The Bracket in the Bar Spectral Sequence for an Iterated Loop Space

Xianglong Ni

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 9 references

The Bracket in the Bar Spectral Sequence for an Iterated Loop Space

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The bar spectral sequence is a spectral sequence of Poisson Hopf algebras, and on the $E^1$ page its bracket is the bracket in the bar construction.

desk verdict Plausible and useful extension of Browder's bracket comparison to the bar spectral sequence, but the n≥3 proof has load-bearing gaps that need real work before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09233 v1 pith:F6K6G5K6 submitted 2019-08-24 math.AT

Xianglong Ni This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AT MSC 55P3555P4855T20

keywords barspectralsequenceiteratedloopspacesPoissonHopfalgebrasconstructionloop-spacebrackethomologysuspensionshuffleproduct

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

An $n$-fold loop space $\Omega^n X$ carries a degree $(n-1)$ bracket in its homology, and its next delooping $\Omega^{n-1}X$ carries a degree $(n-2)$ bracket. This paper proves that the bar spectral sequence connecting these two homologies is a spectral sequence of Poisson Hopf algebras: the bracket is defined on every page, has bidegree $(-1,n-1)$, satisfies the graded Leibniz rule $d^r[x,y]=[d^r x,y]+(-1)^{n+|x|}[x,d^r y]$, and on the $E^1$ page is the explicit bracket of the bar construction. This matters because it turns a classical comparison theorem about the homology suspension into a computational statement: the bracket on $H_*(\Omega^n X)$ can be read off from, and in some cases completely recovered from, the spectral sequence converging to $H_*(\Omega^{n-1}X)$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bar construction $B_{*,*}(A)$ of a commutative differential graded Poisson algebra $A$, equipped with the shuffle product and a bracket defined by inserting a single bracket $[a_i,a_j]$ at a lower-right corner of a shuffle path (Theorem 3.1). For $A=H_*(\Omega^n X)$, the $E^1$ page is exactly this bar construction, and the chain-level bracket on the total bar complex is produced by the delooping maps $h_n$ that implement the pointwise multiplication on loop spaces. The exterior degree $s$ of the bar filtration is what makes the bracket have bidegree $(-1,n-1)$, so the total degree $n-2$ matches the bracket on the target $H_*(\Omega^{n-1}X)$.

