Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider (roughtly speaking) the following statements (the Grunwald-Wang theorem)

Theorem 1 (see here for details Wiki): Let $K$ be a number field and $x \in K$. Then under some conditions : $x$ is an $n$-th power iff $x$ is an $n$-th power almost locally everywhere.

Theorem 2 (see theorem (9.2.8) on p541) : Let $K$ be number field and family $(L_p/K_p)_p$ of local abelian extensions. Then under some conditions : there exists an extension $M/K$ such that $M_p \simeq L_p$.

Question 1 : Why are these two theorems equivalent ?

According to Wiki, the fact that $16$ is an 8 power almost locally everywhere but not in $\mathbb{Q}$, implies that there is no cyclic extension of degree $8$ where $2$ is inert.

Question 2 : How to prove this implication ?

share|cite|improve this question

From a modern perspective, Theorem 1 is easier, as it follows immediately from the vanishing of $\Sha^1(K,\mu)$ and Kummer theory.

Theorem 2, on the other hand, requires the vanishing of $\mathrm{coker}^1(K,A)$, the cokernel of the localization map, where A is the potential global galois group (in both cases assuming that we are not in a special case). Theorem 2 is closer to the one originally proven by Grunwald (and later corrected by Wang).

Q2: The implication requires class field theory to prove. The point is that the norm residue symbol of $16$ would vanish everywhere except at $2$, contradicting the product formula/global reciprocity law.

Q1: Since Theorem 2 lets us prescribe the ramification at a finite number of places, we can use the same method to conclude Theorem 1 from Theorem 2.

share|cite|improve this answer
Note that there's a latex error. – Arctic Char Jul 4 '15 at 12:36
Well, is there any way to display an upper case sha? If not, I'd rather leave it as an error. – user252374 Jul 4 '15 at 13:11
Can you just use \text{Sha} ? – Arctic Char Jul 4 '15 at 13:17
why? I want the symbol sha (, and this way anyone reading the post will understand that. – user252374 Jul 4 '15 at 13:29

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.