Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

G-kernels and Crossed Modules

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that fully faithful cocycle actions on strongly self-absorbing Kirchberg algebras are classified exactly by homotopy classes of maps from BΓ to the classifying space of the stabilized automorphism group, and that this iden

desk verdict A genuinely unifying crossed-module framework for Γ-kernels with two new classifying-space theorems, but the main classification depends on an external isomorphism whose hypotheses are never checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04134 v1 pith:UVPJISBS submitted 2025-09-04 math.OA math.AT

Sergio Girón Pacheco , Masaki Izumi , Ulrich Pennig This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OAmath.AT MSC 46L5546L4055R3518N10
keywords Γ-kernelscrossedmodulestopological2-groupscocycleactionsclassifyingspacesliftingobstructionsstronglyself-absorbingC*-algebrascohomologywithcrossed-modulecoefficients
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 develops a common cohomological language for the three ways a discrete group can act on a C*-algebra: true actions, cocycle actions, and Γ-kernels. The language is topological crossed modules: the unitary group mapping to the automorphism group, the projective unitary group, and related tracial variants all form crossed modules whose first cohomology records the corresponding equivalence classes. All known lifting obstructions appear as boundary maps in exact sequences of these cohomology sets. The paper then shows that the classifying space of the cocycle-action crossed module is weakly equivalent to the classifying space of Aut0(A⊗K), and in the strongly self-absorbing case the cohomology-to-homotopy map is a group isomorphism on fully faithful cocycles. If correct, fully faithful cocycle actions on strongly self-absorbing Kirchberg algebras are classified by homotopy classes of maps from BΓ to BAut0(A⊗K), connecting C*-dynamics to bundle theory and K-theoretic spectra.

What carries the argument

The central object is the topological crossed module G_A = (U(A) → Aut(A), action by conjugation), viewed as a topological 2-group. A crossed module is a pair of groups with a boundary map and an action satisfying two axioms; as a 2-group it is a 2-category with one object and invertible 1- and 2-morphisms. The Duskin nerve produces a classifying space BD_G, and the monoidal classifying space B⊗G is weakly equivalent to it. The load-bearing identity is the weak equivalence BD_{G_A} ≃ B⊗G_A ≃ BAut0(A⊗K), proved via Quillen's Theorem A and a fibration involving Aut(A) and the unitary group of the multiplier algebra of A⊗K. The map from H^1(Γ,G) to [BΓ,BD_G] comes from viewing a cocycle as a ps

What would settle it

Compute the two sides of the claimed isomorphism for Γ = Z^2 and A = O∞. The theorem predicts H^1_ff(Z^2, G_{O∞}) ≅ [BZ^2, BAut0(O∞⊗K)], where the right-hand group can be read off from the known infinite loop space structure on Aut0(O∞⊗K). A rank or torsion mismatch, or a nontrivial fully faithful cocycle action whose classifying map is homotopy-trivial, would falsify the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the homotopy-theoretic and cohomological pictures of group-like symmetries of C*-algebras are the same picture. For a unital C*-algebra A, the crossed module G_A = (U(A) → Aut(A)) has first cohomology H^1(Γ,G_A) naturally isomorphic to cocycle actions of Γ on A up to cocycle conjugacy, and the other crossed modules PGA, eGA, SGτ_A, PGτ_A likewise encode Γ-kernels, universal-cover cocycles, and tracial variants. Theorem 3.11 packages every lifting obstruction (ob, fob, κ3, obτ) as a boundary map in an exact sequence of such cohomology sets. The main theorem states: if A is a strongly self-absorbing Kirchberg algebra and Γ is a countable discrete amenable torsion-free

