Algebraic number theory is a branch of number theory that studies the arithmetic properties of algebraic numbers—roots of non-zero polynomials with rational coefficients—particularly focusing on algebraic integers and their rings within number fields, which are finite extensions of the rational numbers \mathbb{Q}.[1] It extends classical results like the unique prime factorization of integers to these more general settings, where direct element-wise factorization may fail, employing tools from abstract algebra such as ideals and Galois theory to analyze factorization, units, and class structures.[2]Central to the subject are number fields K, finite-degree extensions of \mathbb{Q} (e.g., \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}) or \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_p) for a prime p, where \zeta_p is a primitive p-th root of unity), and their rings of integers \mathcal{O}_K, the integral closure of \mathbb{Z} in K, which consist of elements satisfying monic polynomials with integer coefficients.[3] These rings are typically Dedekind domains, where every nonzero ideal factors uniquely into prime ideals, restoring a form of unique factorization despite potential failures for elements themselves (e.g., in \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}], $6 = 2 \cdot 3 = (1 + \sqrt{-5})(1 - \sqrt{-5})).[1] Key invariants include the discriminant \operatorname{disc}(K), which measures ramification of primes and bounds the field's complexity (with |\operatorname{disc}(K)| \geq 3 for quadratic fields), and the class group \mathrm{Cl}_K, a finite abelian group whose order (the class number h_K) quantifies deviation from principal ideal domains.[2]The Dirichlet unit theorem states that the unit group \mathcal{O}_K^\times is finitely generated, isomorphic to \mu_K \times \mathbb{Z}^{r_1 + r_2 - 1}, where \mu_K is the torsion subgroup of roots of unity, r_1 is the number of real embeddings, and $2r_2 is the number of complex embeddings, providing insight into the arithmetic units of the field.[3] Historical developments trace back to the 19th century, with Kummer's ideal numbers addressing failures in cyclotomic fields for Fermat's Last Theorem, formalized by Dedekind's ideal theory in the 1870s, and later advanced by Hilbert, Artin, and Takagi in class field theory, which describes abelian extensions via ray class groups.[2] Modern applications connect to Diophantine equations, modular forms, and the Langlands program, with analytic tools like zeta functions (e.g., Dedekind zeta \zeta_K(s)) linking algebraic and arithmetic properties.[1]
History
Early developments
The origins of algebraic number theory can be traced back to ancient efforts to solve Diophantine equations, which seek integer or rational solutions to polynomial equations with integer coefficients. In the 3rd century AD, Diophantus of Alexandria composed Arithmetica, a seminal work comprising 13 books that systematically explored such problems, emphasizing rational solutions to indeterminate equations of the second and third degrees.[4]Diophantus employed innovative symbolic notation and parametric methods to find solutions, including for cubic equations involving sums of powers, such as seeking rational values satisfying forms akin to x^3 + y^3 = z^3, though non-trivial positive integer solutions eluded such equations.[5] His approach highlighted the challenges of factorization and uniqueness in integers, motivating later mathematicians to probe deeper into arithmetic properties beyond simple divisibility.A pivotal advancement came in 1637 when Pierre de Fermat, inspired by Diophantus's Arithmetica, stated what became known as Fermat's Last Theorem in a marginal note: for any integer n > 2, there are no positive integers x, y, z such that x^n + y^n = z^n.[6] Fermat claimed a proof but provided none, though he demonstrated the case n=4 using his method of infinite descent, which assumes a minimal counterexample and derives a smaller one, leading to a contradiction.[7] This technique underscored the limitations of ordinary integer factorization, as sums of higher powers do not behave like products in the rationals, revealing the need for new arithmetic structures to address such failures.In the 17th and 18th centuries, mathematicians built on these foundations through partial resolutions and related conjectures. Leonhard Euler, in 1753, proved Fermat's Last Theorem for n=3 via infinite descent in the ring of Eisenstein integers, effectively resolving the cubic case despite a minor gap later filled.[8] Euler also conjectured broader results on sums of powers, proposing that at least k positive kth powers are required to sum to another kth power for k \geq 3, which connected Diophantine problems to higher-degree equations and anticipated modern analytic methods. These efforts exposed recurring themes of non-uniqueness in integer solutions, paving the way for systematic theories in the 19th century.
19th-century foundations
The foundations of algebraic number theory in the 19th century were significantly advanced by Carl Friedrich Gauss through his seminal work Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, published in 1801, which systematically developed the theory of binary quadratic forms and their connections to arithmetic properties of integers.[9] In this text, Gauss established the law of quadratic reciprocity, stating that for distinct odd primes p and q, the Legendre symbols satisfy\left( \frac{p}{q} \right) \left( \frac{q}{p} \right) = (-1)^{\frac{p-1}{2} \cdot \frac{q-1}{2}}.[9] This law provided a profound reciprocity relation between quadratic residues modulo different primes, enabling solutions to Diophantine problems in quadratic fields. Additionally, Gauss introduced the composition of quadratic forms, a binary operation that classifies forms up to equivalence and links to the structure of ideal classes in quadratic number fields, laying groundwork for later generalizations.[9]Building on Gauss's insights, Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet introduced L-functions in 1837, defined for Dirichlet characters \chi modulo a conductor as L(s, \chi) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\chi(n)}{n^s}, to analyze the distribution of primes in arithmetic progressions and arithmetic structures in number fields. These functions generalized the Riemann zeta function and were instrumental in proving Dirichlet's theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions. In the context of quadratic fields, Dirichlet employed L-functions to derive a formula for the class number h, expressed via \sum_{\chi} L(1, \chi), which quantifies the failure of unique factorization in the ring of integers and relates it to analytic properties.A crucial development came from Ernst Kummer in the 1840s, who introduced the concept of ideal numbers to address the failure of unique prime factorization in the rings of integers of cyclotomic fields. Motivated by attempts to prove Fermat's Last Theorem for regular primes, Kummer's ideal numbers (developed around 1844–1847) treated "ideal" factors that behave like primes, allowing a form of unique factorization at the level of ideals rather than elements. This innovation, detailed in his memoirs on cyclotomic fields, bridged the gap between elementary number theory and abstract algebra, directly inspiring later formalizations.[10]Richard Dedekind further revolutionized the field in 1871 by defining ideals as certain finitely generated modules in the ring of integers of a number field, providing a framework to restore unique factorization where it fails for elements.[11] In his supplement to the second edition of Dirichlet's Vorlesungen über Zahlentheorie, Dedekind proved the fundamental theorem of ideal factorization: every nonzero ideal in the ring of integers factors uniquely into a product of prime ideals.[11] This theorem established Dedekind domains as the algebraic setting for number fields, enabling the study of ramification and decomposition of primes in extensions beyond quadratics. Dedekind's innovations directly influenced later 20th-century developments, including Hilbert's 1900 problems on class field theory.[11]
