Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Infinite Loop Spaces and Group Actions on Strongly Self-Absorbing C*-Algebras

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The classifying spaces for cocycle actions and Γ-kernels on strongly self-absorbing C*-algebras are infinite loop spaces.

desk verdict Solid confirmation of a conjecture with a careful, coherent proof; the key weak equivalence lemma survives scrutiny, so the result stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20105 v1 pith:FR34M3IZ submitted 2026-07-22 math.AT math.OA

Ulrich Pennig , George Tridimas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.ATmath.OA MSC 46L0555P4755R35
keywords stronglyself-absorbingC*-algebracrossedmoduleinfiniteloopspacecocycleactionΓ-kernelclassifyingI-FCPΓ-space
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

This paper proves that for any strongly self-absorbing C*-algebra A, the classifying spaces of the crossed modules governing cocycle actions (B^D G_A) and Γ-kernels (B^D P G_A) carry infinite loop space structures induced by the tensor product; when the unitary group of A is connected, the same holds for the universal-cover variant B^D eG_A. The result confirms a conjecture that this part of the theory of group actions on operator algebras should connect to stable homotopy theory. The consequence is that the natural transformation H^1(Γ, G) → [BΓ, B^D G] takes values in abelian groups belonging to a cohomology theory, so lifting obstructions can be studied with long exact sequences and excision. The proof builds functors-with-cartesian-product from tensor powers of the crossed modules, converts them to Γ-spaces, and applies an infinite loop space machine, with a comparison lemma showing each classifying space is the homotopy colimit of such a diagram.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the I-FCP (functor with cartesian product): a commutative monoid in the category of I-shaped diagrams of spaces, built from the tensor powers of the three crossed modules. After applying the double classifying space functor B² objectwise, the tensor product of the underlying C*-algebras becomes the multiplication of an I-FCP. Two further ingredients carry the argument: the Γ-space machine (functors from finite pointed sets to spaces that encode homotopy-commutative monoids) that turns an I-FCP into a connective Ω-spectrum, and a comparison lemma (Theorem 3.0.2) asserting that if a functor X on I is eventually weak-equivalent along all morphisms, then X(d) is wea

What would settle it

Compute the homotopy groups of U(A) and U(A⊗A) for any concrete strongly self-absorbing algebra (say a UHF algebra) and check that u↦u⊗1 induces isomorphisms on every πₙ; if any homotopy group is not an isomorphism, the key lemma fails and the main theorem's proof collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the tensor product of a strongly self-absorbing C*-algebra upgrades the crossed modules U(A)→Aut(A) (cocycle actions), PU(A)→Aut(A) (Γ-kernels), and eU(A)→Aut(A) (when U(A) is connected) into diagrams whose classifying spaces are infinite loop spaces. Concretely, the assignments [n] ↦ G_{A⊗n}, PG_{A⊗n}, eG_{A⊗n} form I-FCPs after applying the classifying space functor B², and under the strong self-absorption hypothesis the comparison lemma of Section 3 gives weak equivalences B²G_A ≃ hocolim_I B²F_A (and likewise for the PG and eG variants). Since the homotopy colimit of an I-FCP is the zero space of a connective spectrum produced by the Γ-space machine, each of

