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

In corollary 4.3.13 of Rosenberg's book Algebraic K-theory and its applications, it's proved that $K_2(F)=0$ if $F$ is a finite field.

The last sentence in the proof says that the central extension $\varphi:St(F)\rightarrow SL(F)$ is trivial over $N(F)$, then it is concluded that p-primary part of $K_2(F)$ vanishes. I could not see why this is true. Can anybody shed some light on this? Thanks!

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

In the following all references refer to Rosenberg's book.

Let $U(n,F) \le Sl(n,F)$ be the group of upper triangular matrices with 1's in the diagonal and let $N(n,F) \le St(n,F)$ be the group in the proof of 4.2.3. Furthermore let $K_2(n,F)$ be the kernel of $\varphi_n: St(n,F) \to Sl(n,F)$ and denote by $E \le St(n,F)$ the subgroup generated by $N(n,F)$ and $K_2(n,F)$. There is a commutative diagramm of central extensions $$ 1 \to K_2(n,F) \to St(n,F) \to Sl(n,F) \to 1 $$ $$ \uparrow \hspace{50pt} \uparrow \hspace{40pt} \uparrow $$ $$ 1 \to K_2(n,F) \to \quad E \quad \to U(n,F) \to 1$$ (the left arrow is the identity and the others are inclusions). Let $e \in H^2(Sl(n,F),K_2(n,F))$ be the extension class from the upper extension. Then $\text{res}^2(e) \in H^2(U(n,F),K_2(n,F))$ corresponds to the lower extension and since it splits by 4.2.3, $\text{res}^2(e) = 0$.

Now the universal coefficient theorem (4.1.13) yields the commutative diagramm $$H^2(Sl(n,F),K_2(n,F)) \to Hom(H_2(Sl(n,F);\mathbb{Z}), K_2(n,F))$$ $$ \downarrow \hspace{60pt} \downarrow \hspace{40pt} $$ $$H^2(U(n,F),K_2(n,F)) \to Hom(H_2(U(n,F);\mathbb{Z}), K_2(n,F))$$ The left arrow is $\text{res}^2$ and the right is the dual $\text{res}_2^\ast$ of $$\text{res}_2: H_2(U(n,F);\mathbb{Z}) \to H_2(Sl(n,F);\mathbb{Z}).$$ Moreover, the upper arrow is an isomorphism, since $Sl(n,F)$ is perfect.

Let $\alpha_n: H_2(Sl(n,F);\mathbb{Z}) \to K_2(n,F)$ correspond to $e$ under this iso. Then $$0 = \text{res}_2^\ast(\alpha_n) = \alpha_n \circ \text{res}_2.$$

By 4.1.19, $\alpha = \text{colim } \alpha_n$ is an isomorphism. So we can assume that $\alpha_n$ is injective, which implies $\text{res}_2 = 0$. Since $U(n,F)$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $Sl(n,F)$, the image of $\text{res}_2 =0$ is the $p$-primary part $H_2(Sl(n,F);\mathbb{Z})_{(p)}$ of $H_2(Sl(n,F);\mathbb{Z})$ by 4.1.24. Thus $H_2(Sl(n,F);\mathbb{Z})_{(p)} =0$ which implies $H_2(Sl(F);\mathbb{Z})_{(p)} =0$. But $H_2(Sl(F);\mathbb{Z}) \cong K_2(F)$ (4.1.19), hence $K_2(F)_{(p)} = 0$, what was to be shown. q.e.d.

I don't know if this is the argument Rosenberg had in mind (perhaps someone from the forum can provide a simpler one). Nevertheless I hope it sheds some light on the subject.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! I think it is better if Rosenberg explains what he had in mind in the textbook. –  Liu Hang Oct 28 '11 at 3:36
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.