MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have been working through Langlands paper which you can see here and I can understand why one of his maps is obvious and how it helps. First I'll give the notation

Take a algebraic torus over $F$ that splits over a Galois extension $K$ of $F$, then the torus corresponds to a lattice $L$ on which $G=Gal(K/F)$ acts. Then let $\widehat{L}=Hom(L,\mathbb{Z})$. Then we define $\widehat{T}=Hom(\widehat{L},\mathbb{C}^*)$, and we define the Weil group as the extension $$0 \longrightarrow C_K \longrightarrow W_{K/F} \longrightarrow Gal(K/F) \longrightarrow 0.$$ ($C_{K}$ is the idele class group) and finally let $N = \sum_{g \in G} g$

On page 13 of his paper hes shown that there is an isomorphism $$H^{1}(W_{K/F},\widehat{T}) \longrightarrow Hom(H_{1}(W_{K/F},\widehat{L}),\mathbb{C}^{*}).$$ And now he wants to show that that image of a continuous cocycle will be continuous. To do this he proceeds as follows. He defines $U_{K}$ as the elements on norm 1 in $C_K$ and constructs the exact sequence $$1 \longrightarrow U_K \longrightarrow C_K \longrightarrow M_K \longrightarrow 1,$$ $M_K$ being $\mathbb{Z}$ or $\mathbb{R}$. He then uses $L$ to make the sequence $$0 \longrightarrow Hom(L,U_K) \overset{\lambda}\longrightarrow Hom(L,C_K) \overset{\mu}\longrightarrow Hom(L,M_K) \longrightarrow 0$$. And now this is where I get lost, he claims there is an obvious map from $$N(Hom(L,C_K)) \cap Hom(L,U_K)/N(Hom(L,U_K))$$ to $$\hat{H}^{-1}(G,Hom(L,M_K))/ \mu \hat{H}^{-1}(G,Hom(L,C_K)).$$ Here the $\hat{H}$ means Tate groups.

Is this map obvious? and why is the second group finite? which he claims.

Thank you

share|cite|improve this question
The topology on the $H_1$ must be defined for the motivating problem to make sense; there is content since cycles in $H_1$ are functions satisfying a "vanish almost everywhere" condition (unlike cocycles). We topologize $H_1(C_K,\widehat{L})$ as a finite power of $C_K$, and (with a fair amount of work!) on pp. 4-13 Langlands shows its Gal$(K/F)$-invariants are identified with $H_1(W,\widehat{L})$ via restriction. That defines the topology on the latter, as Langlands says back atop p.4 (!). For clarity in the MO question it would be good to remark upon it in some way (at least briefly). – user29283 Nov 24 '12 at 14:22
There are several expositions of Langlands paper in the literature, for example, Labesse, J.-P. Cohomologie, $L$-groupes et fonctorialité. (French) [Cohomology, $L$-groups and functoriality] Compositio Math. 55 (1985), no. 2, 163--184. – anon Nov 24 '12 at 19:31
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The map is induced by a map $N(Hom(L, C_{K})) \cap Hom(L, U_{K})$ to $\hat{H}^{-1}(G, Hom(L, M_{K}))$, which is obtained as follows. If $z$ is in $Hom(L, U_{K})$ and $z = Nx$, where $x \in Hom(L, C_{K})$, where should we send $z$? Well, $N(\mu(x)) = 0$. Therefore $\mu(x)$ maps to something in $\hat{H}^{-1}(G, Hom(L, M_{K}))$ by definition of the latter group. And that element is where we want to send $z$.

For the finiteness question, try writing down the long exact sequence in Tate cohomology for the short exact sequence $0 \rightarrow U_{K} \rightarrow C_{K} \rightarrow M_{K} \rightarrow 0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you, this helps, I can see why its sort of obvious. As for the finiteness ill write it out and see if I can see it. – Chris Birkbeck Nov 24 '12 at 18:15
Actually I'm still a little lost. Why is $N(\mu(x))=0$?. I'm guessing that $U_K$ are elements such that $|u|=1$ where $||$ is the product of all the valuations. But if so then wouldnt $\mu(x)=|| \circ x$? And if so I cant see why its norm would be zero. I feel I'm getting confused by the multiple meanings of norm. – Chris Birkbeck Nov 25 '12 at 0:56
$N(\mu(x)) = \mu(N(x)) = 0$ because $N(x) = z$ is in $Hom(L, U_{K})$ and $0 \rightarrow Hom(L,U_{K}) \rightarrow Hom(L, C_{K}) \rightarrow Hom(L, M_{K}) \rightarrow 0$ is exact. – Sam Nolen Nov 25 '12 at 6:24
Yes of course I'm so silly. Thank you – Chris Birkbeck Nov 25 '12 at 11:21

Your Answer


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.