2
$\begingroup$

Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $p > 0$. Then it is due to Artin and Schreier that the assignment

$$c \in K \mapsto \text{Splitting field } L_c \text{ of } X^p-X+c$$

induces a bijection between the non-trivial elements in $K/\{a^p-a \mid a \in K\}$ and the $K$-isomorphism classes of Galois extensions of degree $p$ over $K$.

In particular, this should imply that if $c, c' \in K$ are such that $L_c$ and $L_{c'}$ are $K$-isomorphic, then there is $k \in K$ such that $k^p-k = c-c'$.

However, what about the following example (which was suggested by user8268 in this question): Let $p > 2$ and $c \in K \setminus \{a^p-a \mid a \in K\}$ and let $\alpha \in L_c$ be a root of $x^p-x+c$. Then the roots of $x^p-x+2c$ are given by $2\alpha + u$, where $u$ ranges through $\mathbb{F}_p \subseteq K$, hence $L_c = L_{2c}$. But $2c - c = c \not\in \{a^p-a \mid a \in K\}$.

How is this compatible with the Artin-Schreier correspondence? I am grateful for any help!

EDIT 1: Note that the Artin-Schreier correspondence is usually proved by constructing an inverse map, as it was done e.g. in this answer.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The bijection is rather between the Galois extensions of $K$ of order $p$ and $\bigl(K\setminus\{a^p-a|a\in K\}\bigr)/\Bbb F_p^*$. (If $\lambda\in\Bbb F_p^*$ then $L_{\lambda c}=L_c$.) $\endgroup$ – user8268 Nov 17 '18 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ @user8268: Yes, this seems to be the case, but why is the AS-correspondence always stated as I did it above? $\endgroup$ – Algebrus Nov 18 '18 at 0:12
2
+50
$\begingroup$

I should really check out a definite source, but I think the Artin-Schreier correspondence means the following. To summarize, the problem observed by user8268 can be resolved by insisting that the Galois groups should have a preferred generator.

So something like the following.

Let $L$ and $L'$ be two cyclic degree $p$ extensions of $K$, and let $\sigma$ (resp. $\sigma'$) be the respective preferred generators. We call $(L,\sigma)$ and $(L',\sigma')$ equivalent, if there exists a $K$-isomorphism $\psi:L\to L'$ such that $$\psi\circ\sigma=\sigma'\circ\psi.$$ Then the AS-correspondence is a bijection between the non-trivial cosets of the subgroup $A=\{x^p-x\mid x\in K\}\le(K,+)$ and the equivalence classes of pairs $(L,\sigma)$. If $c+A$ is a non-trivial coset of $A$ then it corresponds to an extension $L=K(\beta)$ with $\beta^p-\beta+c=0$ together with the preferred automorphism $\sigma:L\to L$ uniquely determined by $\sigma(\beta)=\beta+1$.

A consequence of this formulation is that while the splitting fields of $x^p-x+c$ and $x^p-x+2c$ are both equal to $L=K(\beta)$, the above correspondence associates a different generator of the Galois group with the latter polynomial. The automorphism $\sigma$ that maps $\beta\mapsto \beta+1$ will map $2\beta\mapsto 2\beta+2$, so we should associate $x^p-x+2c$ with the pair $(K(\beta),\sigma^2)$ instead of $(K(\beta),\sigma)$. Observe that those two pairs cannot be equivalent according to the above definition because $\sigma'=\sigma^2$ (and here every possible $\psi$ commutes with $\sigma$).

A few closing remarks:

  • I may be out of my depth here, but I hazard a guess that the interpretation of this result in terms of Galois cohomology makes it necessary to specify the action of a fixed generator of the cyclic group.
  • An analogous problem is present in Kummer theory also. For example, with $K=\Bbb{Q}(\omega)$, $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3},$ the cyclic cubic extensions $K(\root3\of2)$ and $K(\root3\of4)$ are clearly equal (as subsets of $\Bbb{C}$) even though $2$ and $4$ belong to distinct (multiplicative) cosets of the subgroup of cubes of $K^*$. Here we also resolve the problem by observing that the automorphisms of $K(\root3\of2)$ that map $\root3\of2\mapsto\omega\root3\of2$ and $\root3\of4\mapsto \omega\root3\of4$ are similarly squares of each other, i.e. distinct generators of the Galois group.
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Perhaps you should define precisely what you mean by a $K$-isomorphism class of Galois extensions of degree $p$ of $K$, and also give a reference for your formulation of the AS theorem. Because the classical formulation (as in Lang's "Algebra") reads : if $K$ is of characteristic $p$, the operator $P$ defined by $P(x)=x^p-x$ is an additive homomorphism of $K$ into itself; if $B$ is a subgroup of $(K,+)$ containing $P(K)$, the map $B \to K_B=$ the splitting field of all the polynomials $P(X)-b$ for $b\in B$ gives a bijection between all such groups $B$ and all the abelian extensions of $K$ of exponent $p$. This can be shown as follows :

If $K_s$ be a separable closure of $K$ and $G=Gal(K_s/K)$, a cyclic extension of degree $p$ of $K$ is obviously determined by the kernel of a (continuous) character $\chi:G \to \mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z$, and the problem consists in the description of $Hom(G,\mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z$). The quickest and clearest proof uses the additive version of Hilbert's thm. 90. More precisely, consider the exact sequence of $G$-modules $0\to \mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z \to K_s \to K_s \to 0$, where the righmost map, defined by $P$, is surjective because the polynomial $P(X)-b$ is separable. The associated cohomology exact sequence gives $K \to K \to H^1(G, \mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z) \to H^1(G, K_s)$. But $H^1(G, K_s)=0$ (Hilbert's 90) and $H^1(G, \mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z)= Hom (G, \mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z)$ because $G$ acts trivially on $\mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z$, hence $K/P(K)\cong Hom (G, \mathbf Z/p\mathbf Z) $, and one can check that this isomorphism associates to $b\in K$ the character $\chi_b$ defined by $\chi_b(g)=g(x)-x$, where $x$ is a root of $P(x)=b$.

In your example involving $X^p -X - c$ and $X^p -X - 2c$, the AS extenions coincide because $c$ and $2c$ generate the same (additive) group of order $p$ when $p\neq 2$.

NB: in the kummerian case, the same arguments work for the multiplicative version of Hilbert 's 90 and any integer $n$ s.t. $K$ contains a primitive $n$-th root of unityin place of the prime $p$, and the same remark applies to the example given by @Jirki Lahtonen.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for adding this explanation. My answer was missing the part about using characters of the Galois group. What I was trying to describe as the need to specify a preferred generator can equally well (=more naturally) be described with characters. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 24 '18 at 7:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.