What would settle it

Compute the $E^1$ bracket for a small concrete case, for example $\Omega^3 S^3$ or $\Omega^4 S^4$, in the lowest filtration degrees where an $h_1$ shuffle term not touching $1\otimes\xi\otimes1$ can occur; if any such term is nonzero, the $E^1$ bracket differs from Theorem 3.1, and if all vanish, the key vanishing assertion in Section 4.3 is verified in that case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the author's own terms, the discovery is the theorem stated in the introduction: for $n\ge 2$, the bar spectral sequence $$$E^{2}$_{*,*}\cong \operatorname{Tor}^{H_*(\$\Omega$^n X)}_{*,*}(k,k)\Rightarrow H_*(\$\Omega$^{n-1}X)$$ is a spectral sequence of Poisson Hopf algebras. The bracket shifts bidegree by $(-1,n-1)$ and the differentials act as graded derivations with the stated sign. On the $E^1$ page the bracket is the one in the bar construction of $H_*(\Omega^n X)$, described combinatorially in Theorem 3.1; passing to the edge homomorphism recovers the classical comparison between the degree $n-1$ bracket and the degree $n-2$ bracket under the homology suspension.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on the claim that every shuffle term whose inserted chain map $h_1$ does not touch the distinguished factor $1\otimes\xi\otimes1$, or touches it only once, is degenerate and therefore vanishes; the paper asserts this by analogy with the $n=2$ case rather than demonstrating it, and if it failed the $E^1$ bracket would not reduce to the formula of Theorem 3.1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On every page $E^r$, the bracket makes $E^r_{*,*}$ into a bigraded Poisson Hopf algebra, so the filtration of $H_*(\Omega^{n-1}X)$ is compatible with the degree $n-2$ bracket.
The identity $d^r[x,y]=[d^r x,y]+(-1)^{n+|x|}[x,d^r y]$ turns bracket computations on $E^1$ into constraints on which higher differentials can be nonzero.
The $E^1$ computation $[[x],[y]]=[[x,y]]$ recovers the classical suspension comparison: the homology suspension sends the degree $n-1$ bracket to the degree $n-2$ bracket.
In examples where the homology of the delooping is known, such as $H_*(\Omega^n S^k;\mathbb{Q})$, the spectral sequence can determine the degree $n-1$ bracket completely.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Read as a homology-suspension calculus, the theorem implies that the spectral sequence can be run purely algebraically whenever $H_*(\Omega^n X)$ is known as a Poisson Hopf algebra; this is a route to new bracket computations the paper mentions only by example.
If the vanishing assertion in Section 4.3 is correct, the same $h_2$-only mechanism should yield a closed formula for the $E^1$ bracket for every $n\ge 3$, including the sign $\sigma'(\phi,i)$ when $n$ is odd; checking it on small shuffle paths would isolate the combinatorial heart of the proof.
The author's remark about topological Hochschild homology of $\mathbb{E}_n$ ring spectra suggests a testable extension: the bar-construction bracket should appear as the $E^1$ bracket there, and the Leibniz formula for differentials would constrain THH differentials.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Xianglong Ni's paper is a genuine extension of Browder's program. It defines a bracket on the bar construction of a commutative DGA with a bracket, states the expected bidegree and Leibniz formula, and proves that for n=2 the bar spectral sequence for Ω^2X is a spectral sequence of Poisson Hopf algebras whose E1 bracket is the algebraic one. That n=2 case is worked out in real detail, and the corollary recovering Browder's theorem via the edge homomorphism is clean. The paper is honest about the fact that n≥3 is less explicit.

What is actually new is the package: placing the Browder bracket comparison inside the spectral sequence, rather than only comparing brackets on homology via suspension. The explicit formula in Theorem 3.1 for the bracket on B(A) looks right, and the sign conventions are carefully handled.

The soft spots are where the n≥3 case does the heavy lifting. Theorem 3.1 is mostly delegated: antisymmetry, Jacobi, odd-n sign cases, and both Leibniz checks are left to the reader with a sketch. That might be fine for a research paper if the rest were airtight, but it is not. Proposition 4.2 asserts that all h1 insertions in the n≥3 bracket are degenerate, with the key sentence that the result follows from 'the role of ΩS^{n−2} to control the multiplication.' No chain-level formula for h1 involving ξ is given, so the filtration-lowering vanishing on the F_{p+q} part is not actually demonstrated. If that vanishing fails, no induced bracket exists on E^r. Theorem 4.2's identification of the surviving h2 pieces with the Browder bracket is also pictorial: the map F and the untwisting homotopy H_t are described visually, not constructed. There is also a reference slip: Proposition 4.2 says the Poisson Hopf axioms follow from '4.2 and 3.1,' which is circular unless it means Theorem 4.2.

None of this is an obvious error, and the gaps are plausibly fillable. But the central claim for n≥3 currently rests on assertions that would need to be checked by a referee, not merely verified line-by-line. The paper is for specialists who work with iterated loop spaces and spectral sequences; for that audience the statement is worth knowing. I would send it out, but the referee should insist on a real proof of the h1 vanishing and a more explicit h2 identification.