20th-century advances
The 20th century marked a pivotal era in algebraic number theory, with the development of class field theory providing a comprehensive framework for understanding abelian extensions of number fields through arithmetic structures like ideal class groups. David Hilbert's 12th problem, posed in 1900, sought to generalize Kronecker's Jugendtraum by describing the maximal abelian extension of a general number field K using special values of analytic functions, analogous to how cyclotomic fields generate abelian extensions of the rationals via roots of unity.[12] This problem highlighted the need for an explicit class field theory, where the Hilbert class field of K—the maximal unramified abelian extension—has Galois group isomorphic to the ideal class group \mathrm{Cl}(K), resolving key aspects of Kronecker's vision for imaginary quadratic fields.[13] Hilbert's conjectures, including the existence of such fields, spurred rigorous proofs and laid the groundwork for integrating Galois theory with ideal theory.[12]A major breakthrough came from Emil Artin in the 1920s, who introduced the reciprocity map as a cornerstone of class field theory. In his 1927 work, Artin proved the reciprocity law, establishing that for a finite abelian extension L/K of number fields, there exists a modulus \mathfrak{m} such that the Artin symbol ( \cdot / L/K ): I_{\mathfrak{m},K} \to \mathrm{Gal}(L/K) induces a canonical isomorphism between the ray class group C_{\mathfrak{m},K} = I_{\mathfrak{m},K} / P_{\mathfrak{m},K}^1 and \mathrm{Gal}(L/K), where I_{\mathfrak{m},K} is the group of ideals coprime to \mathfrak{m} and P_{\mathfrak{m},K}^1 is the principal ray class group.[13] This map, defined via local Frobenius elements, unifies previous reciprocity laws (such as quadratic reciprocity) and shows that the Galois group of the maximal abelian extension is determined by the arithmetic of ideals, providing an explicit bijection between ideal classes and automorphisms.[12] Artin's approach, building on density theorems and L-functions, extended global reciprocity to non-abelian settings in principle, though his focus remained on abelian cases central to Hilbert's program.[13]Teiji Takagi completed the foundations of class field theory in 1920 with his existence theorem, providing the missing link in Hilbert's framework by confirming the bijection between admissible subgroups of ideal groups and abelian extensions. Takagi's theorem states that for any number field K and modulus \mathfrak{m}, every open subgroup H of finite index in the ray class group C_{\mathfrak{m},K} is the norm group of a unique abelian extension L/K (the ray class field), with \mathrm{Gal}(L/K) \cong C_{\mathfrak{m},K}/H, and every finite abelian extension arises this way.[12] His proof, developed over 1908–1920 and presented at the 1920 International Congress of Mathematicians, incorporated ray class groups to handle ramification and built on Weber's earlier partial results, ensuring the completeness of the theory for global fields.[13] Takagi's work resolved Kronecker's Jugendtraum for imaginary quadratic fields and established class field theory as a rigorous discipline, influencing subsequent analytic and local developments.[12]
Contemporary developments
In the late 20th century, significant advances in algebraic number theory emerged through probabilistic heuristics that model the distribution of class groups in number fields. The Cohen-Lenstra heuristics, introduced in the 1980s, provide a framework for predicting the probabilities with which finite abelian groups appear as ideal class groups of quadratic fields, based on the assumption that class groups behave like random abelian groups weighted by the size of their dual groups.[14] These heuristics include specific probabilistic models for the ranks of the p-primary components for odd primes p, suggesting that the probability of the p^k-rank being at least m decays exponentially with m, which has been supported by extensive computational evidence and partial proofs for certain cases.[14]Building on classical composition laws, Manjul Bhargava developed a series of higher composition laws in the 2000s, generalizing Gauss's biquadratic composition to higher degrees using algebraic structures like symmetric composition algebras.[15] This framework parametrizes rings and fields of higher degree, enabling precise asymptotic counts of number fields ordered by discriminant and yielding bounds on average class numbers. For instance, Bhargava's 2005 analysis of quartic rings implies strong limits on class group sizes, showing that the average order of the class group grows slower than any power of the discriminant, with specific results indicating that a positive proportion—approaching 50% in certain signatures—of quartic fields have class number 1.[16]Contemporary progress has also emphasized explicit constructions in class field theory, leveraging Kummer theory to generate unramified abelian extensions via radicals over cyclotomic fields.[17] Computational algebra systems like PARI/GP, developed since the 1980s and enhanced in the 1990s, have made these constructions practical by implementing algorithms to compute Hilbert class fields for number fields of moderate degree, using Buchmann's subexponential method for class group determination followed by explicit embedding into ray class fields.[18] These tools facilitate the verification of conjectures and exploration of arithmetic statistics, with applications extending to links with elliptic curves in arithmetic geometry.[19]
Fundamental concepts
Algebraic integers and number fields
Algebraic integers are complex numbers that are roots of monic polynomials with integer coefficients.[20] More precisely, an algebraic integer \alpha satisfies an equation \alpha^n + a_{n-1} \alpha^{n-1} + \dots + a_1 \alpha + a_0 = 0, where each a_i \in \mathbb{Z} and n is the degree of \alpha, meaning no such equation of lower degree exists.[20] For example, \sqrt{2} is an algebraic integer because it is a root of the monic polynomial x^2 - 2 = 0.[20] This definition generalizes the ordinary integers \mathbb{Z}, which are roots of linear monic polynomials x - k = 0 for k \in \mathbb{Z}.[21]An algebraic number is a complex number that is a root of a polynomial with rational coefficients, but algebraic integers form a distinguished subset where the polynomials are monic with integer coefficients.[21] The set of all algebraic integers forms a ring, often denoted \overline{\mathbb{Z}}, which includes elements like Gaussian integers a + bi for a, b \in \mathbb{Z}, as they satisfy monic quadratic equations with integer coefficients.[20]A number field K is a finite field extension of the rational numbers \mathbb{Q}, meaning K is a field containing \mathbb{Q} as a subfield and [K : \mathbb{Q}] = n < \infty, where n is the degree of the extension.[21] Equivalently, K = \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) for some algebraic number \alpha of degree n over \mathbb{Q}, generated by adjoining \alpha and its minimal polynomial, which is the monic irreducible polynomial of least degree satisfied by \alpha over \mathbb{Q}.[22] For instance, the quadratic field \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}) for square-free integer d > 0 has degree 2, with minimal polynomial x^2 - d = 0 for \sqrt{d}.[21] Elements of K are linear combinations \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} c_i \alpha^i with c_i \in \mathbb{Q}.[22]The ring of integers of a number field K, denoted \mathcal{O}_K, consists of the algebraic integers in K and is the integrally closed subring of K containing \mathbb{[Z](/page/Z)}.[21]The discriminant of a number field K of degree n over \mathbb{[Q](/page/Q)} is an integer invariant D_K \in \mathbb{[Z](/page/Z)} that measures the "size" of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K relative to \mathbb{[Z](/page/Z)}.[23] For a \mathbb{[Z](/page/Z)}-basis \{\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n\} of \mathcal{O}_K, it is computed as the determinant of the trace form matrix:D_K = \det \left( \operatorname{Tr}_{K/\mathbb{[Q](/page/Q)}}(\alpha_i \alpha_j) \right)_{1 \leq i,j \leq n},where \operatorname{Tr}_{K/\mathbb{[Q](/page/Q)}} is the field trace, the sum of the images under all embeddings of K into \mathbb{C}.[23] This value is independent of the choice of basis and is positive for totally real fields.[23] For the quadratic field \mathbb{[Q](/page/Q)}(\sqrt{d}) with square-free d, D_K = 4d if d \not\equiv 1 \pmod{4}, and D_K = d otherwise.[23]
