arxiv: v3 [math.kt] 20 Oct 2008

Transcription

1 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES VIA DG CATEGORIES AND DERIVATORS arxiv: v3 [math.kt] 20 Oct 2008 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA Abstract. We describe a undamental additive unctor E und on the orbit category o a group. We prove that any isomorphism conjecture valid or E und also holds or all additive unctors, like K-theory, (topological) Hochschild or cyclic homology, etc. Finally, we reduce this universal isomorphism conjecture to K-theoretic ones, at the price o introducing some coeicients. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Preliminaries 6 3. Assembly and isomorphism conjectures 8 4. Additive invariants o dg categories The additive motivator Universal additive assembly property 16 Appendix A. Derivators, Stabilization and Localization 19 Reerences Introduction The Farrell-Jones so-called isomorphism conjectures in K- and L-theory and the Baum-Connes conjecture are important driving orces in contemporary mathematical research. They are well known to imply many other conjectures, such as some due to Bass, Borel, Kaplansky, Novikov, and more. See a survey in [17]. Given a discrete group G, the Farrell-Jones conjectures predict the value o algebraic K- and L-theory o the group ring R[G] in terms o the values on virtually cyclic subgroups o G (see 3.1.3). Here R is some base ring (with involution), which we ix or the whole article and which can be taken to be Z or C, or instance. Similarly, the Baum-Connes conjecture predicts the value o topological K-theory o the reduced C -algebra Cred (G) in terms o the values on inite subgroups. In their insightul article [6], Davis and Lück proposed the ollowing uniied setting or all such isomorphism conjectures: Let F be a amily o subgroups o G Date: October 23, Mathematics Subject Classiication. 18E30, 19D55. Key words and phrases. Farrell-Jones conjectures, assembly map, algebraic K-theory, dg categories, derivators. The irst author s research is supported by NSF grant The second author s research is supported by CMA-FCT/UNL. 1

2 2 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA and let E : Or(G) Spt be a unctor rom the orbit category o G (De ) to spectra. The (E, F, G)-assembly map is the natural map o spectra (1.0.1) hocolim Or(G,F) E hocolim E = E(G), Or(G) where Or(G, F) is the orbit category restricted on F in the obvious sense (De ) Deinition. We say that the unctor E has the F-assembly property (on G) when the (E, F, G)-assembly map given in (1.0.1) is a stable weak homotopy equivalence, i.e. when it induces an isomorphism on stable homotopy groups. Note that or random E, F and G, this assembly property has essentially no chance to hold. When we speak o the (E, F, G)-isomorphism conjecture, we reer to the expressed hope that this property holds or a particular choice o E, F and G. Davis and Lück proved in [6] that the Farrell-Jones conjecture in K-theory or the group G is equivalent to the (K alg (R[ ]), VC, G)-isomorphism conjecture, where VC is the amily o virtually cyclic subgroups o G; and similarly or L-theory, mutatis mutandis. They also proved that the Baum-Connes conjecture is equivalent to the (K top (Cred ( )), Fin, G)-isomorphism conjecture, where Fin is the amily o inite subgroups. (First o all, one must properly deine those unctors on orbit categories and this can sometimes be non-trivial.) In addition to the above conjectures, the literature contains many variations on the theme, replacing the K-theory unctors by other unctors E deined on the orbit category. See or instance the Farrell-Jones conjectures or topological Hochschild homology (THH) or or topological cyclic homology (THC), as stated by Lück [16, 6.5]. It is worth observing that Deinition does not rely very heavily on the choice o spectra Spt as the target category or the unctor E. Indeed, in order to deine the assembly map (1.0.1), it is enough that E : Or(G) M takes values in a category M where we can speak o homotopy colimits. In particular, M could be any coibrantly generated model category, as proposed in [1]. In a somewhat more elementary genre, we can also consider usual Hochschild homology (HH) and cyclic homology (HC), now taking values in suitable categories o complexes; see more in 4.4 and 4.5 below. This lexibility generates a prousion o potential isomorphism conjectures or all sorts o unctors on the orbit category: (1.0.3) Spt K alg HH M 1 Or(G) HC M 2 THH THC M 3... M 4 O course, some restraint must be exerted here. A random unctor E : Or(G) M has little chances o eaturing a nice F-assembly property, that is, or F small enough, like VC or Fin. We are thereore led to ocus on a special class o unctors, in the spirit o the above ones, which we shall call additive unctors. We precisely

3 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES 3 deine what we mean by additive unctor in Deinition but be it enough or this introduction to know that, except maybe or topological K-theory (see Remark 6.1.3), all the above unctors are examples o additive unctors, and so are most o their obvious variants: connective K-theory, negative or periodic cyclic homology, etc. Let us make clear that we do not seek here a new class o groups or which some o these conjectures would hold. We are rather interested in the general organization and the deeper properties behind this somewhat exuberant herd o conjectures. Using the above simple but crucial idea o letting the target category M loat, we can now make sense o the ollowing result, which is an application o the techniques developed by the second author in his thesis [23]. Theorem. Let G be a group. There exists a undamental additive unctor E und : Or(G) M und through which all additive unctors actor. The precise statement (Theorem 6.1.6) requires the use o derivators but, at the level o sophistication o this introduction, this theorem essentially means that or any additive unctor E : Or(G) M there exists a unctor E : M und M such that E E E und. In other words, we can comb the skein (1.0.3) rom the let and isolate a undamental additive unctor (1.0.4) Or(G) E und Spt K alg HH M HC und THC M 1 M 2 THH M 3 Moreover, a key point in this construction is that the remaining unctors E will commute with homotopy colimits. This means that they will preserve any assembly property that E und might enjoy (see Cor.6.1.8) : Corollary. Let G be a group and let F be a amily o subgroups. I the undamental additive unctor E und has the F-assembly property, then so do all additive unctors. In good logic, we are led to consider the mother o all isomorphism conjectures: Mamma Conjecture. The (E und, VC, G)-isomorphism conjecture, namely: The undamental additive invariant E und : Or(G) M und has the VC-assembly property on G, where VC is the amily o virtually cyclic subgroups o G. The above corollary says that Conjecture implies all additive isomorphism conjectures on the market. Ater this moment o exaltation, let us make clear that the choice o virtually cyclic subgroups in this conjecture is merely borrowed rom Farrell-Jones and that another amily F might be preerable. There will unquestionably be some amily F = F(G) or which E und has the F-assembly property (e.g. F = {all subgroups}). The main result is that once this is achieved M 4