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof rests on the fact that, for a strongly self-absorbing algebra A, the unitary-group inclusions u↦u⊗1 (and their projective and universal-cover analogues) are weak equivalences; if that single map failed to be a weak equivalence, the comparison lemma could not identify the classifying spaces with the homotopy colimits, and the infinite loop space structure would not follow from this argument.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, H^1(Γ, G) maps into an abelian group [BΓ, B^D G] that is part of a cohomology theory, so lifting obstructions for Γ-kernels and cocycle actions gain long exact sequences and excision.
  • For a strongly self-absorbing Kirchberg algebra D and A = D⊗K, the fibrewise tensor product promotes [BΓ, BAut(A)] to a spectrum-level invariant, extending the stable-homotopy connection from actions to outer actions and cocycle actions.
  • When U(A) is connected (automatic for SSA algebras satisfying the UCT), the universal-cover crossed module eG_A also yields an infinite loop space and hence a third cohomology theory.
  • The structures are natural in the tensor product: for SSA algebras A and B, the infinite loop space for A⊗B is governed by the multiplication maps of the I-FCPs for A and B, so the resulting cohomology theories combine in a predictable way.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same I-FCP-plus-Γ-space recipe should apply to any crossed module arising from a continuous tensor-absorbing functor on C*-algebras, giving a uniform way to produce spectra from absorbing objects.
  • Editorial extension: the explicit identification B^D G_A ≃ hocolim_I B²F_A provides a concrete spectrum whose homotopy groups could be computed from U(A^{⊗n}); this opens a route to numerical lifting obstructions, complementing known constraints on UHF algebras.
  • Editorial extension: the connectedness condition on U(A) for the eG_A case may be more than technical—when U(A) is disconnected the failure of eG_A to be an infinite loop space could reflect a π₁(U(A)) obstruction tied to K-theory; testing a non-UCT SSA example would clarify.
  • Editorial extension: if the infinite loop space structures are compatible with the boundary maps in the exact sequences of crossed modules, lifting obstructions become images of classes in a single cohomology theory, unifying the vanishing phenomena for some classifiable algebras with the order-constrained cases for UHF algebras.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves that for a strongly self-absorbing C*-algebra A, the classifying spaces B^D G_A, B^D P G_A, and B^D eG_A (the last when U(A) is connected) admit infinite loop space structures induced by the minimal tensor product. The strategy is to construct I-FCPs from the crossed modules governing cocycle actions and Γ-kernels, convert them to Γ-spaces, apply the May–Thomason machine, and use a Bökstedt-type lemma together with known contractibility/weak-equivalence results for unitary groups to identify the resulting infinite loop spaces with the desired classifying spaces. As a corollary, the natural transformation H^1(Γ,G) → [BΓ,B^D G] is shown to land in an abelian group, confirming a conjecture from [29].

