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.

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

How should I understand the compactness of $A_{\mathbb{K}}^1/\mathbb{K}^{\times}$ in classical non-idelic language? I suppose the notations are standard, but just for completeness,

  • $K$ is a global field;
  • $A_{\mathbb{K}}$ is the adele ring;
  • $A_{\mathbb{K}}^1$ is the kernel of the content map, defined on the idele ring by multiplying the normalized absolute values at each place.
  • $K^{\times}$ embeds into $A_{\mathbb{K}}^1$ diagonally.

Motivation: I am trying to compare the idelic proof in Cassels-Frohlich to the classical proof involving Minkowski bound. I have been able to translate part of the story, e.g. the lemma on p.66 of Cassels-Frohlich seems to be an analogue of Minkowski's convex body theorem. However, the crux of the idelic proof seems to be the compactness of the group mentioned above, and I have been unable to see what it corresponds to in the classical case.


share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The compactness of the norm one idele class group for a global field $K$ (Fujisaki's Lemma) is in fact equivalent to the finiteness of the ideal class group (of any one $S$-integer ring) and the Dirichlet unit theorem (of any one $S$-integer ring), including the precise computation of the free rank of the unit group.

This perspective is given a very nice treatment in the number field case in this brief note of Paul Garrett.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.