4 4 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA or some amily F, then all additive unctors will automatically inherit the same F-assembly property. The second objective o the paper is to reduce the F-assembly property or E und, whose importance should now be clear, to F-assembly or more down-toearth unctors. For instance, does the F-assembly or E = K alg (R[ ]) imply that or E und? In other words, is the Farrell-Jones conjecture already the Mamma? This, we do not know (and doubt) but we actually produce a collection o K-theory unctors whose VC-assembly property would imply Conjecture To do this, we need to consider unctors which are cooked up via algebraic K-theory and dierential graded (dg) categories as ollows. For a survey o dg categories, we reer the reader to Keller s recent ICM address [15] or to 2.3 below. Let B be a small dg category. Consider the unctor K alg c ( ; B) : Or(G) Spt, deined or all G/H Or(G) by (1.0.6) K alg c (G/H; B) := K alg c ( rep ( B, R[G/H] )). Some explanations are needed here. First, G/H stands or the transport groupoid o the G-set G/H (De ). Then R[G/H] is the associated R-linear category (De ). For any small dg category A, we denote by rep(b, A) the dg category o representations up to homotopy o B in A (De and Rem ). Finally, stands or the connective algebraic K-theory spectrum. When B = R is the dg category with one object and with R as dg algebra o endomorphisms, the unctor K alg c ( ; B) reduces to the usual connective algebraic K-theory unctor K alg c. When B is a general dg category, the unctor K alg c ( ; B) can be thought o as a coeicients version o K alg c (see 6.1.4). Unortunately, the unctor K alg c ( ; B) is not additive in general, mainly because B might be too large. Hence we need to restrict to dg categories B which are homotopically initely presented (De ). Heuristically, this condition is a homotopical version o the classical notion o inite presentation. The above example B = R is homotopically initely presented. Restricting to a smaller class o dg categories B is anyway an improvement in the logic o the ollowing result: K alg c Theorem. Let G be a group and F be a amily o subgroups. Then the ollowing are equivalent: (1) The undamental additive unctor E und has the F-assembly property on G. (2) The additive unctors K alg c ( ; B) have the F-assembly property on G or all homotopically initely presented dg categories B (De.2.1.1). (3) The additive unctors K alg c ( ; B) have the F-assembly property on G or all strictly inite dg cells B (De.2.3.1). The strictly inite dg cells o (3) orm a set o homotopically initely presented dg categories which are especially small. Roughly speaking, they are the dg category analogues o inite CW-complexes in topology, namely they are built by attaching initely many basic cells, chosen among the dg analogues S(n 1) D(n), n Z, o the topological inclusion S n 1 D n ; see a precise deinition in 2.3. I F is the amily VC o virtually cyclic subgroups o G, Conditions (2) and (3) can be thought o as coeicients versions o the Farrell-Jones conjecture, with K-theory replaced by connective K-theory.

5 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES 5 We now sum up several consequences o our main theorem. Corollary. Suppose that or every strictly inite dg cell B, the additive unctor K alg c ( ; B) has the VC-assembly property on G. Then we have: (1) The Farrell-Jones isomorphism conjecture in non-connective K-theory holds. (2) Since the mixed complex construction C( ) is an additive unctor, the induced map hocolim C(R[G/H]) C(R[G]) Or(G,VC) is an isomorphism in D(Λ- Mod). This implies that by applying the homology unctor H ( ) and the composed one H ( L Λ R) to the above induced map, we obtain an isomorphism in Hochschild homology and in cyclic homology H (hocolim C(R[G/H])) HH (R[G]) Or(G,F) H (hocolim (C(R[G/H]) L Λ R)) HC (R[G]). Or(G,F) (3) Since THH( ) and THC( ) are additive unctors, the induced maps on topological Hochschild and topological cyclic homology groups π s (hocolim THH(R[G/H])) π s THH(R[G]), Or(G,VC) π (hocolim s THC(R[G/H])) π s THC(R[G]) Or(G,VC) are isomorphisms. That is, the Farrell-Jones conjectures or THH and THC stated by W. Lück [16, 6.5] hold. Note that (1) is not merely the hypothesis applied to B = R, or the latter would just give the version o the conjecture or connective K-theory. We make an extensive use o dg categories, not only in the second part where we reduce the F-assembly property o the undamental additive unctor E und to that o the unctors K alg c ( ; B) but already in the irst part, in the very construction o the undamental additive unctor E und. The other language that we use is the one o Grothendieck s derivators, as recalled in Appendix A. There are many reasons or using derivators. The most basic one is to get rid o choices in the various model categories M that appear in the above discussion. In short, we could say that derivators provide the right ramework in which to minimize the homotopical technicalities. See more explanations in A.1. The second reason or using derivators is that the undamental additive unctor E und : Or(G) M und is produced by means o localization and stabilization. I localization is reasonably under control in model categories via Bousield techniques, stabilization o model categories gets messy and is better expressed in the language o derivators. This is recalled in Appendix A, where we prove as well that the operations o localization and stabilization commute (Theorem A.4.1).

