How to understand the Artin-Schreier correspondence?
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p > 0$. Then it is due to Artin and Schreier that the assignment
$$c in K mapsto text{Splitting field } L_c text{ of } X^p-X+c$$
induces a bijection between the non-trivial elements in $K/{a^p-a mid a in K}$ and the $K$-isomorphism classes of Galois extensions of degree $p$ over $K$.
In particular, this should imply that if $c, c' in K$ are such that $L_c$ and $L_{c'}$ are $K$-isomorphic, then there is $k in K$ such that $k^p-k = c-c'$.
However, what about the following example (which was suggested by user8268 in this question): Let $p > 2$ and $c in K setminus {a^p-a mid a in K}$ and let $alpha in L_c$ be a root of $x^p-x+c$. Then the roots of $x^p-x+2c$ are given by $2alpha + u$, where $u$ ranges through $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$, hence $L_c = L_{2c}$. But $2c - c = c notin {a^p-a mid a in K}$.
How is this compatible with the Artin-Schreier correspondence? I am grateful for any help!
EDIT 1: Note that the Artin-Schreier correspondence is usually proved by constructing an inverse map, as it was done e.g. in this answer.
field-theory galois-theory splitting-field galois-extensions
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p > 0$. Then it is due to Artin and Schreier that the assignment
$$c in K mapsto text{Splitting field } L_c text{ of } X^p-X+c$$
induces a bijection between the non-trivial elements in $K/{a^p-a mid a in K}$ and the $K$-isomorphism classes of Galois extensions of degree $p$ over $K$.
In particular, this should imply that if $c, c' in K$ are such that $L_c$ and $L_{c'}$ are $K$-isomorphic, then there is $k in K$ such that $k^p-k = c-c'$.
However, what about the following example (which was suggested by user8268 in this question): Let $p > 2$ and $c in K setminus {a^p-a mid a in K}$ and let $alpha in L_c$ be a root of $x^p-x+c$. Then the roots of $x^p-x+2c$ are given by $2alpha + u$, where $u$ ranges through $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$, hence $L_c = L_{2c}$. But $2c - c = c notin {a^p-a mid a in K}$.
How is this compatible with the Artin-Schreier correspondence? I am grateful for any help!
EDIT 1: Note that the Artin-Schreier correspondence is usually proved by constructing an inverse map, as it was done e.g. in this answer.
field-theory galois-theory splitting-field galois-extensions
2
The bijection is rather between the Galois extensions of $K$ of order $p$ and $bigl(Ksetminus{a^p-a|ain K}bigr)/Bbb F_p^*$. (If $lambdainBbb F_p^*$ then $L_{lambda c}=L_c$.)
– user8268
Nov 17 at 20:45
@user8268: Yes, this seems to be the case, but why is the AS-correspondence always stated as I did it above?
– Algebrus
Nov 18 at 0:12
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p > 0$. Then it is due to Artin and Schreier that the assignment
$$c in K mapsto text{Splitting field } L_c text{ of } X^p-X+c$$
induces a bijection between the non-trivial elements in $K/{a^p-a mid a in K}$ and the $K$-isomorphism classes of Galois extensions of degree $p$ over $K$.
In particular, this should imply that if $c, c' in K$ are such that $L_c$ and $L_{c'}$ are $K$-isomorphic, then there is $k in K$ such that $k^p-k = c-c'$.
However, what about the following example (which was suggested by user8268 in this question): Let $p > 2$ and $c in K setminus {a^p-a mid a in K}$ and let $alpha in L_c$ be a root of $x^p-x+c$. Then the roots of $x^p-x+2c$ are given by $2alpha + u$, where $u$ ranges through $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$, hence $L_c = L_{2c}$. But $2c - c = c notin {a^p-a mid a in K}$.
How is this compatible with the Artin-Schreier correspondence? I am grateful for any help!
EDIT 1: Note that the Artin-Schreier correspondence is usually proved by constructing an inverse map, as it was done e.g. in this answer.
field-theory galois-theory splitting-field galois-extensions
Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p > 0$. Then it is due to Artin and Schreier that the assignment
$$c in K mapsto text{Splitting field } L_c text{ of } X^p-X+c$$
induces a bijection between the non-trivial elements in $K/{a^p-a mid a in K}$ and the $K$-isomorphism classes of Galois extensions of degree $p$ over $K$.