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the imported classification result [25, Corollary 4.6] applies under exactly the hypotheses stated here; the paper quotes rather than proves it, and a footnote also concedes that one obstruction's well-definedness was only checked when the centre of U(A) is T.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fully faithful cocycle actions on a strongly self-absorbing Kirchberg algebra A by such Γ are classified exactly by [BΓ, BAut0(A⊗K)]: two cocycle actions are cocycle-conjugate iff their classifying maps are homotopic.
  • The group structure on the cocycle side comes from the tensor product via the strongly self-absorbing isomorphism A⊗A ≅ A, matching the infinite loop space structure on Aut0(A⊗K).
  • Every lifting obstruction—the class obstructing a Γ-kernel from lifting to a cocycle action—is computed as a boundary map in an exact sequence of crossed-module cohomology pointed sets, so all known obstructions fit one formalism.
  • The homotopy set [BΓ, BAut0(A⊗K)] for strongly self-absorbing A is a group, so the cohomological classification inherits abelian-group algebra.
  • The weak equivalence BD_{G_A} ≃ BAut0(A⊗K) ties cocycle actions to principal-bundle theory: cocycle actions correspond to bundles over BΓ with fibre A⊗K and structure group Aut0(A⊗K).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not claimed in the paper: if the isomorphism extends beyond fully faithful cocycles to all of H^1(Γ,G_A), the crossed-module map would give a complete homotopy classification of arbitrary cocycle actions; the paper only proves the fully faithful restriction, so this is a natural testable strengthening.
  • Not claimed in the paper: the same crossed-module formalism likely applies to other classes of algebras where lifting obstructions live, with the tracial crossed modules SGτ_A producing analogous isomorphisms into classifying spaces of trace-preserving automorphism groups.
  • Not claimed in the paper: the weak equivalence BD_{G_A} ≃ BAut0(A⊗K) suggests that the homotopy type of BAut0(A⊗K)—and hence the associated K-theoretic spectrum—is the natural receptacle for invariants of cocycle actions, not just of genuine actions, making the obstruction theory part of a generalized cohomology theory.
  • Not claimed in the paper: the restriction to torsion-free amenable Γ with a finite CW model is likely not sharp; testing finite or non-amenable groups would delimit exactly where the group isomorphism fails.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a unified framework, based on topological crossed modules, for studying actions, cocycle actions, and G-kernels on unital C*-algebras. The first cohomology with coefficients in certain crossed modules is identified with these dynamical objects up to their natural equivalence relations, and the authors show that the familiar lifting obstructions (ob, fob, obτ, κ3) appear as boundary maps in exact sequences of pointed sets. In the second half, the authors introduce two classifying spaces for a topological crossed module, BDG and B⊗G, prove a weak equivalence between them, and establish a zig-zag of weak equivalences connecting B⊗G_A with BAut0(A⊗K). The main theorem asserts that for a strongly self-absorbing Kirchberg algebra A and a countable discrete amenable torsion-free group Γ with finite CW model BΓ, the natural map H^1_ff(Γ,G_A) → [BΓ,BD_{G_A}] is a group isomorphism.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a valuable conceptual unification: it recovers known lifting obstructions from a single exact-sequence formalism and connects the classification of cocycle actions to the homotopy type of the classifying space of a crossed module. The weak equivalence B⊗G_A ≃ BAut0(A⊗K) is a substantial result, and the appendix contains a detailed, non-trivial proof that BDG ≃ B⊗G. The paper is well structured and the categorical machinery is used carefully. However, the headline Theorem 4.19 depends at a load-bearing point on external results from the second author's paper [25], and the manuscript does not fully verify that the definitions and hypotheses match; this prevents the main classification from being assessed as fully self-contained in the present version.