6 6 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA 2. Preliminaries 2.1. Notations. We denote by CAT the 2-category o categories and by Cat the 2-category o small categories. For two categories C and D, we denote by Fun(C, D) the category o unctors rom C to D with natural transormations as morphisms. Throughout the article we work over a ixed commutative ring R. We denote by R-Mod the symmetric monoidal category o R-modules and by sset (resp. sset ) the category o simplicial sets (resp. pointed simplicial sets), see [8, Chap. I]. Let M be a model category [21]. We denote by Map(, ) : M op M Ho(sSet) [11, ] its homotopy unction complex. Recall that i M is a simplicial model category [8, II.3], its homotopy unction complex is given, or X, Y M, by the simplical set Map(X, Y ) n = M(X c [n], Y ) where X c is a coibrant resolution o X and Y is a ibrant resolution o Y. Moreover, i Ho(M) denotes the homotopy category o M, we have the ollowing isomorphism π 0 Map(X, Y ) Ho(M)(X, Y ) Deinition. An object X in M is homotopically initely presented i or any diagram Y : J M in M (or any shape, i.e. small category, J), the induced map hocolim j J is an isomorphism in Ho(sSet). Map(X, Y j ) Map(X, hocolim Y j ) j J 2.2. Homotopy unction spectrum. Let Spt be the (model) category o spectra [8, X.4]. I X is a spectrum, we denote by X[n], n 0 its n th suspension, i.e. the spectrum deined as X[n] m = X n+m, m 0. I X and Y are two spectra, we deine its homotopy unction spectrum Map(X, Y ) by Map(X, Y ) n = Map(X, Y [n]), where the bonding maps are the natural ones. Let I be a small category. By [12, Thm. 3.3], the category o pre-sheaves o spectra Fun(I op, Spt) carries a natural simplicial model structure, the projective model structure, with weak-equivalences and ibrations deined objectwise. I we denote by Map(, ) its homotopy unction complex, the homotopy unction spectrum o two pre-sheaves F and G is given by (as in the case o spectra) Map(F, G) n = Map(F, G[n]), where G[n] is the n th objectwise suspension o G Remark. Let S be a set o morphisms in Fun(I op, Spt) and L S (Fun(I op, Spt)) its let Bousield localization [11, 4.1.1] with respect to the set S. Notice that L S (Fun(I op, Spt)) admits also a homotopy unction spectrum given by Map(, Q(G)), where Q(G) is a ibrant resolution o G in L S (Fun(I op, Spt)) Dg categories. For a survey article on dg categories see [15]. A dg category (over our base ring R) is an additive category enriched over cochain complexes o R-modules (morphisms sets are such complexes) in such a way that composition ulills the Leibniz rule: d( g) = (d) g + ( 1) deg() (dg). We start by recalling rom [23, 1.3] some constructions concerning dg categories. I A is a dg category and x and y are two objects, we denote by A(x, y) the complex o morphisms rom x to y. Let R be the dg category with one object and such

7 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES 7 that R(, ) := R (in degree zero). For n Z, let S n be the complex R[n] (with R concentrated in degree n) and let D n be the mapping cone on the identity o S n 1. We denote by S(n) the dg category with two objects 1 et 2 such that S(n)(1, 1) = R, S(n)(2, 2) = R, S(n)(2, 1) = 0, S(n)(1, 2) = S n and composition given by multiplication. We denote by D(n) the dg category with two objects 3 and 4 such that D(n)(3, 3) = R, D(n)(4, 4) = R, D(n)(4, 3) = 0, D(n)(3, 4) = D n and with composition given by multiplication. Finally, let ι(n) : S(n 1) D(n) be the dg unctor that sends 1 to 3, 2 to 4 and S n 1 to D n by the identity on R in degree n 1 : S(n 1) ι(n) D(n) S n 1 incl D n R 1 2 S n 1 R 3 incl D n 4 where R R id R 0 0 id (degree n 1) R R We denote by I the set consisting o the dg unctors {ι(n)} n Z and the dg unctor R (where the empty dg category is the initial one) Deinition. A dg category A is a strictly inite dg cell [11, ] i it is obtained rom by a inite number o pushouts along the dg unctors o the set I Notation. We denote by dgcat s the ull subcategory o the category dgcat o small dg categories, whose objects are the strictly inite dg cells. Let A be a small dg category. The opposite dg category A op o A has the same objects as A and its complexes o morphisms are deined by A op (x, y) = A(y, x). The homotopy category H 0 (A) o A has the same objects as A and its morphisms are deined by H 0 (A)(x, y) = H 0 (A(x, y)). Recall rom [15, 3.1] that a right dg A-module is a dg unctor M : A op C dg (R), with values in the dg category C dg (R) o complexes o R-modules. We note by C(A) (resp. by C dg (A)) the category (resp. dg category) o dg A-modules and by D(A) the derived category o A, i.e. the localization o C(A) with respect to the class o quasi-isomorphisms. Finally, let A C dg (A) A A(, A) be the Yoneda dg unctor, which sends an object A to the dg A-module A(, A) represented by A. See more in [15] Notation. Let A be a dg category. We denote by per(a) the ull dg subcategory o C dg (A), whose objects are the dg A-modules which become compact in D(A) Remark. Recall rom [23, Thm. 2.27] that the category dgcat is endowed with a coibrantly generated Morita model structure, whose weak equivalences are the Morita dg unctors, i.e. dg unctors F : A B which induce an equivalence on

8 8 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA the derived categories D(B) D(A). We sometimes denote by Hmo = Ho(dgcat), the homotopy category hence obtained. By [23, Prop. 2.34], the ibrant objects are the dg categories A such that H 0 (A) is equivalent to the thick triangulated subcategory o D(A) generated by the representable dg A-modules. Moreover, the category dgcat admits a tensor monoidal structure, which by [23, 2.40] can be naturally derived into a bi-unctor L : Hmo op Hmo Hmo. Finally by [23, Proposition 3.10 and Example 3.9] a dg category is homotopically initely presented (De ) i and only i it is Morita equivalent to a retract in Hmo o a strictly inite dg cell (De ) Deinition. (See [23, 3.72].) Let A and B be two dg categories. We denote by rep(a, B) the ull dg subcategory o dg A L B op -modules, whose objects are the coibrant dg A-B bimodules X such that X(?, A) is a compact object in D(B) or every object A A Remark. Recall rom [23, 2.40] that rep(, ) induces the internal Homunctor o the symmetric monoidal homotopy category (Hmo, L, R). Let A, B Hmo. Since B can be represented by a ibrant dg category, rep(a, B) is ormed by the dg A-B bimodules X such that the tensor product L A X : D(A) D(B) takes the representable dg A-modules to objects which are isomorphic to representable dg B-modules. The bimodule X induces then a unctor on the homotopy categories H 0 (A) H 0 (B). Thereore we can think o rep(a, B) as the dg category o representations up to homotopy o A in B. Notice also that rep(r, B) is Morita equivalent to per(b) and so to B. 3. Assembly and isomorphism conjectures In this Section, we recall Davis and Lück s reormulation [6] o the Farrell-Jones isomorphism conjecture in algebraic K-theory. Let G be a (ixed) discrete group The orbit category Deinition. The orbit category Or(G) has as objects the homogeneous G- spaces G/H and G-maps as morphisms Deinition. A amily F o subgroups o G is a non-empty set o subgroups o G closed under conjugation and inite intersection Examples. Fin is the amily o inite subgroups o G. The cyclic subgroups also orm a amily. The amily VC consists o virtually cyclic subgroups o G. Recall that H is virtually cyclic i it contains a cyclic subgroup o inite index Deinition. The orbit category Or(G, F) restricted on F is the ull subcategory o Or(G) consisting o those objects G/H or which H belongs to F.

