You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘algebraic number theory’ category.
We begin with a few definitions.
Definition 1: A integral domain is called a Dedekind domain if it is noetherian, every nonzero prime ideal is maximal, and it is integrally closed in its field of fractions.
Definition 2: A ring is called a discrete valuation ring (DVR) if it is a principal ideal domain (PID) with exactly one nonzero prime ideal. (In other language, a DVR is a local PID of Krull dimension 0 or 1.)
One very important property of Dedekind domains is that ideals have unique factorizations as products of prime ideals. I used this property in the case of rings of integers in my last post to say that if is an extension of number fields with rings of integers
, so if
is a prime ideal, then we can write
. But this result holds in more generality, for any Dedekind domain.
Also, it is very easy to check that a DVR is a Dedekind domain. But one very common occurrence of DVRs is as localizations of rings of integers. In particular, if is a Dedekind domain and
is a prime ideal of
, then
is a DVR.
One way to interpret a DVR is through the following filtration of ideals. Let be a DVR, and let
be the unique nonzero prime ideal of
. Then every nonzero ideal of
is of the form
for some
(where by
I mean
). Now, for any
, there is an integer
so that
. We can now define a function
(where
includes 0 in this case) by
as above. We can extend our definition of
to all of
by setting
.
It is also possible to extend to the quotient field
of
by setting
; it is easy to check that this is well-defined. Now,
satisfies the following properties:
1) is a surjective homomorphism.
2) .
We call such a function a valuation of the field
.
Knowing is enough to reconstruct
, since
. Furthermore,
. We call
the valuation ring of
.
Let’s look at a few places where DVRs arise naturally.
1) As we mentioned earlier, the localization of a Dedekind domain at a prime ideal is a DVR. So, for example, is a DVR if
is a prime. The unique prime ideal is
.
2) The ring of
-adic integers is a DVR with unique prime ideal
. Also, finite extensions of the field
of
-adic numbers inherit valuations from
, and so they contain DVRs as described above. In particular, if
is a finite field extension, then the integral closure of
in
is a DVR.
Now, if is a DVR and
is its prime ideal, then
is a field. In the cases described above, this will always be a finite field; in what follows, we always assume that this field is finite. We call
the residue field.
We can also put a topology on a valued field by letting the following sets be a basis for the topology: if
and
is an integer, then
is an open set. These sets generate the topology. In what follows, we will assume that
is complete as a topological space with this topology. Finite extensions of
are complete with respect to this topology, so this will be our motivating example. The residue fields will also be finite.
Last post, I pointed out that if is a Galois extension of number fields, then
. This holds more generally, however. If
is a finite Galois field extension, and
is a Dedekind domain so that
is the quotient field of
, and
is the integral closure of
in
, then we still have
.
We now interpret this in the case of a field complete with respect to a discrete valuation
, and
the valuation ring of
. Let
be a finite Galois extension, and let
be the integral closure of
in
, or, equivalently, the valuation ring of
. Then
is also complete with respect to a discrete valuation
that is very closely related to
, as we will see soon.
Let be the prime of
, and let
be the prime of $B$. Since there is only one prime,
. Hence
. Now, if
, then
, and if
, then
. (But we won’t need these results in what follows, at least today.) The implication is the decomposition group of the extension
is the entire Galois group.
We can put a filtration on the Galois group as follows: For , let
. We call
the
ramification group of
.
is the entire Galois group (or the decomposition group;
is the inertia group. Also, each
is normal in
.
Now, I won’t prove it here, but it can be shown that if the residue field is finite of characteristic and
is complete, then for each
,
is a direct product of copies of
, and
is a subgroup of the roots of unity of
(and hence finite and cyclic of order prime to
). Hence, by basic group theory or otherwise,
is a semidirect product of a normal Sylow
-subgroup and a cyclic group of order prime to
. In particular,
is solvable. However, as shown in the last post,
is cyclic since it is the Galois group of an extension of finite fields. Hence:
Theorem: is solvable.
I have been reading Joseph Silverman’s new book on arithmetic dynamics lately. There’s a lot of really fascinating stuff in there, including a large number of potential research problems that are currently way beyond me, but I’ll continue thinking about them! Most interesting so far is the Uniform Boundedness Conjecture:
Let ,
, and
be integers. Then there exists a constant
such that for any number field
with
and any morphism
of degree
, the number of preperiodic points of
in
is at most
.
Not much is known about this conjectures; even the case ,
, and
is open. It’s even open if we restrict to morphisms of the form
. Bjorn Poonen has shown, however, that these maps have no rational periodic points of exact period 4 or 5; it is conjectured that they have no rational periodic points of exact period greater than 3.
However, there is a positive result of the above type that doesn’t depend that much on some of the above quantities:
Let be a number field and
be a rational map over
. Let
and
be prime ideals of
so that
has good reduction at
and
(meaning that when we reduce
modulo
and
, we end up with a map
of the same degree as
) and whose residue characteristics are distinct. Then the period
of any periodic point of
in
satisfies
, where
denotes the (absolute) norm.
(See, for instance, my algebraic number theory notes for definitions of some of these terms.)
Anyway, that wasn’t really the point of this post, as you may have guessed from the title. I meant to talk about theorems that pretend not to be related to dynamical systems but actually are. First we need to discuss height functions a bit; there’s a lot more about them in Silverman’s book and in my elliptic curve notes.
We let be a number field and
the set of standard absolute values on
(These are the absolute values on
whose restriction to
is either the standard absolute value or one of the
-adic absolute values.) We write
(where
denotes the completion of
with respect to the absolute value
). Suppose
; we can then write
for some
. We then define the height of
with respect to
to be
. One can check that this is well-defined, and that if
is a finite extension of number fields and
, then
. Hence it is possible to define the absolute height of
by
.
One of the key facts about heights is the following: If and
are constants, then
is finite. A corollary is the following well-known result of Kronecker:
Let be nonzero. Then
if and only if
is a root of unity.
Proof: If is a root of unity, then
is clear. Now suppose that
. For any
and
, we have
, so
, so
is a set of bounded height and is therefore finite. Therefore there are integers
such that
, so
is a root of unity.
And now for linear algebra. Sheldon Axler has a well-known book on linear algebra without determinants. He therefore uses dynamical systems to show the following familiar result:
Theorem: Every operator on a finite-dimensional nonzero complex vector space has an eigenvalue.
Proof: Let be such a vector space of dimension
. Let
be an operator on
, and let
be nonzero. Then
cannot be a linearly independent set. Hence there exist
, not all zero, so that
. Suppose
is maximal with respect to
. Then
. Since we’re working over
, the polynomial
factors as
. We then have
. Hence some
is not injective. This
is an eigenvalue for
.
