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

For any field $F$, there is a natural group homomorphism $K_n^{\rm M}(F) \to K_n(F)$ from Milnor's $K$-theory to Quillen's $K$-theory. If $n=2$, it is an isomorphism, by Matsumoto's theorem. It is a well known theorem of Quillen that if $F$ is a number field, then the groups $K_n(F)$ are finitely generated for $n\geq 2$. It is known in particular, that the group $K_2(\mathbb Q)$ is finite, isomorphic to $\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$.

I am now confused about the following result of Tate (I got it from Milnors "Introduction to Algebraic K-theory", Theorem 11.6): There is a canonical, split exact sequence of commutative groups $$0 \to \{\pm1\} \to K_2^{\rm M}(\mathbb Q) \to \bigoplus_p (\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^\ast \to 0 $$ and in particular, $K_2^{\rm M}(\mathbb Q)$ is an infinite torsion group. The first term in the sequence should be interpreted as $K_2^{\rm M}(\mathbb Z)$, and each $(\mathbb Z/p\mathbb Z)^\ast$ should be seen as $K_1$ of the finite field with $p$ elements.

What did I misunderstand? Is it not true that $K_2^{\rm M}(\mathbb Q) \cong K_2(\mathbb Q)$ -- or is it not true that $K_2(\mathbb Q)$ is finitely generated --- or did I misquote Tate's theorem?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The mistake is your assumption $K_2(\mathbb Q) = \mathbb Z/2$.

For any number field $F$ with ring of integers $\mathcal{O}$, the isomorphism $K_n(F) \cong K_n(\mathcal{O})$ is true only for $n > 1$ odd. If $n > 1$ is even, there is a short exact sequence $$0 \to K_n(\mathcal{O}) \to K_n(F) \to \oplus_P K_{n-1}(\mathcal{O}/P) \to 0$$ where $P$ runs through the primes of $\mathcal{O}$.

Moreover, it's known that $K_n(\mathcal{O})$ is finite for $n>1$ even (for instance $K_2(\mathbb Z) = \mathbb Z/2$). So in this case, $K_n(F)$ is an infinite torsion group.

An excellent survey on the K-theory of number fields can be found in this paper of Weibel.

share|improve this answer
    
thanks- that settles it. –  Xandi Tuni Mar 26 '12 at 17:37
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.