Thursday, 19 October 2006

nt.number theory - How natural is the reciprocity map?

The reciprocity map in the local case can be motivated by considering the unramified case. Let me try to explain this. For simplicity, let us consider the case of a finite abelian unramified extension Kn/bfQp of degree n. Denote by kn the residue field of Kn. The unramified condition gives rise to the isomorphism
Gal(Kn/bfQp)simeqGal(kn/bfFp)simeqbfZ/n.



Now we like to parametrize these abelian unramified extensions {Kn} of bfQp using information from bfQp. However, bfQp is not finitely generated as a module over bfZp, let along over bfZ. bfQptimes, on the other hand, decomposes as
bfQptimessimeqpbfZtimesbfZptimessimeqbfZtimesmup1timesZp,
which, if anything, at least contains a copy of bfZ (depending on the choice of a uniformizer, say p).



It then seems somewhat natural to consider the map bfQptimesxrightarrowArtGal(bfQpab,un/bfQp)qquadpmapstoFrob



where Frob is a choice of a topological generator for Gal(bfQpab,un/bfQp), the Galois group of the maximal abelian unramified extension bfQpab,un of bfQp, which is naturally isomorphic to Gal(barbfFp/bfFp) (which is itself non-canonically isomorphic to hatbfZ).



Now compose the Artin map Art with the restriction map Gal(bfQpab,un/bfQp)toGal(Kn/bfQp), we obtain a map
bfQptimesxrightarrowArtnGal(Kn/bfQp) whose kernel is pnbfZtimesbfZptimes, which coincidentally is also the image of the norm of Kntimes in bfQptimes.



This also sheds some light on the global situation, where you have Frobenius at all but finitely many primes. Don't quote me on this, but I recall the Artin reciprocity map is uniquely determined by its action on the Frobenii (I assume a Chebatorev density argument will show this, and you can prove Chebatorev Density Theorem independent of class field theory if I remember correctly.)



Lastly, we saw that the (local) reciprocity map depends on the choice of a Frobenius as well as that of a uniformizer.

No comments:

Post a Comment