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 4.19 and its proof] The proof of Theorem 4.19 imports two claims from [25]: the statement that H^1_ff(Γ,G_A) is a group from [25, Section 4.3], and the assertion that the composition H^1_ff(Γ,G_A) → H^1(Γ,G^0_A) → [BΓ,BAut0(A_s)] is an isomorphism from [25, Corollary 4.6]. Neither result is quoted precisely, and the manuscript does not check that the definition of H^1_ff in Definition 4.6 (α_g not in the image of ∂ for g ≠ 1) and the monoid structure used in Proposition 4.18 coincide with the notions used in [25]. The hypotheses of [25, Corollary 4.6] must match Theorem 4.19 exactly; if [25] was proved under different restrictions, or only as a bijection of pointed sets, the group isomorphism does not follow from the argument given. Since this is the paper's main classification theorem, this external dependency needs to be eliminated or fully verified.
  2. [Definition 1.4 and footnote 5] Footnote 5 concedes that well-definedness of obτ is only shown in [25] when ZU(A) = T, and asserts that the general case 'follows in precisely the same way'. But Theorem 3.11's fourth exact sequence invokes obτ for arbitrary A and uses the coefficient group Zτ_A = ZSUτ(A), whereas Definition 1.4 defines obτ with values in Zker(Δτ). The relation between ZSUτ(A) and Zker(Δτ) is not clarified in the generality needed. Since the tracial lifting obstruction is one of the paper's advertised applications, the proof of well-definedness should either be supplied or the statement of Theorem 3.11 restricted accordingly.
  3. [Theorem 4.15 and Remark 4.16] The verification of Quillen's Theorem A for the morphisms Φ and ι is quite compressed. In particular, the assertion that condition (v) of [12, Theorem 4.7] 'coincides' with the stated Hurewicz fibration conditions is not shown, and the identifications of the comma categories for Φ/β and ι/α are only sketched. Relatedly, Remark 4.16 claims that the map H^1(Γ,G_A) → [BΓ,BAut0(A_s)] obtained by stabilization and Packer–Raeburn coincides with the map constructed via the crossed-module classifying space, but the verification is only indicated and this equality is used in the diagram chase of Theorem 4.19. These arguments should be expanded to a level that can be checked by the reader.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 3.11] The sentence 'denoting ZSUτ(A) by.' is incomplete; it should read 'denoting ZSUτ(A) by Zτ_A'.
  2. [Definition 4.6] The notation is inconsistent: the definition is for a general crossed module G, but the displayed formula defines H^1_ff(Γ,GA).
  3. [Proposition 4.17] The statement says 'BGA', but the proof concerns B⊗G_A; please make the notation uniform.
  4. [Remark 3.7] There is a typo: 'for as cocycle' should be 'for a cocycle'.
  5. [Throughout] The direct-sum notation in the target of the exact sequences of Theorem 3.11, e.g. ⊕_{∼PGA} H^3, is introduced only briefly in Lemma 3.10; a short explanation of the quotient by the Out-action in the main text would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 4.19's group isomorphism is imported from [25] (same second author) at the two load-bearing points; the crossed-module framework itself is independently derived.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.2 (before Thm 4.19) and proof of Thm 4.19]
    "When Γ is a countable discrete amenable torsion-free group with a finite CW-complex model for BΓ then the monoid H 1 f f(Γ, GA) is a group by [25, Section 4.3]. ... Also the composition H 1 f f(Γ, GA) Φ∗ − − →H 1(Γ, G0 A) P R− − →[BΓ, BAut0(As)] is an isomorphism by [25, Corollary 4.6]. The result now follows from a diagram chase."

