Algebraic Groups and Number Theory 2Nd Edition Vladimir Platonov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Algebraic Groups and Number Theory
2nd Edition Vladimir Platonov

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/algebraic-groups-and-number-theory-2nd-edition-vladi
mir-platonov/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
A Textbook of Algebraic Number Theory 1st Edition

Sudesh Kaur Khanduja
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-textbook-of-algebraic-number-
theory-1st-edition-sudesh-kaur-khanduja/
Algebraic Number Theory for Beginners Following a Path

From Euclid to Noether Stillwell
https://ebookmeta.com/product/algebraic-number-theory-for-
beginners-following-a-path-from-euclid-to-noether-stillwell/
Galois Theory and Its Algebraic Background 2nd Edition

Garling
https://ebookmeta.com/product/galois-theory-and-its-algebraic-
background-2nd-edition-garling/
Elementary Number Theory 2nd Edition Edmund Landau
https://ebookmeta.com/product/elementary-number-theory-2nd-
edition-edmund-landau/
Potential Theory and Geometry on Lie Groups New
Mathematical Monographs Series Number 38 1st Edition
N. Th. Varopoulos
https://ebookmeta.com/product/potential-theory-and-geometry-on-
lie-groups-new-mathematical-monographs-series-number-38-1st-
edition-n-th-varopoulos/
Analytic Number Theory for Beginners 2nd Edition

Prapanpong Pongsriiam
https://ebookmeta.com/product/analytic-number-theory-for-
beginners-2nd-edition-prapanpong-pongsriiam/
Transcendental Number Theory Alan Baker
https://ebookmeta.com/product/transcendental-number-theory-alan-
baker/
On Non Generic Finite Subgroups of Exceptional

Algebraic Groups 1st Edition Alastair J. Litterick
https://ebookmeta.com/product/on-non-generic-finite-subgroups-of-
exceptional-algebraic-groups-1st-edition-alastair-j-litterick/
Number Theory 1st Edition Andrej Dujella
https://ebookmeta.com/product/number-theory-1st-edition-andrej-
dujella/
C A M B R I D G E S T U D I E S I N A DVA N C E D M AT H E M AT I C S 2 0 5
Editorial Board
J. BERTOIN, B. BOLLOBÁS, W. FULTON, B. KRA, I. MOERDIJK,
C. PRAEGER, P. SARNAK, B. SIMON, B. TOTARO
ALGEBRAIC GROUPS AND NUMBER THEORY

The first edition of this book provided the first systematic exposition of the arithmetic
theory of algebraic groups. This revised second edition, now published in two volumes,
retains the same goals, while incorporating corrections and improvements as well as
new material covering more recent developments.
Volume I begins with chapters covering background material on number theory,
algebraic groups, and cohomology (both abelian and non-abelian), and then turns to
algebraic groups over locally compact fields. The remaining two chapters provide a
detailed treatment of arithmetic subgroups and reduction theory in both the real and
adelic settings. Volume I includes new material on groups with bounded generation and
abstract arithmetic groups.
With minimal prerequisites and complete proofs given whenever possible, this book
is suitable for self-study for graduate students wishing to learn the subject as well as a
reference for researchers in number theory, algebraic geometry, and related areas.
Vladimir Platonov is Principal Research Fellow at the Steklov Mathematical Institute

and the Scientific Research Institute for System Analysis of the Russian Academy of
Sciences. He has made fundamental contributions to the theory of algebraic groups,
including the resolution of the Kneser–Tits problem, a criterion for strong approx-
imation in algebraic groups, and the analysis of the rationality of group varieties.
A recipient of the Lenin Prize (1978) and the Chebyshev Gold Medal for outstanding
results in mathematics (2022), he is currently an academician of the Russian Academy
of Sciences and of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, and a member of the
Indian National Academy of Sciences.
Andrei Rapinchuk is McConnell-Bernard Professor of Mathematics at the University

of Virginia. His contributions to the arithmetic theory of algebraic groups include a vari-
ety of results concerning the normal subgroup structure of the groups of rational points
of algebraic groups, the congruence subgroup and metaplectic problems, and different
aspects of the local-global principle. He has also applied the theory of arithmetic groups
to investigate isospectral locally symmetric spaces.
Igor Rapinchuk is Associate Professor of Mathematics at Michigan State University.

His current research deals mainly with the emerging arithmetic theory of algebraic
groups over higher-dimensional fields, focusing on finiteness properties of groups with
good reduction, local-global principles, and abstract homomorphisms.
C A M B R I D G E S T U D I E S I N A DVA N C E D M AT H E M AT I C S
Editorial Board
J. Bertoin, B. Bollobás, W. Fulton, B. Kra, I. Moerdijk, C. Praeger, P. Sarnak, B. Simon, B. Totaro
All the titles listed below can be obtained from good booksellers or from Cambridge University Press. For a
complete series listing, visit www.cambridge.org/mathematics.
Already Published
167 D. Li & H. Queffelec Introduction to Banach Spaces, II
168 J. Carlson, S. Müller-Stach & C. Peters Period Mappings and Period Domains (2nd Edition)
169 J. M. Landsberg Geometry and Complexity Theory
170 J. S. Milne Algebraic Groups
171 J. Gough & J. Kupsch Quantum Fields and Processes
172 T. Ceccherini-Silberstein, F. Scarabotti & F. Tolli Discrete Harmonic Analysis
173 P. Garrett Modern Analysis of Automorphic Forms by Example, I
174 P. Garrett Modern Analysis of Automorphic Forms by Example, II
175 G. Navarro Character Theory and the McKay Conjecture
176 P. Fleig, H. P. A. Gustafsson, A. Kleinschmidt & D. Persson Eisenstein Series and Automorphic
Representations
177 E. Peterson Formal Geometry and Bordism Operators
178 A. Ogus Lectures on Logarithmic Algebraic Geometry
179 N. Nikolski Hardy Spaces
180 D.-C. Cisinski Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra
181 A. Agrachev, D. Barilari & U. Boscain A Comprehensive Introduction to Sub-Riemannian Geometry
182 N. Nikolski Toeplitz Matrices and Operators
183 A. Yekutieli Derived Categories
184 C. Demeter Fourier Restriction, Decoupling and Applications
185 D. Barnes & C. Roitzheim Foundations of Stable Homotopy Theory
186 V. Vasyunin & A. Volberg The Bellman Function Technique in Harmonic Analysis
187 M. Geck & G. Malle The Character Theory of Finite Groups of Lie Type
188 B. Richter Category Theory for Homotopy Theory
189 R. Willett & G. Yu Higher Index Theory
190 A. Bobrowski Generators of Markov Chains
191 D. Cao, S. Peng & S. Yan Singularly Perturbed Methods for Nonlinear Elliptic Problems
192 E. Kowalski An Introduction to Probabilistic Number Theory
193 V. Gorin Lectures on Random Lozenge Tilings
194 E. Riehl & D. Verity Elements of ∞-Category Theory
195 H. Krause Homological Theory of Representations
196 F. Durand & D. Perrin Dimension Groups and Dynamical Systems
197 A. Sheffer Polynomial Methods and Incidence Theory
198 T. Dobson, A. Malnič & D. Marušič Symmetry in Graphs
199 K. S. Kedlaya p-adic Differential Equations
200 R. L. Frank, A. Laptev & T. Weidl Schrödinger Operators:Eigenvalues and Lieb–Thirring Inequalities
201 J. van Neerven Functional Analysis
202 A. Schmeding An Introduction to Infinite-Dimensional Differential Geometry
203 F. Cabello Sánchez & J. M. F. Castillo Homological Methods in Banach Space Theory
204 G. P. Paternain, M. Salo & G. Uhlmann Geometric Inverse Problems
205 V. Platonov, A. Rapinchuk & I. Rapinchuk Algebraic Groups and Number Theory, I (2nd Edition)
206 D. Huybrechts The Geometry of Cubic Hypersurfaces
Algebraic Groups and Number Theory
Volume I
Second Edition
V L A D I M I R P L ATO N OV
Steklov Institute of Mathematics, Moscow
ANDREI RAPINCHUK
University of Virginia
IGOR RAPINCHUK
Michigan State University
The translation of the first Russian edition

was prepared by Rachel Rowen.
Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre,
New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467
Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

a department of the University of Cambridge.
We share the University’s mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of
education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521113618
DOI: 10.1017/9781139017756
Originally published in Russian as Алгебраические группы и теория чисел by Nauka
Publishing House in 1991 c Nauka, 1991
First published in English by Academic Press, Inc. 1994
English translation c 1994 by Academic Press, Inc.
Second Edition c Vladimir Platonov, Andrei Rapinchuk, and Igor Rapinchuk 2023
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ Books Limited, Padstow Cornwall
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
A Cataloging-in-Publication data record for this book is available from the Library of
Congress.
ISBN 978-0-521-11361-8 Hardback
Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this
publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Preface to the Second English Edition page vii