9 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES F-assembly property. Let F be a amily o subgroups o G and E : Or(G) Spt be a unctor rom the orbit category to spectra. Recall the notion o assembly property given in Deinition o the Introduction Remark. A typical approach in Davis and Lück s philosophy is : Given G and E, ind as small a amily F as possible or which E has the F-assembly property. So, or the Farrell-Jones isomorphism conjecture, one expects F to reduce to virtually cyclic subgroups, whereas or Baum-Connes one expects inite subgroups Remark. Conceptually, the F-assembly property or a unctor E : Or(G) Spt essentially means that it is induced rom its restriction to Or(G, F), up to homotopy, i.e. it belongs to the image o the unctor on homotopy categories LInd : Ho ( Fun(Or(G, F), Spt) ) Ho ( Fun(Or(G), Spt) ) let adjoint to the obvious unctor in the other direction, deined by restriction rom Or(G) to Or(G, F). This is explained in [1], where we say that the unctor E satisies Or(G, F)-codescent i E belongs to the image o LInd up to isomorphism in Ho ( Fun(Or(G), Spt) ). This is equivalent to the F-assembly property or G and all its subgroups Functorial K-theory construction Deinition. Let S be a let G-set. The transport groupoid S associated to S, has S as set o objects and or s, t S, we deine S(s, t) := {g G gs = t}. The composition is given by group multiplication. This deines a unctor Or(G) with values in the category o groupoids.? Grp, Remark. For every subgroup H o G, the groupoid G/H is connected. Hence it is equivalent to the ull subcategory on any o its objects, or instance the canonical one given by eh G/H. The automorphisms o that object is clearly H. So, i we think o the group H as a one-object category, say H, we have a equivalence o groupoids H G/H. In other words, the groupoid G/H is a natural several-object replacement o the group H. We now show how to pass rom groupoids to R-categories, i.e. additive categories enriched over the symmetric monoidal category (R- Mod, R, R) Deinition. Let C be a category. The associated R-category R[C] has as objects the ormal inite direct sums o objects o C and as morphism the obvious matrices with entries in the ree R-modules R[C(X, Y )] generated by the sets C(X, Y ). Composition in R[C] is induced rom composition in C Remark. The construction C R[C] is unctorial and so we obtain a welldeined unctor Grp R[ ] R-Cat, with values in the category o additive R-categories.

10 10 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA We can then consider the non-connective algebraic K-theory spectrum unctor o additive categories (see Pedersen-Weibel [20] or details) K alg : R-Cat Spt. Finally we obtain, by concatenating, our unctor K alg : Or(G) Spt Or(G)? Grp R[ ] R-Cat K alg As usual, one obtains the K-theory groups K alg groups o the spectrum K alg. K alg Spt. by taking the stable homotopy Remark. Remark implies the ollowing isomorphism K alg (R[H]) = π s K alg (R[H]) = π s K alg (R[H]) π s K alg (R[G/H]), which explains that the K-theory unctor on Or(G) is indeed the expected one. 4. Additive invariants o dg categories Here, the reader needs some amiliarity with derivators. See Appendix A The additive motivator Deinition. Recall rom [23, 3.86] that an additive invariant o dg categories is a morphism o derivators A : HO(dgcat) T, rom the derivator HO(dgcat) associated to the Morita homotopy theory o dg categories to a triangulated one T, which commutes with iltered homotopy colimits (only), preserves the point and sends split short exact sequences to split exact triangles. In [23], we have constructed the universal such additive invariant U add dg : HO(dgcat) Mot add dg, with values in what deserves the name o additive motivator o dg categories Mot add dg Theorem. [23, Thm. 3.85] Let D be a strong triangulated derivator. The morphism Udg add induces an equivalence o categories Hom! (Mot add dg, D) (Uadd dg ) Hom lt, p, Add (HO(dgcat), D), where Hom lt, p, Add (HO(dgcat), D) denotes the category o additive invariants o dg categories (De.4.1.1). We now give examples o additive invariants o dg categories and we postpone to Section 5 below the discussion o how the universal one Mot add dg is constructed.

11 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES Connective algebraic K-theory. Let A be a dg category. Its Waldhausen s connective K-theory spectrum K alg c (A) is deined by applying Waldhausen s construction [27] to the category o coibrant and perect A-modules. Recall that the coibrations are the split monomorphisms and the weak-equivalences the quasiisomorphisms. By Waldhausen s additivity [27, Thm. 1.4], the assignment A K alg c (A) yields a morphism o derivators K alg c : HO(dgcat) HO(Spt), which is an additive invariant o dg categories Non-connective algebraic K-theory. Let A be a small dg category. Its non-connective K-theory spectrum K alg (A) is deined by applying Schlichting s construction [22] to the Frobenius pair associated with the category o coibrant perect A-modules (to the empty dg category we associate 0). Recall that the conlations in the Frobenius category o coibrant perect A-modules are the short exact sequences which split in the category o graded A-modules. By [23, Thm. 3.49], the assignment A K alg (A) yields a morphism o derivators K alg : HO(dgcat) HO(Spt), which is an additive invariant o dg categories Hochschild and cyclic homology. Let A be a small R-lat R-category. The Hochschild chain complex o A is the complex concentrated in homological degrees p 0 whose pth component is the sum o the A(X p, X 0 ) A(X p 1, X p ) A(X p 2, X p 1 ) A(X 0, X 1 ), where X 0,...,X p range through the objects o A, endowed with the dierential p d( p... 0 ) = p 1 0 p + ( 1) i p i i 1 0. Via the cyclic permutations t p ( p 1 0 ) = ( 1) p 0 p 1 1, this complex becomes a precyclic (see [14, 1.3]) chain complex and thus gives rise to a mixed complex C(A), i.e. a dg module over the dg algebra Λ = R[B]/(B 2 ), where B is o degree 1 and db = 0. All variants o cyclic homology only depend on C(A) considered in the derived category D(Λ). For example, the cyclic homology o A is the homology o the complex C(A) L Λ R. See details in [13]. By [23, Thm. 3.47], the map A C(A) yields a morphism o derivators i=1 C : HO(dgcat) HO(Λ-Mod), which is an additive invariant o dg categories Topological Hochschild and cyclic homology. Let A be a small dg category. For the deinition o the topological Hochschild homology spectrum o A, denoted THH(A), and or the deinition o its topological cyclic homology, denoted THC(A), the reader is invited to consult [25, 10]. We obtain morphisms o derivators THH, THC : HO(dgcat) HO(Spt), which by [25, Prop.10.7] are additive invariants o dg categories.