    The paper's headline classification is not derived from the first-principles material in this paper: the group structure on the domain H^1_ff is delegated to [25, §4.3], and the isomorphism to [BΓ,BAut0(A_s)] — the content that makes the final map a group isomorphism — is delegated to [25, Cor. 4.6]. Both are results of the second named author's preprint, not proved or verified here. The diagram chase only reduces the target to that cited result, so the final theorem is load-bearing on a same-author citation. This is not a definitional reduction (no fitted parameters, no identical tautology), but it is a genuine self-citation dependency at the core of the main theorem.

full rationale

The framework sections are self-contained: the crossed modules GA, PGA, eGA, SGτ_A are constructed; the exact sequences in Theorem 3.11 are proved from Lemma 3.10; the transformation H^1(Γ,G) → [BΓ,BDG] is constructed in Lemma 4.4; Theorem 4.9 (BDG ≃ B⊗G) is proved in Appendix A; and the zig-zag BDGA ≃ B⊗GA ≃ BAut0(A_s) is proved in Theorem 4.15/4.17. These are independent mathematical arguments with no fitted inputs or definitional identifications. However, Theorem 4.19 — the strongest claim — does not follow from those alone: it requires [25, §4.3] for the group structure on H^1_ff and [25, Cor. 4.6] for the isomorphism H^1_ff(Γ,G_A) → [BΓ,BAut0(A_s)]. Since [25] is by the second named author and the hypotheses/definition compatibility with the present H^1_ff are not checked, this is a load-bearing self-citation. Footnote 5 also notes that well-definedness of obτ is only shown in [25] for ZU(A)=T and is asserted to extend to arbitrary A without proof. These are correctness/verification debt rather than circular-by-construction issues: the paper's own contribution is substantial and independent, but the headline isomorphism is not fully established within the paper. Score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters were fitted. The paper introduces no new entities; its crossed modules are constructions from standard operator algebraic objects. The axioms above record the background results from the literature that the proofs rely on, including the two external theorems used for the final group isomorphism.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math [44, Proposition 11.3]: long exact sequence for cohomology of crossed modules and H^1(Γ,H→1) ≅ H^2(Γ,H).
    Used in Lemma 3.10 and Theorem 3.11 to derive exact sequences for the operator algebraic crossed modules.
  • standard math [12, Theorem 4.7] (Quillen's Theorem A for topological categories).
    Used in Theorem 4.15 to turn contractibility of comma categories into weak equivalences of classifying spaces.
  • domain assumption [9, Corollary 2.9] and [9, Corollary 3.9]: for strongly self-absorbing A, BAut0(A⊗K) has CW homotopy type and [BΓ, BAut0(A⊗K)] is a group.
    Required for Propositions 4.17, 4.18 and Theorem 4.19.
  • domain assumption [25, Section 4.3] and [25, Corollary 4.6]: for countable amenable torsion-free Γ with finite CW model for BΓ, H^1_ff(Γ,G_A) is a group and the stabilization map to [BΓ, BAut0(As)] is an isomorphism.
    The final step of Theorem 4.19 rests on these imported results.
  • standard math Hurewicz fibration property for U(A) → PU(A) and SUτ(A) → PU(A), via [51, II.7].
    Needed to form short exact sequences of crossed modules in Theorem 3.11 and (3.8)-(3.11).
  • domain assumption The equality SUτ(A) = ker(Δτ) ∩ U(A)_0 under the Bott-map surjectivity condition (Proposition 2.7, after [5]).
    Used in Section 5 and in the crossed module SGτ_A.
  • domain assumption The strict topology on U M(As) is well-pointed (Lemma 4.14), depending on a deformation retract referenced to [55, Exercise 2.M].
    Needed for Theorem 4.9 and Theorem 4.15.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of G-kernels and Crossed Modules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVPJISBS

@misc{pith2026250904134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: G-kernels and Crossed Modules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVPJISBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04134}
}
abstract

We develop a unified framework based on topological crossed modules for various lifting obstructions for $\Gamma$-kernels. It allows us to identify actions, cocycle actions and $\Gamma$-kernels up to their natural equivalence relations with cohomology sets. The obstructions then appear as boundary maps in corresponding exact sequences. Since topological crossed modules are topological $2$-groups (in the categorical sense), they have classifying spaces, which come with a natural transformation from the cohomology to a homotopy set. For the crossed module that gives cocycle actions we prove a weak equivalence of the classifying space of the crossed module with one from bundle theory. In case the algebra is strongly self-absorbing we show that the homotopy set is a group and that the above natural transformation is a group isomorphism on an appropriate restriction of the cohomology set.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Classification of anomalous actions of finite groups with the Rokhlin property

    math.OA 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    Rokhlin G-kernels on Kirchberg algebras are classified by their lifting obstruction in H^3(G,T) and the induced G-module structure on K-theory.