In particular, this should imply that if $c, c' in K$ are such that $L_c$ and $L_{c'}$ are $K$-isomorphic, then there is $k in K$ such that $k^p-k = c-c'$.
However, what about the following example (which was suggested by user8268 in this question): Let $p > 2$ and $c in K setminus {a^p-a mid a in K}$ and let $alpha in L_c$ be a root of $x^p-x+c$. Then the roots of $x^p-x+2c$ are given by $2alpha + u$, where $u$ ranges through $mathbb{F}_p subseteq K$, hence $L_c = L_{2c}$. But $2c - c = c notin {a^p-a mid a in K}$.
How is this compatible with the Artin-Schreier correspondence? I am grateful for any help!
EDIT 1: Note that the Artin-Schreier correspondence is usually proved by constructing an inverse map, as it was done e.g. in this answer.
field-theory galois-theory splitting-field galois-extensions
field-theory galois-theory splitting-field galois-extensions
edited Nov 17 at 10:08
asked Nov 17 at 9:52
Algebrus
412211
412211
2
The bijection is rather between the Galois extensions of $K$ of order $p$ and $bigl(Ksetminus{a^p-a|ain K}bigr)/Bbb F_p^*$. (If $lambdainBbb F_p^*$ then $L_{lambda c}=L_c$.)
– user8268
Nov 17 at 20:45
@user8268: Yes, this seems to be the case, but why is the AS-correspondence always stated as I did it above?
– Algebrus
Nov 18 at 0:12
add a comment |
2
The bijection is rather between the Galois extensions of $K$ of order $p$ and $bigl(Ksetminus{a^p-a|ain K}bigr)/Bbb F_p^*$. (If $lambdainBbb F_p^*$ then $L_{lambda c}=L_c$.)
– user8268
Nov 17 at 20:45
@user8268: Yes, this seems to be the case, but why is the AS-correspondence always stated as I did it above?
– Algebrus
Nov 18 at 0:12
2
2
The bijection is rather between the Galois extensions of $K$ of order $p$ and $bigl(Ksetminus{a^p-a|ain K}bigr)/Bbb F_p^*$. (If $lambdainBbb F_p^*$ then $L_{lambda c}=L_c$.)
– user8268
Nov 17 at 20:45
The bijection is rather between the Galois extensions of $K$ of order $p$ and $bigl(Ksetminus{a^p-a|ain K}bigr)/Bbb F_p^*$. (If $lambdainBbb F_p^*$ then $L_{lambda c}=L_c$.)
– user8268
Nov 17 at 20:45
@user8268: Yes, this seems to be the case, but why is the AS-correspondence always stated as I did it above?
– Algebrus
Nov 18 at 0:12
@user8268: Yes, this seems to be the case, but why is the AS-correspondence always stated as I did it above?
– Algebrus
Nov 18 at 0:12
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I should really check out a definite source, but I think the Artin-Schreier correspondence means the following. To summarize, the problem observed by user8268 can be resolved by insisting that the Galois groups should have a preferred generator.
So something like the following.
Let $L$ and $L'$ be two cyclic degree $p$ extensions of $K$, and let $sigma$ (resp. $sigma'$) be the respective preferred generators. We call $(L,sigma)$ and $(L',sigma')$ equivalent, if there exists a $K$-isomorphism $psi:Lto L'$ such that $$psicircsigma=sigma'circpsi.$$
Then the AS-correspondence is a bijection between the non-trivial cosets of the subgroup $A={x^p-xmid xin K}le(K,+)$ and the equivalence classes of pairs $(L,sigma)$. If $c+A$ is a non-trivial coset of $A$ then it corresponds to an extension $L=K(beta)$ with $beta^p-beta+c=0$ together with the preferred automorphism $sigma:Lto L$ uniquely determined by $sigma(beta)=beta+1$.
A consequence of this formulation is that while the splitting fields of $x^p-x+c$ and $x^p-x+2c$ are both equal to $L=K(beta)$, the above correspondence associates a different generator of the Galois group with the latter polynomial. The automorphism $sigma$ that maps $betamapsto beta+1$ will map $2betamapsto 2beta+2$, so we should associate $x^p-x+2c$ with the pair $(K(beta),sigma^2)$ instead of $(K(beta),sigma)$. Observe that those two pairs cannot be equivalent according to the above definition because $sigma'=sigma^2$ (and here every possible $psi$ commutes with $sigma$).