Preface to the First English Edition (1994) ix
Preface to the Russian Edition (1991) x
List of Notations xiii
1 Algebraic Number Theory 1
1.1 Algebraic Number Fields, Valuations, and Completions 1
1.2 Adeles and Ideles; Approximation; Local-Global Principle 11
1.3 Cohomology 17
1.4 Simple Algebras over Local Fields 29
1.5 Simple Algebras over Number Fields 42
2 Algebraic Groups 53
2.1 Structure of Algebraic Groups 53
2.2 Classification K-Forms Using Galois Cohomology 77
2.3 Classical Groups 90
2.4 Some Results from Algebraic Geometry 110
3 Algebraic Groups over Locally Compact Fields 124
3.1 Topology and Analytic Structure 125
3.2 The Archimedean Case 137
3.3 The Non-Archimedean Case 155
3.4 Elements of Bruhat–Tits Theory 172
3.5 Basic Results from Measure Theory 185
4 Arithmetic Groups and Reduction Theory 198
4.1 Arithmetic Groups 198
4.2 An Overview of Reduction Theory. Reduction in GLn (R) 203
4.3 Reduction in Arbitrary Groups 220
4.4 Group-Theoretic Properties of Arithmetic Groups 227
v
vi Contents
4.5 Compactness of GR /GZ 246

4.6 The Finiteness of the Volume of GR /GZ 253
4.7 Concluding Remarks on Reduction Theory 265
4.8 Finite Arithmetic Groups 271
4.9 Abstract Arithmetic Groups 284
5 Adeles 293
5.1 Basic Definitions 294
5.2 Reduction Theory for GA Relative to GK 305
5.3 Compactness and the Finiteness of the Volume of GA /GK 314
5.4 Reduction Theory for S-Arithmetic Subgroups 321
Bibliography 338
Index 358
Preface to the Second English Edition
The first edition of Algebraic Groups and Number Theory [AGNT] was pub-
lished about 30 years ago, first in Russian and then in English, and the book
quickly became a standard reference in the arithmetic theory of algebraic
groups. Some time ago, Burt Totaro, in his capacity as one of the editors of the
series Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, suggested to prepare and
publish a second edition. Following up on our preliminary agreement, Diana
Gillooly, a senior editor for mathematics at Cambridge University Press at the
time, did a marvelous job of getting the project on track by first resolving some
legal issues with Academic Press, which had published the first English edi-
tion as volume 139 of their Pure and Applied Mathematics series, and then by
arranging for the text of the present edition to be retyped in LATEX since the
TEX file used by AP had not survived. At the outset, the decision was made
to implement a couple of structural alterations in the second edition: the new
edition will be published in two volumes, and we have opted to omit Chapter 8
of the original version in order to make room for various additions without
significantly increasing the overall size of the book. While Diana and her staff
were very efficient in completing the work on their end, we were much less
efficient in doing our part. For a variety of reasons, ranging from our involve-
ment in other projects to some personal circumstances, the revision process
was moving forward rather slowly, despite the interest and encouragement of
many colleagues. The turnaround occurred when the third-named author joined
the team, and now we are very pleased to present Volume I of the second edi-
tion of [AGNT], which comprises the material of Chapters 1–5 of the first
edition. A new Section 4.9 was written for this edition to reflect the joint work
of the late Fritz Grunewald, an outstanding mathematician and a dear friend,
with the first-named author on finite extensions of arithmetic groups. Further-
more, numerous edits, corrections of typos and certain notations as well as of
some mathematical inaccuracies, and also updates have been made to the text.
vii
viii Preface to the Second English Edition
We hope that these changes have improved the clarity of the exposition and the
readability of the book.
During the entire revision process, we have benefitted greatly from corre-
spondence with numerous colleagues, who have generously shared with us
their comments, remarks, and suggestions – we thank them all for their enthu-
siasm and help. Special thanks are due to Dave Witte Morris, who carefully
read the entire manuscript and suggested many corrections and improvements.
We are also grateful to Brian Conrad for pointing out an inaccuracy in Section
5.1, which has been corrected in the present edition. We thankfully acknowl-
edge the comments we have received from Skip Garibaldi, Alex Lubotzky, Lam
Pham, Gopal Prasad, Jinbo Ren, and many others. Let us also point out that the
original English translation was done by Rachel Rowen, and we express our
thanks for her work. Last but not least, we thank Kaitlin Leach and her staff
at Cambridge University Press for their assistance in the final stretch of the
project.
Finally, since Volume II of the second edition (comprising Chapters 6–7 and
9 of [AGNT]) will appear somewhat later, the cross-references in the current
book to the material in Chapters 6–9 of [AGNT] have not been changed.
Vladimir P. Platonov
Andrei S. Rapinchuk
Igor A. Rapinchuk
Preface to the First English Edition (1994)
After the publication of the Russian edition of this book, some new results
were obtained in the area; however, we decided not to make any changes or
add appendices to the original text, since that would have affected the book’s
balanced structure without contributing much to its main contents.
As the editor for the translation, A. Borel took considerable interest in the
book. He read the first version of the translation and made many helpful com-
ments. We also received a number of useful suggestions from G. Prasad. We
are grateful to them for their help. We would also like to thank the translator
and the publisher for their cooperation.
V. Platonov
A. Rapinchuk
ix
Preface to the Russian Edition (1991)
This book provides the first systematic exposition in the mathematical liter-
ature of the theory that developed at the meeting ground of group theory,
algebraic geometry, and number theory. This line of research emerged fairly
recently as an independent area of mathematics, often called the arithmetic
theory of (linear) algebraic groups. In 1967, A. Weil wrote in the foreword to
Basic Number Theory: “In charting my course, I have been careful to steer clear
of the arithmetical theory of algebraic groups; this is a topic of deep interest,
but obviously not yet ripe for book treatment.”
The sources of the arithmetic theory of linear algebraic groups lie in classi-
cal research on the arithmetic of quadratic forms (Gauss, Hermite, Minkowski,
Hasse, Siegel), the structure of the group of units in algebraic number fields
(Dirichlet), and discrete subgroups of Lie groups in connection with the the-
ory of automorphic functions, topology, and crystallography (Riemann, Klein,
Poincaré, and others). Its most intensive development, however, has taken place
over the past 20 to 25 years. During this period, reduction theory for arithmetic
groups was developed, properties of adele groups were studied, and the prob-
lem of strong approximation was solved, important results on the structure of
groups of rational points over local and global fields were obtained, various
versions of the local-global principle for algebraic groups were investigated,
and the congruence problem for isotropic groups was essentially solved.
It is clear from this far from exhaustive list of major accomplishments in the
arithmetic theory of linear algebraic groups that a wealth of important material
of particular interest to mathematicians in a variety of areas has been amassed.
Unfortunately, to this day, the major results in this area have appeared only in
journal articles, despite the long-standing need for a book presenting a thor-
ough and unified exposition of the subject. The publication of such a book,
however, has been delayed largely due to the difficulty inherent in unifying the
x
Preface to the Russian Edition (1991) xi
exposition of a theory built on an abundance of far-reaching results and a syn-

thesis of methods from algebra, algebraic geometry, number theory, analysis,
and topology. Nevertheless, we finally present such a book to the reader.
The first two chapters are introductory and review major results of algebraic
number theory and the theory of algebraic groups, which are used extensively
in later chapters. Chapter 3 presents basic facts about the structure of alge-
braic groups over locally compact fields. Some of these facts also hold for any
field complete relative to a discrete valuation. The fourth chapter presents the
most basic material about arithmetic groups, based on results of A. Borel and
Harish-Chandra.
One of the primary research tools for the arithmetic theory of algebraic
groups is adele groups, whose properties are studied in Chapter 5. The pri-
mary focus of Chapter 6 is a complete proof of the Hasse principle for simply
connected algebraic groups, published here in definitive form for the first time.
Chapter 7 deals with strong and weak approximations in algebraic groups. Spe-
cifically, it presents a solution of the problem of strong approximation and a
new proof of the Kneser–Tits conjecture over local fields.
The classical problems of the number of classes in the genus of quadratic
forms and of the class numbers of algebraic number fields influenced the study
of class numbers of arbitrary algebraic groups defined over a number field. The
major results achieved to date are set forth in Chapter 8. Most of these are due
to the authors.
The results presented in Chapter 9 for the most part are new and rather intri-
cate. Recently, substantial progress has been made in the study of groups of
rational points of algebraic groups over global fields. In this regard, one should
mention the works of Kneser, Margulis, Platonov, Rapinchuk, Prasad, Raghu-
nathan, and others on the normal subgroup structure of groups of rational
points of anisotropic groups and the multiplicative arithmetic of skew fields,
which use most of the machinery developed in the arithmetic theory of alge-
braic groups. Several results appear here for the first time. The final section
of this chapter presents a survey of the most recent results on the congruence
subgroup problem.
Thus, this book touches on almost all the major results of the arithmetic
theory of linear algebraic groups obtained to date. The questions related to the
congruence subgroup problem merit exposition in a separate book, to which
the authors plan to turn in the near future. It should be noted that many well-
known assertions (especially in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 9) are presented with
new proofs that tend to be more conceptual. In many instances, a geometric
approach to the representation theory of finitely generated groups is efficiently
used.
xii Preface to the Russian Edition (1991)
In the course of our exposition, we formulate a considerable number of unre-

solved questions and conjectures, which may give impetus to further research
in this actively developing area of contemporary mathematics.
The structure of this book, and exposition of many of its results, was strongly
influenced by V. P. Platonov’s survey article, “Arithmetic theory of algebraic
groups,” published in Uspekhi matematicheskikh nauk (1982, No. 3, pp. 3–
54). Much assistance in preparing the manuscript for print was rendered by
O. I. Tavgen, Y. A. Drakhokhrust, V. V. Benyashch-Krivetz, V. V. Kursov, and
I. I. Voronovich. Special mention must be made of the contribution of V. I.
Chernousov, who furnished us with a complete proof of the Hasse principle
for simply connected groups and devoted considerable time to polishing the
exposition of Chapter 6. To all of them we extend our most sincere thanks.
V. P. Platonov
A. S. Rapinchuk
Notations
K ∗ (resp., K + ) – multiplicative (resp., additive) group of a field K

