As far as I know there is many "suggestions" of what should be a "field with one element" $\mathbf{F}_{1}$.

My question is the following:

How we should think or what should be the "absolute Galois group" of the "hypothetical" $\mathbf{F}_{1}$ ?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See answers to this question: mathoverflow.net/q/6508/2024. $\endgroup$ – Dror Speiser Dec 28 '16 at 20:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Class field theory suggests ${\mathbb R}$ (with addition). $\endgroup$ – Felipe Voloch Dec 28 '16 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ @FelipeVoloch Could you develop your suggestion please (comment or answer) $\endgroup$ – Muhammed Ali Dec 29 '16 at 9:03

The Galois group of the maximal abelian extension of $\mathbb Q$ (or any number field) is given (class field theory) as the quotient of the idele class group by the connected component of the identity which is isomorphic to $\mathbb R$. If there is an ${\mathbb F}_1$ then its extensions provide "constant field extensions" of $\mathbb Q$. So, to be compatible with class field theory and keep the analogy with function fields, $\mathbb R$ must be at least the abelianization of the absolute Galois group of ${\mathbb F}_1$. But finite fields are abelian, so this suggests the answer. A slightly different perspective is that Weil constructed canonically and functorially an extension of the absolute Galois group of any number field by ${\mathbb R}$ (the Weil group) and that should be the extension one would get by allowing constant field extensions again.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb F_1$, whatever it is or isn't, is weird. $\endgroup$ – Wojowu Dec 29 '16 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ I think the “which is isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$” part is wrong: it should be $\prod_p \mathbb{Z}_p^\times$ (at any rate, it should be profinite and there is torsion). $\endgroup$ – Gro-Tsen Aug 15 '19 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Gro-Tsen I was referring to the connected component of the identity and you seem to be talking about the quotient. $\endgroup$ – Felipe Voloch Aug 15 '19 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ OK, but then I don't understand “$\mathbb{R}$ must be at least the abelianization of the absolute Galois group of $\mathbb{F}_1$”… $\endgroup$ – Gro-Tsen Aug 15 '19 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ Imagine that the whole ideal class group somehow describes abelian extensions of $\mathbb{Q}$ in some extended sense which includes "constant field extensions" so we should see the absolute Galois group of $\mathbb{F}_1$ (or its abelianization if it's nonabelian) in the ideal class group. The connected component of the identity is a candidate. $\endgroup$ – Felipe Voloch Aug 15 '19 at 23:38

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.