Tate Cohomology via Stable Categories

Situation

Let $G$ be a finite group and provide $Gtext{-mod} := {mathbb Z}Gtext{-mod}$ with the Frobenius structure of ${mathbb Z}$-split short exact sequences. Denote by $underline{Gtext{-mod}}$ the associated stable category with loop functor $Omega$.

For any Frobenius category $({mathcal A},{mathcal E})$ and a complete projective-injective resolution $P_{bullet}$ of some $Xin{mathcal A}$, we have for any $Yin{mathcal A}$ a canonical isomorphism of abelian groups

$H^n(text{Hom}_{mathcal A}(P_{bullet},Y))cong [Omega^n X,Y]$,

where $[-,-] := text{Hom}_{underline{{mathcal A}}}(-,-)$.

Applying this to $Gtext{-mod}$ yields an isomorphism

$widehat{H}^k(G;M)cong [Omega^k{mathbb Z},M]$,

where $widehat{H}^k(G;M)$ denotes the Tate-Cohomology of $G$ with values in $M$.

If I didn't mix things up, in this language Tate-Duality should mean that the canonical map

$[{mathbb Z},Omega^k{mathbb Z}]otimes_{mathbb Z}[Omega^k{mathbb Z},{mathbb Z}]to[{mathbb Z},{mathbb Z}]cong{mathbb Z}/|G|{mathbb Z}$

is a duality.

Question

I'd like to know sources which introduce and treat Tate cohomology in the way described above, i.e. using the language of Frobenius categories and its associated stable categories. In particular, I would be interested in a proof of Tate Duality using this more abstract language instead of resolutions.

Does anybody know such sources?

Remark

It seems to be more difficult to work over the integers instead of some field, for in this case, the exact sequences in the Frobenius structure $Gtext{-mod}$ are required to be ${mathbb Z}$-split, which is not automatic. As a consequence, there may be projective/injective objects in $(Gtext{-mod},{mathcal E}^{G}_{{e}})$ which are not projective/injective as ${mathbb Z}G$-modules. Further, the long exact cohomology sequence exists only for ${mathbb Z}$-split exact sequences of $G$-modules (not good, because Brown uses the exact sequence $0to {mathbb Z}to{mathbb Q}to{mathbb Q}/{mathbb Z}to 0$ in his proof of Tate duality); of course, one can choose particular complete resolutions of ${mathbb Z}$ consisting of ${mathbb Z}G$-projective modules, and such a resolution yields a long exact cohomology sequence for any short exact sequence of coefficient modules, but this seems somewhat unnatural and doesn't fit into the picture right now.

Partial Results

(1) For any subgroup $Hleq G$ there are restriction and corestriction morphisms

$[Omega^k {mathbb Z},-]^{underline{G}}=widehat{H}^*(G;-)leftrightarrowswidehat{H}^*(H;-)=[Omega^k{mathbb Z},-]^{underline{H}}$

defined as follows: for any $G$-module $M$, the abelian group $[{mathbb Z},M]^{underline{G}}$ is in canonical bijection with $M^G / |G| M^G$, and there are restriction and transfer maps

$text{res}: M^G / |G| M^Glongrightarrow M^H / |H| M^H,quad [m]mapsto [m]$,

$text{tr}: M^H / |H| M^Hlongrightarrow M^G / |G| M^Gquad [m]mapstoleft[sumlimits_{gin G/H} g.mright]$,

respectively. Now

$[Omega^k{mathbb Z},M]^{underline{G}}cong [{mathbb Z},Omega^{-k}M]^{underline{G}}stackrel{text{res}}{longrightarrow} [{mathbb Z},Omega^{-k}M]^{underline{H}}cong[Omega^k{mathbb Z},M]^{underline{H}}$

$[Omega^k{mathbb Z},M]^{underline{H}}cong [{mathbb Z},Omega^{-k}M]^{underline{H}}stackrel{text{tr}}{longrightarrow} [{mathbb Z},Omega^{-k}M]^{underline{G}}cong[Omega^k{mathbb Z},M]^{underline{G}}$

seems to be the natural thing to define restriction and transfer. (This is very similar to the usual method of giving a morphism of $delta$-functors only in degree $0$ and extend it by dimension shifting, though a bit more elegant in my opinion)

Note that it was implicitly used that $Omega^k$ commutes with the forgetful functor $Gtext{-mod}to Htext{-mod}$

(2) For any subgroup $Hleq H$, $gin G$ and a $G$-module $M$ there is a map

$g_*: widehat{H}^*(H;-)towidehat{H}^*(gHg^{-1};M)$

extending the canonical map

$M^H/|H|M^Hlongrightarrow M^{gHg^{-1}}/|H|M^{gHg^{-1}},quad [m]mapsto [g.m]$.

(1) and (2) fit together in the usual way; there is a transfer formula and a lifting criterion for elements of Sylow-subgroups.

(3) The cup product on $widehat{H}^*(G;{mathbb Z})$ is given simply by composition of maps:

$[Omega^p{mathbb Z},{mathbb Z}]otimes_{mathbb Z}[Omega^q{mathbb Z},{mathbb Z}]stackrel{Omega^qotimestext{id}}{longrightarrow}[Omega^{p+q}{mathbb Z},Omega^q{mathbb Z}]otimes_{mathbb Z}[Omega^q{mathbb Z},{mathbb Z}]longrightarrow [Omega^{p+q}{mathbb Z},{mathbb Z}]$

Does anybody see why this product is graded-commutative?

• Next Fourier transform for dummies
• Previous molecular biology - Is there a Reverse Transcription optimization for long, 9kb, transcripts?