Rings of integers
In a number field K, the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K is defined as the integral closure of \mathbb{Z} in K, consisting of all elements of K that are algebraic integers.[23] This ring forms a subring of K and is finitely generated as a \mathbb{Z}-module of rank equal to the degree [K : \mathbb{Q}].[24] As the integral closure, \mathcal{O}_K satisfies the property that every element \alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K is a root of a monic polynomial with coefficients in \mathbb{Z}.[25]An equivalent characterization is \mathcal{O}_K = \{ \alpha \in K \mid \text{the minimal polynomial of } \alpha \text{ over } \mathbb{Q} \text{ lies in } \mathbb{Z} \text{ and is monic} \}.[23] To verify integrality for a specific \alpha \in K, one often constructs or confirms such a minimal polynomial. For instance, consider K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{{grok:render&&&type=render_inline_citation&&&citation_id=3&&&citation_type=wikipedia}}{2}) with \alpha = \sqrt{{grok:render&&&type=render_inline_citation&&&citation_id=3&&&citation_type=wikipedia}}{2}; its minimal polynomial is x^3 - 2, which is monic in \mathbb{Z}, so \alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K.[26] More generally, Eisenstein's criterion provides a tool to establish that certain monic polynomials in \mathbb{Z} are irreducible over \mathbb{Q}, confirming they are minimal and thus proving integrality of their roots. For example, the polynomial x^3 + 3x^2 + 3x + 3 is Eisenstein at p=3 (since 3 divides the coefficients of x^2, x, and the constant term, but $3^2 does not divide the constant term), hence irreducible; its root generates a cubic field where that root is an algebraic integer.[26] Another application appears in x^p - p for prime p, Eisenstein at p, yielding an algebraic integer root that generates a totally ramified extension.[26]For quadratic fields K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}) where d is a square-free integer not equal to 1, the ring \mathcal{O}_K has an explicit description depending on d \mod 4. If d \equiv 2 or $3 \pmod{4}, then \mathcal{O}_K = \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}].[27] If d \equiv 1 \pmod{4}, then \mathcal{O}_K = \mathbb{Z}\left[\frac{1 + \sqrt{d}}{2}\right].[27] In the latter case, the element \frac{1 + \sqrt{d}}{2} satisfies the monic polynomial x^2 - x + \frac{1 - d}{4} \in \mathbb{Z}, confirming its integrality.[27] These forms arise as the full integral closure, distinguishing them from smaller orders like \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}] when d \equiv 1 \pmod{4}.In general, for a number field K = \mathbb{Q}(\alpha) with primitive element \alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K, the subring \mathbb{Z}[\alpha] is an order contained in \mathcal{O}_K, but typically proper unless K is monogenic. The conductor ideal \mathfrak{f}(\alpha) of this order measures the difference, and the index [\mathcal{O}_K : \mathbb{Z}[\alpha]] = N(\mathfrak{f}(\alpha)), where N denotes the norm.[28] This index relates to the discriminants via \Delta(\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]) = N(\mathfrak{f}(\alpha))^2 \Delta_K, highlighting how \mathfrak{f}(\alpha) captures the "deficit" in generating \mathcal{O}_K as a power basis.[28] For example, in quadratic fields with d \equiv 1 \pmod{4}, taking \alpha = \sqrt{d} gives \mathbb{Z}[\alpha] of index 2 in \mathcal{O}_K, with conductor \mathfrak{f} = (2).[27] Such non-maximal orders, like \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}] in \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5}), illustrate basic arithmetic but fail unique factorization.[27]
Ideals and unique factorization
In the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K = \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}] of the quadratic field K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5}), unique factorization into irreducible elements fails. For instance, the element 6 factors as $6 = 2 \cdot 3 and also as $6 = (1 + \sqrt{-5})(1 - \sqrt{-5}), where 2, 3, $1 + \sqrt{-5}, and $1 - \sqrt{-5} are all irreducible in \mathcal{O}_K.[29] The norm function N: \mathcal{O}_K \to \mathbb{Z}, defined by N(a + b\sqrt{-5}) = a^2 + 5b^2, satisfies N(2) = 4, N(3) = 9, and N(6) = 36 = N(1 + \sqrt{-5}) \cdot N(1 - \sqrt{-5}), confirming multiplicativity.[30] Moreover, 2 is not prime because it divides (1 + \sqrt{-5})(1 - \sqrt{-5}) but divides neither factor, illustrating that irreducibles need not be prime in such rings.[31]To remedy this failure of unique factorization in the elements of \mathcal{O}_K, one introduces ideals, which are additive subgroups of \mathcal{O}_K that are closed under multiplication by elements of \mathcal{O}_K and finitely generated as \mathbb{Z}-modules of rank [K : \mathbb{Q}].[32] A principal ideal is one generated by a single element \alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K, denoted (\alpha), while non-principal ideals, such as (2, 1 + \sqrt{-5}) in the example above, cannot be expressed this way. Fractional ideals extend this notion: for a nonzero ideal I and \delta \in \mathcal{O}_K \setminus \{0\}, the set \delta^{-1} I = \{ x \in K \mid \delta x \in I \} is a fractional ideal, forming \mathbb{Z}-modules that contain \mathcal{O}_K as a subgroup of finite index.[33] The product of two ideals (or fractional ideals) I and J is defined as I \cdot J = \{ \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i \beta_i \mid \alpha_i \in I, \beta_i \in J, n \in \mathbb{N} \}, which is again an ideal (or fractional ideal).[32]In the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K of a number field K, every nonzero ideal admits a unique factorization into prime ideals: \mathfrak{a} = \prod_{i} \mathfrak{p}_i^{e_i} for distinct prime ideals \mathfrak{p}_i and positive integers e_i.[31] The norm of a prime ideal \mathfrak{p} lying above a rational prime p (meaning \mathfrak{p} \cap \mathbb{Z} = (p)) is N(\mathfrak{p}) = p^f, where f is the residue field degree [\mathcal{O}_K / \mathfrak{p} : \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}].[32] This ideal-theoretic unique factorization holds even when \mathcal{O}_K is not a principal ideal domain, with the extent of deviation from principality measured by the ideal class group.[31]
Dedekind domains
