Skip to main content
deleted 15 characters in body
Source Link
Michael Hardy
  • 1
  • 12
  • 85
  • 126

Context: I've just started reading Tate's thesis. In it, we start with a local field k.$k.$ The aim of the section is to describe the structure of the character groups of $k^{+}$$k^+$ (the additive group) and $k^{*}$$k^*$(the multiplicative group). But for some reason when looking at the character group for $k^{+}$$k^+$, we are looking only for the characters $\chi: k^{+} \to S^{1}$$\chi: k^{+} \to S^1$, where $S^{1}$$S^1$ is the circle group but in $k^{*}$$k^*$, we are looking at quasi characters $\chi^{\prime}:k^{*} \to \mathbb{C}^{*}$$\chi^\prime:k^* \to \mathbb{C}^*$. Why are we doing this? @anon answered a related question, Characters of a Group: two definitions, on Math StackExchange regarding this but it really doesn't help much.

Context: I've just started reading Tate's thesis. In it, we start with a local field k. The aim of the section is to describe the structure of the character groups of $k^{+}$(the additive group) and $k^{*}$(the multiplicative group). But for some reason when looking at the character group for $k^{+}$, we are looking only for the characters $\chi: k^{+} \to S^{1}$, where $S^{1}$ is the circle group but in $k^{*}$, we are looking at quasi characters $\chi^{\prime}:k^{*} \to \mathbb{C}^{*}$. Why are we doing this? @anon answered a related question, Characters of a Group: two definitions, on Math StackExchange regarding this but it really doesn't help much.

Context: I've just started reading Tate's thesis. In it, we start with a local field $k.$ The aim of the section is to describe the structure of the character groups of $k^+$ (the additive group) and $k^*$(the multiplicative group). But for some reason when looking at the character group for $k^+$, we are looking only for the characters $\chi: k^{+} \to S^1$, where $S^1$ is the circle group but in $k^*$, we are looking at quasi characters $\chi^\prime:k^* \to \mathbb{C}^*$. Why are we doing this? @anon answered a related question, Characters of a Group: two definitions, on Math StackExchange regarding this but it really doesn't help much.

Became Hot Network Question
Answer link to answer
Source Link
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

Context: I've just started reading Tate's thesis. In it, we start with a local field k. The aim of the section is to describe the structure of the character groups of $k^{+}$(the additive group) and $k^{*}$(the multiplicative group). But for some reason when looking at the character group for $k^{+}$, we are looking only for the characters $\chi: k^{+} \to S^{1}$, where $S^{1}$ is the circle group but in $k^{*}$, we are looking at quasi characters $\chi^{\prime}:k^{*} \to \mathbb{C}^{*}$. Why are we doing this? There is one answer@anon answered a related question, Characters of a Group: two definitions, on math stackexchangeMath StackExchange regarding this but it really doesn't help much. I'll link it here.

Context: I've just started reading Tate's thesis. In it, we start with a local field k. The aim of the section is to describe the structure of the character groups of $k^{+}$(the additive group) and $k^{*}$(the multiplicative group). But for some reason when looking at the character group for $k^{+}$, we are looking only for the characters $\chi: k^{+} \to S^{1}$, where $S^{1}$ is the circle group but in $k^{*}$, we are looking at quasi characters $\chi^{\prime}:k^{*} \to \mathbb{C}^{*}$. Why are we doing this? There is one answer on math stackexchange regarding this but it really doesn't help much. I'll link it here.

Context: I've just started reading Tate's thesis. In it, we start with a local field k. The aim of the section is to describe the structure of the character groups of $k^{+}$(the additive group) and $k^{*}$(the multiplicative group). But for some reason when looking at the character group for $k^{+}$, we are looking only for the characters $\chi: k^{+} \to S^{1}$, where $S^{1}$ is the circle group but in $k^{*}$, we are looking at quasi characters $\chi^{\prime}:k^{*} \to \mathbb{C}^{*}$. Why are we doing this? @anon answered a related question, Characters of a Group: two definitions, on Math StackExchange regarding this but it really doesn't help much.

removed capitals from title
Link
YCor
  • 63.9k
  • 5
  • 187
  • 286

Why are we defining character groups differently for additive and multiplicative Groupgroup in Tate's thesis?

Source Link
Rits
  • 133
  • 7
Loading