A few closing remarks:
- I may be out of my depth here, but I hazard a guess that the interpretation of this result in terms of Galois cohomology makes it necessary to specify the action of a fixed generator of the cyclic group.
- An analogous problem is present in Kummer theory also. For example, with $K=Bbb{Q}(omega)$, $omega=e^{2pi i/3},$ the cyclic cubic extensions $K(root3of2)$ and $K(root3of4)$ are clearly equal (as subsets of $Bbb{C}$) even though $2$ and $4$ belong to distinct (multiplicative) cosets of the subgroup of cubes of $K^*$. Here we also resolve the problem by observing that the automorphisms of $K(root3of2)$ that map $root3of2mapstoomegaroot3of2$ and $root3of4mapsto omegaroot3of4$ are similarly squares of each other, i.e. distinct generators of the Galois group.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Perhaps you should define precisely what you mean by a $K$-isomorphism class of Galois extensions of degree $p$ of $K$, and also give a reference for your formulation of the AS theorem. Because the classical formulation (as in Lang's "Algebra") reads : if $K$ is of characteristic $p$, the operator $P$ defined by $P(x)=x^p-x$ is an additive homomorphism of $K$ into itself; if $B$ is a subgroup of $(K,+)$ containing $P(K)$, the map $B to K_B=$ the splitting field of all the polynomials $P(X)-b$ for $bin B$ gives a bijection between all such groups $B$ and all the abelian extensions of $K$ of exponent $p$. This can be shown as follows :
If $K_s$ be a separable closure of $K$ and $G=Gal(K_s/K)$, a cyclic extension of degree $p$ of $K$ is obviously determined by the kernel of a (continuous) character $chi:G to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, and the problem consists in the description of $Hom(G,mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$). The quickest and clearest proof uses the additive version of Hilbert's thm. 90. More precisely, consider the exact sequence of $G$-modules $0to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z to K_s to K_s to 0$, where the righmost map, defined by $P$, is surjective because the polynomial $P(X)-b$ is separable. The associated cohomology exact sequence gives $K to K to H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) to H^1(G, K_s)$. But $H^1(G, K_s)=0$ (Hilbert's 90) and $H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)= Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)$ because $G$ acts trivially on $mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, hence $K/P(K)cong Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) $, and one can check that this isomorphism associates to $bin K$ the character $chi_b$ defined by $chi_b(g)=g(x)-x$, where $x$ is a root of $P(x)=b$.
In your example involving $X^p -X - c$ and $X^p -X - 2c$, the AS extenions coincide because $c$ and $2c$ generate the same (additive) group of order $p$ when $pneq 2$.
NB: in the kummerian case, the same arguments work for the multiplicative version of Hilbert 's 90 and any integer $n$ s.t. $K$ contains a primitive $n$-th root of unityin place of the prime $p$, and the same remark applies to the example given by @Jirki Lahtonen.
Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I should really check out a definite source, but I think the Artin-Schreier correspondence means the following. To summarize, the problem observed by user8268 can be resolved by insisting that the Galois groups should have a preferred generator.
So something like the following.
Let $L$ and $L'$ be two cyclic degree $p$ extensions of $K$, and let $sigma$ (resp. $sigma'$) be the respective preferred generators. We call $(L,sigma)$ and $(L',sigma')$ equivalent, if there exists a $K$-isomorphism $psi:Lto L'$ such that $$psicircsigma=sigma'circpsi.$$
Then the AS-correspondence is a bijection between the non-trivial cosets of the subgroup $A={x^p-xmid xin K}le(K,+)$ and the equivalence classes of pairs $(L,sigma)$. If $c+A$ is a non-trivial coset of $A$ then it corresponds to an extension $L=K(beta)$ with $beta^p-beta+c=0$ together with the preferred automorphism $sigma:Lto L$ uniquely determined by $sigma(beta)=beta+1$.
A consequence of this formulation is that while the splitting fields of $x^p-x+c$ and $x^p-x+2c$ are both equal to $L=K(beta)$, the above correspondence associates a different generator of the Galois group with the latter polynomial. The automorphism $sigma$ that maps $betamapsto beta+1$ will map $2betamapsto 2beta+2$, so we should associate $x^p-x+2c$ with the pair $(K(beta),sigma^2)$ instead of $(K(beta),sigma)$. Observe that those two pairs cannot be equivalent according to the above definition because $sigma'=sigma^2$ (and here every possible $psi$ commutes with $sigma$).
