Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider algebraic number fields $\mathbb{Q} \subseteq K \subseteq L$ with rings of integers $\mathbb{Z}\subseteq \mathcal{O}_K \subseteq \mathcal{O}_L$. If $0 \neq \mathfrak{p} \trianglelefteq \mathcal{O}_K$ is a prime ideal, then the ideal $\mathfrak{p}\mathcal{O}_L$ has a factorisation into prime ideals of $\mathcal{O}_L$, say $\mathfrak{p}\mathcal{O}_L = \prod_{i=1}^r \mathfrak{P}_i^{e_i}$. If additionally $L/K$ is a Galois extension, then $\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)$ operates transitively on $\{ \mathfrak{P}_1 , ... , \mathfrak{P}_r \}$ and all $e_i$ are equal.

I think this is well known, just as is Clifford's theorem from ordinary representation theory of finite groups which states the following.

Let $G$ be a finite group with a normal subgroup $N \trianglelefteq G$ and let $K\subseteq \mathbb{C}$ be a field which is invariant under complex conjugation and which is a splitting field for all group algebras $KH$ for all subgroups $H\leq G$. Denote by $( \cdot , \cdot )$ the scalar product on the space of class functions of $G$ and by $\chi_N$ the restriction of $\chi$ to $N$. If $\chi$ is an irreducible character of $G$ and $\vartheta$ is an irreducible character of $N$ such that $(\chi_N , \vartheta) =: e > 0$ and $\vartheta_1 , ... , \vartheta _t$ are the $G$-conjugates of $\vartheta$, then $\chi_N = e \sum_{i=1}^t \vartheta_i$, which is to say that the irreducible constituents of $\chi_N$ form an orbit under conjugation and they all occur with the same multiplicity $e$.

Now these two statements seem remarkably similar but my fellow students and I have not been able to decide whether there really is some conncetion between these two theorems or if what we see is a mere coincidence.

My question is: Is there some "deeper reason" that we encounter similar situations in representation theory and number theory?

share|improve this question
    
I see it as a testament to the universality of transitive group actions in modern mathematics. –  Matt Aug 28 '12 at 18:17
    
The $e$ occurring in Clifford theory is even called 'ramification index' by some authors (e.g. Isaacs). However, the analogy to the number theoretic situation is normally seen the other way round: Given an irreducible character $\vartheta$ of a normal subgroup $N$, the induced character decomposes $\vartheta^G = \sum_{\chi} e(\chi) \chi$. These $e(\chi)$'s need not be equal. –  ladisch Aug 30 '12 at 15:11
add comment

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook.

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.