A Dedekind domain is an integral domain that is Noetherian, integrally closed in its field of fractions, and in which every nonzero prime ideal is maximal.[34] This structure captures essential properties for unique factorization of ideals into primes, distinguishing it from more general Noetherian domains where such factorization may fail.[34] The concept was introduced by Richard Dedekind in his 1871 work Vorlesungen über die Theorie der ganzen Zahlen, where it arose in the study of algebraic integers to resolve failures of unique element factorization.[35]The rings of integers \mathcal{O}_K in number fields K exemplify Dedekind domains, enabling the development of ideal theory. To establish this, first note that \mathcal{O}_K is Noetherian, as it is finitely generated as a \mathbb{Z}-module.[34] Second, \mathcal{O}_K is integrally closed in K, since any element of K integral over \mathbb{Z} lies in \mathcal{O}_K by definition.[34] Third, every nonzero prime ideal \mathfrak{p} of \mathcal{O}_K is maximal, which follows from the one-dimensional Krull dimension of \mathcal{O}_K. This dimension arises because \mathcal{O}_K is the integral closure of the Dedekind domain \mathbb{Z} in the finite separable extension K/\mathbb{Q}, and integral closures of Dedekind domains in such extensions preserve the property that nonzero primes are maximal.[34]The proof of the maximality relies on the lying-over theorem, which states that for a prime ideal \mathfrak{p} of \mathbb{Z} (hence (p) for prime p), there exists a prime ideal \mathfrak{q} of \mathcal{O}_K such that \mathfrak{q} \cap \mathbb{Z} = \mathfrak{p}.[34] Moreover, the primes above \mathfrak{p} lie over it exactly, and the extension \mathcal{O}_K / \mathfrak{q} is a finite field extension of \mathbb{Z}/\mathfrak{p} \cong \mathbb{F}_p, implying \mathfrak{q} is maximal since fields have no nontrivial prime ideals.[34] Thus, chains of prime ideals in \mathcal{O}_K have length at most 1, confirming the dimension and maximality condition.[34]A key consequence in Dedekind domains is the Chinese Remainder Theorem for ideals. If \mathfrak{a} is a nonzero ideal factoring uniquely as \mathfrak{a} = \prod_{i=1}^n \mathfrak{p}_i^{e_i} with distinct prime ideals \mathfrak{p}_i, then \mathcal{O}_K / \mathfrak{a} \cong \prod_{i=1}^n \mathcal{O}_K / \mathfrak{p}_i^{e_i}.[34] This isomorphism holds because the \mathfrak{p}_i^{e_i} are pairwise coprime (their sum is \mathcal{O}_K), allowing the standard Chinese Remainder Theorem for coprime ideals to apply iteratively.[34] It facilitates computations in quotient rings and underpins the structure of the Picard group.[34]
Analytic tools
Embeddings and places
In algebraic number theory, embeddings provide a way to map elements of a number field K into the real or complex numbers, facilitating the study of arithmetic properties through geometric and analytic lenses. For a number field K of degree n = [K : \mathbb{Q}], there exist exactly r_1 distinct real embeddings \sigma : K \to \mathbb{R} and r_2 pairs of complex conjugate embeddings \tau, \overline{\tau} : K \to \mathbb{C}, where each pair contributes two embeddings. These satisfy the fundamental relation r_1 + 2r_2 = n, reflecting the total number of homomorphisms from K to \mathbb{C} that fix \mathbb{Q}. This decomposition arises from the roots of the minimal polynomial of a primitive element of K, with real roots corresponding to real embeddings and non-real roots forming conjugate pairs.[36]Finite places of K are in one-to-one correspondence with the nonzero prime ideals \mathfrak{p} of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K. Each such prime ideal defines a discrete valuation v_{\mathfrak{p}} on K, given by v_{\mathfrak{p}}(\alpha) = \max \{ k \in \mathbb{Z} \mid \mathfrak{p}^k \text{ divides } (\alpha) \} for \alpha \in K^\times, where (\alpha) denotes the principal ideal generated by \alpha. This valuation measures the highest power of \mathfrak{p} dividing the ideal generated by \alpha, extending multiplicatively to all of K with v_{\mathfrak{p}}(0) = \infty. The associated absolute value is then |\alpha|_{\mathfrak{p}} = N(\mathfrak{p})^{-v_{\mathfrak{p}}(\alpha)}, where N(\mathfrak{p}) is the norm of \mathfrak{p}, providing a non-Archimedean metric on K. These finite places capture the local arithmetic at each prime, analogous to the p-adic valuations on \mathbb{Q}.[36]Infinite places, in contrast, correspond to the Archimedean valuations derived from the embeddings of K. For each real embedding \sigma : K \to \mathbb{R}, there is an infinite place v with absolute value |x|_v = |\sigma(x)|, the standard absolute value on \mathbb{R}. For each pair of complex conjugate embeddings \tau, \overline{\tau} : K \to \mathbb{C}, a single infinite place is defined with |x|_v = |\tau(x)|^2 = |\overline{\tau}(x)|^2, incorporating the squared modulus to ensure consistency in the product formula for norms. Geometrically, these infinite places can be viewed as points at infinity on the Riemann sphere, where the field K is compactified by adjoining these "ends" to model the global structure akin to the projective line over \mathbb{Q}. Together, the finite and infinite places form the complete set of places of K, enabling tools like the product formula, which states that the product of all absolute values over places equals 1 for nonzero elements.[36]
Units and regulators
In algebraic number theory, the units of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K of a number field K of degree n = r_1 + 2r_2 over \mathbb{Q} form the multiplicative group \mathcal{O}_K^\times, consisting of elements \alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K such that \alpha \beta = 1 for some \beta \in \mathcal{O}_K.[34] This group is finitely generated, as established by Dirichlet's unit theorem, which asserts that \mathcal{O}_K^\times \cong \mathbb{Z}^{r_1 + r_2 - 1} \times \mu_K, where \mu_K is the finite torsion subgroup of roots of unity in K and the rank r = r_1 + r_2 - 1 reflects the number of independent units of infinite order.[37] The torsion subgroup \mu_K is the cyclic group of roots of unity in K, of order w_K (typically 2, generated by -1, for totally real fields).[34]To analyze the structure of \mathcal{O}_K^\times, the logarithmic embedding \lambda: K^\times \to \mathbb{R}^{r_1 + r_2} is employed, defined by \lambda(\alpha) = (\log |\sigma_1(\alpha)|, \dots, \log |\sigma_{r_1}(\alpha)|, 2\log |\tau_1(\alpha)|, \dots, 2\log |\tau_{r_2}(\alpha)|), where \sigma_i are the real embeddings and \tau_j represent one embedding from each complex conjugate pair.[34] The image \lambda(\mathcal{O}_K^\times) lies in the hyperplane H = \{ x \in \mathbb{R}^{r_1 + r_2} \mid \sum x_i = 0 \} of dimension r, forming a full-rank lattice \Lambda in H.[37] The regulator \operatorname{Reg}(K) measures the covolume of this lattice, defined as the volume of a fundamental parallelepiped spanned by \lambda(\varepsilon_1), \dots, \lambda(\varepsilon_r) for a \mathbb{Z}-basis \{\varepsilon_1, \dots, \varepsilon_r\} of the free part of \mathcal{O}_K^\times.[34] Explicitly, if M is the r \times r matrix with entries m_{ij} = \log |\sigma_j(\varepsilon_i)| (adjusting for complex embeddings by the factor of 2), then \operatorname{Reg}(K) = |\det M|.[37] This determinant is independent of the choice of basis and positive, providing a geometric invariant of the unit group.[34]For quadratic fields K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}) with square-free integer d > 0 (real quadratic case), r_1 = 2, r_2 = 0, so r = 1 and \mathcal{O}_K^\times \cong \mathbb{Z} \times \{\pm 1\}, generated by a fundamental unit \varepsilon > 1 minimal such that \varepsilon and $1/\varepsilon are in \mathcal{O}_K.[38] The regulator simplifies to \operatorname{Reg}(K) = \log \varepsilon, as the logarithmic embedding yields a 1-dimensional lattice with spacing \log \varepsilon.[37] A representative example is K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2}), where \mathcal{O}_K = \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}] and the fundamental unit is \varepsilon = 1 + \sqrt{2}, satisfying the Pell equation x^2 - 2y^2 = -1 with norm -1, yielding \operatorname{Reg}(K) = \log(1 + \sqrt{2}) \approx 0.881374.[38] For imaginary quadratic fields (d < 0), r = 0, so \mathcal{O}_K^\times = \mu_K is finite (of order 2 in general, except order 4 for \mathbb{Q}(i) and order 6 for \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-3})), and the regulator is conventionally 1.[37]
Zeta functions and L-functions
