The structure of complex cobordism cohomology of the Eilenberg-Maclane spectrum
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Let $MU$ be the complex bordism spectrum and let $Hmathbb{Z}$ be the Eilenberg-Maclane spectrum.
Is it know what the structure of the complex cobordism cohomology $MU^{*}(Hmathbb{Z})$ is?
EDIT: What if instead $Hmathbb{Z}$, one consider $Hmathbb{Z}/(p)$ for a prime $p$?
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory cobordism
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Let $MU$ be the complex bordism spectrum and let $Hmathbb{Z}$ be the Eilenberg-Maclane spectrum.
Is it know what the structure of the complex cobordism cohomology $MU^{*}(Hmathbb{Z})$ is?
EDIT: What if instead $Hmathbb{Z}$, one consider $Hmathbb{Z}/(p)$ for a prime $p$?
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory cobordism
Hrmm.. we know $MU_*Hmathbb{Z}=Hmathbb{Z}_*MU=mathbb{Z}[b_1,b_2,...]$, so we might hope to run the universal coefficient spectral sequence, although the structure as $MU_*$-module is somewhat complicated.
– Denis Nardin
Nov 14 at 19:23
2
If I remember correctly, it is $0$, but I don't remember a reference off the head.
– user43326
Nov 14 at 19:24
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
Let $MU$ be the complex bordism spectrum and let $Hmathbb{Z}$ be the Eilenberg-Maclane spectrum.
Is it know what the structure of the complex cobordism cohomology $MU^{*}(Hmathbb{Z})$ is?
EDIT: What if instead $Hmathbb{Z}$, one consider $Hmathbb{Z}/(p)$ for a prime $p$?
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory cobordism
Let $MU$ be the complex bordism spectrum and let $Hmathbb{Z}$ be the Eilenberg-Maclane spectrum.
Is it know what the structure of the complex cobordism cohomology $MU^{*}(Hmathbb{Z})$ is?
EDIT: What if instead $Hmathbb{Z}$, one consider $Hmathbb{Z}/(p)$ for a prime $p$?
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory cobordism
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory cobordism
edited Nov 14 at 19:41
asked Nov 14 at 19:06
user438991
1257
1257
Hrmm.. we know $MU_*Hmathbb{Z}=Hmathbb{Z}_*MU=mathbb{Z}[b_1,b_2,...]$, so we might hope to run the universal coefficient spectral sequence, although the structure as $MU_*$-module is somewhat complicated.
– Denis Nardin
Nov 14 at 19:23
2
If I remember correctly, it is $0$, but I don't remember a reference off the head.
– user43326
Nov 14 at 19:24
add a comment |
Hrmm.. we know $MU_*Hmathbb{Z}=Hmathbb{Z}_*MU=mathbb{Z}[b_1,b_2,...]$, so we might hope to run the universal coefficient spectral sequence, although the structure as $MU_*$-module is somewhat complicated.
– Denis Nardin
Nov 14 at 19:23
2
If I remember correctly, it is $0$, but I don't remember a reference off the head.
– user43326
Nov 14 at 19:24
Hrmm.. we know $MU_*Hmathbb{Z}=Hmathbb{Z}_*MU=mathbb{Z}[b_1,b_2,...]$, so we might hope to run the universal coefficient spectral sequence, although the structure as $MU_*$-module is somewhat complicated.
– Denis Nardin
Nov 14 at 19:23
Hrmm.. we know $MU_*Hmathbb{Z}=Hmathbb{Z}_*MU=mathbb{Z}[b_1,b_2,...]$, so we might hope to run the universal coefficient spectral sequence, although the structure as $MU_*$-module is somewhat complicated.
– Denis Nardin
Nov 14 at 19:23
2
2
If I remember correctly, it is $0$, but I don't remember a reference off the head.
– user43326
Nov 14 at 19:24
If I remember correctly, it is $0$, but I don't remember a reference off the head.