A few closing remarks:
- I may be out of my depth here, but I hazard a guess that the interpretation of this result in terms of Galois cohomology makes it necessary to specify the action of a fixed generator of the cyclic group.
- An analogous problem is present in Kummer theory also. For example, with $K=Bbb{Q}(omega)$, $omega=e^{2pi i/3},$ the cyclic cubic extensions $K(root3of2)$ and $K(root3of4)$ are clearly equal (as subsets of $Bbb{C}$) even though $2$ and $4$ belong to distinct (multiplicative) cosets of the subgroup of cubes of $K^*$. Here we also resolve the problem by observing that the automorphisms of $K(root3of2)$ that map $root3of2mapstoomegaroot3of2$ and $root3of4mapsto omegaroot3of4$ are similarly squares of each other, i.e. distinct generators of the Galois group.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I should really check out a definite source, but I think the Artin-Schreier correspondence means the following. To summarize, the problem observed by user8268 can be resolved by insisting that the Galois groups should have a preferred generator.
So something like the following.
Let $L$ and $L'$ be two cyclic degree $p$ extensions of $K$, and let $sigma$ (resp. $sigma'$) be the respective preferred generators. We call $(L,sigma)$ and $(L',sigma')$ equivalent, if there exists a $K$-isomorphism $psi:Lto L'$ such that $$psicircsigma=sigma'circpsi.$$
Then the AS-correspondence is a bijection between the non-trivial cosets of the subgroup $A={x^p-xmid xin K}le(K,+)$ and the equivalence classes of pairs $(L,sigma)$. If $c+A$ is a non-trivial coset of $A$ then it corresponds to an extension $L=K(beta)$ with $beta^p-beta+c=0$ together with the preferred automorphism $sigma:Lto L$ uniquely determined by $sigma(beta)=beta+1$.
A consequence of this formulation is that while the splitting fields of $x^p-x+c$ and $x^p-x+2c$ are both equal to $L=K(beta)$, the above correspondence associates a different generator of the Galois group with the latter polynomial. The automorphism $sigma$ that maps $betamapsto beta+1$ will map $2betamapsto 2beta+2$, so we should associate $x^p-x+2c$ with the pair $(K(beta),sigma^2)$ instead of $(K(beta),sigma)$. Observe that those two pairs cannot be equivalent according to the above definition because $sigma'=sigma^2$ (and here every possible $psi$ commutes with $sigma$).
A few closing remarks:
- I may be out of my depth here, but I hazard a guess that the interpretation of this result in terms of Galois cohomology makes it necessary to specify the action of a fixed generator of the cyclic group.
- An analogous problem is present in Kummer theory also. For example, with $K=Bbb{Q}(omega)$, $omega=e^{2pi i/3},$ the cyclic cubic extensions $K(root3of2)$ and $K(root3of4)$ are clearly equal (as subsets of $Bbb{C}$) even though $2$ and $4$ belong to distinct (multiplicative) cosets of the subgroup of cubes of $K^*$. Here we also resolve the problem by observing that the automorphisms of $K(root3of2)$ that map $root3of2mapstoomegaroot3of2$ and $root3of4mapsto omegaroot3of4$ are similarly squares of each other, i.e. distinct generators of the Galois group.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I should really check out a definite source, but I think the Artin-Schreier correspondence means the following. To summarize, the problem observed by user8268 can be resolved by insisting that the Galois groups should have a preferred generator.
So something like the following.
Let $L$ and $L'$ be two cyclic degree $p$ extensions of $K$, and let $sigma$ (resp. $sigma'$) be the respective preferred generators. We call $(L,sigma)$ and $(L',sigma')$ equivalent, if there exists a $K$-isomorphism $psi:Lto L'$ such that $$psicircsigma=sigma'circpsi.$$
Then the AS-correspondence is a bijection between the non-trivial cosets of the subgroup $A={x^p-xmid xin K}le(K,+)$ and the equivalence classes of pairs $(L,sigma)$. If $c+A$ is a non-trivial coset of $A$ then it corresponds to an extension $L=K(beta)$ with $beta^p-beta+c=0$ together with the preferred automorphism $sigma:Lto L$ uniquely determined by $sigma(beta)=beta+1$.
