Search Results

Edit 25 April 2010: I have a physical copy of the new printing of the book. I can only assume the LMS is now selling it (but have no details). IMPORTANT EDIT: THE RESULTS ARE IN! Ok, the deadline has …

EDIT: Hendrik Lenstra emailed me a proof of Conjecture 2. I'll append it below. So Jagy's question is now solved. OK so I think that Jagy wants to make the following conjecture: CONJECTURE 1: an i …

Oh, I know how I would try and build examples. First I would write down a random $A_5$ extension $K$ of $\mathbf{Q}$, ramified at some primes (in fact I would look in a table, e.g. in Buhler's thesis …

OK how's about this to finish (I don't think either argument posted so far deals with this case). Say $K/\mathbf{Q}$ is finite and (away from a finite set of exceptions) $p$ splits completely in $K$ i …

Fields with the same Galois closure can be completely different. For example take a random irreducible polynomial of huge degree, let $F$ be the field obtained by adjoining one root of the polynomial, …

I think I can construct an explicit counterexample with $a\in\mathbb{Q}_p$. Choose a compatible sequence $\zeta_{p^m}$ of $p^m$th roots of unity in $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$. Write $q=p^n$ with $n\g …

Ok so it looks like I misjudged this and the community seem happy to have the question here, at least at present. So I figured I'd pass on the comments which Serre sent the LMS. p.135, part b) of L …

And here's one which I spotted: I think that the last full sentence at the bottom of p98 is wrong. I think the "action" they define is not an action, and I think the first couple of sentences of secti …

Dominique Bernardi points out that the formula for $\phi_a$ is wrong on line 1 of p96. This is a delicate one. The issue is what the definition of the action of $G$ on $A*$ is (NB that starshould be a …

I posted this question in several other places as well (the nmbrthry mailing list, and sci.math.research). Here, completely unedited, is the bulk of an email I just got from Rene Schoof. page 30 lin …

This answer is just to bump this post up to the front page for the final time. I typed up all the errata I heard into one pdf file and put it here. The London Maths Society would like comments, if any …

Joseph Oesterlé says: p 69, l 26 S contains all v with |alpha_v|_v < 1 should be S contains all v with |alpha_v|_v ≠ 1 p 69, l 27 \frac{1}{2}C should be \frac{1}{2C} p 131 corollary 2. "Let L/K be …

Keith Conrad sent me a nice chunky list here.

Rebecca Bellovin writes: Here's one I didn't see on the list on mathoverflow: In exercise 2, part 10, equation (**) (page 353, line 4) should be $$\prs{\lambda}{b}=\prod_{v\in S}(b,\lambda)_{v} …

Hendrik Lenstra says: Below my 51 errata that I didn't see on your list or in William Stein's mail yet. Most are of a typographical nature, but some have mathematical substance. I did at the present …