Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hi, Let $A$ be a division algebra over a local field $F$ of dimension $n^2$ and $K$ be an extension of $F$ of degree $n$. Then if follows from COROLLARY 2 in page 225 of Weil's Basic Number Theory that $A$ is split over $K$. Now my question is

  1. Does $A$ contain a subfield isomorphic to $K$ ? Why?

  2. Could you descirbe the general picture about "maximal subfields in central simple algebras" over a (not necessarily local) field ? Or tell me some references.

Thank you !

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Corollaries 3.4 and 3.7 on pages 130 and 131 of Milne's notes (jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/CFT.pdf) will give you the answers.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks. So any finite extension $K$ of a local field $F$ of degree $n$ could be embedded into the division algebra $A$ over $F$ of degree $n^2$. Is it right ? –  user4245 Aug 1 '12 at 13:35
    
And in the case of global fields, when could the field $K$ be embedded into the division algebra $A$ over $F$ ? One expect $K$ and $A$ should be "compatible" locally. –  user4245 Aug 1 '12 at 16:27
add comment

To address 2.: for any central simple algebra $A$ over a field $k$, there is a well-developed theory describing the relations between finite splitting fields $l/k$ for $A$ and fields which are sub-$k$-algebras of $A$. The most important result is probably this one:

Theorem: Let $A$ be a central simple algebra over a field $k$, of dimension $n^2$. For a field extension $l/k$ of degree $n$, the following are equivalent:
(i) There is a $k$-algebra embedding $l \hookrightarrow A$.
(ii) $l$ is a splitting field for $A$.

A proof of this result can be found, for instance, in $\S 6.2$ of these notes on noncommutative algebra. Citations to more substantial treatments are given in $\S 6.10$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks very much for this nice reference for central simple algebra. I am a bit confused: don't you need to pass to an suitable $A^\prime$ similar to $A$ in (i) of the theorem ? –  user4245 Aug 2 '12 at 6:33
    
@unknown: I don't think so (and the statement and proof of the result I quote appears in my notes). Why do you think you need to pass to $A'$? –  Pete L. Clark Aug 2 '12 at 7:11
    
Oh,I see! I just miss the condition "of dimension $n^2$" in your statement. Sorry and thanks again. –  user4245 Aug 2 '12 at 7:18
add comment

The answer to your first question can also be found in Weil's Basic Number Theory. See Corollary 3 on page 180, and note that if two central simple algebras of the same dimension are similar then they are isomorphic.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you so much! I just miss it. –  user4245 Aug 2 '12 at 6:26
1  
Note that Weil restricts to separable-extension case for simplicity. –  user4245 Aug 2 '12 at 12:06
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.