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

In his paper Fonctions L p-adiques, Pierre Colmez says:

Tate a montré qu'il n'existait pas dans $\mathbf C_p$ d'analogue $p$-adique de $2i \pi$ et donc par conséquent que les périodes $p$-adiques des variétés algébriques ne pouvaient pas vivre dans $\mathbf C_p$.

(Tate showed that there does not exist in $\mathbf C_p$ a $p$-adic analogue of $2i\pi$, and therefore that the $p$-adic periods of algebraic varieties cannot live in $\mathbf C_p$.)

He further explains that this realization led Fontaine to construct his complicated 'rings of periods'. He gives, as reference for the quoted claim, Tate's paper p-divisible groups. However, nothing that I've read in Tate's paper seems to immediately justify this surprising claim. I've read a bit about Fontaine's rings and I have an idea of the role they play in studying $p$-adic representations, but I'm not quite sure how to formally express "that there does not exist in $\mathbf C_p$ a $p$-adic analogue of $2i\pi$".

My feeling is that he is thinking about periods on curves, where the formal residue theorem of Serre-Tate allows us to explicitly describe Riemann-Roch-Poincaré duality in terms of a formal integration pairing. Over $\mathbf C$, this pairing can be calculated analytically by Cauchy's Residue Theorem, but it requires "division by $2i \pi$"... and somehow, we can't mimick this inside $\mathbf C_p$? is this right? if so, why can't we mimick it?

I would welcome any clarification or explanation of this matter. Thanks!

Edit: This user comment on the blog post linked to by anon, seems to suggest that my hunch is correct. So how can we justify this claim, and get a good feel for the necessity of Fontaine's rings? And, how is this related to Tate's paper?

share|cite|improve this question
Related blog post on SBS: (My understanding of most of the content here is zero; the most I can do is quote Strassman's theorem or say that continuous periodic functions out of ${\Bbb C}_p$ are locally constant.) – anon Sep 30 '13 at 23:23
Thanks @anon, that is very helpful. – Bruno Joyal Sep 30 '13 at 23:30
up vote 14 down vote accepted

I think Colmez is referring to the fact that $H^0\bigl(G_{\mathbb Q_p},\mathbb C_p(1)\bigr) = 0.$

Any such invariant would be be a $p$-adic period for the cyclotomic character; but as Tate showed, this space of invariants vanishes, and so the $p$-adic cyclotomic character does not have a period in $\mathbb C_p$; one has to go to $B_{\mathrm{dR}}$ to get a period (the famous element $t$ of Fontaine).

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear Matt, thank you for your answer! Would you mind elaborating on why such an invariant would be a $p$-adic period for the cyclotomic character? Regards, – Bruno Joyal Oct 2 '13 at 5:06

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.