13
$\begingroup$

I preface my question by admitting I know no algebraic geometry nor algebraic number theory. I do know some algebraic topology. I'm a student.

Recently I learned about sheaf cohomology. Then a little bit of etale cohomology, as much as I could stomach having never studied algebraic geometry. Then I came across Artin-Verdier duality, in particular the notion that $\mathcal{O}_K$ is 'like a 3-manifold.' This led me to the interesting area of arithmetic topology that wants to understand some larger 'arithmetic $\leftrightarrow$ topology dictionary.'

Now I've done some reading to try to grasp the big picture of arithmetic topology. But I'm unclear on one point:

Is the analogy pursued by this arithmetic $\leftrightarrow$ topology dictionary formal, in any sense?

So far I've seen it said how this analogy gives a nice way of thinking about number-theoretic things with topology (e.g. prime ideals are like links, and their factors are like the constituent knots.) The words 'inspire' and 'motivate' are used a lot. And there are precise comparisons to be made between the objects on either side (e.g. the algebraic fundamental group of $\mathrm{Spec} ~\mathbb{Z}$ is isomorphic to the classical fundamental group of $S^3$.)

But I'd like to know whether there is some larger framework that rigorously explains why this analogy exists.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It's probably not any more formal than the (much more well-studied, and easier to search up) function field analogy. A dream would be some equivalence of categories between appropriate objects, but I don't think anything like that is known. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jan 3 at 0:53
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Exodromy, as developped by Barwick, Glasman and Haine is a rather systematic way to relate arithmetic and topology; see arXiv:1807.03281. It does not explain Mazur's analogy in full yet, but it certainly goes in this direction. This is a great refinement of methods that have been used successfully to study existence of rational points or $0$-cycles over number fields, in the work of Harpaz, Schlank, Skorobogatov and Wittenberg (around the Hasse principle, Gauss-Manin obstruction...); see e.g. arXiv:1409.0993 or arXiv:1802.09605. $\endgroup$ Jan 3 at 1:21

1 Answer 1

13
$\begingroup$

For this analogy, like most analogies in mathematics, and indeed like most philosophical principles in mathematics, one can certainly make a part of it formal and rigorous, but I don't think any true formal statement could ever capture all of what we mean by the analogy.

In particular, by well-chosen definitions, one can write down statements of the form "If X is either a 3-manifold or the ring of integers of a number field, then something is true about X", where "something" is expressed the same way in each case. But there's no reason to expect that there is a single statement that implies all true such statements.

In particular, one can certainly not get an equivalence of categories between some category of 3-manifolds and some category of number fields (as Wojowu suggests in the comments), or any kind of correspondence between one 3-manifold and one number field, that respects the interesting structure like Artin-Verdier duality. (Thus I think the equivalence of fundamental groups between $S^3$ and $\mathbb Z$ is a red herring.)

Note that in Verdier duality, a pretty fundamental concept is an orientation. Any 3-manifold is either oriented or has a double cover to be oriented. But from the form of Artin-Verdier duality, for a number field to be oriented, it would have to contain the $n$th roots of unity for all $n$, which is impossible. So the "oriented double cover" in this setting is actually a cover of infinite degree! Covering spaces and dualizing sheaves are some of the concepts we absolutely do want to match up, so I don't think there's any way to wriggle out of this.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is perhaps an equivalence of categories going on, but it won't be exactly the pair (3-manifolds, number fields). Likely you'll have to slightly change both categories to find a proper equivalence. At least, that's my suspicion. Or a more negative way to look at this is that categories may be fairly limited in what they can see, and that a subject area having a few key theorems forces a coarse structure on a category. $\endgroup$ Jan 3 at 3:14
  • $\begingroup$ In particular, is the statement anything more than the assertion that some cohomological dimension is 3? $\endgroup$
    – Kapil
    Jan 3 at 4:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Kapil Sure, I'm pretty sure not every space with cohomological dimension 3 has a duality for the category of sheaves with dualizing complex a locally constant sheaf of rank one shifted by 3. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Jan 3 at 4:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RyanBudney Certainly I do not have a proof that no category defined via three-manifolds could ever be equivalent to a category defined via number fields! $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Jan 3 at 4:41

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.