3
$\begingroup$

I'm looking for a reference for the following facts from global class field theory that I found without proofs. I will state them as questions, just in case I get the statement wrong. We fix $K$ a number field.

  • Question 1. Is the quotient of $\widehat{\mathcal{O}}_K^{\times}$ (the units in the profinite completion of $\mathcal{O}_K$) by the closure of the unit group $\mathcal{O}_K^{\times}$ of $\mathcal{O}_K$ isomorphic, via the Artin map, to the Galois group of the maximal totally real sub-field of the maximal abelian extension $K^{\rm ab}$?
  • Question 2. Is the Galois group of the maximal abelian extension of $K$ isomorphic, via the Artin map, to the quotient of $\widehat{\mathcal{O}}_K^{\times}$ by the closure of $\mathcal{O}_{K,+}^{\times}$, the group of totally positive units?
  • Question 3 The kernel of the Artin map $$\Phi_{H/K}:\mathbf{A}_K^{\times}\to\text{Gal}(H/K)$$ is $K^{\times}\cdot((K\otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}\mathbf{R})^{\times}\times \widehat{\mathcal{O}}_K^{\times})$. Is $K^{\times}\cdot((K\otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}\mathbf{R})^{\times}\times \widehat{\mathcal{O}}_K^{\times})$ in turn an extension of $(K\otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}\mathbf{R})^{\times}\times K^{\times}\times \widehat{\mathcal{O}}_K^{\times}$ by the unit group?

I think I see how to do (3), and I roughly get (1) and (2), though I'd be interested in finding a reference, if any.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think that 1) is true of the class group of $K$ is nontrivial, and similarly for 2) if the narrow class group is nontrivial. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 26, 2023 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Aurel I see. The right statement should be, for (1), the Galois group is isomorphic to the quotient of $\mathbf{A}_K^{\times}$ by the closure of $K^{\times}\cdot(K\otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}\mathbf{R})^{\times, 0}$ (where the superscript $0$ means "connected component of the identity"), and for (2) it should be the same but with $(K\otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}\mathbf{R})^{\times, 0}$ replaced by all of $(K\otimes_{\mathbf{Q}}\mathbf{R})^{\times}$. Am I right? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 26, 2023 at 17:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is the correct statement for (2). For (1) your formulation is correct if $K$ itself is totally real; but if $K$ isn't totally real, "the maximal totally real subfield of $K^{\mathrm{ab}}$" will not contain $K$! You want to replace "totally real" with "unramified at the real places of $K$" (i.e. as close to totally real as $K$ itself is). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 6, 2023 at 20:29

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.