unwanted capture » algebraic number theory http://www.unwantedcapture.org logic, philosophy, mathematics, linguistics, ... Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:17:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 A taste of algebraic number theory, Part I http://www.unwantedcapture.org/2009/11/14/a-taste-of-algebraic-number-theory/ http://www.unwantedcapture.org/2009/11/14/a-taste-of-algebraic-number-theory/#comments Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:29:43 +0000 spencer http://www.unwantedcapture.org/?p=547 In the very near future I’m going to be writing a paper on reciprocity theorems in the history of algebra. I really ought to describe a bit of that history here now, because it’s a really great story, but I’m more interested in trying to figure out how the modern approach to the subject looks. I’m fairly clear on the basic form of a reciprocity law (quadratic, most famously, but also quartic and more generally).

I’m also reasonably comfortable with basic ring theory and the manipulation of ideals and modules. I’d like to go up to Artin’s reciprocity theorem and at least be able to discuss it at the conceptual level. That means I should understand at least that much, and that will be the subject of my next post or two here.

I’m going to assume some level of comfort with rings and modules. In particular, the set of ideals \mathcal{I} has sums, products and the obvious R-action

I+J=\{i+j\}

IJ=\{i_1j_1+\ldots+i_nj_n\}

The story of class field theory begins when we ask what division could mean in the context of ideals. Everything takes place in a integral domain, where we can build a field of fractions for our ring, R\hookrightarrow K. A fractional ideal Q ought to be a submodule Q\hookrightarrow K. We need more, though, because we also want to relate relate Q to R via the multiplication, so we require that there is some x\in R for which xQ\subseteq R. Note that this holds trivially in case Q is finitely generated.

It is easy to see that the multiplication of integral ideals extends to the fractions, and this gives us an associative operation with the unit R. It is not the case that every fractional ideal has an inverse, but we do have a sort of “best approximation”

I^*=\{x\in K| xI\subseteq R\}.

Then the product I^*I is trivially contained in R. Moreover, if anything more were included that condition would fail, so if I has an inverse in the semigroup, I^* is it.

We also have the notion of a principle ideal (x)=Rx, generated by a single element. This generalizes to fractional ideals as well, now allowing x to range over the field K. Clearly, every principle ideal is invertible, with inverse Rx^{-1}. We immediately have the notion of “principle fractional domain”, where all fractional ideals are principle. This would certainly imply that R itself was a principle ideal domain, but the converse turns out to be true as well, since two principle ideals Rx and Ry are equal iff x=uy for some unit u.

We finally get to the notion of class fields by taking the quotient of all fractional ideals by the subgroup principles. In general we only get back another monoid; if we want to get a class field group, we have to pass to the more restricted notion of a Dedekind domain. That will be the topic of my next post.

]]> http://www.unwantedcapture.org/2009/11/14/a-taste-of-algebraic-number-theory/feed/ 0