 107–209. MR 43:5529
Reference [DHK]
W. G. Dwyer, P. S. Hirschhorn, and D. M. Kan, Model categories and general abstract homotopy theory, in preparation.
Reference [DS]
W. G. Dwyer and Brooke E. Shipley, Hyper symmetric spectra, in preparation.
Reference [DS95]
W. G. Dwyer and J. Spalinski, Homotopy theories and model categories, Handbook of algebraic topology (Amsterdam), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995, pp. 73–126. MR 96h:55014
Reference [EKMM97]
A. D. Elmendorf, I. Kriz, M. A. Mandell, and J. P. May, Rings, modules, and algebras in stable homotopy theory. With an appendix by M. Cole, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 47, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997, xii+249 pp. MR 97h:55006
Reference [GH97]
Thomas Geisser and Lars Hesselholt, Topological cyclic homology of schemes, to appear in K-theory, Seattle, 1996 volume of Proc. Symp. Pure Math.
Reference [Hir99]
P. S. Hirschhorn, Localization of model categories, preprint, 1999.
Reference [Hov98a]
Mark Hovey, Model categories, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 63, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998. MR 99h:55031
Reference [Hov98b]
Mark Hovey, Stabilization of model categories, preprint, 1998.
Reference [HPS97]
Mark Hovey, John H. Palmieri, and Neil P. Strickland, Axiomatic stable homotopy theory, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 128 (1997), no. 610. MR 98a:55017
Reference [Lew91]
L. Gaunce Lewis, Jr., Is there a convenient category of spectra?, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 73 (1991), 233–246. MR 92f:55008
Reference [Lim59]
Elon L. Lima, The Spanier-Whitehead duality in new homotopy categories, Summa Brasil. Math. 4 (1959), 91–148. MR 22:7121
Reference [ML71]
S. Mac Lane, Categories for the working mathematician, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 5, Springer-Verlag, 1971. MR 50:7275
Reference [MMSS98a]
M. Mandell, J. P. May, B. Shipley, and S. Schwede, Diagram spaces, diagram spectra and FSPs, preprint, 1998.
Reference [MMSS98b]
M. Mandell, J. P. May, B. Shipley, and S. Schwede, Model categories of diagram spectra, preprint, 1998.
Reference [May67]
J. P. May, Simplicial objects in algebraic topology, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1967, viii+161pp. MR 36:5942
Reference [Qui67]
Daniel G. Quillen, Homotopical algebra, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 43, Springer-Verlag, 1967. MR 36:6480
Reference [Sch98]
Stefan Schwede, S-modules and symmetric spectra, preprint, 1998.
Reference [SS]
Stefan Schwede and Brooke Shipley, Classification of stable model categories, in preparation.
Reference [SS97]
Stefan Schwede and Brooke Shipley, Algebras and modules in monoidal model categories, to appear in Proc. London Math. Soc.
Reference [Shi]
B. Shipley, Symmetric spectra and topological Hochschild homology, to appear in K-theory.
Reference [Voe97]
V. Voevodsky, The Milnor conjecture, preprint, 1997.
Reference [Vog70]
R. Vogt, Boardman’s stable homotopy category, Aarhus Univ. Lect. Notes, vol. 21, Aarhus University, 1970. MR 43:1187
Reference [Wal85]
F. Waldhausen, Algebraic K-theory of spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1126, Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 318-419. MR 86m:18011
Reference [Whi62]
G. W. Whitehead, Generalized homology theories, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 102 (1962), 227–283. MR 25:573

Article Information

MSC 2000
Primary: 55P42 (Stable homotopy theory, spectra), 55U10 (Simplicial sets and complexes), 55U35 (Abstract and axiomatic homotopy theory)
Author Information
Mark Hovey
Department of Mathematics, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connectitut 06459
hovey@member.ams.org
Brooke Shipley
Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
bshipley@math.purdue.edu
Jeff Smith
jhs@math.purdue.edu
Additional Notes

The first two authors were partially supported by NSF Postdoctoral Fellowships.

The third author was partially supported by an NSF Grant.

Journal Information
Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 13, Issue 1, ISSN 1088-6834, published by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
Publication History
This article was received on , revised on , and published on .
Copyright Information
Copyright 1999 American Mathematical Society
Article References

Settings

Change font size
Resize article panel
Enable equation enrichment

Note. To explore an equation, focus it (e.g., by clicking on it) and use the arrow keys to navigate its structure. Screenreader users should be advised that enabling speech synthesis will lead to duplicate aural rendering.

For more information please visit the AMS MathViewer documentation.