In algebraic number theory, the Dedekind zeta function associated to a number field K is defined for \operatorname{Re}(s) > 1 by the Dirichlet series\zeta_K(s) = \sum_{\mathfrak{a}} \frac{1}{N(\mathfrak{a})^s},where the sum runs over all nonzero ideals \mathfrak{a} of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K and N(\mathfrak{a}) denotes the absolute norm of \mathfrak{a}.[39] This series admits an Euler product expansion\zeta_K(s) = \prod_{\mathfrak{p}} \left(1 - N(\mathfrak{p})^{-s}\right)^{-1},taken over all nonzero prime ideals \mathfrak{p} of \mathcal{O}_K, reflecting the unique factorization of ideals into primes.[39] The Dedekind zeta function generalizes the Riemann zeta function, which corresponds to the case K = \mathbb{Q}, and encodes arithmetic information about the ideals of K.[39]The function \zeta_K(s) extends to a meromorphic function on the entire complex plane \mathbb{C}, holomorphic except for a simple pole at s = 1.[39] The residue at this pole is given by\operatorname{Res}_{s=1} \zeta_K(s) = \frac{2^{r_1} (2\pi)^{r_2} h_K R_K}{w_K \sqrt{|d_K|}},where r_1 and r_2 are the numbers of real and pairs of complex embeddings of K, respectively, h_K is the class number of K, R_K is the regulator of K, w_K is the number of roots of unity in K, and d_K is the discriminant of K.[40] This residue formula provides an analytic expression involving the class number h_K, previewing its role in the analytic class number formula.[40]Dirichlet L-functions arise in the study of arithmetic progressions and are defined for a Dirichlet character \chi modulo a positive integer m by the seriesL(s, \chi) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\chi(n)}{n^s},which converges absolutely for \operatorname{Re}(s) > 1.[41] For non-principal characters \chi, the value L(1, \chi) is nonzero, a key result that implies Dirichlet's theorem on the infinitude of primes in arithmetic progressions: if a and m are coprime positive integers, there are infinitely many primes congruent to a modulo m.[41] This non-vanishing property ensures that the primes are equidistributed among the residue classes coprime to m with positive Dirichlet density $1/\phi(m), where \phi is Euler's totient function.[41]
Key structures
Ideal class groups
In algebraic number theory, fractional ideals extend the concept of ideals in the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K of a number field K to allow for "denominators" from K. A fractional ideal of K is a nonzero finitely generated \mathcal{O}_K-submodule of K.[42] These form a multiplicative monoid under addition, and an ideal \mathfrak{a} is invertible if there exists another fractional ideal \mathfrak{a}^{-1} such that \mathfrak{a} \mathfrak{a}^{-1} = \mathcal{O}_K.[36] In Dedekind domains like \mathcal{O}_K, every nonzero fractional ideal is invertible, enabling the formation of the group of fractional ideals J_K.[42]Principal fractional ideals are those generated by a single element \alpha \in K^\times, denoted (\alpha) = \alpha \mathcal{O}_K.[42] They form a subgroup P_K of J_K, consisting of all ideals of the form \alpha \mathfrak{b} where \mathfrak{b} is an integral ideal and \alpha \in K^\times.[36] The principal ideals measure the extent to which elements of K can generate ideals, contrasting with the broader class of fractional ideals.The ideal class group \mathrm{Cl}(K) is defined as the quotient group J_K / P_K, which quantifies the failure of unique factorization into principal ideals in \mathcal{O}_K.[42] It is an abelian group under the operation [\mathfrak{a}][\mathfrak{b}] = [\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{b}], where [\mathfrak{a}] denotes the class of \mathfrak{a}.[36] The order of this group, known as the class number h_K = |\mathrm{Cl}(K)|, indicates how far \mathcal{O}_K deviates from being a principal ideal domain; h_K = 1 if and only if \mathcal{O}_K is a PID.[42]This group structure arises naturally from the multiplicative properties of invertible ideals in Dedekind domains.[36] The finiteness of \mathrm{Cl}(K) is a fundamental result, established later using geometric methods like Minkowski's theorem.[42]A concrete example occurs in the quadratic field K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5}), where \mathcal{O}_K = \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}] fails uniquefactorization, as $6 = 2 \cdot 3 = (1 + \sqrt{-5})(1 - \sqrt{-5}) up to units.[36] Here, \mathrm{Cl}(K) \cong \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}, with class number h_K = 2, generated by the class of the prime ideal \mathfrak{p} = (2, 1 + \sqrt{-5}) above 2, since (2) = \mathfrak{p}^2 and \mathfrak{p} is non-principal.[36] The ideal (3) factors as \mathfrak{q} \overline{\mathfrak{q}} where \mathfrak{q} = (3, 1 + \sqrt{-5}) is in the same class as \mathfrak{p}, confirming the group order.[36]
Local fields and completions
In algebraic number theory, local fields arise as completions of a global number field K with respect to its places, providing a framework for studying local behavior at primes or infinite points. For a place v of K, the completion K_v is the metric completion of K under the absolute value |\cdot|_v associated to v, resulting in a locally compact field.[43] These completions capture the "local" aspects of the global field, such as ramification at primes, while the full field K embeds densely into the product of its local completions.[44]For finite (non-archimedean) places v corresponding to a prime ideal \mathfrak{p} of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K above a rational prime p, the completion K_v is a finite extension of the p-adic numbers \mathbb{Q}_p. The field \mathbb{Q}_p itself is the completion of \mathbb{Q} with respect to the p-adic absolute value |x|_p = p^{-v_p(x)}, where v_p is the p-adic valuation, and it carries a discrete valuation extending v_p. In general, K_v has a finite residue field \mathbb{F}_{p^f} for some inertia degree f, and its valuation ring \mathcal{O}_v = \{ x \in K_v \mid v(x) \geq 0 \} is a discrete valuation ring (DVR) with uniformizer \pi \in \mathcal{O}_v satisfying v(\pi) = 1 and generating the maximal ideal \mathfrak{m}_v = (\pi). The units \mathcal{O}_v^\times = \{ x \in \mathcal{O}_v \mid v(x) = 0 \} form a multiplicative group, and the residue field \mathcal{O}_v / \mathfrak{m}_v \cong \mathbb{F}_{p^f}.[43][44]At infinite (archimedean) places, the completions differ in nature. Real places complete to \mathbb{R} with the usual absolute value |\cdot|_\infty, while complex places complete to \mathbb{C} with |z|_\infty = \sqrt{z \overline{z}}; in both cases, the absolute value is non-discrete and archimedean. These fields lack a nontrivial valuation ring in the non-archimedean sense but are equipped with their standard topologies, completing the local picture for number fields.[43][44]
Ramification and inertia
In the context of a Galois extension L/K of number fields with rings of integers \mathcal{O}_L and \mathcal{O}_K, consider a prime ideal \mathfrak{p} of \mathcal{O}_K and a prime ideal \mathfrak{P} of \mathcal{O}_L lying above it, denoted \mathfrak{P} \mid \mathfrak{p}. The ramification index e = e(\mathfrak{P}/\mathfrak{p}) is defined as the exponent to which \mathfrak{P} appears in the prime ideal factorization of \mathfrak{p} \mathcal{O}_L, or equivalently, e = [\mathcal{O}_L : \mathfrak{P} \mathcal{O}_L].[45] The residue degree f = f(\mathfrak{P}/\mathfrak{p}) is the degree of the extension of residue fields [k(\mathfrak{P}) : k(\mathfrak{p})], where k(\mathfrak{P}) = \mathcal{O}_L / \mathfrak{P} and k(\mathfrak{p}) = \mathcal{O}_K / \mathfrak{p}.[45] Let g denote the number of distinct prime ideals of \mathcal{O}_L lying above \mathfrak{p}. In a Galois extension, the ramification indices and residue degrees are equal for all such primes above \mathfrak{p}, and the fundamental relation e f g = [L : K] holds.[46]The decomposition group D_\mathfrak{P} associated to \mathfrak{P} is the subgroup of the Galois group \mathrm{Gal}(L/K) consisting of elements \sigma that fix \mathfrak{P} setwise, i.e., D_\mathfrak{P} = \{ \sigma \in \mathrm{Gal}(L/K) \mid \sigma(\mathfrak{P}) = \mathfrak{P} \}.[45] This group is isomorphic to the Galois group of the residue field extension \mathrm{Gal}(k(\mathfrak{P})/k(\mathfrak{p})), and thus |D_\mathfrak{P}| = e f.[46] The inertia group I_\mathfrak{P} is the subgroup of D_\mathfrak{P} consisting of elements that act trivially on the residue field, i.e., I_\mathfrak{P} = \{ \sigma \in \mathrm{Gal}(L/K) \mid \sigma \equiv \mathrm{id} \pmod{\mathfrak{P}} \}, and its order is |I_\mathfrak{P}| = e.[45]A prime \mathfrak{p} is said to be unramified in L/K if e = 1 for all \mathfrak{P} \mid \mathfrak{p}.[47] The extension is totally ramified at \mathfrak{p} if f = 1 and g = 1, so e = [L : K].[46] Ramification is classified as tame if the characteristic p of the residue field k(\mathfrak{p}) does not divide e, and wild otherwise.[48] These concepts extend naturally to the completions at the primes, where the local fields capture the behavior of the extension near \mathfrak{p}.[47]
