Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2010

    Created local field. I discovered there’s no number field and no Pontryagin duality.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2010
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2010
    Quick question: what's the relation between a local ring and a local field, if there is one?
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2010

    There’s not much relation. You can say that the pp-adic local fields have local rings in them: the elements of norm 1 or less, where the maximal ideal is the set of elements of norm less than 1.

    In general, given a local ring (R,m)(R, m), it’s possible to complete it by taking an inverse limit of the quotient rings R/m nR/m^n, and the pp-adic local fields arise as fields of fractions of completions of localizations of rings of integers in number fields. But those local rings coming from number field are a tiny fraction of local rings in general.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2010
    Ok thanks. A not particularly meaningful confluence of terminology then.
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2010

    Don’t forget to put answers to questions into the corresponding nLab page. I pasted that answer here.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2010

    Okay, Urs – thanks.

    I’ve also written brief articles on number field and Pontryagin duality. Pages for Haar measure and ring of adeles are on to-do list (but please be my guest, anyone).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2010
    • (edited May 2nd 2010)

    Thanks. Added some hyperlins to number field.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2010

    Thanks a lot for Pontryagin duality. I also added some hyperlinks here.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010
    • (edited May 3rd 2010)

    Pontrjagin is one of the rare names which are very often spelled with correct transliteration spelling, as in English edition of Russian math journals and in Math Reviews of Russian papers. It is a pity to see it as Pontryagin in nlab, especially as there is an entry Lev Pontrjagin and

    THERE IS AN old ENTRY Pontrjagin dual with redirect Pontrjagin duality (I was among contributors to the old entry quite a while ago)

    so I do not see a need to have separate entry Pontryagin duality. It would be better to merge all under old entry Pontrjagin dual.

    There’s not much relation. (local fields vs local rings)

    I disagree with this, the basic example of a local ring is the localization of some ring of functions around a point, meaning infinitesimal information around the point. The same kind of examples are basic examples of local fields: one looks now at power series where one can invert, and they do not converge but have sense only in a formal neighborhood. So geometrically the meaning of local is about the same, although the structural definition is a bit different.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    It would be better to merge all under old entry Pontrjagin dual.

    Right. Could you do it?

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    THERE IS AN old ENTRY Pontrjagin dual with redirect Pontrjagin duality (I was among contributors to the old entry quite a while ago) so I do not see a need to have separate entry Pontryagin duality. It would be better to merge all under old entry Pontrjagin dual.

    I agree one hundred percent, and would add there should be a redirect since in my experience ’Pontryagin’ is a far more common transliteration. However, there’s no need to shout (caps).

    The same kind of examples are basic examples of local fields

    No. “Local field” in mathematical English means what I said it means, and you only get them starting from very specific types of local rings. Sure, no one denies there are some thematic commonalities (and I also tried to convey them in my comment), but I interpreted David’s question structurally, as asking whether there’s a functor from local rings, or more to the point local integral domains to local fields, and the answer is no. There is of course a forgetful functor from local fields to local rings (which assigns the maximal compact subring), but the possible values up to isomorphism are a pretty small fraction of local rings or local integral domains.

    My sense is that the “local” in “local field” was chosen by Weil (or whoever it was) more with regard to the topological local compactness than to the algebraic sense of local, otherwise it would be highly misleading.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010
    • (edited May 3rd 2010)
    Hmm, now we have local integral domains. I presume these are 'local' in the algebraic sense? Zoran's answer does fall under the sort of thing I was looking for, though: any and all comers.

    >forgetful functor

    does it have an adjoint? (I guess it will be a bit trivial for a lot of/most local rings)
    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010
    • (edited May 3rd 2010)

    Yes, “local” in “local integral domain” was in the algebraic sense. But Zoran’s answer was wrong: that kind of local is simply not the meaning of “local field” as it is used in mathematical English. (Or, if anyone ever does use it that way, then they are in serious conflict with established use in number theory. Citation?)

    I will reiterate that the “local” in “local field” probably refers to local compactness, since that is the relevant structure in the definition!

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    Right. Could you do it?

    Not before next Tuesday. I am at a conference with 3 other deadlines this week and next Monday.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    Don’t worry, Urs – I’m happy to do it. Right now I’m at local field, editing to clear up some evident misconceptions. :-)

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    Okay, I’m done editing for now at local field. I invite those who know what a local field is :-D to have a look to see if they think I got it right.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    there’s no need to shout (caps)

    According to the major epistemological work of Hirsch, the true interpretation is the intended meaning and not the convention of the particular circle of people who happen to receive it. Hence the shouting interpretation is wrong. It takes more time to type the code for italics than to type capitals.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010
    • (edited May 3rd 2010)

    According to the major epistemological work of Hirsch

    Pfft. It would be better, Zoran, if you took the time to put your text between two asterisks (which for me takes less time), and not flout well-known conventions. This is a matter of basic Netiquette. I would say more, except that I am in no mood to waste any more time arguing with you on this.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    Merged contents of former article on Pontryagin duality to Pontrjagin dual, and added a redirect.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    I agree with Todd #19. Basic politeness involves everyone in a given community using the same conventions and social norms. It has nothing to do with meaning.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010
    • (edited May 3rd 2010)

    Netiquette

    Guys, I am sorry. I consider internet just an extension of the usual writing. Consider me impolite if you wish, it is not intended. I prefer interpreting by knowing people and not by colorless conventions and unformeness. True interpretation requires knowing the source; so one who does not know them restrains from hard interpretations.

    your text between two asterisks (which for me takes less time)

    Sorry but I did not come up with that< it would come automatically in nlab but for nforum I am still not subconsciously ready for such (I assumed em em wiki environment, I am in completely different envirnoment and mindset and your requests are really difficult for somebody in the middle of the conference and who slept 3 and half hours last night after 7 hours in the bus).

    I should add that I lost about 10 minutes of concentration after being stressed for shouting which I did not do. I do not feel nice about nforum the whole afternoon after that.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    Thanks for your words, Zoran. I guess I should apologize, too, because I sort of did take a few piss shots over the meaning of local field (although it was an intellectual point that needed clarification, I felt).

    The problem with the internet is that in most cases we don’t know each other (very well), we’ve never met each other in person, we can’t rely on facial and bodily cues, or interrupt to forestall a misunderstanding, etc. etc. That’s the whole point of abiding by simple rules of netiquette: that writing emails and comments on the internet is decidedly not an extension of ordinary writing! (Or, at least adopting such an attitude is fraught with some obvious pitfalls.)

    Thanks for clarifying, though, and I for my part will try to be less reactive. (I need to catch up on sleep too!)

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2010

    Don’t worry :) and get some sleep…

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2014

    added the following paragraph to the Idea-section at local field (and will add a corresponding paragraph to global field):

    Basic examples are the p-adic numbers p\mathbb{Q}_p and the field of Laurent series 𝔽 q((t))\mathbb{F}_q((t)) over a finite field 𝔽 q\mathbb{F}_q. Local fields are opposite to global fields in that where (under the function field analogy) the latter may be thought of as fields of rational functions on arithmetic curves, local fields are like fields of functions on formal disks inside such curves. Accordingly the Langlands correspondence for global fields has a “localization” to the local Langlands corrrespondence for local fields.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v13, current