Let be a field with a non-archimedean valuation
.
Recall that the set of with
forms a ring
, the ring of integers for . The set of with
are a group under multiplication, the group of units
for . Finally, the set of with
is a maximal
ideal
, so the quotient ring
is a field. In this section
we consider the case when
is a finite field of order a prime
power . For example, could be
and
could be a
-adic valuation, or could be a number field and
could be the valuation corresponding to a maximal ideal of the ring of
integers. Among other things, we will discuss in more depth the
topological and measure-theoretic nature of the completion of at
.
Suppose further for the rest of this section that
is
discrete. Then by Lemma 15.2.8, the ideal
is a principal ideal , say, and every is of the form
, where
and
is a unit. We call
the ord of at . (Some authors, including me (!) also call
this integer the of with respect to .) If
, then is a unit, and conversely, so
is independent of the choice of .
Let and
be defined with respect to the completion
of at .
Lemma 17.1.1
There is a natural isomorphism
and
as an -ideal.
Proof.
We may view
as the set of equivalence classes of Cauchy
sequences
in
such that
for
sufficiently
large. For any
, given such a sequence
, there is
such that for
, we have
. In
particular, we can choose
such that
implies that
. Let
, which is
well-defined. The map
is surjective because the constant
sequences are in
. Its kernel is the set of Cauchy sequences
whose elements are eventually all in
, which is exactly
.
This proves the first part of the lemma. The second part is true
because any element of
is a sequence all of whose terms are
eventually in
, hence all a multiple of
(we can set to
0
a finite number of terms of the sequence without changing the
equivalence class of the sequence).
Assume for the rest of this section that is complete with
respect to
.
By (17.1.1) is meant the limit of the Cauchy sequence
as
.
Proof.
There is a uniquely defined
such that
.
Then
. Now define
by
. And so on.
Example 17.1.3
Suppose
and
is the
-adic valuation,
for some prime
. We can take
.
The lemma asserts that
Notice that
is uncountable since there are
choices for each
-adic ``digit''. We can do arithmetic with
elements of
, which can be thought of ``backwards'' as numbers
in base
. For example, with
we have
|
|
|
|
not in canonical form |
|
|
still not canonical |
|
|
|
|
Basic arithmetic with the -adics in is really weird (even
weirder than it was a year ago... There are presumably efficiency
advantages to using the formalization, and it's supposed to be
better for working with extension fields. But I can't get it to do
even the calculation below in a way that is clear.) In PARI (gp) the
-adics work as expected:
? a = 1 + 2*3 + 3^2 + O(3^3);
? b = 2 + 2*3 + 3^2 + O(3^3);
? a+b
%3 = 2*3 + O(3^3)
? sqrt(1+2*3+O(3^20))
%5 = 1 + 3 + 3^2 + 2*3^4 + 2*3^7 + 3^8 + 3^9 + 2*3^10 + 2*3^12
+ 2*3^13 + 2*3^14 + 3^15 + 2*3^17 + 3^18 + 2*3^19 + O(3^20)
? 1/sqrt(1+2*3+O(3^20))
%6 = 1 + 2*3 + 2*3^2 + 2*3^7 + 2*3^10 + 2*3^11 + 2*3^12 + 2*3^13
+ 2*3^14 + 3^15 + 2*3^16 + 2*3^17 + 3^18 + 3^19 + O(3^20)
Theorem 17.1.4
Under the conditions of the preceding lemma, is compact with
respect to the
-topology.
Proof.
Let
, for
running through some index set
, be some family of open sets that cover
. We must
show that there is a finite subcover. We suppose not.
Let
be a set of representatives for
. Then is the
union of the finite number of cosets , for
.
Hence for at lest one
the set
is not covered by finitely many of the . Then similarly
there is an
such that
is not
finitely covered. And so on. Let
Then
for some
. Since
is an open set,
for some
(since those are exactly the open balls
that form a basis for the topology). This is a contradiction because
we constructed
so that none of the sets
, for
each
, are not covered by any finite subset of the
.
Definition 17.1.5 (Locally compact)
A topological space
is
at a point
if
there is some compact subset
of
that contains a neighborhood
of
. The space
is locally compact if it is locally compact
at each point in
.
Proof.
If
, then
, and
is a compact subset of
by Theorem
17.1.4. Also
contains the neighborhood
of
. Thus
is locally compact at
.
Remark 17.1.7
The converse is also true. If
is locally compact with respect to
a non-archimedean valuation
, then
- is complete,
- the residue field is finite, and
- the valuation is discrete.
For there is a compact neighbourhood
of
0.
Let
be any nonzero with
.
Then
for sufficiently large
, so
is
compact, being closed. Hence
is compact. Since
is a
metric,
is sequentially compact, i.e., every fundamental sequence
in
has a limit, which implies (1). Let
(for
) be a set of representatives in
of
.
