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.

I'm reading Serre's Local Fields, and I'm trying to understand the proof of Prop. 9 in $\S$5 of Chap. 8 (p.136). First, the setup:

  • $p$ is a prime number
  • $G$ is a cyclic group of order $p$
  • $A$ is a $G$-module
  • $h(A)$ is the Herbrand quotient of $A$
  • $\varphi(A)$ is the Herbrand quotient of $A$ if it were acted on by $G$ trivially

Prop. 9 states that

When $\varphi(A)$ is defined, the quantities $\varphi(A^G)$, $\varphi(A_G)$, and $h(A)$ are all defined, and $$h(A)^{p-1}=\varphi(A^G)^p/\varphi(A)=\varphi(A_G)^p/\varphi(A).$$

In the proof, one of the cases that we end up reducing to is when $A$ is a $G$-module that has the following properties:

  • $A$ is $p$-divisible (for every $y\in A$, there is an $x\in A$ such that $px=y$)
  • every element of $A$ is $p$-power torsion (for every $y\in A$, there is an $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $p^ny=0$)
  • the $p$-torsion subgroup $\{y\in A\mid py=0\}$ of $A$ is finite

Serre says at this point that:

... it is quicker to use Pontryagin duality: it transforms $A$ into a compact group $\hat{A}$, which is a free module of finite type over the ring $\mathbb{Z}_p$ of $p$-adic integers, on which $G$ acts. It can be immediately verified that $$h(A)=h(\hat{A})^{-1},\qquad\varphi(A)=\varphi(\hat{A})^{-1},\qquad\varphi(A^G)=\varphi(\hat{A}_G)^{-1}.$$

Not having any more than a Wikipedia-level knowledge of Pontryagin duality, this passage is unfortunately rather opaque to me. From this section of the Wikipedia page, I deduce that we have implicitly put the discrete topology on $A$. Okay, that's reasonable. But what is the justification for the displayed formulas? Noting the multiplicativity of the Herbrand quotient on exact sequences, I assume the first equation is true because there is an exact sequence involving $A$, $\hat{A}$, and $G$-module $B$ with $h(B)=1$, and similarly with the second equation, but I can't seem to figure out what $B$ ought to be, nor why the third equation is true.

If you are feeling generous, I would also appreciate a hint/explanation as to why $\hat{A}$ is a finitely generated free $\mathbb{Z}_p$-module.

share|improve this question
2  
In that context, duality usually is taken to mean the continuous $\hom(-,\mathbb Q_p/\mathbb Z_p)$, with the target endowed with the discrete topology. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Sep 20 '11 at 5:17
    
@Mariano: So we have put the discrete topology on both the source and target, so all homomorphisms are continuous, correct? Are these abelian group homomorphisms, or $G$-module homomorphisms (in which case, what is the $G$-module structure on $\mathbb{Q}_p/\mathbb{Z}_p$)? I feel like am being particularly dumb with this question. I cannot see how to fit $A$ and $\text{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(A,\mathbb{Q}_p/\mathbb{Z}_p)$ into an exact sequence, much less one whose third term has Herbrand quotient equal to 1 (I do know that any finite group has this property). –  Zev Chonoles Sep 22 '11 at 5:24
    
I also realize that the three properties of $A$ make it very similar to $\mathbb{Q}_p$, but the right way to use this observation escapes me. –  Zev Chonoles Sep 22 '11 at 5:33

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted
+100

I don't know the $p$-version of this, but I can tell you how things work in the "non-$p$"-case. It should not be hard to tweak this into what you want.

Write $\hat H^\bullet(G,\mathord-)$ for Tate cohomology of a finite group $G$. For each abelian group $A$ let $A^\wedge=\hom(A,\mathbb R/\mathbb Z)$ be the abelian group of all homomorphisms of abelian groups; if $A$ happens to be a $G$-module, then $A^\wedge$ is also a $G$-module in the usual way. Then there is a canonical isomorphism $$\hat H^{p-1}(G,A^\wedge)\cong\left(\hat H^{-p}(G,A)\right)^{\wedge}.$$ In other words, $(\mathord-)^\wedge$ flips the cohomological degree with a twist, and dualizes. This can be proved from general nonsense using the fact that $(\mathord-)^\wedge$ is a duality---it is done in detail in Cartan-Eileberg.

Now, for example, suppose $A$ is a $G$-module for which $h(A)$ is defined. We have (using periodicity: I am assuming from now one that here $G$ is cyclic, or, to be silly, that $G$ has period $2$) $$\hat H^0(G,A^\wedge)=\hat H^{-1}(G,A)^\wedge=\hat H^1(G,A)^\wedge$$ and $$\hat H^1(G,A^\wedge)=\hat H^{-2}(G,A)^\wedge=\hat H^0(G,A)^\wedge.$$ Since the groups $\hat H^p(G,A)$ are finite, they are (non-canonically) isomorphic to their duals, so $h_0(A^\wedge)=h_1(A)$ and $h_1(A^\wedge)=h_0(A)$. This gives the first formula you want.

share|improve this answer
    
In your situation, you have only groups which play nicely with $p$, so the special duality in my old comment to your question gives a duality in cohomology, and you can play the same game. C-E proves the duality theorem in sufficient generality, if I recall correctly, that you can use it immediately. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Sep 22 '11 at 6:32

Your Answer

 
discard

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.