Citation pattern is normal — Browder, Cohen, Clark, Sugawara, no self-citation issues. Recommend: engage, but with an expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the bar (Rothenberg–Steenrod) spectral sequence for an n-fold loop space Ω^n X, with target H_*(Ω^{n-1}X). The central claim is that this spectral sequence is a spectral sequence of Poisson Hopf algebras: the bracket has bidegree (−1,n−1), satisfies the Leibniz rule d^r[x,y] = [d^r x,y] + (−1)^{n+|x|}[x,d^r y], and on the E_1 page agrees with the algebraic bracket defined in §3 on the bar construction of H_*(Ω^n X). The paper first defines a bracket on the bar construction of a commutative differential graded Poisson algebra and proves (or sketches) its algebraic properties. It then treats the geometric bar spectral sequence, working out the case n=2 explicitly via the commutator and the map φ: Ω^2X×S^1×Ω^2X→Ω^2X. For n≥3, the argument uses Sugawara's and Clark's delooping machinery to construct chain-level maps h_n and asserts that the h_1-inserted terms vanish and that the surviving h_2 terms assemble to the Browder bracket. The paper concludes that Browder's Theorem 2-1 follows as a special case of the edge homomorphism.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it gives a useful generalization of Browder's classical comparison between the bracket on H_*(Ω^n X) and the bracket on H_*(Ω^{n-1}X), placing that comparison inside the bar spectral sequence and providing a computational tool. The paper is clearly written and contains a detailed and credible treatment of the case n=2, including an explicit chain-level identification of the surviving terms with the Browder bracket. The algebraic bracket on the bar construction in §3, with its explicit shuffle formula, is a useful contribution even independently of the geometric comparison. However, the n≥3 proof is substantially incomplete: several load-bearing vanishing and identification steps are asserted rather than proved, and the algebraic proof of Theorem 3.1 leaves essential cases to the reader. The significance is therefore conditional on filling these gaps.

major comments (4)

[§4.3, Proposition 4.2] The proof that the bracket lowers filtration from F_{p+q+1} to F_{p+q-1} is not complete. After disposing of the F_{p+q+1} part via degeneracy of h_0(1⊗ξ⊗1), the proof must rule out the F_{p+q} part, which consists of shuffles with one inserted h_1. The manuscript asserts that if the h_1 does not touch 1⊗ξ⊗1 the term vanishes, and that if it does touch it, the result is still degenerate because 'the role of ΩS^{n−2} is to control the multiplication.' No chain-level formula for h_1 involving ξ is written, and no explicit argument is given to show that h_1(x⊗1⊗1, 1⊗ξ⊗1) is degenerate. This is a load-bearing step: if any such h_1 term were nonzero in the normalized complex, the bracket would not land in F_{p+q−1}, and no induced bracket would exist on the pages E^r for r≥1.
[§4.3, Theorem 4.2] The identification of the E_1 bracket with the algebraic bracket of Theorem 3.1 is not established for n≥3. The proof asserts that the six surviving h_2 terms assemble into a map F, that a homotopy H_t untwists F into the Browder map φ, and that consequently ˜F_*(x,γ,y) equals φ_*(x,γ,y). However, the maps Rhat h_2, F, and H_t are described only pictorially (Figures 4.5 and 4.6) and no chain-level formulas or explicit homotopies are provided. Since this comparison is the core content of the theorem, the proof is incomplete as it stands.
[§3, Theorem 3.1] The proof of Theorem 3.1 explicitly leaves to the reader the verification of antisymmetry, the Jacobi identity, and the Leibniz rule with respect to the internal differential, as well as the entire case of n odd. These are not merely routine details: the internal Leibniz rule is later used to obtain the formula (4.4) for the spectral-sequence differential, and the odd-n sign case is essential for the explicit bracket formula (3.1). The paper should either provide these checks or indicate a precise reference where they are proved.
[§4.2, Proposition 4.1] The proof of Proposition 4.1 leaves to the reader the check that bracketing an element of Z^r_{p+1,q-1} + B^r_{p,q} with y lands in the appropriate submodule Z^r_{p+s,q+t} + B^r_{p+s-1,q+t+1}. This is a standard well-definedness argument for operations on spectral-sequence pages, but it is part of the proof that the bracket exists on every page. The paper should spell out this check or cite a fully worked reference; as written, the proof is incomplete.

minor comments (4)