V K – set of (equivalence classes of) valuations of a number field K
V∞ K (resp. V K ) – subset of Archimedean (resp., non-Archimedean)
f
valuations
Kv – completion of K with respect to a valuation v ∈ V K
Ov – valuation ring of Kv (ring of v-adic integers), for v non-Archimedean
pv – valuation ideal of Ov
Uv – multiplicative group of Ov (group of v-adic units)
V (a) = {v ∈ VfK : a ∈ / Uv } for a ∈ K ×
OK or O – ring of integers of a number field K
O(S) – ring of S-integers of K (for S ⊂ V K containing V∞ K)
w|v – extension of valuations

AK or A – ring of adeles of a number field K
A(S) – subring of S-integral adeles
A(∞) – subring of integral adeles
AS – ring of S-adeles
Af – ring of finite adeles
AS (T) – the ring of T-integral S-adeles (for T ⊃ S)
JK or J – group of ideles
J (S) – subgroup of S-integral ideles
J (∞) – subgroup of integral ideles
hK – the class number of K
Br(K) – the Brauer group of K
NL/K (resp., TrL/K ) – norm (resp., trace) in a finite field extension L/K
NrdA/K (resp., TrdA/K ) – reduced norm (resp., reduced trace) for a central
simple algebra A over K
Fq – field with q elements
xiii
xiv List of Notations
Z (resp., Q, R, C, Qp ) – integers (resp., rational, real, complex, and p-adic

numbers)
An (resp., Pn ) – n-dimensional affine (resp., projective) space
Gm – 1-dimensional split torus
Ga – 1-dimensional split connected unipotent group
SLn (D), SUm (D, f ) etc. – classical groups over division algebras
SLn (D), SUm (D, f ) etc. – corresponding algebraic groups
RL/K – restriction of scalars
X(G) – group of characters of an algebraic group G
X∗ (G) – group of cocharacters
R(T, G) – root system of a connected algebraic group G with respect to a
maximal torus T
W (T, G) – corresponding Weyl group
L(G) or g – Lie algebra of an algebraic group G
R(0, G) – variety of representations of a finitely generated group 0 into an
algebraic group G
Rn (0) – the variety of n-dimensional representations of 0
Tx (X ) – tangent space to a variety X at a point x
dx f – differential of a morphism f at a point x
rank G or rk G – absolute rank of an algebraic group G
rankK G or rkK G – rank of G over K (K-rank)
rankKv G (for finite S ⊂ V K )
P
rankS G or rkS G – S-rank of G, i.e.,
v∈S
GK – group of K-points of an algebraic K-group G
GO – group of integral points
GO(S) – group of S-integral points
GA – group of adeles of an algebraic group G defined over a number field K
GA(∞) – subgroup of integral adeles
GA(S) – subgroup of S-integral adeles
GAS – group of S-adeles
GAS (T) – group of T-integral S-adeles (for T ⊃ S)
Q
GS = GKv (for finite S); in particular G∞ = GV∞
K
v∈S
cl(G) – the class number of G
H i (G, A) – ith cohomology group/set of a G-module/group/set A
H i (L/K, G) = H i (Gal(L/K), GL ) – ith Galois cohomology group/set of an
algebraic K-group G with respect to a Galois extension L/K
H i (K, G) = H i (Gal(K̄/K), GK̄ ), where K̄ is a separable closure of K
res – restriction map
inf – inflation map
cor – corestriction map
List of Notations xv
lim – direct/inductive limit

−→
lim – inverse/projective limit
←−
AG – G-fixed elements of a G-set A
G(a) – G-stabilizer of an element a
Ga – G-orbit of a
1
Algebraic Number Theory
The first two sections of this introductory chapter provide a brief overview
of several concepts and results from number theory. A detailed exposition of
this material can be found in the books of Lang (1994) and Weil (1995) (cf.
also Chapters 1–3 of [ANT]). It should be noted that, unlike Weil, we state
the results here only for algebraic number fields, although the overwhelming
majority of them also hold for global fields of positive characteristic, i.e., fields
of algebraic functions over a finite field. In §1.3, we present results about group
cohomology, including definitions and statements of the basic properties of
noncommutative cohomology, that are necessary for understanding the rest of
the book. Sections 1.4–1.5 contain basic results on simple algebras over local
and global fields. Special attention is given to the investigation of the multipli-
cative structure of division algebras over such fields, particularly the triviality
of the reduced Whitehead group. Moreover, in §1.5, we collect useful results
on lattices in vector spaces and orders in semisimple algebras.
Throughout the book, we assume familiarity with field theory, particularly
Galois theory (finite and infinite), as well as with elements of topological
algebra, including the theory of profinite groups.
1.1 Algebraic Number Fields, Valuations, and Completions

1.1.1 Arithmetic of Algebraic Number Fields
Let K be an algebraic number field, i.e., a finite extension of the field Q of
rational numbers, and let OK be the ring of integers of K. The ring OK is a clas-
sical object of interest in algebraic number theory. The analysis of its structural
and arithmetic properties, which was initiated by Gauss, Dedekind, Dirich-
let, and others in the nineteenth century, remains an active area of research.
1
2 Algebraic Number Theory
From a purely algebraic point of view, the ring O = OK is easy to describe: if

[K : Q] = n, then O is a free Z-module of rank n. Furthermore, for any nonzero
ideal a ⊂ O, the quotient ring O/a is finite; in particular, any nonzero prime
ideal is maximal. Rings with such properties (i.e., integral domains that are
noetherian, integrally closed, and in which all nonzero prime ideals are maxi-
mal) are known as Dedekind rings. In such a ring, any nonzero ideal a ⊂ O can
be written uniquely as the product of prime ideals: a = pα1 1 . . . pαr r . This prop-
erty generalizes the fundamental theorem of arithmetic on the uniqueness of
factorization of any positive integer into a product of primes. Nevertheless, the
analogy here is only partial: unique factorization of elements of O into prime
elements, generally speaking, does not hold. This fact, which already suggests
that the arithmetic of O can differ significantly from the arithmetic of Z, has
been crucial in shaping algebraic number theory.
The precise degree to which O fails to be a unique factorization domain is
measured by the ideal class group of K, which is defined as follows. Recall
that the fractional ideals of K are O-submodules a of K such that xa ⊂ O for
a suitable nonzero x in O. Define the product of two fractional ideals a, b ⊂ O
to be the O-submodule in K generated by the products xy for all x ∈ a, y ∈ b.
Then, with respect to this operation, the set of fractional ideals becomes a
group, called the group of (fractional) ideals of K, which we denote by Id(O).
The principal fractional ideals, i.e., ideals xO where x ∈ K ∗ , form the sub-
group P(O) ⊂ Id(O), and the quotient group Cl(O) = Id(O)/P(O) is called the
ideal class group of K. A classical result of algebraic number theory is that the
group Cl(O) is always finite; its order, denoted by hK , is the class number of
K. Moreover, the factorization of elements of O into primes is unique if and
only if hK = 1. Another classical result (the Dirichlet Unit Theorem) states that
the group of invertible elements O∗ is finitely generated. These two facts are
the starting point for the arithmetic theory of algebraic groups (cf. Preface to
the Russian edition). However, in generalizing classical arithmetic to algebraic
groups, we cannot appeal to ring-theoretic concepts, but rather need to develop
such number-theoretic constructions as valuations and completions, as well as
adeles, ideles, and others.
1.1.2 Valuations and Completions of Algebraic Number Fields

We define a valuation of a field K to be a function | |v : K → R satisfying the
following conditions for all x, y in K:
(1) |x|v ≥ 0, with |x|v = 0 if and only if x = 0;

(2) |xy|v = |x|v |y|v ;
(3) |x + y|v ≤ |x|v + |y|v .
If, instead of (3), the following stronger condition holds:
(30 ) |x + y|v ≤ max{|x|v , |y|v },
the valuation is called non-Archimedean; otherwise, it is called Archimedean.

