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

Short version:

Over which fields is the (appropriate version of the) "Sylvester law of inertia" valid?

Long version:

Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vector space over the field $\Bbbk$ of characteristic different from $2$ (so quadratic forms are the same as symmetric bilinear forms). Consider the "discriminant" function

$$\mathrm{discr}: \mathrm{Sym}^2(V^*)\to \Bbbk/\Bbbk^2,$$

where $\Bbbk/\Bbbk^2$ is the quotient of the multiplicative monoid $\Bbbk$ by the squares, which maps a (possibly degenerate) symmetric bilinear form $q$ to the determinant of it's matrix relative to any base, which is well defined up to multiplication by squares. Of course, this is not a complete invariant, as different degenerate quadratic forms all have discriminant $0$.

Given $q\in\mathrm{Sym}^2(V^*)$, and an orthogonal basis $B$ for $V$ in which $q$ has the form $\Sigma_i\lambda_ix_iy_i$, we have a "signature" map

$$\sigma_q^B:\Bbbk/\Bbbk^2\to\mathbb{N}$$

sending a $\lambda$ in the domain to the number of vectors in $B$ for wich the corresponding $\lambda_i$ has image $\lambda$ in $\Bbbk/\Bbbk^2$.

1) Is $\sigma_q^B$ independent from $B$ ?

-

2) If the answer to 1) is "yes", is $q\mapsto\sigma_q$ a complete invariant for quadratic forms over $\Bbbk$ ? That is, is it true that two quadratic spaces $(V,q)$ and $(V',q')$ are isomorphic if and only if $\sigma_q=\sigma_{q'}$ ?

For $\Bbbk=\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$ the answer to 1) and 2) is "yes": it's is the usual Sylvester law of inertia. Maybe the above general question has a well known or even elementary answer?...

share|improve this question
    
For a sufficiently flexible notion of appropriateness, the answer is for all fields, by using the Grothendieck-Witt ring. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Aug 29 '12 at 20:12
    
@Mariano: can you elaborate a bit? (maybe as an answer, since your assertion seems to somehow answer the question...) –  Qfwfq Aug 29 '12 at 21:01
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

OK, I now have a complete answer; I'll delete the other shortly. The answer to question 2 is yes and easily so; I wonder if I am missing something. If one quadratic form is $\sum a_i x_i^2$, and other is $\sum b_i y_i^2$, and $a_i = b_i u_i^2$ for $u_i \neq 0$, then clearly the two quadratic forms are equivalent by the invertible change of variable $x_i = y_i u_i$.


Now for the interesting part. Let $K$ be a field. The following are equivalent:

(1) The answer to Question 1 is "yes".

(2) For every $a \in K$ we have (Condition 2a) either $a$ or $-a$ is square and (Condition 2b) the sum of two squares is a square.

(3) One of the following two cases occurs: (Case 3a) Every element of $K$ is square or (Case 3b) $K$ is an ordered field in which every positive element is square.

$(1) \implies (2)$:

For $a \neq 0$, note that $$\begin{pmatrix} (a+1)/2 & (a-1)/2 \\ (a-1)/2 & (a+1)/2 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} (a+1)/2 & (a-1)/2 \\ (a-1)/2 & (a+1)/2 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} a & 0 \\ 0 & -a \end{pmatrix}$$ So the quadratic forms $x^2-y^2$ and $ax^2-ay^2$ are equivalent. We deduce that either $a$ or $-a$ is a square.

For any $a$ and $b$, not both zero, note that $$\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} a & -b \\ b & a \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} a^2+b^2 & 0 \\ 0 & a^2+b^2 \end{pmatrix}$$ So the forms $x^2+y^2$ and $(a^2+b^2) x^2 + (a^2+b^2) y^2$ are equivalent, and we deuce that $a^2+b^2$ is a square.

$(2) \implies (3)$: If $-1$ is square, then Condition 2a implies that everything is square. If not, define a total order on $K$ by $x \leq y$ if $y-x$ is square. Condition 2a implies that this is a total order; condition 2b implies that it is transitive and compatible with addition; I leave it as an exercise that it is compatible with multiplication by positive elements. So $K$ is an ordered field where the positive elements are the squares, and we are in condition (3b).

$(3) \implies (1)$. If we are in case 3a, then the statement is trivial because $K/K^2$ only contains one nonzero element. In case 3b, look up your favorite proof that signature is a well-defined invariant of real quadratic forms, and note that it only uses these facts.


I suspect some classical algebraist assigned a name to fields as in 3b. They are more special than formally real field (where $-1$ is not a sum of squares), but less special than real closed fields (where, in addition to the properties in 3b, we require that every odd degree polynomial have a root).

An example of a field as in 3b is the field of real numbers which have straight-edge and compass constructions.

share|improve this answer
    
Very nice! $\text{}$ –  Dan Petersen Aug 30 '12 at 10:52
    
You should assume $a^2 + b^2$ is nonzero before saying that the forms are equivalent (not that it matters in the end). –  S. Carnahan Aug 31 '12 at 5:29
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.