[§4.2, Proposition 4.2 (at end of proof)] The sentence 'The Poisson Hopf algebra axioms will follow from 4.2 and 3.1' appears to refer to the proposition currently being proved, which would be circular; presumably Proposition 4.1 is meant. This should be corrected to remove the ambiguity.
[§3, Theorem 3.1] There is a typo: 'Liebniz' should be 'Leibniz'.
[§4.3, after (4.5)] The notation h_0 is used in the proof of Proposition 4.2 ("h_0(1⊗ξ⊗1)") but h_0 is not explicitly defined in the text; the reader must infer from the earlier definition of h_n that h_0 is the chain-level multiplication map. A sentence defining h_0 would improve clarity.
[§4.1, equation (4.1)] The displayed map in (4.1) is written for a two-factor input, but in §4.3 it is used for a three-factor shuffle with the ΩS^{n-2} factor inserted. The notation is understandable, but a brief comment that the formula extends to three factors would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation compares independent algebraic and topological bracket constructions and does not reduce to its own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a comparison of two independently defined brackets: the algebraic bracket on B_{*,*}(H_*(Ω^n X)) supplied by Theorem 3.1 and the bracket induced on the bar spectral sequence by the topological Browder bracket via Sugawara–Clark delooping maps. Theorem 3.1 is proved combinatorially from the Poisson algebra structure of H_*(Ω^n X) due to Cohen, and Theorem 4.2 identifies the E1-page bracket with that formula by explicit chain-level computations involving h1, h2, and the maps F and H_t. Neither step defines its conclusion into its hypotheses. The external inputs—Browder's bracket, Cohen's Poisson Hopf theorem, Sugawara's delooping criterion, and Clark's verification of the delooping conditions—come from non-overlapping authors and do not presuppose the theorem being proved. The sentence 'the Poisson Hopf algebra axioms will follow from 4.2 and 3.1' is most naturally read as a forward reference to Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 3.1; even on a stricter reading, it is a self-referential locution rather than the load-bearing reduction, since the filtration argument and the chain-map derivation of (4.4) are stated independently. Some assertions, such as the vanishing of h1 terms in Proposition 4.2 and the construction of the untwisting homotopy H_t in Theorem 4.2, are sketched rather than fully demonstrated, but these are omitted details in a geometric comparison and do not make the argument circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. It leverages a standard-issue toolkit: Moore loops, normalized bar construction, Rothenberg-Steenrod spectral sequence, shuffle products, and Sugawara-Clark delooping. The principal imported assumptions are the Cohen theorem on Poisson Hopf algebras of iterated loop spaces and the Sugawara-Clark machinery for making the total bar complex multiplicative.

assumptions (6)

standard math The bar spectral sequence E2_{*,*} ≅ Tor^{H_*(A)}_{*,*}(k,k) ⇒ Tor^A_{*,*}(k,k), and for G an associative H-space Tor^{C_*(G)} ≅ H_*(BG).
Invoked in §2.1-2.2 as standard Rothenberg-Steenrod and bar spectral sequence facts; the paper relies on convergence and multiplicative structure.
domain assumption H_*(Ω^n X) is a Poisson Hopf algebra with bracket of degree n-1 satisfying Poisson, Jacobi, and coproduct identities.
Cited to Cohen [3] in §2.3; the spectral sequence bracket is modeled on this structure.
domain assumption Sugawara's theorem that maps between associative H-spaces satisfying his homotopy conditions deloop, and Clark's theorem that the pointwise product map ζ satisfies those conditions.
Used in §4.1 to construct the multiplication on tot B_{*,*}(C_*(ΩG)) and the chain maps h_n; the paper does not reprove these.
standard math The Künneth isomorphism H_*(X×Y) ≅ H_*(X)⊗H_*(Y) holds over a field, and degenerate chains vanish in normalized chains.
Stated in §2 remarks and used throughout; it justifies identifying H_*(B_{s,*}(A)) with the bar complex on H_*(A).
standard math The loop-suspension unit η: S^{n-3}→ΩS^{n-2} sends a homology generator to a generator, so ξ=η_*(β) represents the generator of H_{n-3}(ΩS^{n-2}).
Used in §4.3 to build the bracket from the S^{n-2} multiplication parameter; standard loop-suspension adjunction fact.
standard math The shuffle product signs and normalized bar complex satisfy the standard commutation, associativity, and coproduct formulas stated in §2 and §3.
The bracket formula (3.1) and its properties are combinatorial consequences of these sign conventions; the paper relies on them explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Bracket in the Bar Spectral Sequence for an Iterated Loop Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6K6G5K6