As an example of a valuation of an arbitrary field K, one can consider
the trivial valuation, which is defined by setting |x|v = 1 for all x in K ∗ ,
and |0|v = 0. We next consider examples of nontrivial valuations of the field
K = Q. The ordinary absolute value | |∞ is obviously an archimedean val-
uation. Furthermore, to each prime p we can associate a non-Archimedean
valuation | |p called the p-adic valuation. Namely, given any α ∈ Q∗ , we write
it in the form α = pr · β/γ , where r, β, γ ∈ Z and β and γ are not divisi-
ble by p, and then set |α|p = p−r ; we also let |0|p = 0. Sometimes, instead of
the p-adic valuation | |p , it is convenient to use the corresponding logarithmic
valuation v = vp , defined by the formula v(α) = r and v(0) = + ∞, so that
|α|p = p−v(α) . Axiomatically v is given by the following conditions:
(1) v(x) is an element of the additive group Z of integers (or more generally
any ordered abelian group) for x 6= 0, and v(0) = ∞;
(2) v(xy) = v(x) + v(y);
(3) v(x + y) ≥ min {v(x), v(y)}.
We shall use both ordinary valuations as well as the corresponding logarith-

mic valuations, and it should be clear from the context to which one we are
referring.
It is worth noting that the examples given earlier actually exhaust all the
nontrivial valuations of Q.
Theorem 1.1 (OSTROWSKI) Any nontrivial valuation of Q is equivalent either

to the archimedean valuation | |∞ or to a p-adic valuation | |p .
(Recall that two valuations | |1 and | |2 on K are called equivalent if they

induce the same topology on K; in this case we have | |1 = | |λ2 for a suitable
real λ > 0.)
Thus, restricting any nontrivial valuation | |v of an algebraic number field K
to Q, we obtain (up to equivalence) either an archimedean valuation | |∞ or a
p-adic valuation (it can be shown that the restriction of a nontrivial valuation
is always nontrivial). This means that any nontrivial valuation of K can be
obtained by extending to K one of the (nontrivial) valuations of Q. On the
other hand, it is known that for any algebraic extension L/K, any valuation | |v
of K can be extended to L, i.e., there exists a valuation | |w of L (denoted w|v)
such that |x|w = |x|v for all x in K. In particular, starting with the valuations of
Q, we can obtain all valuations of an arbitrary number field K.
Let us analyze the extension procedure in greater detail. To begin with, it is
helpful to introduce the completion Kv of K with respect to a valuation | |v .
If we consider K as a metric space with respect to the metric arising from
| |v , then its completion Kv is a metric space that, at the same time, is a field
under the natural operations, and is complete with respect to the corresponding
extension of | |v , for which we will use the same notation. It is well known
that if L is an algebraic extension of Kv (and, in general, of any field that is
complete with respect to a valuation | |v ), then | |v has a unique extension | |w
to L. Using this, we can derive an explicit formula for | |w , which can be taken
as the definition of | |w . Indeed, since | |v extends uniquely to a valuation of the
algebraic closure K̄v , it follows that |σ (x)|w = |x|w for any x in K̄v and any σ in
Gal(K̄v /Kv ). Now let L/Kv be a finite extension of degree n, and let σ1 , . . . , σn
be the distinct embeddings of L into K̄v over Kv . Then for the norm NL/K (a) of
an element a ∈ L, we have
n
Y n
Y
|NL/K (a)|v = σi (a) = |σi (a)|w = |a|nw .
i=1 v i=1
As a result, we obtain the following explicit description of the extension | |w :
|a|w = |NL/K (a)|1/n
v for any a in L. (1.1)
Now let us discuss the procedure of extending valuations to a finite extension
L/K for a number field K. Let | |v be a valuation of K and | |w its unique exten-
sion to the algebraic closure K̄v of Kv . Then for any embedding τ : L → K̄v
over K (and in fact we have n = [L : K] such embeddings), we can define a
valuation u on L by |x|u = |τ (x)|w , which clearly extends the original valu-
ation | |v of K. In this case, the completion Lu can be identified with the
compositum τ (L)Kv . Moreover, any extension may be obtained in this way,
and two embeddings τ1 , τ2 : L → K̄v give the same extension if they are con-
jugate over Kv , i.e., if there exists λ in Gal(K̄v /Kv ) with τ2 = λτ1 . In other
words, if L = K(α) and f (t) is the irreducible polynomial of α over K, then the
extensions | |u1 , . . . , | |ur of | |v over L are in one-to-one correspondence with
the irreducible factors of f over Kv , viz. | |ui corresponds to the embedding
τi : L → K̄v that sends α to a root of fi . Further, the completion Lui is the finite
extension of Kv generated by a root of fi . It follows that
O r
Y
L Kv ' Lui ; (1.2)
K i=1
in particular, the degree [L : K] equals the sum of the local degrees [Lui : Kv ].
Moreover, one has the following formulas for the norm and the trace of an
element α in L: Y
NL/K (a) = NLu /Kv (a),
u|v
(1.3)
X
TrL/K (a) = TrLu /Kv (a).
u|v
Thus, the set V K of all pairwise inequivalent valuations of K (or, to put it

more precisely, of the equivalence classes of valuations of K) is the union of
the finite set V∞K of the archimedean valuations, which are the extensions to K
of the ordinary absolute value | |∞ on Q, and the set VfK of non-Archimedean

valuations, obtained as extensions of the p-adic valuation | |p of Q, for each
prime number p. The archimedean valuations correspond to the embeddings
of K into either R or C, in which case they are respectively called real or
complex valuations and the corresponding completions can be identified with
R or C. If v ∈ V∞ K is a real valuation, then an element α in K is said to
be positive with respect to v if its image under v is a positive number. Let s

(respectively t) denote the number of real (respectively pairwise nonconjugate
complex) embeddings of K. Then s + 2t = n is the degree of L over K.
Non-Archimedean valuations lead to more complicated completions. More
specifically, if v ∈ VfK is an extension of a p-adic valuation, then the comple-
tion Kv is a finite extension of the field Qp of p-adic numbers. Since Qp is a
locally compact field, it follows that Kv is locally compact (with respect to the
topology determined by the valuation).1 The closure of the ring of integers O
in Kv is the valuation ring
Ov = {a ∈ Kv : |a|v ≤ 1},
sometimes called the ring of v-adic integers. Then Ov is a local ring with
maximal ideal pv = {a ∈ Kv : |a|v < 1}, called the valuation ideal, and group
of invertible elements
Uv = Ov \ pv = {a ∈ Kv : |a|v = 1}.
It is easy to see that the valuation ring of Qp is the ring of p-adic integers Zp ,
and the corresponding valuation ideal is pZp . In general, Ov is a free module
over Zp , whose rank equals the degree [Kv : Qp ], making Ov an open compact
subring of Kv . Moreover, the powers piv of pv form a fundamental system of
1 Henceforth, completions of a number field with respect to nontrivial valuations are called local
fields. It can be shown that the class of local fields thus defined coincides with the class of
nondiscrete locally compact fields of characteristic zero. We note also that we shall use the term
local field primarily in connection with non-Archimedean completions, and to emphasize this
we will use the term non-Archimedean local field.
neighborhoods of zero in Ov . The quotient ring kv = Ov /pv is a finite field