12 12 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA 4.6. Coeicients Version. Let B be a dg category. The unctor rep(b, ) o Deinition induces naturally a morphism o derivators rep(b, ) : HO(dgcat) HO(dgcat) Lemma. Suppose that the dg category B is homotopically initely presented (De ). Then the morphism o derivators rep(b, ) commutes with iltered homotopy colimits, preserves the point and sends split short exact sequences to split short exact sequences. Proo. Clearly rep(b, ) preserves the point [23, 3.6]. Since B is homotopically initely presented, an argument analogous to the one o [26, Lemma 2.10] shows that rep(b, ) commutes with iltered homotopy colimits. Finally, i 0 A A A is a split short exact sequence o dg categories [23, 3.68], so is 0 rep(b, A ) rep(b, A) 0 rep(b, A ) Notation. By Lemma 4.6.1, i B is a homotopically initely presented dg category and A : HO(dgcat) T is an additive invariant o dg categories (De ), we can construct a new additive invariant A( ; B) : HO(dgcat) T by pre-composing with rep(b, ) A(A; B) := A(rep(B, A)), A dgcat Remark. For B = R, the dg category rep(r, A) is Morita equivalent to A and so A( ; R) reduces to A. I B is a general homotopically initely presented dg category, A( ; B) can be thought o as a coeicients version o A. 5. The additive motivator The purpose o this Section is to recall the additive motivator Mot add dg categories [23] and to provide a new Quillen model or it. 0. o dg Notation. Let M be a pointed proper simplicial model category. We denote by Spt(M) the stable model category o (usual) spectra o objects o M Old model. In [23, 3.5], we have constructed the small category dgcat o inite I-cells as the smallest ull subcategory o dgcat whose set o objects contains strictly inite dg cells (De ) and which is stable under the co-simplicial and ibrant resolution unctors o [23, 3.11]. Then, we considered the model category Fun(dgcat op, sset ) o pre-sheaves o pointed simplicial sets with the projective model structure and took its let Bousield localization L ge s un, p, Σ Fun(dgcatop, sset ), with respect to sets o morphisms Ẽs un, p and Σ (see [23, 3.14] or details). Heuristically, inverting Σ is responsible or inverting Morita equivalences, inverting p is responsible or pointing and inally, inverting Ẽs un is responsible or mapping split short exact sequences o dg categories to split triangles in the homotopy category. See more in Proposition below and in its proo.

13 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES Remark. In Fun(dgcat op, sset ), sequential homotopy colimits commute with inite products and homotopy pullbacks and so by Remark A.1.3, the associated derivator is regular (De. A.1.2). Since the domains and codomains o the sets o morphisms Ẽs un, p and Σ (see [23, 3.14]) are homotopically initely presented (De ), Remark A.3.2 implies that the associated derivator to the Bousield localization L ge s un, p, Σ Fun(dgcatop, sset ) is also regular. as the triangulated derivator associated (as in A.1) to the stable model category Spt ( L ge s un, p, Σ Fun(dgcatop, sset ) ) : Deinition. We deined (see [23, 3.82]) the additive motivator Mot add dg (5.1.3) Mot add dg := HO ( Spt ( L ge s un, p, Σ Fun(dgcatop, sset ) )) New model. Recall rom Subsection 2.2 that since dgcat is a small category, the category Fun(dgcat op, Spt) carries naturally a simplicial model structure Remark. We have a natural (Quillen) identiication Spt(Fun(dgcat op, sset )) Fun(dgcat op, Spt) Notation. Consider the Yoneda unctor h dgcat Fun(dgcat op, Spt) B Σ dgcat (, B), where dgcat (, B) is a constant pointed simplicial set and Σ ( ) denotes the ininite suspension spectrum unctor. I F is a ibrant object in Fun(dgcat op, Spt), we have the ollowing weak equivalences: Map(h(B), F) F(B) 0 We have also a homotopical Yoneda unctor h Map(h(B), F) F(B). dgcat Fun(dgcat op, Spt) A Σ Map(, A), where Map(, ) denotes the homotopy unction complex (see Section 2) o the Morita model structure on dgcat. By construction, homotopy limits and homotopy colimits in Fun(dgcat op, Spt) are calculated objectwise. This implies that the shit models in Spt (see [12, 1]), X[1] and X[ 1], or the suspension and loop space unctors in Ho(Spt) induce objectwise shit models in Fun(dgcat op, Spt) or the suspension and loop space unctors in the triangulated category Ho(Fun(dgcat op, Spt)). Observe that Remarks and 5.2.1, the Commutativity Theorem A.4.1 and [23, Theorems 3.8 and 3.31] imply the ollowing proposition Proposition. The additive motivator Mot add dg (5.1.3) admits a new Quillen model given by L Ω( E gs un ), Ω(p), Ω(Σ) Fun(dgcatop, Spt), where Ω(Ẽs un), Ω(p) and Ω(Σ) are obtained by stabilizing the sets Ẽs un, p and Σ in Fun(dgcat op, Spt) under the objectwise loop space unctor Notation. For the sake o simplicity, we will denote by N the set o morphisms {Ω(Ẽs un), Ω(p), Ω(Σ)} in Fun(dgcat op, Spt) and consequently by L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt) our new Quillen model.

