1
$\begingroup$

Let $K=\mathbb{Q}[\alpha]$ where $\alpha$ is integral over $\mathbb{Z}$ such that the Galois hull of $K$ can be embedded in $\mathbb{R}$. Let $S=\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$. Let $x_1, \ldots , x_n$ be a $\mathbb{Q}$-basis of $K$ and let $f: K \to \mathbb{Q}$ be a $\mathbb{Q}$-linear map such that $f(x_i \cdot x_j)=\delta_{ij}$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.

Is it true that the $\mathbb{Z}$-module generated by $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ is closed under multiplication by elements of $S$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you make the assumption that the Galois closure (what I suppose you meant by Galois hull) of $K$ over $\mathbf Q$ is in the real numbers? $\endgroup$ – KConrad Apr 15 '14 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ You are specifying $f$ at all $x_i\cdot x_j$ which is more than $n$ in number, exceeding the degree of $K$; how can you guarantee such a linear map exists? $\endgroup$ – P Vanchinathan Apr 17 '14 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ @KConrad: I just need to consider this case, so I thought this assumption might help. @P Vanchinathan: I can't. The existence is meant as an assumption. $\endgroup$ – Hans Apr 24 '14 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @P Vanchinathan: The conditions imposed via $f$ mostly constrain the choice of generators $x_i$, and these can be changed by an integer unimodular transformation without changing the lattice (or the field). Triangular matrices alone already give us $n(n-1)/2$ degrees of freedom. The remaining conditions then mostly say that the lattice is "nice". Working through examples, for fixed $n$, I always ended up with only one condition on (a defining polynomial for) $K$. $\endgroup$ – GNiklasch Apr 25 '14 at 7:32
6
$\begingroup$

When $\alpha$ is fixed at the beginning, this is not always true, and it doesn't matter whether $K$ is or isn't totally real.

Note first that any full-rank lattice in any number field admits some order of the field as endomorphisms. (Proof: The action of any algebraic integer $y$ generating the field on the lattice $\sum x_i \mathbb{Z}$ by multiplication takes each $x_j$ to a rational linear combination of the $x_i$. Let $N$ be the common denominator of the $n^2$ rational coefficients. Then $Ny$ takes each $x_j$ to an integer linear combination of the $x_i$, and thus all of $\mathbb{Z}[Ny]$ takes the lattice into itself. Of course, a larger order might still work, too.)

So if you want to conclude that a particular given $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$ works, you'll need to impose a condition on the lattice which explicitly depends on $\alpha$, not merely on the multiplication in $K$.

The condition $f(x_i \cdot x_j) = \delta_{ij}$ does admit nontrivial examples. I found one by looking at quadratic fields and trying $x_1=1$ and algebraic integer $x_2$; then $f(1\cdot x_2)=0$ and $f(1^2)=f(x_2^2)=1$ force $x_2^2-ax_2-1=0$ for some $a$, and $a=8$ produces (the unit ideal of) the non-maximal order $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{17}]$. This is not a fractional ideal of the maximal order: Multiplication by the algebraic integer $\alpha=(1+\sqrt{17})/2$ does not preserve the lattice. Had we started from $\alpha=\sqrt{17}$ instead, the same lattice and the same $f$ would have worked.

In higher degrees, a power base $(x_1,x_2,x_3,\ldots) = (1,x,x^2,\ldots)$ for the lattice never admits such an $f$ when $n\ge3$, because we'd get $0 = f(1\cdot x_3) = f(1\cdot x^2) = f(x_2\cdot x_2) = 1$, but this obstacle can be avoided by passing to another base of the same lattice. When I start from $x_1=1$ and algebraic integer $x_2$, I always seem to end up with one relation among the coefficients of the defining polynomial of $x_2$. This puts a mild constraint on $K$, but not much of an additional constraint on the lattice. And it implies nothing about the relationship between the lattice and a given $\alpha$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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