@misc{pith2026190809233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Bracket in the Bar Spectral Sequence for an Iterated Loop Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6K6G5K6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09233}
}

abstract

When $X$ is an associative H-space, the bar spectral sequence computes the homology of the delooping, $H_{*}(BX)$. If $X$ is an $n$-fold loop space for $n\geq2$ this is a spectral sequence of Hopf algebras. Using machinery by Sugawara and Clark, we show that the spectral sequence filtration respects the Browder bracket structure on $H_{*}(BX)$, and so it is moreover a spectral sequence of Poisson algebras. Through the bracket on the spectral sequence, we establish a connection between the degree $n-1$ bracket on $H_{*}(X)$ and the degree $n-2$ bracket on $H_{*}(BX)$. This generalizes a result of Browder and puts it in a computational context.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09233 by the authors.

**Figure 2.1.** A pictorial representation of the term ±[x1⊗1|1⊗y1|1⊗y2|x2⊗1|x3⊗1] in the shuffle of [x1|x2|x3] and [y1|y2]. The sign is determined by the blocks under the walk. (0, −1) and an external differential δ of bidegree (−1, 0), defined as d[α1| · · · |αs] = Xs i=1 (−1)σ(i−1)[α1| · · · |dAαi | · · · |αs], δ[α1| · · · |αs] = Xs−1 i=1 (−1)σ(i) [α1| · · · |αiαi+1| · · · |αs], where the sign is given by σ(i) = |[α1| · · · |αi … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.1.** The term ± [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.2.** Brackets appearing in terms in (3.2). Proof. The needed axioms can be checked combinatorially. We check the Poisson identity as an example, in the case n is even. Since the bracket has even total degree n − 2, the Poisson identity states (3.2) [x, yz] − [x, y]z − (−1)|y||x|y[x, z] = 0 where x = [x1| · · · |xp] y = [y1| · · · |yq] z = [z1| · · · |zr]. In the same manner as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 3.3.** Figure 3.3: A visual verification of ∆([x, y]) = [∆(x), ∆(y)]. The above two properties of the bracket—the Poisson identity and compatibility with the coproduct—are “automatic,” in the sense that they do not rely on any properties of the bracket in B∗,∗(A). They are mechanical c…

**Figure 4.1.** Figure 4.1: The homotopy M1 on ((a1, b1), t,(a2, b2)) at t = 0, 1. The reader is referred to Proposition 1.6 in [2] for inductive definitions of higher Mn, but we will only need M1 for now. These Mn are used to construct the delooped map B(ΩG × ΩG) → BΩG. We describe the corresp…

**Figure 4.2.** Figure 4.2: The map φ: Ω2X ×S 1×Ω 2X → Ω 2X, illustrated for (x, t, y) as t ∈ S 1 varies. x and y are visualized as “mounds” of points in X, where their outlines are mapped to the basepoint. The outer concatenation on Ω2X is depicted horizontally and the inner (pointwise) concat…

**Figure 4.3.** Figure 4.3: The map η : S n−3 → ΩS n−2 sending u to the loop mu, depicted for n = 4. Proposition 4.2. Let n ≥ 2. The bar spectral sequence E 2 ∗,∗ ∼= TorH∗(ΩnX) ∗,∗ (k, k) ⇒ TorC∗(ΩnX) ∗ (k, k) is a spectral sequence of Poisson Hopf algebras, with bracket of bidegree (−1, n − 1)…

**Figure 4.4.** Figure 4.4: The homotopy M2 on ((a1, m1, b1), t1,(a2, m2, b2), t2,(a3, m3, b3)) as (t1, t2) ∈ I 2 varies. which at the chain level induces the degree n map (4.5) hˆ n : (C∗(ΩnX) ⊗ C∗(S n−3 ) ⊗ C∗(ΩnX))⊗(n+1) → C∗(ΩnX). Now for our main result, we show that the bracket in the spe…

