3
$\begingroup$

A normed division algebra over $\mathbb{R}$ is a pair $(A,\lVert{-}\rVert)$ with

  • $A$ an $\mathbb{R}$-algebra with a unit $1_A$;
  • $\lVert{-}\rVert\colon A\to\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$ a norm on $A$;

such that:

  • For each $a\in A$, there exists a unique $a^{-1}\in A$ such that $a^{-1}a=1_A=aa^{-1}$;
  • For each $x,y\in A$, we have $$\lVert xy\rVert=\lVert x\rVert\lVert y\rVert.$$

Hurwitz's theorem then states that the only associative normed division algebras over $\mathbb{R}$ are the real numbers $\mathbb{R}$, the complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$, and the quaternions $\mathbb{H}$.


The isomorphisms classes of associative division algebras over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ are classified by $\mathrm{Br}(\mathbb{Q}_p)\cong\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$. Is there a classification of the associative normed division algebras over $\mathbb{Q}_p$?

(E.g. is $\mathbb{C}_p$ such an algebra? Is there a normed division algebra over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ which we could call the "$p$-adic quaternions $\mathbb{H}_p$"?)

$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ you're using a not very standard sense of "division algebra". Following your definition, the link you're giving only addresses associative division algebras. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Oct 16, 2021 at 23:18
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ As KConrad mentions in his answer: Hurwitz's theorem only classifies the finite-dimensional division algebras. $\endgroup$ Oct 16, 2021 at 23:52
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Emily, you made a link in your previous comment to a theorem about real division algebras. Theorems proved over $\mathbf R$ need not carry over to analogous structures over $\mathbf Q_p$, for instance there are only two finite-dimensional $\mathbf R$-central division algebras (the reals and quaternions), but there are infinitely many finite-dimensional $\mathbf Q_p$-central division algebras, roughly because the alg. closure of $\mathbf R$ is finite-dim. over $\mathbf R$ but the alg. closure of $\mathbf Q_p$ is infinite-dim. over $\mathbf Q_p$. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Oct 17, 2021 at 3:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You said you are mostly interested in $p$-adic analogues of the quaternions. In that case there is an exact analogue between $\mathbf R$ and $\mathbf Q_p$ for each prime $p$. There are exactly two $4$-dimensional $\mathbf R$-central simple algebras, namely the matrix ring ${\rm M}_2(\mathbf R)$ and the division ring ${\mathbf H}$, and there are also exactly two $4$-dimensional $\mathbf Q_p$-central simple algebras, the matrix ring ${\rm M}_2(\mathbf Q_p)$ and a division ring. That division ring for $p=2$ is $\mathbf H(\mathbf Q_2)$, but it's something else for $p > 2$. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Oct 17, 2021 at 3:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice as long as the person didn't think you were suggesting $\mathbf R$ is algebraically closed! By the way, how do you tag hyperlinks to a phrase in a comment? I figured out how to do that in an answer by looking at the code in someone else's answer, but I can't do that for someone else's comment. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Oct 17, 2021 at 20:41

1 Answer 1

9
$\begingroup$

Clearly you are assuming some kind of finite-dimensionality over the center.

To classify the finite-dimensional associative division algebras over $\mathbf Q_p$, or more generally over a local field, it's standard to fix the center. A $K$-central algebra here will mean a $K$-algebra whose center is $K$, so $\mathbf C$ and ${\rm M}_2(\mathbf C)$ are each $\mathbf C$-central algebras, not $\mathbf R$-central algebras. And rather than say each finite-dimensional associative $\mathbf R$-division algebra (meaning $\mathbf R$ is in the center but possibly not the whole center) has to be $\mathbf R$, $\mathbf C$, or $\mathbf H$, it would be better to say the only finite-dimensional associative $\mathbf R$-central division algebras are $\mathbf R$ and $\mathbf H$, while the only finite-dimensional associative $\mathbf C$-central division algebra is $\mathbf C$.

Associative division algebras having center equal to a local field and being finite-dimensional over the center are discussed in Pierce's book Associative Algebras. Chapter 15 is on cyclic division algebras and chapter 17 is on division algebras over local fields. Don't expect an easy method to determine which cyclic algebras are division algebras in general, but it's possible to give an easy method "in principle" in special cases. For instance, if $A$ is an $F$-central simple algebra with $\dim_F(A) = p^2$ for a prime number $p$, then either $A \cong {\rm M}_2(F)$ or $A$ is a division ring. In practice you may need to some work to figure out if such a central simple algebra given to you in an abstract form is or is not the matrix ring.

For a field $F$, a quaternion algebra over $F$ is defined to be an $F$-central simple algebra of dimension $4$. An example is ${\rm M}_2(F)$, and sometimes it is the only example ($F = \mathbf C$ and $F$ finite). We call ${\rm M}_2(F)$ the "split" or "trivial" quaternion algebra over $F$. All other quaternion algebras over $F$ are division rings, and when $F$ is $\mathbf Q_p$ or any other local field there is one nontrivial quaternion algebra over $F$. Over $\mathbf Q_2$ this algebra is $\mathbf H(\mathbf Q_2)$, but for $p > 2$ we have $\mathbf H(\mathbf Q_p) \cong {\rm M}_2(\mathbf Q_p)$. A uniform description of the nontrivial quaternion algebra over $\mathbf Q_p$ for all $p$ uses a cyclic algebra construction based on the quadratic unramified extension of $\mathbf Q_p$. (Note: there are infinitely many nonisomorphic quaternion algebras over $\mathbf Q$. The contrast between that and finiteness of the number of quaternion algebras over $\mathbf R$ and $\mathbf Q_p$ is analogous to the contrast with quadratic extension fields: $\mathbf R$ and each $\mathbf Q_p$ have only finitely many quadratic extension fields up to isomorphism, while $\mathbf Q$ has infinitely many.)

You could call the unique nontrivial quaternion algebra over $\mathbf Q_p$ "the $p$-adic quaternions" but that label is not standard. It's more often called the nonsplit or nontrivial quaternion algebra over $\mathbf Q_p$.

The recent book by John Voight on quaternion algebras has an account on quaternion algebras over local fields in Chapter 13.

A brief account on the history of the quaternion algebra construction over fields other than $\mathbf R$ is described here.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @KConrad Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Emily
    Oct 17, 2021 at 0:30

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.