4
$\begingroup$

Let $\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}_k=\mathcal{O_k}$ (Ring of integers) be non-zero.

Then $$ N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}((\alpha))=N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}(\alpha) $$

$(\alpha)$ denotes the principal ideal generated by $\alpha$. $N$ is the norm.

Proof. Let $\mathbb{Z}_k=\mathbb{Z}\omega_1+\mathbb{Z}\omega_2+\dots+\mathbb{Z}\omega_n$. Then $(\alpha)=\mathbb{Z}\alpha\omega_1+\mathbb{Z}\alpha\omega_2+\dots+\mathbb{Z}\alpha\omega_n$. Then $N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}((\alpha))=|\mathbb{Z}_k/(\alpha)| $ ; if we write $\alpha \omega_i=\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ji} \omega_j$ , then the index of $\alpha$ in $\mathbb{Z}_k$ is just $\det(a_{ij})$ . But we know that $ N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}(\alpha)=\det(a_{ij})$ , and so the result follows .

I do not understand why the index of ($\alpha$) in $\mathbb{Z}_k$ is $\det(a_{ij})$ .

I know that the index gives the number of the cosets and each element is of the form $\beta+(\alpha)$ but this does not bring me further .

Thanks for the help .

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "the index of $\alpha$ in $\Bbb{Z}_k$"? Do you mean the index of $(\alpha)$? Also, is $\Bbb{Z}_k$ supposed to denote the ring of integers of the number field $K$? The standard notation is $\mathcal{O}_K$. $\endgroup$ Jul 8 '19 at 22:15
-1
$\begingroup$

You have certainly seen before that the ring of integers $O_k$ is a free $\mathbf Z$-module of rank $n$ equal to the degree of $k/\mathbf Q$. The $\mathbf Z$-submodule $\alpha O_k$ has also rank $n$ because the multiplication by $\alpha$ is a bijection of $O_k$ onto $\alpha O_k$. But the classical structure theorem of finitely generated free modules over a PID ($\mathbf Z$ here) shows the existence of a basis $(e_1,..., e_n)$ of $O_k$ and natural non null integers $a_1,..., a_n$ s.t. $a_i$ divides $a_{i+1}$ for $i\le n-1$ and $(a_1e_1,...,a_ne_n)$ is a basis of $\alpha O_k$ (the bases are called $adapted$). Hence $O_k/\alpha O_k\cong \mathbf Z/a_1\mathbf Z \times ...\times \mathbf Z/a_n\mathbf Z$ and has order $a_1...a_n$. If $f$ denote the $\mathbf Z$-linear application of $O_k$ onto $\alpha O_k$ defined by $f(e_i)=a_ie_i$, then det($f)=a_1...a_n$.

Besides, since $(\alpha e_1,..., \alpha e_n)$ is a basis of $\alpha O_k$, there is an automorphism $g$ of the $\mathbf Z$-module $\alpha O_k$ s.t. $g(a_ie_i)=\alpha e_i$. Then det($g)$ is invertible in $\mathbf Z$, i.e. det($g)=\pm 1$. But by definition $g.f$ is the multiplication by $\alpha$ and its determinant is N$(\alpha)$ (your argument). As det($g.f$)=det($g$).det($f$), it follows that N$(\alpha)=\pm a_1...a_n=\pm$ card $(O_k/ \alpha O_k$) ./.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ It is non trivial that the $a_j$ can be integers, you should consider instead the matrix $A \in M_n(\Bbb{Z})$ representing the multiplication by $\alpha$ in the $e_j$ basis then $O_k/\alpha O_k \cong \Bbb{Z}^n / A \Bbb{Z}^n$ has $|\det(A)|$ elements by the volume definition of $\det$ (identifying $b \in \Bbb{Z}^n$ with the unit cube $b + [0,1]^n$) $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Jul 9 '19 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ I only applied the general theorem concerning a noetherian submodule N $\neq 0$ contained in a free module M of finite rank when the base ring is a PID (see e.g. Lang's "Algebra", chap.15, §2, thm.5). But it is true that I forgot to mention the conditions that $a_i$ divides $a_{i+1}$. I edited that. $\endgroup$ Jul 9 '19 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ Ok but the goal is to make things as simple as possible. You don't need the Smith normal form to explain why the field norm is the ideal norm $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Jul 9 '19 at 18:01

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.