Significance. If the result holds, it is a substantial advance: it extends the known infinite loop space structure on BAut(A) from [6] to cocycle actions and Γ-kernels, and it provides a cohomological framework for lifting obstructions on strongly self-absorbing C*-algebras. The paper is clearly written, the Bökstedt lemma is proved in detail, and the overall strategy is natural and convincing. The use of well-established stable homotopy machinery is appropriate, and the result would be a valuable contribution to the interface of operator algebras and stable homotopy theory.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Proposition 4.0.5; Definition 1.5.2] The I-FCP axioms require the associativity and symmetry diagrams to commute strictly. The maps μ_{m,n} are defined using the minimal tensor product, but for C*-algebras the tensor product is only associative and symmetric up to canonical *-isomorphisms, not on the nose. Consequently the composites μ_{m+n,k}∘(μ_{m,n}×1) and μ_{m,n+k}∘(1×μ_{n,k}) differ by conjugation by the associator, and similarly the symmetry diagram holds only up to the flip automorphism. The proof of Proposition 4.0.5 verifies that the μ_{m,n} are monoidal functors (the Eckmann–Hilton-type computation) but does not address these associativity/symmetry diagrams. As written, F_A, P F_A, eF_A are not strict I-FCPs, so Proposition 1.5.4 and the May–Thomason machine do not directly apply. This is a load-bearing gap in Theorem 4.0.7. The authors should either replace the tensor product by a permutative/coherent strictifica
  2. [§1.4, Lemma 1.4.6] The stated isomorphism of simplicial spaces between N_*G and B_*(F,C_H,*_H) appears to have a sign error. With the action F(h^{op})(g)=∂(h^{-1})g, the bar-construction face d_0 sends (x,h_1,h_2) to (∂(h_1^{-1})x,h_2), while the nerve's d_0 in the correspondence (source of first arrow, h_1,...,h_n) sends it to (∂(h_1)x,h_2). These differ in general. Replacing the action by ∂(h)g restores d_0 but violates functoriality of F. The set-level bijection N_mG ≅ G×H^m is valid, but the simplicial identification is not. This lemma is used in the proof of Lemma 1.4.8 (Reedy cofibrancy, well-pointedness, and the B^⊗G ≃ B^2G comparison) and in Proposition 4.0.6. The proof needs correction, or the reliance on this specific bar-construction identification should be avoided.
  3. [§2, Lemma 2.0.1 and §4, Theorem 4.0.7 (eG_A case)] Well-pointedness of eU(A) is needed to apply Lemma 1.4.8 to the crossed module eG_A and to ensure that the nerve of eG_{A⊗n} is Reedy cofibrant in Proposition 4.0.6. However, Lemma 2.0.1 proves well-pointedness only for U(A) and P U(A); eU(A) is not covered. Since eU(A) is a covering space of U(A), well-pointedness can likely be derived, but the argument is not given. Similarly, the manuscript uses well-pointedness of Aut(A) without stating it explicitly, even though Lemma 1.4.8 requires it for the object space G. These are fixable, but they should be stated and proved or referenced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are typographical issues (e.g., the title page shows 'SP ACES', and the remark after Definition 1.2.7 contains 'cotnains' instead of 'contains'). A careful proofreading pass is recommended.
  2. [§1.5, Proposition 1.5.6] The proof says 'Since X_F(0+) = ∗, we can view X_F as a functor to based topological spaces.' It may be worth giving the basepoints explicitly for all n+ via the unique map 0+ → n+, as is done earlier.
  3. [§4, Theorem 4.0.7] The sentence 'As X is path-connected' would benefit from a brief justification: X = B^2G_A is path-connected because Aut(A) is contractible, and similarly for the other cases. This is true, but it is not stated.
  4. [§1.4, Definition 1.4.5] The notation B^2G is used before its definition is fully motivated; it would help to explicitly state that the '2' refers to applying the classifying space functor twice (nerve then nerve of the resulting group).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the infinite loop space structures are genuinely derived from SSA via Bökstedt's lemma and the Γ-space machine.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular. The proof constructs I-FCPs B^2F_A, B^2P F_A, and B^2eF_A from the tensor product (Definition 4.0.3, Proposition 4.0.5), verifies that all structure maps with m,n>0 are weak equivalences (Proposition 4.0.6), invokes the paper's own Bökstedt lemma (Theorem 3.0.2) to identify B^2G_A with hocolim_I B^2F_A, and then applies the Segal/May–Thomason Γ-space machine (Proposition 1.5.6). The key homotopical input, Lemma 2.0.1(4), is proven directly from the definition of strong self-absorption: the SSA path u_t gives [β⊗1] = [u_0^*ψ(β)u_0], and since ψ is a *-isomorphism, the induced map on homotopy groups is an isomorphism; hence U(A)→U(A⊗A) is a weak equivalence. The P U and eU variants follow by bundle and five-lemma arguments. Cited results [29] (crossed-module framework and B^D G ≃ B^⊗G) and [6] (contractibility of Aut(A) for SSA A) are prior, parameter-free theorems whose assumptions do not include the infinite loop space conclusion being proved; they serve as tools, not as restatements of the target. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no ansatz smuggled in by citation, and no uniqueness assertion forced by the authors' prior work. Self-citation is present, but it is not load-bearing in a circular sense.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The central claim rests on standard infinite-loop-space machines, two prior results from the authors' circle, and a coherence convention for tensor powers of C*-algebras.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Aut(A) is contractible for a strongly self-absorbing C*-algebra A.
    Used in Prop 4.0.6 for the N0 weak equivalences and to get path-connectedness of B2G_A in Theorem 4.0.7; cited to [6, Theorem 2.3].
  • domain assumption The weak equivalence B^D G ≃ B⊗G ≃ B2G holds for the relevant crossed modules with well-pointed H.
    Input from [29, Theorem 4.9] and Lemma 1.4.8; needed to transfer the infinite loop space structures to the B^D models named in the abstract.
  • standard math The May–Thomason/Segal infinite loop space machine: I-FCPs produce Γ-spaces and connective Ω-spectra, with hocolim_I F as the underlying space when π0 is a group.
    Quoted from [20, Construction 12.1], [25, Definition 3.6], and [32]; this is the formal backbone of the proof (Propositions 1.5.4 and 1.5.6).
  • standard math Reedy cofibrancy and geometric realisation facts: levelwise weak equivalences pass to realisations, |A×B| ≅ |A| × |B|, and fat vs thin realisations agree under Reedy cofibrancy.
    Used throughout §1.2–1.4 to compare classifying-space models and bar constructions; cited to [8], [10], [24], and [7].
  • domain assumption The minimal tensor product of C*-algebras behaves as a coherent symmetric monoidal structure, so tensor powers can be treated strictly in I-FCP diagrams.
    Definition 4.0.3 and Proposition 4.0.5 build F_A using A⊗n and tacitly identify A⊗m ⊗ A⊗n with A⊗(m+n); this is standard but not made explicit.
  • standard math For a connected, locally path-connected, semi-locally simply connected topological group G, the universal cover eG is a topological group and the construction is functorial.
    Used in Definition 1.1.2 and Construction 4.0.2 to lift the crossed-module data to eU(A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infinite Loop Spaces and Group Actions on Strongly Self-Absorbing C*-Algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FR34M3IZ