and is called the residue field of v. The ideal pv ⊂ Ov is principal; any of its
generators π is called a uniformizer and is characterized by the property that
v(π ) is the (positive) generator of the value group 0 = v(Kv∗ ) ' Z. Once we
have fixed a uniformizer π, we can write any a in Kv∗ as a = π r u, for a suitable
u ∈ Uv ; this yields a continuous isomorphism Kv∗ ' Z × Uv , given by a 7→
(r, u), where Z is endowed with the discrete topology. Thus, to determine the
structure of Kv∗ , we need only describe Uv . It can be shown quite easily that Uv
is a compact group, locally isomorphic to Ov . It follows that Uv ' F × Znp ,
where n = [Kv : Qp ], and F is the group of all roots of unity in Kv . Thus Kv∗ '
Z × F × Znp .
Two important concepts associated with field extensions are the ramifi-
cation index and the residual degree. We introduce these concepts first for
the local case. Let Lw /Kv be a finite extension of degree n. Then the value
group 0v = v(Kv∗ ) has finite index in 0w = w(L∗w ), and the corresponding
index e(w|v) = [0w : 0v ] is called the ramification index. The residue field
`w = OLw /PLw for Lw is a finite extension of the residue field kv , and
f (w|v) = [`w : kv ] is the residual degree. Moreover, e(w|v)f (w|v) = n. An
extension for which e(w|v) = 1 is called unramified, while an extension for
which f (w|v) = 1 is called totally ramified.
Now let L/K be an extension of degree n of number fields. Then for any
valuation v in VfK and any extension w to L, the ramification index e(w|v)
and residual degree f (w|v) are defined respectively as the ramification index
and residual degree for the extension of the completions Lw /Kv . (One can also
give an intrinsic definition based on the value groups 0̃v = v(K ∗ ), 0̃w = w(L∗ ),
and the residue fields
k̃w = OK (v)/pK (v), `˜w = OL (w)/PL (w),
where OK (v), OL (w) are the valuation rings of v and w in K and
L, and pK (v), PL (w) are the respective valuation ideals, but in fact
0̃v = 0v , 0̃w = 0w , k̃v = kv , and `˜w = `w .) As earlier, [Lw : Kv ] = e(w|v)f (w|v).
Thus, if w1 , . . . , wr are all the extensions of v to L, then
r
X r
X
e(wi |v) f (wi |v) = [Lwi : Kv ] = n.
i=1 i=1
Generally speaking, e(wi |v) and f (wi |v) do not have to be equal for diffe-
rent i, but in the important case of a Galois extension L/K, they are indeed the
same for all i. To see this, we let G denote the Galois group of L/K. Then all
extensions w1 , . . . , wr of v to L are conjugate under G, i.e., for any i = 1, . . . , r,
there exists σi in G such that wi (x) = w1 (σi (x)) for all x in L. It follows that
e(wi |v) and f (wi |v) are independent of i (we will denote them simply by e and
f ); moreover, the number of different extensions r is the index [G : G(w1 )] of
the decomposition group G(w1 ) = {σ ∈ G : w1 (σ x) = w1 (x) for all x in L}.
Consequently, efr = n, and G(w1 ) is the Galois group of the corresponding
extension Lw1 /Kv of the completions.
1.1.3 Unramified and Totally Ramified Field Extensions

Let v ∈ VfK and assume that the corresponding residue field kv is the finite
field Fq with q elements.
Proposition 1.2 For any integer n ≥ 1, there exists a unique unramified

extension L/Kv of degree n. It is generated over Kv by all the (qn − 1)-roots
of unity, and therefore is a Galois extension. The correspondence that sends
σ ∈ Gal(L/Kv ) to its reduction σ̄ ∈ Gal(`/kv ), where ` ' Fqn is the residue
field of L, yields an isomorphism of Galois groups Gal(L/Kv ) ' Gal(`/kv ).
In order to define the reduction σ̄ of a given automorphism σ ∈ Gal(L/Kv ),

we note that the valuation ring OL and its valuation ideal PL are invariant under
σ . So, σ induces an automorphism of the residue field ` = OL /PL which we
call σ̄ . Furthermore, we observe that Gal(`/kv ) is a cyclic group generated
by the Frobenius automorphism ϕ(x) = xq for all x in `; the corresponding
element of Gal(L/Kv ) will also be called the Frobenius automorphism (of the
extension L/Kv ) and will be denoted by Fr(L/Kv ).
The following proposition describes the properties of norms in unramified
extensions.
Proposition 1.3 Let L/Kv be an unramified extension, and let Uv and UL

denote the groups of units in Kv and L, respectively. Then Uv = NL/K (UL );
in particular, Uv ⊂ NL/Kv (L∗ ).
PROOF: Our argument utilizes the canonical filtration on the group of units,
which is useful in other situations as well. Namely, for any integer i ≥ 1, we
(i) (i)
let Uv = 1 + piv and UL = 1 + PiL . It is easy to see that these sets are open
subgroups which actually form bases of the neighborhoods of the identity in
Uv and UL , respectively. We have the following isomorphisms:
Uv /Uv(1) ' kv∗ , Uv(i) /Uv(i+1) ' kv+ , for i ≥ 1, (1.4)

where the first one is induced by the reduction map a 7→ a (mod pv ), and
the second is obtained by fixing a uniformizer π of Kv and then mapping 1 +
π i a 7→ a (mod pv ).
Similarly,
(1) (i) (i+1)
UL /UL ' `∗ , UL /UL ' `+ , for i ≥ 1. (1.5)
Since L/Kv is unramified, π is also a uniformizer of L, so in the rest of the

proof we will assume (as we may) that the second isomorphism in (1.5) is
defined by means of π. For a in UL , we have
Y Y
NL/Kv (a) = σ (a) = τ (ā) = N`/kv (ā),
σ ∈Gal(L/Kv ) τ ∈Gal(`/kv )
where the bar denotes reduction modulo PL .

(1) (1)
Thus the norm map induces a homomorphism UL /UL → Uv /Uv , which
in terms of the identifications in (1.4) and (1.5) coincides with N`/kv . Further,
for any i ≥ 1 and any a in OL , we have
Y
NL/Kv (1 + π i a) = σ (1 + π i a) ≡ 1 + π i TrL/Kv (a) (mod P(i+1)
v ).
σ ∈Gal(L/Kv )
(i) (i+1) (i) (i+1)

It follows that NL/Kv induces homomorphisms UL /UL → Uv /Uv ,
which with the identifications in (1.4) and (1.5) become the trace map Tr`/kv .
But the norm and trace maps are surjective for extensions of finite fields; there-
(i) (i)
fore the group W = NL/Kv (UL ) satisfies Uv = WUv for all i ≥ 1. Since Uv
form a base of neighborhoods of identity, the latter condition means that W
is dense in Uv . On the other hand, since UL is compact and the norm map is
continuous, the subgroup W is closed, and therefore W = Uv .
The proof of Proposition 1.3 also yields

(i) (i)
Corollary 1.4 If L/Kv is an unramified extension, then NL/Kv (UL ) = Uv for
any integer i ≥ 1.
We will need one additional statement about the compatibility of the norm
map in arbitrary extensions with the above filtration.
Proposition 1.5 For any finite extension L/Kv , we have the following:
(1) (1)
(1) Uv ∩ NL/Kv (L∗ ) = NL/Kv (UL );
(2) if e is the ramification index of L/Kv , then for any integer i ≥ 1, we have
(i) ( j)
NL/Kv (UL ) ⊂ Uv , where j is the smallest integer ≥ i/e.
PROOF: We begin with the second assertion. Let M be a Galois extension

of Kv containing L. Then for a in L, NL/K (a) = σ σ (a), where the product
Q
is taken over all embeddings, σ : L ,→ M over Kv . As we noted earlier, v

uniquely extends to a valuation w of M, and consequently w(a) = w(σ (a)) for
any a in L and any σ . In particular, if we choose a uniformizer πL in L, we have
(i)
σ (πL ) = πL bσ for suitable bσ in UM . It follows that for a = 1 + πLi c ∈ UL ,
we have
Y Y
NL/Kv (a) = σ (1 + πLi c) = (1 + πLi biσ σ (c)) ∈ (1 + πLi OM ) ∩ Kv .
σ σ
But according to the definition of the ramification index, we have pv OL = PeL ,

j
so that πLi OM ∩ Kv = πLi OL ∩ Kv = PiL ∩ Ov ⊂ pv (where j is chosen as
( j)
indicated in the statement of the proposition) and NL/Kv (a) ∈ Uv . In par-
(1) (1)
ticular, NL/Kv (UL ) ⊂ Uv , so to prove the first assertion, it suffices to show
(1) (1) (1)
that Uv ∩ NL/Kv (L∗ ) ⊂ NL/Kv (UL ). Let a ∈ L∗ be such that NL/Kv (a) ∈ Uv .
(1)
Then (1.1) implies that a ∈ UL . The isomorphism in (1.5) shows that UL is a
maximal pro-p-subgroup in UL for the prime p corresponding to the valuation
(1) (1)
v, from which it follows that UL ' UL /UL ×UL . In particular, a = bc where
(1)
c ∈ UL and b is an element of finite order coprime to p. We have
d = NL/Kv (b) = NL/Kv (a)NL/Kv (c)−1 ∈ Uv(1) .
(1)
We now observe that the order of any torsion element in Uv is a power of p
while the order of d divides that of b, hence is prime to p. It follows that d = 1
(1)
and therefore NL/Kv (a) = NL/Kv (c) ∈ NL/Kv (UL ).
Let us now return to unramified extensions of Kv . It can be shown that

the composite of unramified extensions is unramified; hence, there exists a
maximal unramified extension Kvnr of Kv , which is Galois, with Gal(Kvnr /Kv )
isomorphic to the Galois group Gal(k̄v /kv ) of the algebraic closure of the resi-
due field kv . Thus, it is isomorphic to Ẑ, the profinite completion of the infinite
cyclic group with generator the Frobenius automorphism.
Now, let L/K be a finite extension of a number field K. It is known that
almost all valuations v in VfK are unramified in L/K, i.e., the corresponding
extension of the completions Lw /Kv is unramified for any w|v; in particular, the
Frobenius automorphism Fr(Lw /Kv ) is defined. If L/K is a Galois extension,
then, as we noted earlier, Gal(Lw /Kv ) can be identified with the decomposi-
tion subgroup G(w) of the valuation w in the Galois group G = Gal(L/K), so
Fr(Lw /Kv ) may be viewed as an element of G.
We know that any two valuations w1 , w2 extending v are conjugate under