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

    math.AT 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For strongly self-absorbing C*-algebras, the classifying spaces for cocycle actions and Γ-kernels are infinite loop spaces, so H^1 obstruction sets take values in cohomology groups.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [25]

    $G$-kernels of Kirchberg algebras

    Masaki Izumi. G-kernels of C ∗-algebras. to appear M¨ unster J. Math. arXiv:2309.03441, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Baez and Danny Stevenson

    John C. Baez and Danny Stevenson. The classifying space of a topological 2-group. In Algebraic topology, volume 4 of Abel Symp., pages 1–31. Springer, Berlin, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Blackadar

    B. Blackadar. Operator algebras, volume 122 of Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sci- ences. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006. Theory of C ∗-algebras and von Neumann alge- bras, Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, III

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    Bullejos and A

    M. Bullejos and A. M. Cegarra. On the geometry of 2-categories and their classifying spaces. K-Theory, 29(3):211–229, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    Carri´ on, James Gabe, Christopher Schafhauser, Aaron Tikuisis, and Stu- art White

    Jos´ e R. Carri´ on, James Gabe, Christopher Schafhauser, Aaron Tikuisis, and Stu- art White. Classifying ∗-homomorphisms I: Unital simple nuclear C ∗-algebras. arXiv preprint 2307.06480, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Simplicity, bounded normal generation, and au- tomatic continuity of groups of unitaries

    Abhinav Chand and Leonel Robert. Simplicity, bounded normal generation, and au- tomatic continuity of groups of unitaries. Adv. Math. , 415:Paper No. 108894, 52, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    A. Connes. Periodic automorphisms of the hyperfinite factor of type II 1. Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged), 39(1-2):39–66, 1977

    work page 1977

  8. [7]

    Outer conjugacy classes of automorphisms of factors

    Alain Connes. Outer conjugacy classes of automorphisms of factors. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) , 8(3):383–419, 1975

    work page 1975

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Unit spectra of K-theory from strongly self- absorbing C ∗-algebras

    Marius Dadarlat and Ulrich Pennig. Unit spectra of K-theory from strongly self- absorbing C ∗-algebras. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 15(1):137–168, 2015. G-KERNELS AND CROSSED MODULES 49

    2015

  2. [9]

    A Dixmier-Douady theory for strongly self- absorbing C ∗-algebras

    Marius Dadarlat and Ulrich Pennig. A Dixmier-Douady theory for strongly self- absorbing C ∗-algebras. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 718:153–181, 2016

    2016

  3. [10]

    de la Harpe and G

    P. de la Harpe and G. Skandalis. D´ eterminant associ´ e ` a une trace sur une alg´ ebre de Banach. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 34(1):241–260, 1984

    1984

  4. [11]

    John W. Duskin. Simplicial matrices and the nerves of weak n-categories. I. Nerves of bicategories. volume 9, pages 198–308. 2001/02. CT2000 Conference (Como)

    2001

  5. [12]

    Semisimplicial spaces

    Johannes Ebert and Oscar Randal-Williams. Semisimplicial spaces. Algebr. Geom. Topol., 19(4):2099–2150, 2019

  6. [13]

    Cohomology theory in abstract groups

    Samuel Eilenberg and Saunders MacLane. Cohomology theory in abstract groups. II. Group extensions with a non-Abelian kernel. Ann. of Math. (2) , 48:326–341, 1947

    1947

  7. [14]

    Anomalous symmetries of classifiable C∗-algebras

    Samuel Evington and Sergio Gir´ on Pacheco. Anomalous symmetries of classifiable C∗-algebras. Stud. Math. , 270(1):73–101, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    The dynamical Kirchberg-Phillips theorem

    James Gabe and G´ abor Szab´ o. The dynamical Kirchberg-Phillips theorem. Acta Math., 232(1):1–77, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Anomalous symmetries of classifiable C∗-algebras