14 14 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA Let us now sum up (compare with [23, 3.83]) our new construction o the universal additive invariant Udg add o dg categories HO(dgcat ) HO(h) HO ( L Ω(Σ) Fun(dgcat op, Spt) ) Rh HO(dgcat) Mot add dg U add dg, where HO(dgcat ) is the prederivator associated with the ull subcategory dgcat o dgcat (see A.1.1 and [23, 3.5] or details) and Udg add is the composition o the unctor Rh induced by Yoneda and the localization morphism HO ( L Ω(Σ) Fun(dgcat op, Spt) ) HO ( L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt) ) = Mot add dg Fibrant objects Proposition. An object F L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt) is ibrant i and only i the ollowing our conditions are veriied: (1) F(B) Spt is stably ibrant, or all B dgcat. (2) For every Morita equivalence B B in dgcat, the induced morphism F(B ) F(B) is a stable weak equivalence in Spt. (3) F( ) Spt is contractible. (4) Every split short exact sequence 0 B B B in dgcat (see [23, 3.68]), induces a homotopy iber sequence in Ho(Spt). F(B ) F(B) F(B ) Proo. Condition (1) corresponds to the act that F is ibrant in Fun(dgcat op, Spt) since we use the projective model. By the objectwise deinition o the shit models in Fun(dgcat op, Spt) or the suspension and loop space unctors in Ho(Fun(dgcat op, Spt)), the construction o the localized model structure yields: An object F is Ω(Σ)-local i and only i or every Morita equivalence B B in dgcat, the morphism F(B ) F(B) is a levelwise weak equivalence in sset. Since F(B ) and F(B) are stably ibrant this is equivalent to Condition (2). An object F is Ω(p)-local i and only i F( ) n is contractible or every n 0. Since F( ) is stably ibrant this is equivalent to Condition (3). We now discuss Condition (4). The construction o the set Ω(Ẽs un ) (see [23, 3.74] and Proposition 5.2.3) and the act that the unctor Map(?, F) : Ho(Fun(dgcat op, Spt)) op Ho(sSet ) transorms homotopy coiber sequences into homotopy iber sequences, implies that: 0

15 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES 15 An object F is Ω(Ẽs un )-local i and only i every split short exact sequence 0 B B B 0 in dgcat induces a homotopy iber sequence F(B ) n F(B) n F(B ) n in Ho(sSet ) or every n 0 (see [23, 3.76]). Once again since F(B ), F(B) and F(B ) are stably ibrant, this is equivalent to Condition (4). We then conclude by general Bousield localization non-sense, see [11, Prop.3.4.1] Homotopy colimits. Using the above description o the ibrant objects, we now prove our key technical result Proposition. For every dg category C dgcat, the unctor Map(h(C), ) : Ho(L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt)) Ho(Spt) commutes with homotopy colimits. Proo. We start by observing that by construction, the result holds in the stable model category Fun(dgcat op, Spt). By Remark it is enough to prove the ollowing: I (F j ) j J is a diagram o ibrant objects in the localized category L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt), its homotopy colimit hocolimf j satisies Conditions (2), (3) and (4) o Proposition Since homotopy colimits in Fun(dgcat op, Spt) are calculated objectwise, Conditions (2) and (3) are clearly veriied. In what concerns Condition (4), notice that Ho(Spt) is a triangulated category and so the homotopy iber sequences F j (B ) F j (B) F j (B ), j J are also homotopy coiber sequences. This implies, as in the case o Condition (2) and (3), that hocolim j J F j (B ) hocolim j J j J F j (B) hocolim F j (B ) j J is a homotopy coiber sequence and so a homotopy iber sequence. In conclusion hocolimf j satisies Condition (4) and the proo is inished. j J 5.5. Homotopic generators. Let I be a small category and M a let Bousield localization o Fun(I op, Spt), see Subsection Deinition. We say that a set o objects {G j } j J satisies condition (HG) (or Homotopic Generators) in M i the ollowing condition holds: (HG) A morphism : F F is a weak equivalence in M i (and only i) or every object G j the induced map o spectra : Map(G j, F) Map(G j, F ) is a stable weak equivalence. I is a weak equivalence in M, the induced maps o spectra are stable weak equivalences, so the only i part is redundant. Let {G j } j J be a set o objects in M and S a set o morphisms in M Lemma. I the set {G j } j J satisies condition (HG) in M then it satisies condition (HG) in L S (M).

16 16 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA Proo. By Remark 2.2.1, the let Bousield localization L S (M) admits also a homotopy unction spectrum given by Map(, Q( )) where Q is a (unctorial) coibrant replacement in L S (M). Let : F F be a morphism in M which induces a stable equivalences under Map(G j, Q( )) or all j J. Consider the ollowing commutative square F Q(F) Q() F Q(F ). Since by hypothesis, the set {G j } j J satisies condition (HG) in M, Q() is a weak equivalence in M and so a weak equivalence in L S (M). By the two out o three property, we conclude that is a weak equivalence in L S (M). Now, recall rom Deinition the ull subcategory dgcat s o dgcat, whose objects are the strictly inite dg cells Proposition. The set o objects {h(b) B dgcat s } satisies condition (HG) in L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt). Proo. Notice that the set {h(b) B dgcat } satisies condition (HG) in the model category Fun(dgcat op, Spt) by the very deinition o weak equivalences. From Deinition [23, 3.11], every object in dgcat is Morita equivalent to an object in dgcat s. This implies by Lemma and Proposition 5.3.1, that the set {h(b) B dgcat s } satisies condition (HG) in L Ω(Σ) Fun(dgcat op, Spt). Once again by Lemma we can localize urther with respect to N and the proo is inished. 6. Universal additive assembly property The purpose o this Section is to describe the undamental additive unctor E und o the Introduction and to prove our main result (Theorem below). Let us start by connecting Davis and Lück s construction (Section 3) to dg categories and their additive invariants Additive unctors. Notice that an R-category can be naturally considered as a dg category (with complexes o morphisms concentrated in degree 0). For a (discrete) group G, we thus obtain a composed unctor Or(G)? Grp R[ ] R-Cat dgcat Deinition. Let M be a stable model category (Rem. A.1.5) and E : Or(G) M a unctor. We say that E is additive i it actors through a unctor dgcat M whose associated morphism o derivators HO(dgcat) HO(M) is an additive invariant o dg categories in the sense o Deinition Remark. This actorization should not be conused with the one we want to establish in Theorem (that is, via the undamental additive unctor E und ), otherwise that result would sound like a tautology. We rather restrict attention to unctors on the orbit category that only depend on the associated dg category. This is a mild restriction since all unctors classically considered have been extended to dg categories, as explained in Section 4.