G, from which it follows that the Frobenius automorphisms Fr(Lw /Kv ) corre-
sponding to all extensions of v form a conjugacy class F(v) in G. The natural
question arises if all conjugacy classes in G can be obtained in this way. In
other words, for a given σ in G, does there exist a valuation v in VfK such that
for a suitable w|v, the extension Lw /Kv is unramified with Fr(Lw /Kv ) = σ ?
Theorem 1.6 (CHEBOTAREV) Let L/K be a finite Galois extension with

Galois group G. Then, for any σ in G, there are infinitely many v in VfK such
that for suitable w|v, the extension Lw /Kv is unramified and Fr(Lw /Kv ) = σ .
In particular, there exist infinitely many v such that Lw = Kv , i.e., L ⊂ Kv .
In fact, Chebotarev determined a quantitative measure (density) of the set of

v in VfK such that the conjugacy class F(v) coincides with a given conjugacy
class C ⊂ G. The density turned out to be |C|/|G| (while the density of the set
VfK itself is 1). Therefore, Theorem 1.6 (or, more precisely, the correspond-
ing assertion about the density) is called the Chebotarev Density Theorem.
For cyclotomic extensions of K = Q, it is equivalent to Dirichlet’s theorem on
prime numbers in arithmetic progression. We note that the last part of Theorem
1.6 can in fact be proved without using any analytic techniques.
Next, using the geometry of numbers, one proves
Theorem 1.7 (HERMITE) If K/Q is a finite extension that is unramified at all

primes p (i.e., Kv /Qp is unramified for all p and all v|p), then K = Q.
We will not present here a detailed analysis of totally ramified extensions

(in particular, we will not define tamely and wildly ramified extensions), but
rather will limit ourselves to describing them using Eisenstein polynomials.
Recall that a monic polynomial e(t) = tn + an−1 tn−1 + · · · + a0 ∈ Kv [t] is
called an Eisenstein polynomial if ai ∈ pv for all i = 0, . . . , n − 1 and a0 ∈
/ p2v .
It is well known that an Eisenstein polynomial is irreducible in Kv [t].
Proposition 1.8 If 5 is the root of an Eisenstein polynomial e(t), then

L = Kv [5] is a totally ramified extension of Kv with uniformizer 5. Con-
versely, if L/Kv is totally ramified and 5 is a uniformizer of L, then L = Kv [5]
and the minimal polynomial of 5 over Kv is an Eisenstein polynomial.
Corollary 1.9 If L/Kv is totally ramified, then NL/Kv (L∗ ) contains a uni-
formizer of Kv .
To study ramification in a Galois extension L/K with Galois group G, one

defines certain subgroups Gi for i ≥ −1, called the ramification groups. Given
v ∈ VfK and w|v, we define G−1 to be the decomposition group G(w) of w,
which can be identified with the local Galois group Gal(Lw /Kv ). Next,
G0 = {σ ∈ G−1 : σ (a) ≡ a(mod PLw ) for all a ∈ OLw }
is the inertia group. It is clear that G0 is precisely the kernel of the homomor-
phism Gal(Lw /Kv ) → Gal(`w /kv ) that sends each automorphism of Lw to its
reduction. Therefore, G0 is a normal subgroup of G−1 and by the surjectivity
of the reduction homomorphism, we have G−1 /G0 ' Gal(`w /kv ). Moreover,
G
the fixed field E = Lw0 is the maximal unramified extension of Kv contained
in Lw , and Lw /E is totally ramified. The higher ramification groups are defined
as follows:
Gi = {σ ∈ G−1 : σ (a) ≡ a(mod Pi+1
Lw ) for all a ∈ OLw }.
They are normal in G−1 , and Gi = {e} for sufficiently large i. Furthermore,
for i ≥ 1, the quotients Gi /Gi+1 are p-groups, where p is the prime corre-
sponding to v. We note that the groups Gi = Gi (v) defined above depend on
the choice of an extension w|v, and for a different choice of w they would be
replaced by suitable conjugates. In particular, the fixed field LH of the sub-
group H ⊂ G generated by the inertia groups G0 (w) for all extensions w|v, is
the maximal normal subextension in L that is unramified with respect to all
valuations extending v.
1.2 Adeles and Ideles; Strong and Weak Approximation; the

Local-Global Principle
To gain insights into the arithmetic properties of a number field K, rather than
looking at individual valuations, it is often useful to work with families of
valuations (e.g., with the entire set V K ) and the corresponding completions
simultaneously. In this section, we introduce constructions that enable us to do
that.
1.2.1 Adeles and Ideles

The set of adeles AK of a number field K is defined to be the subset of the direct
product v∈V K Kv consisting of x = (xv ) such that xv ∈ Ov for almost all v in
Q
VfK . Clearly, AK is a ring with respect to the natural componentwise operations.

Furthermore, AK can be endowed with a topology, called the adele topology,
by taking sets of the form v∈S Wv × v∈V K \S Ov , where S ⊂ V K is a finite

Q Q
subset containing V∞K and W ⊂ K are open subsets for each v in S, as a base
v v
of open sets (observe that this topology is stronger than the topology induced
Q
from the direct product v∈V K Kv ). It is easy to see that with respect to the
adele topology, AK is a locally compact topological ring. Next, for any finite
subset S ⊂ V K containing V∞ K , one defines the subring of S-integral adeles
as
Y Y
AK (S) = Kv × Ov ;
v∈S v ∈S
/
if S = V∞ K , then the corresponding ring is called the ring of integral adeles and
S
denoted AK (∞). It is clear that AK = S AK (S), where the union is taken over
all finite subsets S ⊂ V K containing V∞ K . It is easy to show that for any a in K
and almost all v ∈ Vf , we have |a|v ≤ 1, i.e., a ∈ Ov . Moreover, if a ∈ K ∗ ,

K
then, applying this inequality to a−1 , we obtain that, in fact, a ∈ Uv for almost
all v ∈ VfK , i.e., the set V (a) := {v ∈ VfK : a ∈/ Uv } is finite. It follows that we
have a diagonal embedding K → AK , given by x 7→ (x, x, . . .), whose image,
called the ring of principal adeles, will usually be identified with K.
Proposition 1.10 The ring of principal adeles is discrete in AK .

T
Note that since O = v∈V K (K ∩ Ov ), the intersection K ∩ AK (∞) is the
f
ring of integers O ⊂ K; thus to prove our proposition it suffices to establish
K Kv = K ⊗Q R. Let x1 , . . . , xn be a Z-basis of
Q
the discreteness of O in v∈V∞
O that is also a Q-basis of K, and consequently also an R-basis of K ⊗Q R.
Thus, O can be identified with a Z-lattice in the space K ⊗Q R, and the desired
discreteness follows from the discreteness of Z in R. (Incidentally, we note that
K ∩ AK (S) (where S ⊃ V∞ K ) is the ring of S-integers
O(S) = {x ∈ K : |x|v ≤ 1 for all v ∈ V K \ S},
K ) is the usual ring of integers O.)

and moreover O(V∞
The multiplicative analog of the ring AK of adeles of K is the group JK
of ideles, which, by definition, consists of x = (xv ) ∈ v∈V K Kv∗ , such that
Q
xv ∈ Uv for almost all v in VfK . It is clear that JK is a subgroup of the direct

product and in fact is precisely the group of invertible elements of AK . Observe,
however, that JK is not a topological group with respect to the topology induced
from AK (taking inverses is not a continuous operation for this topology). The
“correct” topology on JK is the pullback of the product topology on AK ×

AK by means of the embedding JK → AK × AK , x 7→ (x, x−1 ). Explicitly,
this topology can be described by taking for a base of open sets all sets of
the form v∈S Wv × v∈V K \S Uv where S ⊂ V K is a finite subset containing
Q Q
V∞K and W ⊂ K ∗ are open subsets for v in S. This topology, called the idele
v v
topology, is stronger than the topology induced by the adele topology, and with
respect to the former, JK is a locally compact topological group. (One cannot
help but note the analogy between adeles and ideles. Indeed, both concepts are
special cases of the notion of the group of adeles of an algebraic group and
of the more general construction of a restricted topological product, which we
will consider in Chapter 5.) Continuing the analogy between adeles and ideles,
we can define, for any finite subset S ⊂ V K containing V∞ K , the subgroup of
S-integral ideles by
Y Y
JK (S) = Kv∗ × Uv ;
v∈S v ∈S
/
in the case where S = K,

V∞ this subgroup is called the subgroup of integral
ideles and is denoted by JK (∞). As we noted earlier, if a ∈ K ∗ , then a ∈ Uv
for almost all v, and consequently we have the diagonal embedding K ∗ → JK ,
whose image is called the group of principal ideles.
Proposition 1.11 The group of principal ideles is discrete in JK .
The assertion follows from Proposition 1.10 and the fact that the induced
adele topology on JK is weaker than the idele topology.
An alternate proof can be given by using the product formula, which
states that v∈V K |a|nvv = 1 for any a in K ∗ , where V K consists of the exten-
Q
sions of the valuations | |p and | |∞ of Q, and nv = [Kv : Qp ] (respectively

nv = [Kv : R]) is the local degree. The product formula can be stated more
elegantly as v∈V K kakv = 1, where kakv = |a|nvv is the so-called normalized
Q
valuation. The function k kv defines the same topology on K as the origi-

nal valuation | |v , and is actually a valuation equivalent to | |v , except for the
case where v is complex. For a non-Archimedean v, the normalized valua-
tion has the following intrinsic description: if π ∈ Kv is a uniformizer, then
kπkv = q−1 , where q is the number of elements of the residue field kv .
Now let us return to the proof of Proposition 1.11. For archimedean v, we set
Wv = x ∈ Kv∗ : kx−1kv < 21 . We claim that the neighborhood of the identity
= v∈V∞ v∈VfK Uv satisfies ∩ K = {1}. Indeed, if a ∈ ∩ K
∗ ∗
Q Q
K Wv ×
and a 6= 1, then we would have

Y Y 1 Y
ka − 1kv < · 1 < 1,
2
v∈V K v∈V∞
K Kv∈Vf
which contradicts the product formula.