    Sergio Gir´ on Pacheco. Anomalous symmetries of classifiable C∗-algebras. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Fundamentals of direct limit Lie theory.Compos

    Helge Gl¨ ockner. Fundamentals of direct limit Lie theory.Compos. Math., 141(6):1551– 1577, 2005

    2005

  11. [18]

    Banach-Lie quotients, enlargibility, and universal complexifications

    Helge Gl¨ ockner and Karl-Hermann Neeb. Banach-Lie quotients, enlargibility, and universal complexifications. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 560:1–28, 2003

    2003

  12. [19]

    Algebraic topology

    Allen Hatcher. Algebraic topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    2002

  13. [20]

    Herman and Vaughan F

    Richard H. Herman and Vaughan F. R. Jones. Period two automorphisms of UHF C ∗-algebras. J. Functional Analysis , 45(2):169–176, 1982

    1982

  14. [21]

    Herman and Adrian Ocneanu

    Richard H. Herman and Adrian Ocneanu. Stability for integer actions on UHF C ∗- algebras. J. Funct. Anal. , 59(1):132–144, 1984

    1984

  15. [22]

    Finite group actions on C ∗-algebras with the Rohlin property

    Masaki Izumi. Finite group actions on C ∗-algebras with the Rohlin property. I. Duke Math. J. , 122(2):233–280, 2004

    2004

  16. [23]

    Finite group actions on C ∗-algebras with the Rohlin property

    Masaki Izumi. Finite group actions on C ∗-algebras with the Rohlin property. II. Adv. Math., 184(1):119–160, 2004

    2004

  17. [24]

    Group actions on operator algebras

    Masaki Izumi. Group actions on operator algebras. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians. Volume III , pages 1528–1548. Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Z2-actions on Kirchberg algebras

    Masaki Izumi and Hiroki Matui. Z2-actions on Kirchberg algebras. Adv. Math. , 224(2):355–400, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Poly- Z group actions on Kirchberg algebras I

    Masaki Izumi and Hiroki Matui. Poly- Z group actions on Kirchberg algebras I. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , (16):12077–12154, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Poly- Z group actions on Kirchberg algebras

    Masaki Izumi and Hiroki Matui. Poly- Z group actions on Kirchberg algebras. II. Invent. Math. , 224(3):699–766, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Nonstable K-theory for Z-stable C ∗-algebras

    Xinhui Jiang. Nonstable K-theory for Z-stable C ∗-algebras. arXiv preprint math/9707228, 1997

    1997 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2-dimensional categories

    Niles Johnson and Donald Yau. 2-dimensional categories. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Vaughan F. R. Jones. Actions of finite groups on the hyperfinite type II1 factor. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 28(237):v+70, 1980

    1980

  24. [32]

    Sutherland, and Masamichi Takesaki

    Yoshikazu Katayama, Colin E. Sutherland, and Masamichi Takesaki. The character- istic square of a factor and the cocycle conjugacy of discrete group actions on factors. Invent. Math. , 132(2):331–380, 1998

    1998

  25. [33]

    Outer actions of a countable discrete amenable group on an AFD factor

    Yoshikazu Katayama and Masamichi Takesaki. Outer actions of a countable discrete amenable group on an AFD factor. In Advances in quantum dynamics (South Hadley, MA, 2002), volume 335 of Contemp. Math., pages 163–171. Amer. Math. Soc., Prov- idence, RI, 2003. 50 SERGIO GIR ´ON ...

