In this old blog post, Akhil Mathew describes the Sullivan conjecture and part of Miller's proof of a special case.
There's a point in the beginning which is not clear to me, about $p$-completions at different primes than $2$ (or, more generally, at primes $p$ with $p\land |G|=1$)
Indeed, his argument for "the homotopy fixed points of $\mathbb Z/2$ acting on $X(\mathbb C)$ completed at $p$ for $p$ odd is simply connected" is that $\pi_*((X(\mathbb C)^\wedge_p)^{h\mathbb Z/2}) \cong \pi_*(X(\mathbb C)^\wedge_p)^{\mathbb Z/2}$.
Now I understand the isomorphism, but I don't understand the connection with the Sullivan conjecture.
Indeed, as far as I understand, the Sullivan conjecture states (under some hypotheses):
After completion at $p$, $X^G\to X^{hG}$ is an equivalence.
So the statement would be about $(X^{hG})^\wedge_p$, not $(X^\wedge_p)^{hG}$.
So I don't understand how his argument relates to the Sullivan conjecture, and how it proves the point that "there's no hope for it to be true at odd primes".
There is a natural map $(X^{hG})^\wedge_p\to (X^\wedge_p)^{hG}$, but I don't expect it to be an equivalence.
Is this natural map an equivalence in the cases of concern ? If so, why ? If not, is tere an argument to compute $\pi_*((X^{hG})^\wedge_p)$ (specifically, it should work for $*=1$) ?
And if the answers to those are "no",
How does the argument about $\pi_*((X(\mathbb C)^\wedge_p)^{h\mathbb Z/2})$ relate to the Sullivan conjecture ?