Using normalized valuations, we can define a continuous homomorphism
JK → R+ by (xv ) 7→ N kxv kv . Its kernel JK1 is called the group of special
Q
ideles (note that by the product formula JK1 ⊃ K ∗ ). Since K is discrete in AK

and K ∗ is discrete in JK , the problem that naturally arises is that of constructing
fundamental domains for K in AK and for K ∗ in JK . We are not going to explore
these questions in detail at this point (cf. Lang [1994] or [ANT]), but rather will
consider them later in the more general context of arbitrary algebraic groups.
We just note that the quotients AK /K and JK1 /K ∗ are compact, but the quotient
JK /K ∗ is not.
Let us now describe the fundamental isomorphism i between the quotient
JK /JK (∞)K ∗ and the ideal class group Cl(K) of K. First, note that there is
a natural bijection between the set VfK of non-Archimedean valuations of K
and the set P of nonzero prime (maximal) ideals of O defined by sending a
valuation v to the ideal p(v) = O ∩ pv , where pv is the valuation ideal of v.
Then for an idele x = (xv ), we define
p(v)v(xv ) .
Y
i(x) =
v∈VfK
Note that the product is well defined as v(xv ) = 0 for almost all v in VfK
because x ∈ JK , and belongs to the group Id(K) of fractional ideals of K (cf.
1.1.1). Using the theorem that any fractional ideal in K ( just as any nonzero
ideal in O) factors uniquely as a product of powers of prime ideals, we see
that i : x 7→ i(x) is a surjective homomorphism of JK onto Id(K), whose kernel
is the group JK (∞) of integral ideles. In view of the fact that i(K ∗ ) coincides
with the group of principal fractional ideals, i induces the required isomor-
phism JK /JK (∞)K ∗ ' Cl(K). In particular, the index [JK : JK (∞)K ∗ ] is the
class number hK of K. This observation is fundamental to the definition of the
class number of algebraic groups (cf. section 5.1 and Chapter 8 in [AGNT]).
1.2.2 Weak and Strong Approximation

We will need the ring of truncated adeles AK,S , where S is a finite subset of V K ,
which we define as the image of A = AK under the natural projection onto the
K
Q
direct product v ∈S/ Kv . For any finite subset T ⊂ V containing S, we shall
let AK,S (T) denote the image of the ring of T-integral adeles AK (T) in AK,S .
To simplify the notation, we will write AS and AS (T) rather than AK,S and
AK,S (T), respectively, when the field is clear from the context. In particular,
for S = V∞ K , the ring A
K,V∞K will be denoted Af and called the ring of finite
adeles. We can introduce a topology on AS in the obvious way by taking sets

Ov , where T ⊂ V K \S is a subset, and Wv is
Q Q
of the form v∈T Wv × v ∈S∪T /
an open subset of Kv for each v in T, as a base of open sets. We note the
Q
decomposition A = KS × AS where KS = v∈S Kv . If KS is given the product
topology, then this decomposition is actually a product of topological rings KS
and AS . Moreover, the diagonal embedding of K into A is the product of the
diagonal embeddings of K into KS and AS , respectively.
It is worth noting that even though the image of the diagonal embedding of
K in A is discrete, each of the embeddings
K ,→ KS and K ,→ AS
is dense.
Theorem 1.12 (WEAK APPROXIMATION). The image of K under the diagonal

embedding is dense in KS .
Theorem 1.13 (STRONG APPROXIMATION). If S 6= ∅, then the image of K

under the diagonal embedding is dense in AS .
Observe that while Theorem 1.12 holds for any field K and any finite set S of
inequivalent valuations, Theorem 1.13 (and all concepts pertaining to adeles)
is meaningful only for number fields (or, more generally, global fields). To
clarify the arithmetic meaning of Theorem 1.13, let us consider the case of
Q
K = Q and S = V∞ . Since for any adele x ∈ Af = AQ,S we can find a nonzero
Q
integer m such that mx ∈ Af (∞) = p Zp , it suffices to show that the image
of Z under the diagonal embedding Z ,→ Af (∞) is dense. Any open subset of
Af (∞) contains a set of the form
r
(ai + pαi i Zpi ) ×
Y Y
W= Zp
i=1 p6=pi
where {p1 , . . . , pr } is a finite collection of primes, αi are positive integers, and

ai ∈ Z. Then showing that Z ∩ W is nonempty is equivalent to finding an x ∈ Z
that satisfies the system of congruences x ≡ ai (mod pαi i ) (i = 1, 2, . . . , r),
which can be done by the Chinese Remainder Theorem. Thus, in the case
at hand, the strong approximation theorem is equivalent to the Chinese
Remainder Theorem. We refer the reader to [AGNT, Chapter 7] for the analysis
of weak and strong approximation for algebraic groups.
1.2.3 The Local-Global Principle

Investigating arithmetic questions over local fields is a considerably simpler
task than the original problem of analyzing them over number fields. This nat-
urally brings us to the question underlying the so-called local-global method:
when does the fact that a given property holds over all completions Kv of a
number field K imply that it also holds over K? One of the basic results of this
kind is the classical
Theorem 1.14 (HASSE–MINKOWSKI) Let f = f (x1 , . . . , xn ) be a nondegener-

ate quadratic form over an algebraic number field K. If f is isotropic2 over all
completions Kv , then f is isotropic over K as well.
If, in a particular situation, the transition from local to global is possible, we

say that in this case, the local-global principle (also called the Hasse principle)
holds. As we will see in subsequent chapters, various forms of the local-global
principle are critical to the arithmetic theory of algebraic groups. However, we
would like to point out that the local-global principle does not always hold,
which we illustrate by the following classical example.
First, we need to discuss the connection between the adele ring AK of K and
the adele ring AL of a finite extension L of K. The point is that there is a natural
(algebraic and topological) isomorphism AK⊗K L ' AL , which is obtained from
Q
the local isomorphisms Kv ⊗K L ' w|v Lw in (1.2); all we need to observe is
that for almost all v in VfK , these induce isomorphisms Ov ⊗ OL ' w|v Ow .
Q
Furthermore, (1.3) shows that the norm and trace maps NL/K and TrL/K extend
to the maps
NL/K : AL → AK and TrL/K : AL → AK
defined by
  
Y
NL/K ((xw )) =  NLw /Kv (xw )  ,
w|v v
2 I.e., the equation f (x , . . . , x ) = 0 has a nontrivial solution.

1 n
1.3 Cohomology 17
  
X
TrL/K ((xw )) =  TrLw /Kv (xw )  .
w|v v
One can easily verify that the norm map NL/K thus defined induces a contin-
uous homomorphism of idele groups NL/K : JL → JK . We say that the Hasse
norm principle holds for the extension L/K if
NL/K ( JL ) ∩ K ∗ = NL/K (L∗ ).
Given a ∈ K ∗ , for almost all v ∈ VfK , we have a ∈ Uv and the extension
Lw /Kv is unramified, so it follows from Proposition 1.3 that the condition a ∈
NLw /Kv ( L∗w ) is actually equivalent to
 