– user43326
Nov 14 at 19:24
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
One can prove that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{F}_p,MU)$ is contractible. We know that $Hmathbf{F}_p$ is dissonant (Theorem 4.7 of Ravenel's "Localization with Respect to Certain Periodic Homology Theories"), but $MU$ is harmonic (Theorem 4.2 of that paper). Since dissonant spectra (resp. harmonic spectra) are by definition $E$-acyclic (resp. local) for the spectrum $E = bigvee_p E_p$, where $E_p = bigvee_{0leq n<infty} K(n)$, the claim follows. (I just realized that this is Corollary 4.10 of Ravenel's paper.)
It is, however, not the case that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ is contractible. (What I wrote previously was incorrect.) The spectrum $Hmathbf{Z}$ is not dissonant, so we cannot immediately apply the above argument. Since $MU$ is harmonic, there is, however, an equivalence between $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ and $mathrm{Map}(L_E Hmathbf{Z},MU)$. We therefore need to understand $L_E Hmathbf{Z}$. By the discussion at this question, we can conclude that $L_{E_p} Hmathbf{Z} simeq Hmathbf{Q}_p$. It therefore suffices to understand $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$. But $Hmathbf{Q}$ is the colimit of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on the sphere, so $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$ admits a description in terms of $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on $pi_ast MU$. In particular, the $lim^1$ term is $mathrm{Ext}^1_mathbf{Z}(mathbf{Q,Z}) cong widehat{mathbf{Z}}/mathbf{Z}$.
1
I don't think that the last bit of this is right. $MU^0(Hmathbb{Q}_p)$ is not a ring. We can write $Hmathbb{Q}=Smathbb{Q}$ as the telescope of multiplication by $2,3,4,5,dotsc$ on $H$ or on $S$. From the first description together with $F(H/n,MU)=0$ we get $F(H,MU)=F(Hmathbb{Q},MU)=F(Smathbb{Q},MU)$. The second description relates $[Smathbb{Q},MU]_*$ to $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,4,dotsc$ on $pi_*(MU)$. Here $lim^0=0$ but $lim^1$ involves $text{Ext}(mathbb{Q},mathbb{Z})=widehat{mathbb{Z}}/mathbb{Z}$.
– Neil Strickland
Nov 14 at 20:59
@NeilStrickland you're right, thanks! I'll edit my answer.
– skd
Nov 14 at 21:04
4
Just a general comment that this isn't so "chromatic": It's a theorem of Margolis that maps out of $Hmathbb{F}_p$ to a bounded below spectrum of finite type are the same as maps of modules over the Steenrod algebra on cohomology into $mathcal{A}^*$; this is already enough to show that $MU^*(Hmathbb{F}_p) = 0$. Then the sequence $mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Q} to mathbb{Q}/mathbb{Z}$ tells you that $Y^*mathrm{H}mathbb{Z}$ will always be a humongous sum of $mathrm{Ext}(mathbb{Q}, ?)$'s if $Y^*(Hmathbb{F}_p)$ vanishes for all $p$. TY Lin's paper on duality and EM spectra has more on this.
– Dylan Wilson
Nov 14 at 23:21
Good to know, thanks @DylanWilson!
– skd
Nov 15 at 1:03
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
One can prove that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{F}_p,MU)$ is contractible. We know that $Hmathbf{F}_p$ is dissonant (Theorem 4.7 of Ravenel's "Localization with Respect to Certain Periodic Homology Theories"), but $MU$ is harmonic (Theorem 4.2 of that paper). Since dissonant spectra (resp. harmonic spectra) are by definition $E$-acyclic (resp. local) for the spectrum $E = bigvee_p E_p$, where $E_p = bigvee_{0leq n<infty} K(n)$, the claim follows. (I just realized that this is Corollary 4.10 of Ravenel's paper.)