A consequence of this formulation is that while the splitting fields of $x^p-x+c$ and $x^p-x+2c$ are both equal to $L=K(beta)$, the above correspondence associates a different generator of the Galois group with the latter polynomial. The automorphism $sigma$ that maps $betamapsto beta+1$ will map $2betamapsto 2beta+2$, so we should associate $x^p-x+2c$ with the pair $(K(beta),sigma^2)$ instead of $(K(beta),sigma)$. Observe that those two pairs cannot be equivalent according to the above definition because $sigma'=sigma^2$ (and here every possible $psi$ commutes with $sigma$).
A few closing remarks:
- I may be out of my depth here, but I hazard a guess that the interpretation of this result in terms of Galois cohomology makes it necessary to specify the action of a fixed generator of the cyclic group.
- An analogous problem is present in Kummer theory also. For example, with $K=Bbb{Q}(omega)$, $omega=e^{2pi i/3},$ the cyclic cubic extensions $K(root3of2)$ and $K(root3of4)$ are clearly equal (as subsets of $Bbb{C}$) even though $2$ and $4$ belong to distinct (multiplicative) cosets of the subgroup of cubes of $K^*$. Here we also resolve the problem by observing that the automorphisms of $K(root3of2)$ that map $root3of2mapstoomegaroot3of2$ and $root3of4mapsto omegaroot3of4$ are similarly squares of each other, i.e. distinct generators of the Galois group.
I should really check out a definite source, but I think the Artin-Schreier correspondence means the following. To summarize, the problem observed by user8268 can be resolved by insisting that the Galois groups should have a preferred generator.
So something like the following.
Let $L$ and $L'$ be two cyclic degree $p$ extensions of $K$, and let $sigma$ (resp. $sigma'$) be the respective preferred generators. We call $(L,sigma)$ and $(L',sigma')$ equivalent, if there exists a $K$-isomorphism $psi:Lto L'$ such that $$psicircsigma=sigma'circpsi.$$
Then the AS-correspondence is a bijection between the non-trivial cosets of the subgroup $A={x^p-xmid xin K}le(K,+)$ and the equivalence classes of pairs $(L,sigma)$. If $c+A$ is a non-trivial coset of $A$ then it corresponds to an extension $L=K(beta)$ with $beta^p-beta+c=0$ together with the preferred automorphism $sigma:Lto L$ uniquely determined by $sigma(beta)=beta+1$.
A consequence of this formulation is that while the splitting fields of $x^p-x+c$ and $x^p-x+2c$ are both equal to $L=K(beta)$, the above correspondence associates a different generator of the Galois group with the latter polynomial. The automorphism $sigma$ that maps $betamapsto beta+1$ will map $2betamapsto 2beta+2$, so we should associate $x^p-x+2c$ with the pair $(K(beta),sigma^2)$ instead of $(K(beta),sigma)$. Observe that those two pairs cannot be equivalent according to the above definition because $sigma'=sigma^2$ (and here every possible $psi$ commutes with $sigma$).
A few closing remarks:
- I may be out of my depth here, but I hazard a guess that the interpretation of this result in terms of Galois cohomology makes it necessary to specify the action of a fixed generator of the cyclic group.
- An analogous problem is present in Kummer theory also. For example, with $K=Bbb{Q}(omega)$, $omega=e^{2pi i/3},$ the cyclic cubic extensions $K(root3of2)$ and $K(root3of4)$ are clearly equal (as subsets of $Bbb{C}$) even though $2$ and $4$ belong to distinct (multiplicative) cosets of the subgroup of cubes of $K^*$. Here we also resolve the problem by observing that the automorphisms of $K(root3of2)$ that map $root3of2mapstoomegaroot3of2$ and $root3of4mapsto omegaroot3of4$ are similarly squares of each other, i.e. distinct generators of the Galois group.