**Figure 4.5.** Figure 4.5: The pieces Fi assembled into a single map F : ΩnX × S n−3 × I 2 × Ω nX → Ω nX, with a, b ∈ Ω nX (thought of as loops in Ωn−1X) and u ∈ S n−3 . The map u 7→ mu is as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4_5.png]

**Figure 4.6.** Figure 4.6: The homotopy Ht : ΩnX × S n−1 × Ω nX → Ω nX, t ∈ I. (Although L0 as drawn is positive, it can be in the interval [−l(mu), Lh].) At t = 1 we obtain the desired φ: ΩnX × S n−1 × Ω nX → Ω nX, and F˜ ∗(x, γ, y) = φ∗(x, γ, y) = [x, y]. Lastly, the sign (−1)σ 0 (ϕ,i) as de…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

Homology operations and loop spaces

Browder, William. Homology operations and loop spaces. Illinois J. Math. 4 (1960), 347–357

work page 1960
[2]

Homotopy commutativity and the Moore spectral sequence

Clark, Allan. Homotopy commutativity and the Moore spectral sequence . Paciﬁc J. Math. 15 (1965), 65-74

work page 1965
[3]

The homology of iterated loop spaces

Cohen, Frederick R.; Lada, Thomas J.; May, Peter J. The homology of iterated loop spaces . Berlin: Springer (1976)

work page 1976
[4]

On the groupsH(Π,n )

Eilenberg, Samuel; Mac Lane, Saunders. On the groupsH(Π,n ). Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 58 (1953), 55-106

work page 1953
[5]

Homology operations in the Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence

Ligaard, Hans; Madsen, Ib. Homology operations in the Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence. Math. Z. 143 (1975), 45–54

work page 1975
[6]

A User’s Guide to Spectral Sequences

McCleary, John. A User’s Guide to Spectral Sequences . Cambridge: Cambridge U, (2008)

work page 2008
[7]

Alg` ebre homologique et homologie des espaces classiﬁants

Moore, John C. Alg` ebre homologique et homologie des espaces classiﬁants. S´ eminaire Henri Cartan 12.1 (1959/60)

work page 1959
[8]

Seminar Notes, Princeton, 1956

Moore, John C. Seminar Notes, Princeton, 1956

work page 1956

Show all 9 references

[9]

On the homotopy-commutativity of groups and loop spaces

Sugawara, Masahiro. On the homotopy-commutativity of groups and loop spaces. Memoirs of the College of Science, University of Kyoto, Series A, Math. 33 (1960/61), 251-259

1960

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Homology operations and loop spaces

Browder, William. Homology operations and loop spaces. Illinois J. Math. 4 (1960), 347–357

work page 1960

[2] [2]

Homotopy commutativity and the Moore spectral sequence

Clark, Allan. Homotopy commutativity and the Moore spectral sequence . Paciﬁc J. Math. 15 (1965), 65-74

work page 1965

[3] [3]

The homology of iterated loop spaces

Cohen, Frederick R.; Lada, Thomas J.; May, Peter J. The homology of iterated loop spaces . Berlin: Springer (1976)

work page 1976

[4] [4]

On the groupsH(Π,n )

Eilenberg, Samuel; Mac Lane, Saunders. On the groupsH(Π,n ). Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 58 (1953), 55-106

work page 1953

[5] [5]

Homology operations in the Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence

Ligaard, Hans; Madsen, Ib. Homology operations in the Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence. Math. Z. 143 (1975), 45–54

work page 1975

[6] [6]

A User’s Guide to Spectral Sequences

McCleary, John. A User’s Guide to Spectral Sequences . Cambridge: Cambridge U, (2008)

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Alg` ebre homologique et homologie des espaces classiﬁants

Moore, John C. Alg` ebre homologique et homologie des espaces classiﬁants. S´ eminaire Henri Cartan 12.1 (1959/60)

work page 1959

[8] [8]

Seminar Notes, Princeton, 1956

Moore, John C. Seminar Notes, Princeton, 1956

work page 1956