@misc{pith2026260720105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infinite Loop Spaces and Group Actions on Strongly Self-Absorbing C*-Algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FR34M3IZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20105}
}
abstract

Lifting obstructions for group actions, cocycle actions, and $\Gamma$-kernels admit a cohomological description via topological crossed modules, as recently developed by Izumi, Giron-Pacheco, and the first named author. For a strongly self-absorbing $C^*$-algebra $A$, we show that the classifying spaces $\mathcal{B}^D\mathcal{G}_A$ and $\mathcal{B}^DP\mathcal{G}_A$ of the respective crossed modules governing cocycle actions and $\Gamma$-kernels, respectively, carry infinite loop space structures induced by the tensor product; the same holds for the crossed module $B^D\tilde{\mathcal{G}}_A$ whenever $U(A)$ is connected. This confirms a conjecture from the aforementioned work and extends to $\Gamma$-kernels and cocycle actions the connection with stable homotopy theory. For the proof we construct $\mathbb{I}$-FCPs from the relevant crossed modules, pass to $\Gamma$-spaces, and apply the May-Thomason infinite loop space machine. Consequently, the natural transformation $H^1(\Gamma,\mathcal{G}) \to [\mathcal{B}\Gamma,\mathcal{B}^D\mathcal{G}]$ takes values in cohomology groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20105 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Topological crossed modules and the interpretation of their associated cohomology sets. To extend the aforementioned connection with stable homotopy theory to Γ￾kernels and cocycle actions we will employ tools from higher category theory. In particular, we will make use of the well-known correspondence between crossed modules and (strict) 2-groups [27, Sec. 3.3], which already played a central role in [29]. Recall t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    2025.url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04134

    Sergio Gir´ on Pacheco, Masaki Izumi, and Ulrich Pennig.G-kernels and Crossed Modules. 2025.url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04134

    arXiv 2025

  2. [6]

    A Dixmier–Douady theory for strongly self- absorbingC ∗-algebras

    Marius Dadarlat and Ulrich Pennig. “A Dixmier–Douady theory for strongly self- absorbingC ∗-algebras”. In:J. Reine Angew. Mathematik2016.718 (Mar. 2015), pp. 153–181.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/crelle-2014-0044

    work page doi:10.1515/crelle-2014-0044 2015

  3. [1]

    John Frank Adams.Infinite loop spaces. Vol. No. 90. Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1978, pp. x+214

    1978

  4. [2]

    The classifying space of a topological 2- group

    John C. Baez and Danny Stevenson. “The classifying space of a topological 2- group”. In:Algebraic topology. Vol. 4. Abel Symp. Springer, Berlin, 2009, pp. 1–31. url:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01200-6_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01200-6_1 2009

  5. [3]

    Topological Hochschild homology ofZ/pn

    Morten Brun. “Topological Hochschild homology ofZ/pn”. In:J. Pure Appl. Algebra 148.1 (2000), pp. 29–76.url:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0022404998001315

    2000

  6. [4]

    Outer conjugacy classes of automorphisms of factors

    Alain Connes. “Outer conjugacy classes of automorphisms of factors”. In:Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4)8.3 (1975), pp. 383–419.url:http://www.numdam.org/item? id=ASENS_1975_4_8_3_383_0