It is, however, not the case that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ is contractible. (What I wrote previously was incorrect.) The spectrum $Hmathbf{Z}$ is not dissonant, so we cannot immediately apply the above argument. Since $MU$ is harmonic, there is, however, an equivalence between $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ and $mathrm{Map}(L_E Hmathbf{Z},MU)$. We therefore need to understand $L_E Hmathbf{Z}$. By the discussion at this question, we can conclude that $L_{E_p} Hmathbf{Z} simeq Hmathbf{Q}_p$. It therefore suffices to understand $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$. But $Hmathbf{Q}$ is the colimit of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on the sphere, so $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$ admits a description in terms of $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on $pi_ast MU$. In particular, the $lim^1$ term is $mathrm{Ext}^1_mathbf{Z}(mathbf{Q,Z}) cong widehat{mathbf{Z}}/mathbf{Z}$.
1
I don't think that the last bit of this is right. $MU^0(Hmathbb{Q}_p)$ is not a ring. We can write $Hmathbb{Q}=Smathbb{Q}$ as the telescope of multiplication by $2,3,4,5,dotsc$ on $H$ or on $S$. From the first description together with $F(H/n,MU)=0$ we get $F(H,MU)=F(Hmathbb{Q},MU)=F(Smathbb{Q},MU)$. The second description relates $[Smathbb{Q},MU]_*$ to $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,4,dotsc$ on $pi_*(MU)$. Here $lim^0=0$ but $lim^1$ involves $text{Ext}(mathbb{Q},mathbb{Z})=widehat{mathbb{Z}}/mathbb{Z}$.
– Neil Strickland
Nov 14 at 20:59
@NeilStrickland you're right, thanks! I'll edit my answer.
– skd
Nov 14 at 21:04
4
Just a general comment that this isn't so "chromatic": It's a theorem of Margolis that maps out of $Hmathbb{F}_p$ to a bounded below spectrum of finite type are the same as maps of modules over the Steenrod algebra on cohomology into $mathcal{A}^*$; this is already enough to show that $MU^*(Hmathbb{F}_p) = 0$. Then the sequence $mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Q} to mathbb{Q}/mathbb{Z}$ tells you that $Y^*mathrm{H}mathbb{Z}$ will always be a humongous sum of $mathrm{Ext}(mathbb{Q}, ?)$'s if $Y^*(Hmathbb{F}_p)$ vanishes for all $p$. TY Lin's paper on duality and EM spectra has more on this.
– Dylan Wilson
Nov 14 at 23:21
Good to know, thanks @DylanWilson!
– skd
Nov 15 at 1:03
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
One can prove that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{F}_p,MU)$ is contractible. We know that $Hmathbf{F}_p$ is dissonant (Theorem 4.7 of Ravenel's "Localization with Respect to Certain Periodic Homology Theories"), but $MU$ is harmonic (Theorem 4.2 of that paper). Since dissonant spectra (resp. harmonic spectra) are by definition $E$-acyclic (resp. local) for the spectrum $E = bigvee_p E_p$, where $E_p = bigvee_{0leq n<infty} K(n)$, the claim follows. (I just realized that this is Corollary 4.10 of Ravenel's paper.)
It is, however, not the case that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ is contractible. (What I wrote previously was incorrect.) The spectrum $Hmathbf{Z}$ is not dissonant, so we cannot immediately apply the above argument. Since $MU$ is harmonic, there is, however, an equivalence between $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ and $mathrm{Map}(L_E Hmathbf{Z},MU)$. We therefore need to understand $L_E Hmathbf{Z}$. By the discussion at this question, we can conclude that $L_{E_p} Hmathbf{Z} simeq Hmathbf{Q}_p$. It therefore suffices to understand $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$. But $Hmathbf{Q}$ is the colimit of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on the sphere, so $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$ admits a description in terms of $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on $pi_ast MU$. In particular, the $lim^1$ term is $mathrm{Ext}^1_mathbf{Z}(mathbf{Q,Z}) cong widehat{mathbf{Z}}/mathbf{Z}$.