    2002

  26. [34]

    Outer actions of a discrete amenable group on approximately finite dimensional factors

    Yoshikazu Katayama and Masamichi Takesaki. Outer actions of a discrete amenable group on approximately finite dimensional factors. II. The III λ-case, λ ̸= 0. Math. Scand., 100(1):75–129, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    Outer actions of a discrete amenable group on approximately finite-dimensional factors

    Yoshikazu Katayama and Masamichi Takesaki. Outer actions of a discrete amenable group on approximately finite-dimensional factors. III. The type III λ case, 0 < λ <1, asymmetrization and examples. Pacific J. Math. , 243(1):57–126, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    The Rohlin property for automorphisms of UHF algebras

    Akitaka Kishimoto. The Rohlin property for automorphisms of UHF algebras. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 465:183–196, 1995

    1995

  29. [37]

    J. P. May. The geometry of iterated loop spaces , volume Vol. 271 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972

    1972

  30. [38]

    J. P. May. E∞ spaces, group completions, and permutative categories. In New devel- opments in topology (Proc. Sympos. Algebraic Topology, Oxford, 1972) , volume No. 11 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. , pages 61–93. Cambridge Univ. Press, London-New York, 1974

    1972

  31. [39]

    Peter May

    J. Peter May. Classifying spaces and fibrations , volume 155 of Mem. Am. Math. Soc. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 1975

    1975

  32. [40]

    Peter May

    J. Peter May. Simplicial objects in algebraic topology . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992

    1992

  33. [41]

    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. Ann. K-Theory, 6(2):157–238, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    John W. Milnor. Construction of universal bundles. II. Ann. Math. (2) , 63:430–436, 1956

    1956

  35. [43]

    Aperiodic automorphisms of nuclear purely infinite simple C ∗- algebras

    Hideki Nakamura. Aperiodic automorphisms of nuclear purely infinite simple C ∗- algebras. Ergodic Theory Dyn. Syst. , 20(6):1749–1765, 2000

    2000

  36. [44]

    Group cohomology with coefficients in a crossed module

    Behrang Noohi. Group cohomology with coefficients in a crossed module. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu , 10(2):359–404, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Actions of discrete amenable groups on von Neumann algebras , volume 1138 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    Adrian Ocneanu. Actions of discrete amenable groups on von Neumann algebras , volume 1138 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985

    1985

  38. [46]

    Packer and Iain Raeburn

    Judith A. Packer and Iain Raeburn. Twisted crossed products of C ∗-algebras. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. , 106(2):293–311, 1989

    1989

  39. [47]

    Marc A. Rieffel. The homotopy groups of the unitary groups of noncommutative tori. J. Operator Theory, 17(2):237–254, 1987

    1987

  40. [48]

    J. R. Ringrose. Exponential length and exponential rank in C ∗-algebras. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A , 121(1-2):55–71, 1992

    1992

  41. [49]

    Classifying spaces and spectral sequences

    Graeme Segal. Classifying spaces and spectral sequences. Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes ´Etud. Sci. , 34:105–112, 1968

    1968

  42. [50]

    Categories and cohomology theories

    Graeme Segal. Categories and cohomology theories. Topology, 13:293–312, 1974

    1974

  43. [51]

    Edwin H. Spanier. Algebraic topology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York-Toronto- London, 1966

    1966

  44. [52]

    On the homotopy type of classifying spaces

    Tammo tom Dieck. On the homotopy type of classifying spaces. Manuscr. Math. , 11:41–49, 1974

    1974

  45. [53]

    Algebraic topology

    Tammo tom Dieck. Algebraic topology. EMS Textb. Math. Z¨ urich: European Mathe- matical Society (EMS), 2008

    2008

  46. [54]

    Toms and Wilhelm Winter

    Andrew S. Toms and Wilhelm Winter. Strongly self-absorbing C ∗-algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 359(8):3999–4029, 2007

    2007

  47. [55]

    N. E. Wegge-Olsen. K-theory and C ∗-algebras. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993. A friendly approach

    1993

  48. [56]

    J. H. C. Whitehead. Combinatorial homotopy. II. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. , 55:453–496, 1949. G-KERNELS AND CROSSED MODULES 51 Sergio Gir ´on Pacheco, Department of mathematics, KU Leuven, Celestijnen- laan 200B, 3001, Leuven, Belgium. Email address : sergio.gironpacheco@kuleuven.b...

    1949

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.