    1975

  7. [5]

    Periodic automorphisms of the hyperfinite factor of type II1

    Alain Connes. “Periodic automorphisms of the hyperfinite factor of type II1”. In: Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)39.1-2 (1977), pp. 39–66

    1977

  8. [7]

    EMS Textbooks in Mathematics

    Tammo tom Dieck.Algebraic Topology. EMS Textbooks in Mathematics. Z¨ urich: European Mathematical Society, 2008

    2008

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    On the Homotopy Type of Classifying Spaces

    Tammo tom Dieck. “On the Homotopy Type of Classifying Spaces.” In:Manuscripta Math.11 (1973/74), pp. 41–50.url:http://eudml.org/doc/154199. 28 REFERENCES

    1973

  2. [9]

    A Primer on Homotopy Colimits

    Daniel Dugger. “A Primer on Homotopy Colimits”. University of Oregon. 2008. url:https://pages.uoregon.edu/ddugger/hocolim.pdf

    2008

  3. [10]

    Semisimplicial spaces

    Johannes Ebert and Oscar Randal-Williams. “Semisimplicial spaces”. In:Algebr. Geom. Topol.19.4 (Aug. 2019), pp. 2099–2150.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/ agt.2019.19.2099

    2019

  4. [11]

    Anomalous symmetries of classifiable C∗-algebras

    Samuel Evington and Sergio Gir´ on Pacheco. “Anomalous symmetries of classifiable C∗-algebras”. In:Studia Math.270.1 (2023), pp. 73–101.url:https://doi.org/ 10.4064/sm220117-25-6

    2023 doi

  5. [12]

    The dynamical Kirchberg-Phillips theorem

    James Gabe and G´ abor Szab´ o. “The dynamical Kirchberg-Phillips theorem”. In: Acta Math.232.1 (2024), pp. 1–77.url:https://doi.org/10.4310/acta.2024. v232.n1.a1

    2024 doi

  6. [13]

    Goerss and John F

    Paul G. Goerss and John F. Jardine.Simplicial homotopy theory. Modern Birkh¨ auser Classics. Reprint of the 1999 edition. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 2009, pp. xvi+510. url:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0346-0189-4

    1999 doi

  7. [14]

    New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001

    Allen Hatcher.Algebraic Topology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001

    2001

  8. [15]

    2024.url:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2309.03441

    Masaki Izumi.G-kernels of Kirchberg algebras. 2024.url:https://arxiv.org/ abs/2309.03441

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Poly-Zgroup actions on Kirchberg algebras I

    Masaki Izumi and Hiroki Matui. “Poly-Zgroup actions on Kirchberg algebras I”. In:Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN16 (2021), pp. 12077–12154.url:https://doi. org/10.1093/imrn/rnz140

    2021 doi

  10. [17]

    Poly-Zgroup actions on Kirchberg algebras II

    Masaki Izumi and Hiroki Matui. “Poly-Zgroup actions on Kirchberg algebras II”. In:Invent. Math.224.3 (2021), pp. 699–766.url:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1007 / s00222-020-01019-9

    2021

  11. [18]

    Actions of finite groups on the hyperfinite type II 1 factor

    Vaughan F. R. Jones. “Actions of finite groups on the hyperfinite type II 1 factor”. In:Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.28.237 (1980), pp. v+70.url:https://doi.org/10. 1090/memo/0237

    1980

  12. [19]

    An invariant for group actions

    Vaughan F. R. Jones. “An invariant for group actions”. In:Alg` ebres d’op´ erateurs (S´ em., Les Plans-sur-Bex, 1978). Vol. 725. Lecture Notes in Math. Springer, Berlin, 1979, pp. 237–253

    1978

  13. [20]

    Diagram spaces, diagram spectra and spectra of units

    John A Lind. “Diagram spaces, diagram spectra and spectra of units”. In:Algebr. Geom. Topol.13.4 (May 2013), pp. 1857–1935.url:http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/ agt.2013.13.1857

    2013

  14. [21]