Principal theorems
Finiteness of class numbers
In algebraic number theory, the finiteness of the class number h_K of a number field K of degree n over \mathbb{Q} is a fundamental result, established using Minkowski's geometry of numbers. The ideal class group \mathrm{Cl}_K consists of equivalence classes of fractional ideals of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K, where two ideals are equivalent if their ratio is principal. Every class in \mathrm{Cl}_K contains an integral ideal \mathfrak{a} \subseteq \mathcal{O}_K with norm N(\mathfrak{a}) \leq M_K, where M_K = \frac{n!}{n^n} \left( \frac{4}{\pi} \right)^{r_2} \sqrt{|\Delta_K|} is the Minkowski constant, with r_2 the number of pairs of complex embeddings and \Delta_K the discriminant of K.[49] This bound implies the class number is finite, since there are only finitely many integral ideals of norm at most M_K, as each such ideal factors into finitely many prime ideals of bounded norm.[50]The proof relies on Minkowski's convex body theorem, which states that if \Lambda is a lattice in \mathbb{R}^n and X \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n is a convex, centrally symmetric set with volume \mathrm{vol}(X) > 2^n \mathrm{covol}(\Lambda), then X contains a nonzero point of \Lambda. To apply this, embed K into \mathbb{R}^n via the Minkowski embedding \phi: K \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n, defined by \phi(\alpha) = (\sigma_1(\alpha), \dots, \sigma_{r_1}(\alpha), \sqrt{2} \operatorname{Re}(\tau_1(\alpha)), \sqrt{2} \operatorname{Im}(\tau_1(\alpha)), \dots, \sqrt{2} \operatorname{Re}(\tau_{r_2}(\alpha)), \sqrt{2} \operatorname{Im}(\tau_{r_2}(\alpha))), where \sigma_i are the real embeddings and \tau_j the complex ones (up to conjugation). The image \phi(\mathcal{O}_K) forms a lattice \Lambda in \mathbb{R}^n with covolume $2^{-r_2} \sqrt{|\Delta_K|}. For a fractional ideal \mathfrak{a}, \phi(\mathfrak{a}) is a lattice with covolume N(\mathfrak{a}) \cdot 2^{-r_2} \sqrt{|\Delta_K|}.[49]Consider the convex body X_t = \{ x \in \mathbb{R}^n : \sum_{i=1}^n |x_i| \leq t \}, which is centrally symmetric and has volume \mathrm{vol}(X_t) = \frac{2^n t^n}{n!}. Choosing t such that \frac{2^n t^n}{n!} > 2^n \mathrm{covol}(\phi(\mathfrak{a})) ensures X_t contains a nonzero \phi(\alpha) for \alpha \in \mathfrak{a}. By the AM-GM inequality applied to the absolute values of the embeddings (counting each complex embedding twice, i.e., sum of | \sigma_i(\alpha) | over real and $2 | \tau_j(\alpha) | over complex ≤ t), the geometric mean satisfies |N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}(\alpha)|^{1/n} \leq t/n, yielding |N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}(\alpha)| \leq (t/n)^n. The precise choice of t, incorporating adjustments for the complex embeddings via their contribution to the volume (replacing factors of 2 with \pi effectively), leads to |N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}(\alpha)| \leq M_K N(\mathfrak{a}). For integral ideals, this shows every class has an ideal with N(\mathfrak{a}) \leq M_K. Note that while the regulator R_K appears in the covolume of the logarithmic embedding lattice (with fundamental domain volume $2^{r_2} R_K), the finiteness bound derives directly from the discriminant via this embedding.[50][49]Refinements using Hermite's constant \gamma_n, the supremum of the minimal squared length of nonzero vectors in unit covolume lattices in \mathbb{R}^n, improve explicit bounds for low degrees. The bound becomes N(\mathfrak{a}) \leq (n/ \pi)^{r_2} \gamma_n^{n/2} |\Delta_K|^{1/2} / 4^{r_1}, and since \gamma_n \leq (n/ (2\pi e)) (1 + o(1)), it sharpens Minkowski's constant asymptotically, with equality nearly achieved in low dimensions (e.g., \gamma_2 = 4/3, \gamma_3 = 2). This yields tighter estimates for quadratic fields, where h_K \leq \sqrt{|\Delta_K|} / 3 for imaginary quadratics.[51]
Dirichlet's unit theorem
Dirichlet's unit theorem states that if K is a number field of degree n = r_1 + 2r_2 over \mathbb{Q}, where r_1 is the number of real embeddings and r_2 is the number of pairs of complex conjugate embeddings, then the unit group \mathcal{O}_K^\times of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K is isomorphic to \mu_K \times \mathbb{Z}^{r_1 + r_2 - 1}, where \mu_K is the finite torsion subgroup consisting of the roots of unity in K.[37][52] This structure implies that \mathcal{O}_K^\times is finitely generated, with the free part generated by r_1 + r_2 - 1 fundamental units of infinite order.[53]The torsion subgroup \mu_K is finite and cyclic, generated by a primitive root of unity whose order is at most $2 if r_1 > 0 (typically \{ \pm 1 \}), but can be larger in totally complex fields, such as order 4 in \mathbb{Q}(i).[37] In general, the roots of unity in K lie in cyclotomic subfields, and for abelian extensions, they are generated by cyclotomic units, though this is a deeper result.[52]To prove the theorem, consider the logarithmic embedding map \phi: K^\times \to \mathbb{R}^{r_1 + r_2} defined by \phi(\alpha) = (\log |\sigma_1(\alpha)|, \dots, \log |\sigma_{r_1}(\alpha)|, 2\log |\tau_1(\alpha)|, \dots, 2\log |\tau_{r_2}(\alpha)|), where \sigma_i are the real embeddings and \tau_j the complex ones (with the factor of 2 accounting for conjugates).[53] The image of \phi lies in the hyperplane H = \{ (x_1, \dots, x_{r_1 + r_2}) \in \mathbb{R}^{r_1 + r_2} : \sum x_i = 0 \}, which has dimension r_1 + r_2 - 1, since the product of absolute values of conjugates gives the norm, and units have norm \pm 1, so the sum of logs is zero.[37]The kernel of \phi restricted to units is precisely \mu_K, which is finite.[52] To show that \phi(\mathcal{O}_K^\times) is a full-rank lattice in H, consider the set S = \{ x \in \mathcal{O}_K : |\sigma_i(x)| \leq 1 \text{ for all embeddings } \sigma_i \}. This set is finite, as elements grow without bound otherwise, and its image under the exponential of the inverse log map is compact in the adelic sense, but more directly, the pigeonhole principle applies to the fractional parts.[53]Specifically, take N > 1 and consider N^{r_1 + r_2 - 1} + 1 elements from S, mapping their logs to [0, \log N]^{r_1 + r_2 - 1} divided into N^{r_1 + r_2 - 1} boxes of side $1/N. By the pigeonhole principle (Dirichlet's box principle), two elements \alpha, \beta \in S have log images differing by a vector with fractional parts summing to an integer vector of small norm, so \varepsilon = \alpha / \beta is a unit with |\log |\sigma_i(\varepsilon)|| < C / N for some constant C, and iterating yields units of arbitrarily small log norm, implying the image is dense unless it spans the full lattice.[37] The discreteness follows from the fact that units are integral and embeddings separate them, ensuring no accumulation points except zero.[52]The regulator R_K of \mathcal{O}_K^\times is the absolute value of the determinant of the (r_1 + r_2 - 1) \times (r_1 + r_2 - 1) matrix whose entries are \log |\sigma_j(\varepsilon_i)|, where \varepsilon_1, \dots, \varepsilon_{r_1 + r_2 - 1} are fundamental units forming a basis for the free part.[53] This determinant measures the covolume of the lattice \phi(\mathcal{O}_K^\times) in H, providing a quantitative invariant of the unit group.[37]
Quadratic reciprocity and generalizations