17 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES Remark. At the time o writing, we do not know whether K top (Cred ( )) can be seen as an additive unctor or not, simply because we do not know how to extend it to dg categories. This problem seems interesting, especially in view o [6, 2] Examples. Recall rom Section 4 several examples o unctors A : dgcat M (e.g. algebraic K-theory, Hochschild and cyclic homology, their topological variants) whose associated morphism o derivators A : HO(dgcat) HO(M) is an additive invariant o dg categories. By pre-composing them with the unctor Or(G)? Grp R[ ] R-Cat dgcat, we obtain several examples o additive unctors Or(G) M in the sense o Deinition Moreover, i B is a homotopically initely presented dg category B, we have additive unctors A( ; B) (see 4.6) deined as ollows A(G/H; B) := A(rep(B, R[G/H])), G/H Or(G). I B = R, the additive unctor A( ; B) reduces to the ollowing composition Or(G)? Grp R[ ] A R-Cat dgcat M. I B is a general homotopically initely presented dg category, A( ; B) can be thought o as a coeicients version o the above additive unctor A( ; R) (see Remark 4.6.3) Deinition. The undamental additive unctor E und is given by the ollowing composition? Or(G) Grp R[ ] R-Cat dgcat Uadd dg L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt) =: M und, where M und := L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt) is our new Quillen model (see 5.2.4) o the additive motivator Mot add dg Theorem. Let G be a group and E : Or(G) M an additive unctor (De.6.1.1). Then there exists a morphism o derivators E : Mot add dg HO(M), which commutes with homotopy colimits, such that the diagram Or(G) commutes up to isomorphism. E und Ho(M und ) E(e) E Ho(M) Proo. By Deinition 6.1.1, E actors through a unctor dgcat M whose associated morphism o derivators HO(dgcat) HO(M) is an additive invariant o dg categories. By Theorem 4.1.2, this additive invariant descends to a morphism o derivators E : Mot add dg HO(M), which commutes with homotopy colimits, making the above diagram commute up to isomorphism. Generalizing Deinition to any target category, we have the obvious: Deinition. Let F be a amily o subgroups o G and E : Or(G) M an additive unctor (De ). The (E, F, G)-assembly map is the natural map hocolim Or(G,F) E hocolim Or(G) E = E(G)

18 18 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA in the homotopy category Ho(M). We say that E has the F-assembly property (on G) when the (E, F, G)-assembly map is an isomorphism in Ho(M). Notice that Theorem has the ollowing corollary Corollary. Let G be a group and let F be a amily o subgroups. I the undamental additive unctor E und has the F-assembly property, then so do all additive unctors. Proo. Apply E to the (E und, F, G)-assembly map and use that E commutes with arbitrary homotopy colimits Main theorem Theorem. Let G be a group and F be a amily o subgroups. Then the ollowing are equivalent: (1) The undamental additive unctor E und has the F-assembly property on G. (2) The additive unctors K alg c ( ; B) have the F-assembly property on G or all homotopically initely presented dg categories B (De.2.1.1). (3) The additive unctors K alg c ( ; B) have the F-assembly property on G or all strictly inite dg cells B (De.2.3.1). Proo. By Corollary 6.1.8, Condition (1) implies Condition (2). Since every strictly inite dg cell dg category is homotopically initely presented (Rem ), Condition (2) implies Condition (3). We now show that Condition (3) implies Condition (1). Recall rom Deinition the construction o the undamental additive unctor E und : Or(G)? Grp R[ ] R-Cat dgcat Uadd dg L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt). Assuming Condition (3), we need to show that the induced map hocolim Or(G,F) Uadd dg (R[G/H]) Uadd dg (R[G/G]) is an isomorphism in Ho(L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt)) = Mot add dg (e). Since the category Mot add dg (e) is triangulated, it is equivalent to prove that the suspension map hocolim Or(G,F) Uadd dg (R[G/H])[1] (hocolim Or(G,F) Uadd dg (R[G/H]))[1] U add dg (R[G/G])[1] is an isomorphism. By Proposition 5.5.3, the set o objects {h(b) B dgcat s } satisies Condition (HG) in L N Fun(dgcat op, Spt) and so it is enough to prove that, or every B dgcat s, the induced map o spectra Map ( h(b), hocolim Or(G,F) Uadd dg (R[G/H])[1]) Map ( h(b), U add dg (R[G/G])[1]) is a stable weak equivalence. By Proposition 5.4.1, the unctor Map(h(B), ) commutes with homotopy colimits and so we have Map ( h(b), hocolim Or(G,F) Uadd dg (R[G/H])[1]) hocolim Or(G,F) Map( h(b), U add dg (R[G/H])[1]). Moreover, the co-representability theorem [24, Thm ] or connective algebraic K-theory in Mot add dg provides stable weak equivalences Map(h(B), U add dg (R[G/H])[1]) K alg c (rep(b, R[G/H])),

19 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES 19 or every B dgcat s and H Or(G, F). In conclusion, we are reduced to show that or every strictly inite dg cell B, the map hocolim Or(G,F) Kalg c (rep(b, R[G/H])) K alg c (rep(b, R[G/G])) is a stable weak equivalence. This is precisely our hypothesis, namely that the additive unctors K alg c ( ; B) have the F-assembly property on G. Appendix A. Derivators, Stabilization and Localization We quickly recall basic acts on derivators and then prove that the operations o stabilization (see [23, 3.8]) and let Bousield localization (see [23, 3.4]) o derivators commute. A.1. Derivators. The original reerence or derivators is Grothendieck s manuscript [9]. See also Maltsiniotis [19] or a short account in Cisinski Neeman [5, 1]. Derivators originate in the problem o higher homotopies in derived categories. For a non-zero triangulated category D and or X a small category, it essentially never happens that the diagram category Fun(X, D) remains triangulated (it already ails or the category o arrows in D, that is, or X = [1] = ( )). Now, very oten, our triangulated category D appears as the homotopy (or derived) category D = Ho(M) o some model M. In this case, we can consider the category Fun(X, M) o diagrams in M, whose homotopy category Ho(Fun(X, M)) is oten triangulated and provides a reasonable approximation or Fun(X, D). More important maybe, one can let X move. This nebula o categories Ho(Fun(X, M)), indexed by small categories X, and the various unctors and natural transormations between them is what Grothendieck ormalized into the concept o derivator. A derivator D consists o a strict contravariant 2-unctor rom the 2-category o small categories to the 2-category o all categories (a. k.a. a prederivator) D : Cat op CAT, subject to certain conditions. We shall not list them here or it would be too long but we reer to [5, 1]. The essential example to keep in mind is the derivator D = HO(M) associated to a (coibrantly generated) Quillen model category M and deined or every small category X by (A.1.1) HO(M) (X) = Ho ( Fun(X op, M) ). See more in Cisinski [2]. We denote by e the 1-point category with one object and one (identity) morphism. Heuristically, the category D(e) is the basic derived category under consideration in the derivator D. For instance, i D = HO(M) then D(e) = Ho(M). A.1.2. Deinitions. We now recall three slightly technical properties o derivators and reer the non-specialist reader to the quoted literature or urther details on the terminology. See also Remark A.1.3 in the case o D = HO(M). (1) A derivator D is strong i or every inite ree category X and every small category Y, the natural unctor D(X Y ) Fun(X op, D(Y )) is ull and essentially surjective. See details in [10]. (2) A derivator D is regular i in D, sequential homotopy colimits commute with inite products and homotopy pullbacks. See details in [10].