    Model Categories of Diagram Spectra

    Michael A. Mandell, J. Peter May, Stefan Schwede, and Brooke Shipley. “Model Categories of Diagram Spectra”. In:Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 82.2 (Mar. 2001), pp. 441–512.url:https://doi.org/10.1112/S0024611501012692

    2001 doi

  15. [22]

    A telescope comparison lemma for THH

    Michael A. Mandell and Brooke Shipley. “A telescope comparison lemma for THH”. In:Topology Appl.117.2 (Jan. 2002), pp. 161–174.url:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0166-8641(00)00121-8

    2002

  16. [23]

    Classifying spaces and fibrations

    J. Peter May. “Classifying spaces and fibrations”. In:Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.1 (1975), pp. xiii+98.url:https://doi.org/10.1090/memo/0155

    1975 doi

  17. [24]

    Peter May.The Geometry of Iterated Loop Spaces

    J. Peter May.The Geometry of Iterated Loop Spaces. Vol. 271. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1972

    1972

  18. [25]

    The uniqueness of infinite loop space ma- chines

    J. Peter May and Robert Thomason. “The uniqueness of infinite loop space ma- chines”. In:Topology17.3 (1978), pp. 205–224.url:https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0040938378900265

    1978

  19. [26]

    On the classification of group actions on C ∗-algebras up to equivariant KK-equivalence

    Ralf Meyer. “On the classification of group actions on C ∗-algebras up to equivariant KK-equivalence”. In:Ann. K-Theory6.2 (2021), pp. 157–238.url:https://doi. org/10.2140/akt.2021.6.157

    2021 doi

  20. [27]

    Notes on 2-groupoids, 2-groups and crossed modules

    Behrang Noohi. “Notes on 2-groupoids, 2-groups and crossed modules”. In:Homol- ogy Homotopy Appl.9.1 (2007), pp. 75–106.url:https://doi.org/10.4310/hha. 2007.v9.n1.a3. REFERENCES 29

    2007 doi

  21. [28]

    Adrian Ocneanu.Actions of discrete amenable groups on von Neumann algebras. Vol. 1138. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985, pp. iv+115. url:https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0098579

    1985 doi

  22. [30]

    Units of ring spectra and their traces in algebraicK- theory

    Christian Schlichtkrull. “Units of ring spectra and their traces in algebraicK- theory”. In:Geom. Topol.8 (2004), pp. 645–673.url:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 2140/gt.2004.8.645

    2004

  23. [31]

    Lecture notes, University of Bonn

    Stefan Schwede.Spaces versus Simplicial Sets. Lecture notes, University of Bonn. 2026.url:https://www.math.uni- bonn.de/people/schwede/sset_vs_spaces. pdf

    2026

  24. [32]

    Categories and cohomology theories

    Graeme Segal. “Categories and cohomology theories”. In:Topology13 (1974), pp. 293– 312.url:https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-9383(74)90022-6

    1974 doi

  25. [33]

    A convenient category of topological spaces

    Norman E. Steenrod. “A convenient category of topological spaces”. In:Michigan Math. J.14.2 (1967), pp. 133–152.url:https://projecteuclid.org/journals/ michigan-mathematical-journal/volume-14/issue-2/A-convenient-category- of-topological-spaces/10.1307/mmj/1028999711.full

    1967

  26. [34]

    Note on Cofibrations

    Arne Strøm. “Note on Cofibrations”. In:Math. Scand.19.1 (1966), pp. 11–14.url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24490229(visited on 06/05/2026)

    1966

  27. [35]

    Quasidiagonality of nuclear C ∗-algebras

    Aaron Tikuisis, Stuart White, and Wilhelm Winter. “Quasidiagonality of nuclear C ∗-algebras”. In:Ann. of Math. (2)185.1 (2017), pp. 229–284.url:https://doi. org/10.4007/annals.2017.185.1.4

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Strongly self-absorbingC ∗-algebras

    Andrew S. Toms and Wilhelm Winter. “Strongly self-absorbingC ∗-algebras”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.359.8 (2007), pp. 3999–4029.url:https://doi.org/10. 1090/S0002-9947-07-04173-6. Ulrich Pennig, School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 4AG, W ales, UK Email ad...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.