Quadratic reciprocity is a fundamental theorem in number theory that relates the solvability of quadratic congruences modulo two distinct odd primes. Specifically, for distinct odd primes p and q, the Legendre symbols satisfy\left( \frac{p}{q} \right) \left( \frac{q}{p} \right) = (-1)^{\frac{p-1}{2} \cdot \frac{q-1}{2}}.This law, first proved by Gauss in 1801, provides a criterion for determining whether a prime divides a quadratic residue modulo another prime, and it forms the cornerstone of higher reciprocity laws in algebraic number theory.A elegant proof of quadratic reciprocity utilizes Eisenstein's lemma, building on Gauss's lemma for the Legendre symbol. Gauss's lemma states that for an odd prime p and integer a not divisible by p,\left( \frac{a}{p} \right) = (-1)^n,where n is the number of integers k with $1 \leq k \leq (p-1)/2 such that a k \mod p > p/2. Eisenstein's lemma refines this for a odd and p an odd prime not dividing a:\left( \frac{a}{p} \right) = (-1)^s,where s counts the negative residues among a \cdot 1, a \cdot 2, \dots, a \cdot (p-1)/2 modulo p. To prove the lemma, consider the binomial expansion of (1 + x)^a (1 - x)^{p-a} evaluated at x = 1, but more directly, pair terms in the product \prod_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2} (a^2 k^2 - p m_k) for appropriate m_k, yielding the sign count s \equiv a(p-1)/2 \pmod{2}.[54]With Eisenstein's lemma established, the proof of quadratic reciprocity proceeds by evaluating \left( \frac{2}{p} \right) and supplementary laws first, then for odd q, consider the sum \sum_{k=1}^{q-1} \left( \frac{k}{q} \right) \sin(2\pi k / p) or directly apply the lemma to \left( \frac{q}{p} \right) = \left( \frac{p \mod q}{q} \right) (-1)^{\frac{(p-1)(q-1)}{4}} by counting lattice points in a p \times q grid, where the number of points below the diagonal modulo q determines the exponent, equating to \frac{(p-1)(q-1)}{4} modulo 2. This geometric count simplifies Gauss's original third proof and confirms the reciprocity relation.[55]Generalizations to higher degrees extend this reciprocity to cyclotomic fields and beyond. For cubic reciprocity, developed by Kummer in the 1840s, consider the Eisenstein integers \mathbb{Z}[\omega] where \omega = e^{2\pi i / 3} is a primitive cube root of unity. For distinct primary prime elements \pi, \theta \in \mathbb{Z}[\omega] (primary meaning \pi \equiv 2 \pmod{3}), the cubic residue symbol satisfies\left( \frac{\pi}{\theta} \right)_3 = \left( \frac{\theta}{\pi} \right)_3 (-1)^{\frac{N\pi - 1}{3} \cdot \frac{N\theta - 1}{3}},where N denotes the norm. This law determines whether \pi is a cube modulo \theta in the ring \mathbb{Z}[\omega], analogous to the quadratic case, and was proved using properties of Gauss sums over the field \mathbb{Q}(\omega). The proof involves evaluating cubic Gauss sums \sum_{\chi} \chi(a) G(\chi) for characters modulo primes and showing the supplementary factor arises from the action of units in the ring.[56]Eisenstein further contributed to biquadratic reciprocity in Gaussian integers, but Kummer's work paved the way for higher power reciprocity laws in cyclotomic fields \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n). The culminating generalization is Artin's reciprocity law from 1927, which unifies these into a global framework for abelian extensions of number fields. For a finite abelian extension K/\mathbb{Q} with Galois group G = \mathrm{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}), and an unramified prime ideal \mathfrak{p} of \mathbb{Z} above prime p, the Artin symbol (K/\mathbb{Q}, \mathfrak{p}) is the Frobenius automorphism \mathrm{Frob}_\mathfrak{p} \in G that acts on roots of unity or generators by x \mapsto x^{N\mathfrak{p}}. Artin's law asserts that the map from the ideal group of \mathbb{Q} to G factors through the class group, inducing an isomorphism between the ray class group modulo the conductor and the abelianized Galois group, thereby generating the full Galois action via Frobenius elements. This reciprocity holds for any abelian extension and reduces to quadratic, cubic, and higher laws upon specialization.[57][58]
Class number formulas
The analytic class number formula provides an explicit relation between the class number h_K of the ring of integers \mathcal{O}_K of a number field K and arithmetic invariants of K, derived from properties of the Dedekind zeta function \zeta_K(s). This formula arises from the simple pole of \zeta_K(s) at s=1, whose residue encodes information about the distribution of ideals in \mathcal{O}_K. The residue at this pole is given by \Res_{s=1} \zeta_K(s) = \lim_{s \to 1} (s-1) \zeta_K(s).[59]For a number field K of degree n = r_1 + 2r_2 over \mathbb{Q}, with discriminant d_K, number of roots of unity w_K, and regulator \Reg(K) of the unit group, the formula states:h_K = \frac{w_K \sqrt{|d_K|}}{2^{r_1} (2\pi)^{r_2} \Reg(K)} \cdot \Res_{s=1} \zeta_K(s).[59][60]The proof of this formula relies on the meromorphic continuation and functional equation of \zeta_K(s), established by Hecke, along with Tauberian theorems to connect the residue to the asymptotic growth of the ideal countingfunction. Consider the completed zeta function \Lambda_K(s) = |d_K|^{s/2} \Gamma_\mathbb{R}(s)^{r_1} \Gamma_\mathbb{C}(s)^{r_2} \zeta_K(s), where \Gamma_\mathbb{R}(s) = \pi^{-s/2} \Gamma(s/2) and \Gamma_\mathbb{C}(s) = (2\pi)^{-s} \Gamma(s); this satisfies the functional equation \Lambda_K(s) = \Lambda_K(1-s) and is entire. The logarithmic derivative \frac{\Lambda_K'(s)}{\Lambda_K(s)} admits a partial fraction decomposition \frac{\Lambda_K'(s)}{\Lambda_K(s)} = b + \sum_\rho \left( \frac{1}{s - \rho} + \frac{1}{\rho} \right), where the sum runs over the nontrivial zeros \rho of \Lambda_K(s). Near s=1, the behavior of \zeta_K(s) is determined by the Gamma factors, which are holomorphic and nonzero at s=1, allowing the residue to be extracted from the Laurent expansion involving these factors. Combining this with the prime ideal theorem, which gives the asymptotic \sum_{N(\mathfrak{a}) \leq x} 1 \sim h_K \Res_{s=1} \zeta_K(s) \, x via Tauberian arguments, yields the explicit form after accounting for the unit group and regulator via the Dedekind-Minkowski constant and Dirichlet's unit theorem.[59][60]A special case occurs for imaginary quadratic fields K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d}) with d < 0 fundamental discriminant, where r_1 = 0, r_2 = 1, \Reg(K) = 1, and \zeta_K(s) = \zeta(s) L(s, \chi_d) with \chi_d the Kronecker symbol. The formula simplifies toh_K = \frac{w_K \sqrt{|d|}}{2\pi} L(1, \chi_d),where L(1, \chi_d) is the value of the Dirichlet L-function at s=1. This was originally derived by Dirichlet using properties of the Gaussian periods and the Euler product for L(s, \chi_d).[39][60]
Extensions and applications
Global and local class field theory
Class field theory classifies all abelian extensions of number fields and their local counterparts, establishing a profound connection between Galois groups and arithmetic structures such as ideal class groups.[12] In the global setting, for a number field K, the theory describes the maximal abelian extension K^{\mathrm{ab}}/K, where the Galois group \mathrm{Gal}(K^{\mathrm{ab}}/K) is isomorphic to the idele class group of K, providing a complete arithmetic characterization of these extensions.[13] This isomorphism, known as the Artin reciprocity map, generalizes classical reciprocity laws like quadratic reciprocity to arbitrary abelian extensions.[57]The foundational result of global class field theory, established by Teiji Takagi in 1920 and completed with Emil Artin's reciprocity law in 1927, asserts that for any modulus \mathfrak{m}, there is a canonical surjective homomorphism from the ray class group \mathrm{Cl}_K^{(\mathfrak{m})} to \mathrm{Gal}(K^{(\mathfrak{m})\mathrm{ab}}/K), where K^{(\mathfrak{m})\mathrm{ab}} is the maximal abelian extension unramified outside \mathfrak{m}.[61][62] The kernel of this map consists of principal ideals generated by elements congruent to 1 modulo \mathfrak{m}, and the conductor-discriminant formula relates the discriminant of the extension to the conductor of the corresponding ray class group, quantifying ramification precisely.