1
I don't think that the last bit of this is right. $MU^0(Hmathbb{Q}_p)$ is not a ring. We can write $Hmathbb{Q}=Smathbb{Q}$ as the telescope of multiplication by $2,3,4,5,dotsc$ on $H$ or on $S$. From the first description together with $F(H/n,MU)=0$ we get $F(H,MU)=F(Hmathbb{Q},MU)=F(Smathbb{Q},MU)$. The second description relates $[Smathbb{Q},MU]_*$ to $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,4,dotsc$ on $pi_*(MU)$. Here $lim^0=0$ but $lim^1$ involves $text{Ext}(mathbb{Q},mathbb{Z})=widehat{mathbb{Z}}/mathbb{Z}$.
– Neil Strickland
Nov 14 at 20:59
@NeilStrickland you're right, thanks! I'll edit my answer.
– skd
Nov 14 at 21:04
4
Just a general comment that this isn't so "chromatic": It's a theorem of Margolis that maps out of $Hmathbb{F}_p$ to a bounded below spectrum of finite type are the same as maps of modules over the Steenrod algebra on cohomology into $mathcal{A}^*$; this is already enough to show that $MU^*(Hmathbb{F}_p) = 0$. Then the sequence $mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Q} to mathbb{Q}/mathbb{Z}$ tells you that $Y^*mathrm{H}mathbb{Z}$ will always be a humongous sum of $mathrm{Ext}(mathbb{Q}, ?)$'s if $Y^*(Hmathbb{F}_p)$ vanishes for all $p$. TY Lin's paper on duality and EM spectra has more on this.
– Dylan Wilson
Nov 14 at 23:21
Good to know, thanks @DylanWilson!
– skd
Nov 15 at 1:03
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
One can prove that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{F}_p,MU)$ is contractible. We know that $Hmathbf{F}_p$ is dissonant (Theorem 4.7 of Ravenel's "Localization with Respect to Certain Periodic Homology Theories"), but $MU$ is harmonic (Theorem 4.2 of that paper). Since dissonant spectra (resp. harmonic spectra) are by definition $E$-acyclic (resp. local) for the spectrum $E = bigvee_p E_p$, where $E_p = bigvee_{0leq n<infty} K(n)$, the claim follows. (I just realized that this is Corollary 4.10 of Ravenel's paper.)
It is, however, not the case that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ is contractible. (What I wrote previously was incorrect.) The spectrum $Hmathbf{Z}$ is not dissonant, so we cannot immediately apply the above argument. Since $MU$ is harmonic, there is, however, an equivalence between $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ and $mathrm{Map}(L_E Hmathbf{Z},MU)$. We therefore need to understand $L_E Hmathbf{Z}$. By the discussion at this question, we can conclude that $L_{E_p} Hmathbf{Z} simeq Hmathbf{Q}_p$. It therefore suffices to understand $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$. But $Hmathbf{Q}$ is the colimit of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on the sphere, so $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$ admits a description in terms of $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on $pi_ast MU$. In particular, the $lim^1$ term is $mathrm{Ext}^1_mathbf{Z}(mathbf{Q,Z}) cong widehat{mathbf{Z}}/mathbf{Z}$.
One can prove that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{F}_p,MU)$ is contractible. We know that $Hmathbf{F}_p$ is dissonant (Theorem 4.7 of Ravenel's "Localization with Respect to Certain Periodic Homology Theories"), but $MU$ is harmonic (Theorem 4.2 of that paper). Since dissonant spectra (resp. harmonic spectra) are by definition $E$-acyclic (resp. local) for the spectrum $E = bigvee_p E_p$, where $E_p = bigvee_{0leq n<infty} K(n)$, the claim follows. (I just realized that this is Corollary 4.10 of Ravenel's paper.)