Then
is an open
covering of
. Thus (2) holds since
is compact. Finally,
is compact, being a closed subset of
. Let
be the set
of
with
Then
(for
)
is an open covering of
, so
for some
, i.e., (3) is
true.
If we allow
to be archimedean the only further
possibilities are
and
with
equivalent to the
usual absolute value.
We denote by the commutative topological group whose points are
the elements of , whose group law is addition and whose topology is
that induced by
. General theory tells us that there is an
invariant Haar measure defined on and that this
measure is unique up to a multiplicative constant.
Definition 17.1.8 (Haar Measure)
A
on a locally compact topological group
is a translation invariant measure such that every open
set can be covered by open sets with finite measure.
Lemma 17.1.9
Haar measure of any compact subset of is finite.
Proof.
The whole group
is open, so there is a covering
of
by open sets each of which has finite measure.
Since
is compact, there is a finite subset of the
that covers
. The measure of
is at most the sum of
the measures of these finitely many
, hence finite.
Remark 17.1.10
Usually one defined Haar measure to be a translation invariant
measure such that the measure of compact sets is finite. Because of
local compactness, this definition is equivalent to
Definition
17.1.8. We take this alternative viewpoint
because Haar measure is constructed naturally on the topological
groups we will consider by defining the measure on each member of a
basis of open sets for the topology.
We now deduce what any such measure on must be. Since
is compact (Theorem 17.1.4), the measure of is
finite. Since is translation invariant,
is independent of . Further,
(disjoint union)
where (for
) is a set of representatives of
. Hence
If we normalize by putting
we have , hence , and in general
Conversely, without the theory of Haar measure, we could define
to be the necessarily unique measure on such that
that is translation invariant. This would have to be the
we just found above.
Everything so far in this section has depended not on the valuation
but only on its equivalence class. The above
considerations now single out one valuation in the equivalence class
as particularly important.
Definition 17.1.11 (Normalized valuation)
Let
be a field equipped with a discrete valuation
and residue class field with
elements. We say that
is
if
where
is the maximal ideal of
.
The following proposition makes clear why this is the best choice of
normalization.
Proof.
Since
is translation invariant,
.
Write
, where
is a unit. Then since
, we have
Here we have
by the discussion
before Definition
17.1.11.
We can express the result of the theorem in a more suggestive way.
Let with , and let be a Haar measure on
(not necessarily normalized as in the theorem). Then we can define a
new Haar measure on by putting
for
. But Haar measure is unique up to a multiplicative
constant and so
for all
measurable sets , where the factor depends only on .
Putting , shows that the theorem implies that is just
, when
is the normalized valuation.
Remark 17.1.14
The theory of locally compact topological groups leads to the
consideration of the dual (character) group of
. It turns out
that it is isomorphic to
. We do not need this fact for class
field theory, so do not prove it here. For a proof and applications
see Tate's thesis or Lang's
Algebraic Numbers, and for
generalizations see Weil's
Adeles and Algebraic Groups and
Godement's Bourbaki seminars 171 and 176. The determination of the
character group of
is local class field theory.
The set of nonzero elements of is a group under
multiplication. Multiplication and inverses are continuous with
respect to the topology induced on as a subset of , so
is a topological group with this topology. We have
where is the group of units of
and is
the group of -units, i.e., those units
with
, so
The set is the open ball about 0 of
radius , so is open, and because the metric is nonarchimedean
is also closed. Likewise, is both open and closed.
The quotient
is isomorphic to the additive group
of integers with the discrete topology, where the map is
for
The quotient
is isomorphic to the multiplicative group
of the
nonzero elements of the residue class field, where the finite gorup
has the discrete topology.
Note that
is cyclic
of order , and Hensel's lemma implies that contains a
primitive th root of unity . Thus has
the following structure:
(How to apply Hensel's lemma: Let
and let
be such that
generates . Then
and
. By Hensel's lemma there is a
such that
and
.)
Since is compact and the cosets of cover , we see that
is locally compact.
Lemma 17.1.15
The additive Haar measure on ,
when restricted to gives a measure on that is also
invariant under multiplication, so gives a Haar measure on .
Proof.
It suffices to show that
for any
and
.
Write
.
We have
which is an additive translate of
, hence has the
same measure.
Thus gives a Haar measure on by translating around
to cover .
Lemma 17.1.16
The topological spaces and are totally disconnected (the
only connected sets are points).
Proof.
The proof is the same as that of
Proposition
16.2.13. The point is that the
non-archimedean triangle inequality forces the complement an open
disc to be open, hence any set with at least two distinct elements
``falls apart'' into a disjoint union of two disjoint open subsets.
Remark 17.1.17
Note that
and
are locally isomorphic if
has
characteristic
0. We have the exponential map
defined for all sufficiently small
with its inverse
which is defined for all
sufficiently close to
.
William Stein
2004-05-06