edited Nov 19 at 19:22
answered Nov 19 at 13:31
Jyrki Lahtonen
107k12166364
107k12166364
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Perhaps you should define precisely what you mean by a $K$-isomorphism class of Galois extensions of degree $p$ of $K$, and also give a reference for your formulation of the AS theorem. Because the classical formulation (as in Lang's "Algebra") reads : if $K$ is of characteristic $p$, the operator $P$ defined by $P(x)=x^p-x$ is an additive homomorphism of $K$ into itself; if $B$ is a subgroup of $(K,+)$ containing $P(K)$, the map $B to K_B=$ the splitting field of all the polynomials $P(X)-b$ for $bin B$ gives a bijection between all such groups $B$ and all the abelian extensions of $K$ of exponent $p$. This can be shown as follows :
If $K_s$ be a separable closure of $K$ and $G=Gal(K_s/K)$, a cyclic extension of degree $p$ of $K$ is obviously determined by the kernel of a (continuous) character $chi:G to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, and the problem consists in the description of $Hom(G,mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$). The quickest and clearest proof uses the additive version of Hilbert's thm. 90. More precisely, consider the exact sequence of $G$-modules $0to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z to K_s to K_s to 0$, where the righmost map, defined by $P$, is surjective because the polynomial $P(X)-b$ is separable. The associated cohomology exact sequence gives $K to K to H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) to H^1(G, K_s)$. But $H^1(G, K_s)=0$ (Hilbert's 90) and $H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)= Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)$ because $G$ acts trivially on $mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, hence $K/P(K)cong Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) $, and one can check that this isomorphism associates to $bin K$ the character $chi_b$ defined by $chi_b(g)=g(x)-x$, where $x$ is a root of $P(x)=b$.
In your example involving $X^p -X - c$ and $X^p -X - 2c$, the AS extenions coincide because $c$ and $2c$ generate the same (additive) group of order $p$ when $pneq 2$.
NB: in the kummerian case, the same arguments work for the multiplicative version of Hilbert 's 90 and any integer $n$ s.t. $K$ contains a primitive $n$-th root of unityin place of the prime $p$, and the same remark applies to the example given by @Jirki Lahtonen.
Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Perhaps you should define precisely what you mean by a $K$-isomorphism class of Galois extensions of degree $p$ of $K$, and also give a reference for your formulation of the AS theorem. Because the classical formulation (as in Lang's "Algebra") reads : if $K$ is of characteristic $p$, the operator $P$ defined by $P(x)=x^p-x$ is an additive homomorphism of $K$ into itself; if $B$ is a subgroup of $(K,+)$ containing $P(K)$, the map $B to K_B=$ the splitting field of all the polynomials $P(X)-b$ for $bin B$ gives a bijection between all such groups $B$ and all the abelian extensions of $K$ of exponent $p$. This can be shown as follows :
If $K_s$ be a separable closure of $K$ and $G=Gal(K_s/K)$, a cyclic extension of degree $p$ of $K$ is obviously determined by the kernel of a (continuous) character $chi:G to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, and the problem consists in the description of $Hom(G,mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$). The quickest and clearest proof uses the additive version of Hilbert's thm. 90. More precisely, consider the exact sequence of $G$-modules $0to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z to K_s to K_s to 0$, where the righmost map, defined by $P$, is surjective because the polynomial $P(X)-b$ is separable. The associated cohomology exact sequence gives $K to K to H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) to H^1(G, K_s)$. But $H^1(G, K_s)=0$ (Hilbert's 90) and $H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)= Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)$ because $G$ acts trivially on $mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, hence $K/P(K)cong Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) $, and one can check that this isomorphism associates to $bin K$ the character $chi_b$ defined by $chi_b(g)=g(x)-x$, where $x$ is a root of $P(x)=b$.
In your example involving $X^p -X - c$ and $X^p -X - 2c$, the AS extenions coincide because $c$ and $2c$ generate the same (additive) group of order $p$ when $pneq 2$.
NB: in the kummerian case, the same arguments work for the multiplicative version of Hilbert 's 90 and any integer $n$ s.t. $K$ contains a primitive $n$-th root of unityin place of the prime $p$, and the same remark applies to the example given by @Jirki Lahtonen.
Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Perhaps you should define precisely what you mean by a $K$-isomorphism class of Galois extensions of degree $p$ of $K$, and also give a reference for your formulation of the AS theorem. Because the classical formulation (as in Lang's "Algebra") reads : if $K$ is of characteristic $p$, the operator $P$ defined by $P(x)=x^p-x$ is an additive homomorphism of $K$ into itself; if $B$ is a subgroup of $(K,+)$ containing $P(K)$, the map $B to K_B=$ the splitting field of all the polynomials $P(X)-b$ for $bin B$ gives a bijection between all such groups $B$ and all the abelian extensions of $K$ of exponent $p$. This can be shown as follows :
If $K_s$ be a separable closure of $K$ and $G=Gal(K_s/K)$, a cyclic extension of degree $p$ of $K$ is obviously determined by the kernel of a (continuous) character $chi:G to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, and the problem consists in the description of $Hom(G,mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$). The quickest and clearest proof uses the additive version of Hilbert's thm. 90. More precisely, consider the exact sequence of $G$-modules $0to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z to K_s to K_s to 0$, where the righmost map, defined by $P$, is surjective because the polynomial $P(X)-b$ is separable. The associated cohomology exact sequence gives $K to K to H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) to H^1(G, K_s)$. But $H^1(G, K_s)=0$ (Hilbert's 90) and $H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)= Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)$ because $G$ acts trivially on $mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, hence $K/P(K)cong Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) $, and one can check that this isomorphism associates to $bin K$ the character $chi_b$ defined by $chi_b(g)=g(x)-x$, where $x$ is a root of $P(x)=b$.
In your example involving $X^p -X - c$ and $X^p -X - 2c$, the AS extenions coincide because $c$ and $2c$ generate the same (additive) group of order $p$ when $pneq 2$.
NB: in the kummerian case, the same arguments work for the multiplicative version of Hilbert 's 90 and any integer $n$ s.t. $K$ contains a primitive $n$-th root of unityin place of the prime $p$, and the same remark applies to the example given by @Jirki Lahtonen.
Perhaps you should define precisely what you mean by a $K$-isomorphism class of Galois extensions of degree $p$ of $K$, and also give a reference for your formulation of the AS theorem. Because the classical formulation (as in Lang's "Algebra") reads : if $K$ is of characteristic $p$, the operator $P$ defined by $P(x)=x^p-x$ is an additive homomorphism of $K$ into itself; if $B$ is a subgroup of $(K,+)$ containing $P(K)$, the map $B to K_B=$ the splitting field of all the polynomials $P(X)-b$ for $bin B$ gives a bijection between all such groups $B$ and all the abelian extensions of $K$ of exponent $p$. This can be shown as follows :
If $K_s$ be a separable closure of $K$ and $G=Gal(K_s/K)$, a cyclic extension of degree $p$ of $K$ is obviously determined by the kernel of a (continuous) character $chi:G to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, and the problem consists in the description of $Hom(G,mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$). The quickest and clearest proof uses the additive version of Hilbert's thm. 90. More precisely, consider the exact sequence of $G$-modules $0to mathbf Z/pmathbf Z to K_s to K_s to 0$, where the righmost map, defined by $P$, is surjective because the polynomial $P(X)-b$ is separable. The associated cohomology exact sequence gives $K to K to H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) to H^1(G, K_s)$. But $H^1(G, K_s)=0$ (Hilbert's 90) and $H^1(G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)= Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z)$ because $G$ acts trivially on $mathbf Z/pmathbf Z$, hence $K/P(K)cong Hom (G, mathbf Z/pmathbf Z) $, and one can check that this isomorphism associates to $bin K$ the character $chi_b$ defined by $chi_b(g)=g(x)-x$, where $x$ is a root of $P(x)=b$.
In your example involving $X^p -X - c$ and $X^p -X - 2c$, the AS extenions coincide because $c$ and $2c$ generate the same (additive) group of order $p$ when $pneq 2$.
NB: in the kummerian case, the same arguments work for the multiplicative version of Hilbert 's 90 and any integer $n$ s.t. $K$ contains a primitive $n$-th root of unityin place of the prime $p$, and the same remark applies to the example given by @Jirki Lahtonen.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
nguyen quang do
8,2161621
8,2161621
Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
yesterday
add a comment |
Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
yesterday
Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
yesterday
Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
yesterday
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002150%2fhow-to-understand-the-artin-schreier-correspondence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
The bijection is rather between the Galois extensions of $K$ of order $p$ and $bigl(Ksetminus{a^p-a|ain K}bigr)/Bbb F_p^*$. (If $lambdainBbb F_p^*$ then $L_{lambda c}=L_c$.)
– user8268
Nov 17 at 20:45
@user8268: Yes, this seems to be the case, but why is the AS-correspondence always stated as I did it above?
– Algebrus
Nov 18 at 0:12