It is, however, not the case that $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ is contractible. (What I wrote previously was incorrect.) The spectrum $Hmathbf{Z}$ is not dissonant, so we cannot immediately apply the above argument. Since $MU$ is harmonic, there is, however, an equivalence between $mathrm{Map}(Hmathbf{Z},MU)$ and $mathrm{Map}(L_E Hmathbf{Z},MU)$. We therefore need to understand $L_E Hmathbf{Z}$. By the discussion at this question, we can conclude that $L_{E_p} Hmathbf{Z} simeq Hmathbf{Q}_p$. It therefore suffices to understand $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$. But $Hmathbf{Q}$ is the colimit of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on the sphere, so $MU^ast(Hmathbf{Q})$ admits a description in terms of $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,5,7,cdots$ on $pi_ast MU$. In particular, the $lim^1$ term is $mathrm{Ext}^1_mathbf{Z}(mathbf{Q,Z}) cong widehat{mathbf{Z}}/mathbf{Z}$.
edited Nov 14 at 21:12
answered Nov 14 at 20:24
skd
1,6961623
1,6961623
1
I don't think that the last bit of this is right. $MU^0(Hmathbb{Q}_p)$ is not a ring. We can write $Hmathbb{Q}=Smathbb{Q}$ as the telescope of multiplication by $2,3,4,5,dotsc$ on $H$ or on $S$. From the first description together with $F(H/n,MU)=0$ we get $F(H,MU)=F(Hmathbb{Q},MU)=F(Smathbb{Q},MU)$. The second description relates $[Smathbb{Q},MU]_*$ to $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,4,dotsc$ on $pi_*(MU)$. Here $lim^0=0$ but $lim^1$ involves $text{Ext}(mathbb{Q},mathbb{Z})=widehat{mathbb{Z}}/mathbb{Z}$.
– Neil Strickland
Nov 14 at 20:59
@NeilStrickland you're right, thanks! I'll edit my answer.
– skd
Nov 14 at 21:04
4
Just a general comment that this isn't so "chromatic": It's a theorem of Margolis that maps out of $Hmathbb{F}_p$ to a bounded below spectrum of finite type are the same as maps of modules over the Steenrod algebra on cohomology into $mathcal{A}^*$; this is already enough to show that $MU^*(Hmathbb{F}_p) = 0$. Then the sequence $mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Q} to mathbb{Q}/mathbb{Z}$ tells you that $Y^*mathrm{H}mathbb{Z}$ will always be a humongous sum of $mathrm{Ext}(mathbb{Q}, ?)$'s if $Y^*(Hmathbb{F}_p)$ vanishes for all $p$. TY Lin's paper on duality and EM spectra has more on this.
– Dylan Wilson
Nov 14 at 23:21
Good to know, thanks @DylanWilson!
– skd
Nov 15 at 1:03
add a comment |
1
I don't think that the last bit of this is right. $MU^0(Hmathbb{Q}_p)$ is not a ring. We can write $Hmathbb{Q}=Smathbb{Q}$ as the telescope of multiplication by $2,3,4,5,dotsc$ on $H$ or on $S$. From the first description together with $F(H/n,MU)=0$ we get $F(H,MU)=F(Hmathbb{Q},MU)=F(Smathbb{Q},MU)$. The second description relates $[Smathbb{Q},MU]_*$ to $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,4,dotsc$ on $pi_*(MU)$. Here $lim^0=0$ but $lim^1$ involves $text{Ext}(mathbb{Q},mathbb{Z})=widehat{mathbb{Z}}/mathbb{Z}$.
– Neil Strickland
Nov 14 at 20:59
@NeilStrickland you're right, thanks! I'll edit my answer.
– skd
Nov 14 at 21:04
4
Just a general comment that this isn't so "chromatic": It's a theorem of Margolis that maps out of $Hmathbb{F}_p$ to a bounded below spectrum of finite type are the same as maps of modules over the Steenrod algebra on cohomology into $mathcal{A}^*$; this is already enough to show that $MU^*(Hmathbb{F}_p) = 0$. Then the sequence $mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Q} to mathbb{Q}/mathbb{Z}$ tells you that $Y^*mathrm{H}mathbb{Z}$ will always be a humongous sum of $mathrm{Ext}(mathbb{Q}, ?)$'s if $Y^*(Hmathbb{F}_p)$ vanishes for all $p$. TY Lin's paper on duality and EM spectra has more on this.
– Dylan Wilson
Nov 14 at 23:21
Good to know, thanks @DylanWilson!