[13] This framework unifies the arithmetic of ideals with Galois theory, showing that abelian extensions correspond bijectively to quotients of ray class groups.In the local setting, for a completion K_v of K at a place v, local class field theory, developed by Helmut Hasse and John Tate in the 1930s and 1950s, establishes a topological isomorphism \mathrm{Gal}(K_v^{\mathrm{ab}}/K_v) \cong K_v^\times.[63] This isomorphism is realized via the norm residue symbol (a, b)_v, which equals the Artin symbol (\sigma_{a,b})_v for a \in K_v^\times and b \in K_v^{\mathrm{ab}}, providing an explicit pairing that captures the action of units on the Galois group.[13] Local theory handles ramification through higher ramification groups, ensuring the reciprocity map respects filtration by inertia subgroups.[64]The global and local theories are unified through the idele class group, introduced by Claude Chevalley in 1936, defined as the quotient \mathbb{J}_K / K^\times of the restricted product \prod'_v K_v^\times over all places v of K.[65] This group is compact modulo the connected component of the identity and provides the domain for the global Artin map \mathbb{J}_K / K^\times \to \mathrm{Gal}(K^{\mathrm{ab}}/K), whose kernel is the connected component, yielding the isomorphism.[13] The idelic formulation allows the global reciprocity law to factor through local norms, ensuring compatibility between global extensions and their local behaviors at each place.[65]
Arithmetic of elliptic curves
An elliptic curve E over a number field K is typically given by a Weierstrass equation of the formy^2 = x^3 + A x + B,where A, B \in K and the discriminant \Delta = -16(4A^3 + 27B^2) is nonzero, ensuring the curve is nonsingular.[66] The Mordell-Weil theorem asserts that the group E(K) of K-rational points on E is finitely generated, specifically isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}^r \oplus E(K)_{\tors}, where r \geq 0 is the rank and E(K)_{\tors} is the finite torsion subgroup.[66] This structure encodes the arithmetic of the curve over K, with the rank r measuring the "size" of the infinite part and relating to the difficulty of finding generators for E(K). The theorem, originally proved for K = \mathbb{Q} by Mordell in 1922 and generalized by Weil in 1928, relies on tools from algebraic number theory such as the finiteness of class numbers and Dirichlet's unit theorem.[66]Computing the rank r often proceeds via descent methods, particularly 2-descent, which bounds r by analyzing the Selmer group in the cohomology of the 2-torsion E[2](K). In 2-descent, one constructs the 2-Selmer group \mathrm{Sel}_2(E/K) as a subgroup of the Shafarevich-Tate group and uses the exact sequence 0 \to E(K)/2E(K) \to \mathrm{Sel}_2(E/K) \to \Sha(E/K){{grok:render&&&type=render_inline_citation&&&citation_id=2&&&citation_type=wikipedia}} \to 0 to obtain r \leq \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} \mathrm{Sel}_2(E/K) - \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} E(K){{grok:render&&&type=render_inline_citation&&&citation_id=2&&&citation_type=wikipedia}}, assuming \Sha(E/K) is finite.[66] This process involves solving homogeneous spaces over quadratic extensions of K and leverages class group computations for solubility at primes of bad reduction. For example, over \mathbb{Q}, explicit 2-descent algorithms can determine the rank for curves with small conductor, as implemented in computational tools.[66]The arithmetic of elliptic curves over number fields also connects to ramification through the conductor N_E, which encodes the primes of bad reduction. Ogg's formula relates the exponent f_p of the conductor at a prime p to the valuation of the discriminant and the number of components in the Néron model: f_p = \mathrm{ord}_p(\Delta) + 1 - n_p, where n_p counts the components of the special fiber, linking directly to the inertia and wild ramification in the Galois representation on the Tate module.[66] Szpiro's conjecture posits a uniform bound on the ratio of the minimal discriminant |\Delta_{\min}| to the conductor N_E, specifically |\Delta_{\min}| \leq C N_E^{6+\epsilon} for some absolute constant C > 0 and all \epsilon > 0, with implications for the distribution of ranks and the abc conjecture over \mathbb{Q}. This conjecture, formulated by Szpiro in the 1980s, highlights how ramification at bad primes constrains the global arithmetic of E.A key application arises in the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer (BSD) conjecture, which equates the algebraic rank r of E(K) to the analytic rank, the order of vanishing at s=1 of the Hasse-Weil L-function L(E/K, s). The full conjecture further predicts that the leading Taylor coefficient at s=1 equals a product involving the Sha group order, regulators, and Tamagawa numbers. Partial evidence comes from Heegner points on modular parametrizations of E, whose heights pair nonvanishingly with derivatives of L(E, s) when the analytic rank is 1, as proved by Gross and Zagier in 1986 for quadratic imaginary fields.[67] For instance, quadratic twists E_d of a fixed E over \mathbb{Q} yield families where BSD holds for rank 0 or 1 cases, verified computationally for conductors up to certain bounds, supporting the conjecture's refined form. The original BSD statement, proposed by Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer in 1965 based on computational evidence, remains a Millennium Prize problem, with progress via Euler systems and Iwasawa theory for higher ranks.
Iwasawa theory
Iwasawa theory, developed by Kenkichi Iwasawa in the late 1950s, investigates the structure of ideal class groups in infinite towers of number fields known as \mathbb{Z}_p-extensions. A \mathbb{Z}_p-extension of a number field K is a Galois extension K_\infty / K with \mathrm{Gal}(K_\infty / K) \cong \mathbb{Z}_p, realized as the union of a tower of finite extensions K = K_0 \subset K_1 \subset \cdots \subset K_\infty where [K_n : K] = p^n and each \mathrm{Gal}(K_n / K) is cyclic.[68] This framework generalizes the cyclotomic \mathbb{Z}_p-extension of \mathbb{Q}, which is contained in the tower of cyclotomic fields \mathbb{Q}(\mu_{p^n}). Iwasawa's approach treats the p-primary parts of the class groups along this tower as a module over the Iwasawa algebra \mathbb{Z}_p[[\mathrm{Gal}(K_\infty / K)]], providing tools to analyze their growth and arithmetic properties.The central object in Iwasawa theory is the Iwasawa module X_\infty = \varprojlim_n \mathrm{Cl}(K_n)^{(p)}, the inverse limit of the p-Sylow subgroups of the ideal class groups \mathrm{Cl}(K_n), endowed with the structure of a torsion \Lambda-module where \Lambda = \mathbb{Z}_p[[\mathbb{Z}_p]] \cong \mathbb{Z}_p[[T]]. By class field theory, X_\infty is isomorphic to the Galois group of the maximal unramified abelian p-extension of K_\infty. Iwasawa proved that X_\infty is finitely generated over \Lambda and of a specific form, leading to the existence of nonnegative integers \mu, \lambda, \nu \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, called the Iwasawa invariants, such that the order of the p-part of the class group satisfies |\mathrm{Cl}(K_n)^{(p)}| = p^{\mu p^n + \lambda n + \nu} for all sufficiently large n. These invariants capture the p-exponential growth (\mu), linear growth (\lambda), and constant term (\nu) of the class numbers in the tower; notably, for the cyclotomic \mathbb{Z}_p-extension of \mathbb{Q}(\mu_p) with odd prime p, \mu = 0.[68]The main conjecture of Iwasawa theory posits an equality between the algebraic structure of X_\infty and an analytic object constructed from p-adic L-functions. Specifically, it asserts that the characteristic ideal of X_\infty over \Lambda equals the principal ideal generated by the p-adic L-function f(T) associated to the extension, where f(T) is the power series form of the Kubota-Leopoldt p-adic L-function L_p(s, \chi) interpolating special values of Dirichlet L-functions at negative integers. Formulated by Iwasawa in the 1960s, this conjecture was proved for odd primes p by Barry Mazur and Andrew Wiles in 1984 using techniques from modular forms and Galois representations, confirming the deep link between arithmetic invariants and p-adic analysis.[68]