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

The following proposition is from Algebraic Number Theory by Neukirch (Proposition 1.11, Chapter 3, p.191), but I doubt that exat sequence. Let $K$ be a number field, $O$ be the ring of integers. And $\mathfrak{p}\mid \infty$ means $\mathfrak{p}$ is a infinite place.

Let $\Gamma=\lambda(O^{\star})$ denote the complete lattice of units in trace-zero space, $$H=\{(v_{\mathfrak{p}}) \in \prod_{\mathfrak{p}|\infty} \mathbb{R} \mid \sum_{\mathfrak{p}|\infty}{ v_{\mathfrak{p}}}=0 \}.$$ There is an exact sequence $$ 0\rightarrow H/ {\Gamma} \rightarrow CH^{1}(\bar{O})^{0} \rightarrow CH^{1}(O) \rightarrow 0\quad.$$

Let $Div(\bar{O})$ be a replete divisor (Arakelov divisor), $CH^{1}(\bar{O})=Div(\bar{O})/P(\bar{O})$ be a replete divisor class group. Let $CH^{1}(\bar{O})^{0}$ be the kernel of $\deg: CH^{1}(\bar{O}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, which is $$\deg(\sum_{\mathfrak{p}}{v_{\mathfrak{p}} \mathfrak{p} })=\log(\prod_{\mathfrak{p}}\mathfrak{N}(\mathfrak{p})^{v_{\mathfrak{p}}}).$$

My question comes from the exactness of $$0\rightarrow H\stackrel{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} Div(\bar{O})^{0} \stackrel{\beta}{\longrightarrow} Div(O)\rightarrow 0,$$ which is crucial in the proof. $\beta$ is the projection map, mapping all the finite place part of $Div(\bar{O})^{0}$ to $Div(O)$. It is surjective. $\alpha$ is defined to be $$\quad \alpha((v_{\mathfrak{p}}))=\sum_{v_{\mathfrak{p}}\mid\infty}{\frac{v_{\mathfrak{p}}}{f_{\mathfrak{p}}} \mathfrak{p}}\quad$$ (where $f_{\mathfrak{p}}=[K_{\mathfrak{p}}: \mathbb{R}]$, $K_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is the completion of $K$ with respect to place $\mathfrak{p}$, actually one can show: for $\mathfrak{p}\mid \infty$, $f_{\mathfrak{p}}=1$ if $\mathfrak{p}$ is a real embedding, and $f_{\mathfrak{p}}=2$ if $ \mathfrak{p}$ is a complex embedding.)

The point is that $Ker(\beta)$ is larger than $Im(\alpha)$. Say, one can pick $\mathfrak{p}_{1}$ as a finite place with $v_{\mathfrak{p}_{1}}=1$, and some infinite place $\mathfrak{p}_{2}$, such that $v_{\mathfrak{p}_{2}}=\log(p^{f_{\mathfrak{p}_{1}}})$. And all the other $v_{\mathfrak{p}}=0$. This is in the $Ker(\beta)$, but not in $Im(\alpha)$!

share|cite|improve this question
I'm confused with your counterexample. Doesn't your divisor $1\mathfrak p_1+v_{\mathfrak p_2}\mathfrak p_2$ map down by the projection map $\beta$ to $1\mathfrak p_1$, rather than zero? – John M Jul 6 '11 at 4:45

I think Neukirch is correct while your counter example does not work as John M said. We have ${\rm Ker} \beta=\{D=\sum_{p} v_pp\in {\rm Div}(\bar{o})^0|\forall p\not| \infty: v_p=0\} =\{D=\sum_{p|\infty} v_pp| 0=\deg D=\sum_{p|\infty}v_pf_p\} =\{D=\sum_{p|\infty} (x_p/f_p)p | \sum_{p|\infty}x_p=0\} ={\rm Im}\alpha.$

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.