– skd
Nov 15 at 1:03
1
1
I don't think that the last bit of this is right. $MU^0(Hmathbb{Q}_p)$ is not a ring. We can write $Hmathbb{Q}=Smathbb{Q}$ as the telescope of multiplication by $2,3,4,5,dotsc$ on $H$ or on $S$. From the first description together with $F(H/n,MU)=0$ we get $F(H,MU)=F(Hmathbb{Q},MU)=F(Smathbb{Q},MU)$. The second description relates $[Smathbb{Q},MU]_*$ to $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,4,dotsc$ on $pi_*(MU)$. Here $lim^0=0$ but $lim^1$ involves $text{Ext}(mathbb{Q},mathbb{Z})=widehat{mathbb{Z}}/mathbb{Z}$.
– Neil Strickland
Nov 14 at 20:59
I don't think that the last bit of this is right. $MU^0(Hmathbb{Q}_p)$ is not a ring. We can write $Hmathbb{Q}=Smathbb{Q}$ as the telescope of multiplication by $2,3,4,5,dotsc$ on $H$ or on $S$. From the first description together with $F(H/n,MU)=0$ we get $F(H,MU)=F(Hmathbb{Q},MU)=F(Smathbb{Q},MU)$. The second description relates $[Smathbb{Q},MU]_*$ to $lim^0$ and $lim^1$ of multiplication by $2,3,4,dotsc$ on $pi_*(MU)$. Here $lim^0=0$ but $lim^1$ involves $text{Ext}(mathbb{Q},mathbb{Z})=widehat{mathbb{Z}}/mathbb{Z}$.
– Neil Strickland
Nov 14 at 20:59
@NeilStrickland you're right, thanks! I'll edit my answer.
– skd
Nov 14 at 21:04
@NeilStrickland you're right, thanks! I'll edit my answer.
– skd
Nov 14 at 21:04
4
4
Just a general comment that this isn't so "chromatic": It's a theorem of Margolis that maps out of $Hmathbb{F}_p$ to a bounded below spectrum of finite type are the same as maps of modules over the Steenrod algebra on cohomology into $mathcal{A}^*$; this is already enough to show that $MU^*(Hmathbb{F}_p) = 0$. Then the sequence $mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Q} to mathbb{Q}/mathbb{Z}$ tells you that $Y^*mathrm{H}mathbb{Z}$ will always be a humongous sum of $mathrm{Ext}(mathbb{Q}, ?)$'s if $Y^*(Hmathbb{F}_p)$ vanishes for all $p$. TY Lin's paper on duality and EM spectra has more on this.
– Dylan Wilson
Nov 14 at 23:21
Just a general comment that this isn't so "chromatic": It's a theorem of Margolis that maps out of $Hmathbb{F}_p$ to a bounded below spectrum of finite type are the same as maps of modules over the Steenrod algebra on cohomology into $mathcal{A}^*$; this is already enough to show that $MU^*(Hmathbb{F}_p) = 0$. Then the sequence $mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Q} to mathbb{Q}/mathbb{Z}$ tells you that $Y^*mathrm{H}mathbb{Z}$ will always be a humongous sum of $mathrm{Ext}(mathbb{Q}, ?)$'s if $Y^*(Hmathbb{F}_p)$ vanishes for all $p$. TY Lin's paper on duality and EM spectra has more on this.
– Dylan Wilson
Nov 14 at 23:21
Good to know, thanks @DylanWilson!
– skd
Nov 15 at 1:03
Good to know, thanks @DylanWilson!
– skd
Nov 15 at 1:03
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315320%2fthe-structure-of-complex-cobordism-cohomology-of-the-eilenberg-maclane-spectrum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Hrmm.. we know $MU_*Hmathbb{Z}=Hmathbb{Z}_*MU=mathbb{Z}[b_1,b_2,...]$, so we might hope to run the universal coefficient spectral sequence, although the structure as $MU_*$-module is somewhat complicated.
– Denis Nardin
Nov 14 at 19:23
2
If I remember correctly, it is $0$, but I don't remember a reference off the head.
– user43326
Nov 14 at 19:24