5
$\begingroup$

I was somewhat puzzled after I finished learning class field theory for several times. My question is about the relations between "classical simple algebras, Brauer groups" and "modern cohomology theory". (If this question is naive to experts, I apologize sincerely.)

The formalism of class field theory before the introduction of the cohomological formalism is very explicit as follows (My favourite reference is Weil's Basic number theory): The canonical morphism is constructed by cyclic algebras. If $K$ is a local field, then the "pairing" $X_K\times K^*\rightarrow \mathbb{C}^1$ between the character group $X_K$ of $Gal(K^{ab}/K)$ and $K^*$ is given by the following well-known process. First we have to know the Brauer group $B(K)=\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$ (identified with the group of all roots of unity in $\mathbb{C}^1$), then given $\chi\in X_K$ and $a\in K^*$, $ker(\chi)$ determines a cyclic extension $K'/K$, we can define the pairing to be the class of cyclic algebra $[K'/K,a]:=[K,\chi,a]\in \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}\subset \mathbb{C}^1$.

After this explicit construction, we got a map ("canonical morphism") from $K^*$ to the Pontryagin dual of $X_K$, which is exactly $Gal(K^{ab}/K)$ by Pontryagin duality. And in the global context we glue the local data via ideles, and the key point is Hasse's reciprocity, which claims it factors through the ideles class group $\mathbb{I}_K/K^*$.

O.K. That's the "classical" roadmap based on the theory of central simple algebras. In "modern" roadmap of Galois cohomology, one first establish a series of axioms (following Artin-Tate) for a general profinite group $G$ and a continuous $G$-module $A$, coming from this model: namely a series of routine functorical properties (a "formation") and two key points:

(1) Hilbert's satz 90: vanishing of $H^1$ (a "field formation");

(2) A functorial isomorphism of $H^2$ with $\cup_{n\geq 1} \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}=\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$ (a "class formation").

Then you can start with the huge and powerful machinery of (Tate's) cohomology to obtain Tate's theorem: the cup product map $H^q(G, \mathbb{Z})\rightarrow H^{q+2}(G,A)$ is a functorial isomorphism, which provides the canonical morphism of CFT at $q=-2$: $H^{-2}(G, \mathbb{Z})=G^{ab}$, $H^{0}(G,A)=A^G/N_G A.$ In the local case you take $A=K^*$, and in the global case you first take $A=\mathbb{I}_K$ and then $\mathbb{I}_K/K^*$.

I learnt cohomological aspects from Neukirch's excellent book "Class Field Theory, Bonn Lectures". It's very beautiful and carefully written. I spent much time checking each step and details. I was very striking that this somewhat abstract machinery DOES package the "classical" version.

But so far, I still couldn't get an intuitive explanation: how did this machinery correspond to the classical version? For example, in the "classical" version you get this canonical morphism from the Brauer group very directly, which should correspond to $H^2$ in cohomology. But in the "modern" version you get the cup product morphism from $H^{-2}$ and $H^{0}$. This looks very different. So you must have already done "something" from the class formation axiom for $H^2$ and cohomological machinery to get this. Just as Neukirch wrote on his book (page 78):"Before the introduction of cohomology theory, algebras were used to describe local class field theory; we remark that the use of cohomology has led to considerable simplifications." What makes me puzzled is exactly "how this modern machinery correspond to operations in the classical context".

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ I should explain my background: Indeed I'm a student learning automorphic representations. My professor told me for people studying automorphic forms, Weil's book Basic Number Theory is of fundamental importance, because it's indeed a book on "how CFT=GL(1) automorphic representations". Obviously it inculded too many things only necessary for automorphic representations: such as Eichler's theorem on norm of simple algebras over number fields, proved by considering zeta (automorphic $L$-) functions; structure of simple algebras (indeed he is dealing with inner forms of $GL(n)$). $\endgroup$
    – youknowwho
    Aug 12, 2022 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ You write ${\rm Gal}(F^{ab}/F)$ multiple times but there is no field $F$ elsewhere. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Aug 13, 2022 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ Are you asking how mathematicians recognized that the formalism of class field theory involving Brauer groups could be expressed in terms of group cohomology, as a stepping stone to the purely cohomological formulation of class field theory? $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Aug 13, 2022 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ @KConrad Oh thanks a lot for that typo. OK, I think in some sense that's exactly what made me puzzled. But to be more concrete, I just want to "see": intuitively, the reciprocity maps obtained in these 2 formalisms really coincide! $\endgroup$
    – youknowwho
    Aug 14, 2022 at 8:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The reciprocity map is far enough along in the development that I am suspicious about seeing why it coincides in two formalisms "intuitively". For the simplest instance, consider quadratic extensions. Have you ever worked out why the Hilbert reciprocity law over $\mathbf Q$ is equivalent to the quadratic reciprocity law for the Legendre symbol? $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Aug 14, 2022 at 11:13

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.