3
$\begingroup$

I understand the work in Cohen and Lenstra's paper that leads up to the heuristics themselves, where they count weighted averages of functions defined over isomorphism classes of $A$-modules, where $A$ is a number ring. When they get to the heuristics themselves, they start by saying: "Let $\Gamma$ be an abelian group of order $N$ and $r_1, r_2$ chosen such that $r_1+2r_2=N$. Finally we let $A=A_{\Gamma}$ be the maximal order in the ring $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]/\sum_{g\in\Gamma}g$. It is well known that $A_{\Gamma}$ is unique and that it is a product of rings of integers of number fields".

I don't really understand their notation. Is this supposed to be a quotient of the group ring $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]$? Also, what do they mean by "maximal order"? Isn't an order just a subring of a number ring? And for a number ring $\mathcal{O}$, $\mathcal{O}$ itself is the maximal order contained in $\mathcal{O}$. But $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]/\sum_{g\in\Gamma}g$ is not a number ring? Finally, what is the intuition behind the ring $A_{\Gamma}$? I assume it is supposed to be related in some way to an abelian extension of $\mathbb{Q}$ with Galois group $\Gamma$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If $\Gamma$ is cyclic of order $n$ then their ring $\mathbf Q[\Gamma]/\sum_{g\in \Gamma} g$ is basically $\mathbf Q[X]/(1+X+...+X^{n-1})$, which is not a field unless $n$ is prime. In general this ring is a product of fields, namely the fields $\mathbf Q[X]/(\Phi_d(X))$ where $d$ runs over the factors of $n$ greater than $1$. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Oct 15, 2014 at 3:17

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

The group $\Gamma$ is indeed isomorphic to the Galois groups of the fields in the family, whose class groups one studies. The class groups come with a natural action of $\Gamma$, but under this action, the primitive central idempotent $\sum_{g\in \Gamma}g$, which corresponds to the trivial representation, acts as zero on the coprime-to-$|\Gamma|$ part (in other words, the coprime-to-$|\Gamma|$ part has no fixed points under the action of $\Gamma$), so this part is naturally a module under the quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[\Gamma]/\langle\sum_{g\in \Gamma}g\rangle$ (and more, see below).

In general, for arbitrary finite groups $\Gamma$, $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]$ is a semisimple $\mathbb{Q}$-algebra, i.e. a direct product of matrix algebras over division algebras. It always has a direct summand isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$, generated by the above-mentioned idempotent, and Cohen–Lenstra pass to the quotient, since that idempotent is not interfering with their Galois action.

If $R$ is any integrally closed Noetherian domain (such as $\mathbb{Z}$, or the localisation $\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}$ at a prime $p$), and $\mathbb{K}$ is the field of fractions, then an $R$-order in a semisimple $\mathbb{K}$-algebra is a subring that is a finitely generated $R$-module and that generates the algebra over $\mathbb{K}$. For example $\mathbb{Z}[\Gamma]$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-order (or just "order" when $R=\mathbb{Z}$) in $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]$. But also, $\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Gamma]$ is a $\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}$-order in the same algebra. A maximal $R$-order is an $R$-order that is not properly contained in any other $R$-order. It requires proof that such a thing exists. In the particular case that Cohen–Lenstra are talking about, the maximal order is unique, and contains $\mathbb{Z}[\Gamma]$.

One can show by localising that for any $\Gamma$ (not just abelian), if $A_\Gamma$ is a maximal order in $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]$ that contains $\mathbb{Z}[\Gamma]$, then the coefficients of the elements in $A_{\Gamma}$ have denominators supported only at prime divisors of $|\Gamma|$. In other words, if $p$ is a prime that does not divide $|\Gamma|$, then $\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[\Gamma]$ is a maximal $\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}$-order in $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]$. It follows that if $A$ is a $\Gamma$-module of order coprime to $|\Gamma|$, then $A$ has a well-defined action of $A_{\Gamma}$ (because if $p\nmid |A|$, then you can "divide by $p$" in $A$).

For this and much more on maximal orders, see I. Reiner's book "Maximal Orders".

When $\Gamma$ is not assumed to be commutative, a maximal order in $\mathbb{Q}[G]$ is no longer unique, in general, and the situation is more complicated. This case was treated a few years later by Cohen–Martinet.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Perfect. This is exactly what I needed. $\endgroup$
    – JAN
    Oct 15, 2014 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ One more question: What is the action of $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]$ on $\textrm{Cl}(K)$? I.e how do each of the matrix algebras act on $\textrm{Cl}(K)$? $\endgroup$
    – JAN
    Oct 16, 2014 at 0:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry Jan, I was being sloppy. Of course, an arbitrary element of $\mathbb{Q}$ has no way of acting on the class groups. But the maximal order in $\mathbb{Z}[\Gamma]$ does act on the coprime-to-$|\Gamma|$ part of the class group. I have expanded the answer to explain this. $\endgroup$
    – Alex B.
    Oct 16, 2014 at 9:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Melanka: if $\Gamma$ is cyclic of order $p$, then a maximal order in $\mathbb{Q}[\Gamma]$ will have denominators, when expressed in terms of the standard basis $g\in \Gamma$. When you pass to a quotient, there is no well-defined meaning of "having denominators", because it depends on the basis. Of course you can pick a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis for your maximal order, and then by definition the elements of that order will have no denominators w.r.t. that basis. Having said that, there is a well-defined action of $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_p]$ on the $p$-class group in your example, but the C-L heuristic... $\endgroup$
    – Alex B.
    Nov 3, 2020 at 18:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...needs to be modified to take into account genus theory. This was done by Frank Gerth III some years after the original paper of C-L. $\endgroup$
    – Alex B.
    Nov 3, 2020 at 18:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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