20 20 PAUL BALMER AND GONÇALO TABUADA (3) A derivator D is pointed i or any closed immersion i : Z X in Cat the cohomological direct image unctor i : D(Z) D(X) has a right adjoint, and i moreover and dually, or any open immersion j : U X the homological direct image unctor j! : D(U) D(X) has a let adjoint. See details in [5, 1.13]. A.1.3. Remark. A strong derivator is the same thing as a small homotopy theory in the sense o Heller [10]. By [4, Prop.2.15], i M is a Quillen model category, its associated derivator HO(M) is strong. Moreover, i sequential homotopy colimits commute with inite products and homotopy pullbacks in M, the associated derivator HO(M) is regular. Finally i M is pointed, then so is HO(M). In short, the reader who wishes to restrict attention to derivators o the orm HO(M) can as well consider the three properties o Deinition A.1.2 as mild ones. A.1.4. Deinition. A derivator D is triangulated or stable i it is pointed and i every global commutative square in D is cartesian exactly when it is cocartesian. See details in [5, 1.15]. A.1.5. Remark. I a pointed model category M is stable, i.e. its suspension unctor Σ : Ho(M) Ho(M) is an equivalence, then its associated derivator HO(M) is triangulated. A.1.6. Theorem (Maltsiniotis [18]). For any triangulated derivator D and small category X the category D(X) has a canonical triangulated structure. An explicit description o the triangulated structure is also given [5, 7.9]. A.1.7. Notation. Let D and D be derivators. We denote by Hom(D, D ) the category o all morphisms o derivators and by Hom! (D, D ) the category o morphisms o derivators which commute with homotopy colimits. See details in [3, 3.25]. A.2. Stabilization. Let D be a regular pointed strong derivator (De. A.1.2). In [10], Heller constructed the universal morphism to a triangulated strong derivator D stab St(D), which commutes with homotopy colimits. Heller proved the ollowing universal property. A.2.1. Theorem ([10]). Let T be a triangulated strong derivator. Then the morphism stab induces an equivalence o categories Hom! (St(D), T) stab Hom! (D, T). A.3. Let Bousield localization. Let D be a derivator and S a class o morphisms in the base category D(e). A.3.1. Deinition (Cisinski). The derivator D admits a let Bousield localization with respect to S i there exists a morphism o derivators γ : D L S D, which commutes with homotopy colimits, sends the elements o S to isomorphisms in L S D(e) and satisies the ollowing universal property: For every derivator D the morphism γ induces an equivalence o categories Hom! (L S D, D ) γ Hom!,S (D, D ),

21 THE MOTHER OF ALL ISOMORPHISM CONJECTURES 21 where Hom!,S (D, D ) denotes the category o morphisms o derivators which commute with homotopy colimits and send the elements o S to isomorphisms in D (e). A.3.2. Remark. Let M be a let proper, cellular model category and L S M its let Bousield localization [11, 4.1.1] with respect to a set o morphisms S. Then the induced morphism o derivators HO(M) HO(L S M) is a let Bousield localization o derivators with respect to the image o S in Ho(M). See [23, Thm. 3.8]. Moreover, i the domains and codomains o the set S are homotopically initely presented objects (De ), the unctor Ho(L S M) Ho(M) (right adjoint to the localization unctor) preserves iltered homotopy colimits. See [23, Lemma 3.23]. Under these hypothesis, i HO(M) is regular (De. A.1.3) so it is HO(L S M). A.3.3. Remark. By [23, Lemma 3.7], the Bousield localization L S D o a triangulated derivator D remains triangulated as long as S is stable under the loop space unctor. For more general S, to remain in the world o triangulated derivators, one has to localize with respect to the set Ω(S) generated by S and loops, as ollows. A.3.4. Proposition. Let D be a triangulated derivator and S a class o morphisms in D(e). Let us denote by Ω(S) the smallest class o morphisms in D(e) which contains S and is stable under the loop space unctor Ω : D(e) D(e). Then or any triangulated derivator T, we have an equality o categories (A.3.5) Hom!,Ω(S) (D, T) = Hom!,S (D, T). Heuristically, L Ω(S) D is the triangulated localization o D with respect to S. Proo. For F an element o Hom! (D, T), the unctor F(e) : D(e) T(e) commutes with homotopy colimits, hence it commutes in particular with the suspension unctor. Since both D and T are triangulated, suspension and loop space unctors are inverse to each other. Hence F(e) also commutes with Ω. It is then obvious that F(e) sends S to isomorphisms i and only i it does so with Ω(S). A.4. Commutativity. Let D be derivator that we assume pointed, strong and regular (De. A.1.2). Let S be a class o morphisms in D(e). Assume that D admits a let Bousield localization L S D with respect to S. We obtain then a derivator L S D which is still pointed and strong. I it is also regular (see Remark A.3.2), we can consider its stabilization St(L S D) as in A.2. On the other hand, we can irst consider the triangulated derivator St(D). We still denote by S the image o the class S under the morphism o derivators D stab St(D). Suppose that the let Bousield localization L Ω(S) St(D) by Ω(S) exists. We now have two constructions L S D γ stab St(L S D) D stab St(D) γ L Ω(S) St(D) and we claim that they agree, namely : A.4.1. Theorem. With the above notations and hypotheses, the derivators L Ω(S) St(D) and St(L S D) are canonically equivalent, under D.