Y
a ∈ NL/K  L∗w  = NL/K ((L ⊗K Kv )∗ ) for all v in V K .
w|v
In the language of algebraic geometry, this means that if f (x1 , . . . , xn ) is the

homogeneous polynomial of degree n = [L : K] giving the norm of an element
x ∈ L in terms of its coordinates x1 , . . . , xn with respect to a fixed basis of L/K,
then the equation f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = a has a solution over each completion Kv . So,
the validity of the Hasse norm principle in this situation means that then the
equation has a solution over K as well. (It would be incorrect to formulate the
norm principle in the form
a ∈ NL/K (L∗ ) ⇐⇒ a ∈ NLw /Kv (L∗w ) for all v ∈ V K and all w|v
since, in general, NL/K (L∗ ) 6⊂ NLw /Kv (L∗w ) if L/K is not a Galois extension.)
The Hasse norm theorem (cf. Hasse [1930] and [AGNT, corollary of The-
orem 6.11]) states that the norm principle always holds for cyclic Galois
extensions. On √ the other
√ hand, it turns out that the norm principle fails for
K = Q, L = Q( 13, 17), i.e., when L/K is an abelian Galois extension with
Galois group of type (2,2). To be more precise, by a simple computation with
Hilbert symbols (cf. [ANT, ex. 5.3]) it can be shown that 52 is a local norm
everywhere, but is not a global norm. (See [AGNT, §6.3] for a more detailed
discussion of the Hasse norm principle.)
1.3 Cohomology
1.3.1 Basic Concepts
By and large, cohomological formalism is used in this book in a rather lim-
ited way. A major exception, however, is the Galois cohomology of algebraic
groups over local and global fields. This involves noncommutative cohomol-
ogy, which is typically omitted in most books on homological algebra. So, we
recall the relevant definitions, constructions, and results in this section. For
completeness, however, we begin with a quick review of some essential prop-
erties of ordinary (commutative) cohomology, whose proofs may be found in
Cartan and Eilenberg (1956); Serre (1997); Brown (1982), as well as Chapter 4
of [ANT].
Let A be an abelian G-group, i.e., an abelian group on which G acts by auto-
morphisms.3 Then one can define a family of abelian groups {H i (G, A)}i≥0
called the cohomology groups of G with coefficients in A. Namely, define
H 0 (G, A) = AG to be the subgroup of G-fixed elements of A. To define the
higher cohomology groups, we first introduce the groups C i (G, A) of cochains,
consisting of all functions f : Gi → A (with C 0 (G, A) = A), together with the
coboundary operators di : C i (G, A) → C i+1 (G, A) given by
(di f )(g1 , . . . , gi+1 ) = g1 f (g2 , . . . , gi+1 )
i
X
+ (−1)j f (g1 , . . . , gj gj+1 , . . . , gi+1 )
j=1
+ (−1)i+1 f (g1 , . . . , gi ).
Then H i (G, A) = ker di /im di−1 ; the elements of ker di =: Z i (G, A) are called
cocycles and the elements of im di−1 =: Bi (G, A) are called coboundaries. A
fundamental property of cohomology groups is that they produce a cohomo-
logical extension (in other words, form a δ-functor) of the fixed point functor
F(A) = H 0 (G, A). This means that if
0→A→B→C→0
is a short exact sequence of G-groups and G-homomorphisms (i.e., homo-
morphisms that commute with the action of G), then there exist connecting
homomorphisms δi : H i (G, C) → H i+1 (G, A) such that the sequence
δ0
0 → H 0 (G, A) → H 0 (G, B) → H 0 (G, C)→H 1 (G, A) → · · ·
δi
→ H i (G, A) → H i (G, B) → H i (G, C)→H i+1 (G, A) → · · · (1.6)
is exact. (The remaining homomorphisms are induced naturally by the homo-
morphisms in the original sequence 0 → A → B → C → 0.)
Low-dimensional cohomology groups have concrete interpretations. For
example, H 1 (G, A) is the quotient group of the group of crossed homomor-
phisms f : G → A, which are functions satisfying f (g1 g2 ) = f (g1 ) + g1 f (g2 ),
3 It is more common to refer to such an A as a G-module, since giving A the structure of a G-group
is equivalent to giving it the structure of a module over the integral group ring Z[G]. We use the
term “G-group” to be consistent with the terminology used in the noncommutative setting.
1.3 Cohomology 19
modulo the subgroup consisting of maps of the form f (g) = ga − a for some
a in A. In particular, if G acts trivially on A, then H 1 (G, A) = Hom (G, A).
On the other hand, if G = hσ i is a cyclic group of order n, then for any G-
group A we have H 1 (G, A) = A0 /A1 , where A0 is the kernel of the operator
Tr a = a + σ a + · · · + σ n−1 a, and A1 is the subgroup consisting of elements
of the form σ a − a with a in A.
Next, H 2 (G, A) is the quotient of the group of factor sets, i.e., functions
f : G × G → A satisfying
g1 f (g2 , g3 ) − f (g1 g2 , g3 ) + f (g1 , g2 g3 ) − f (g1 , g2 ) = 0,
modulo the subgroup of trivial factor sets, which consists of functions of the
form
f (g1 , g2 ) = ϕ(g1 ) + g1 ϕ(g2 ) − ϕ(g1 g2 )
for some function ϕ : G → A. Factor sets arise naturally in the study of group
extensions E of G by A, i.e., of exact sequences of the form
1 → A → E → G → 1.
More specifically, using factor sets, one establishes a bijection between the
elements of H 2 (G, A) and the equivalence classes of extensions that induce the
given action of G on A. In particular, if G acts trivially on A, then H 2 (G, A)
parametrizes central extensions of G by A. In [AGNT, Chapter 9], one encoun-
ters the group H 2 (G, J), where J = Q/Z and G acts trivially on J, which is
called the Schur multiplier of G. The following basic facts are needed for the
analysis there.
ρ
Lemma 1.15 (1) Let 1 → J −→ E −→ G → 1 be a central extension. Then
for any two subgroups A, B ⊂ G that commute elementwise, the map
ϕ : A × B → J, (a, b) 7→ [ã, b̃],
where ã ∈ ρ −1 (a), b̃ ∈ ρ −1 (b) and [x, y] = xyx−1 y−1 , is well defined and
bimultiplicative.
(2) If G is a finitely generated abelian group, then the central extension
1→J→E→G→1
is trivial (i.e., splits) if and only if E is abelian. In particular, if G is cyclic,
then H 2 (G, J) = 0.
The first statement is proved by direct computation. The proof of the second
one relies on the divisibility of J and the fact that an abstract group whose
quotient by a central subgroup is cyclic, is necessarily commutative.
Let us also mention the computation of H 2 (Sn , J) for the symmetric

group Sn .
Lemma 1.16 (1) If n ≤ 3, then for any subgroup H of Sn , we have H 2 (H, J)

= 0.
(2) If n ≥ 4, then H 2 (Sn , J) has order 2 and for any subgroup C ⊂ Sn generated
by two disjoint transpositions, the restriction map
H 2 (Sn , J) → H 2 (C, J)
(defined below) is an isomorphism.
PROOF: For any finite group G and any prime p dividing its order, the p-
torsion subgroup of H i (G, A) injects into H i (Gp , A) for each i ≥ 1, where Gp is
any Sylow p-subgroup of G (cf. [ANT], Chapter 4, §6). Therefore, assertion (1)
follows from Lemma 1.15(2) and the fact that for n ≤ 3, the Sylow subgroups
of Sn are all cyclic.
The fact that H 2 (Sn , J) has order 2 for n ≥ 4 was discovered by Schur (1911)
(cf. also Huppert [1967]). Also, it is not difficult to see that H 2 (C, J) has order
2. Therefore, it suffices to find a cocycle α in H 2 (Sn , J) whose restriction to
C is nontrivial. We can construct it as follows: consider the abstract group S̃n
with generators σ , τi (i = 1, . . . , n − 1) and relations
σ 2 = τi2 = [τi , σ ] = 1, i = 1, . . . , n − 1,
(τi τi+1 )3 = 1, i = 1, . . . , n − 2, (1.7)
[τi , τj ] = σ , i + 1 < j.
Since Sn is generated by the transpositions (i, i + 1), for i = 1, . . . , n − 1, with

the defining set of relations
(i, i + 1)2 = 1, i = 1, . . . , n − 1,
((i, i + 1)(i + 1, i + 2))3 = 1, i = 1, . . . , n − 2, (1.8)
[(i, i + 1), ( j, j + 1)] = 1, i+1<j
θ
(cf. Huppert [1967]), there exists a unique homomorphism S̃n → Sn such that
θ(σ ) = 1, θ(τi ) = (i, i + 1). It follows from (1.7) and (1.8) that ker θ ⊂ S̃n is
the cyclic central subgroup of order two generated by σ . We identify σ with
2 + Z ∈ Q/Z and let α denote the cocycle in H (Sn , J) corresponding to the
1 2
1.3 Cohomology 21
θ
extension S̃n → Sn . In other words, consider an arbitrary section ϕ : Sn → S̃n
and let
α(g, h) = ϕ(g)ϕ(h)ϕ(gh)−1 .
Replacing C by a conjugate, we may assume that C is generated by the trans-

positions (12) and (34). If the restriction of α to C were trivial, then by Lemma
1.15(2), θ −1 (C) must be abelian. However,
[ϕ((1, 2)), ϕ((3, 4))] = [τ1 , τ2 ] = σ 6= 1,
a contradiction.
The only higher cohomology groups that we will need are the groups
H 3 (G, Z), where G is a finite group acting trivially on Z, which arise in the
analysis of the obstruction to the Hasse norm principle (cf. [AGNT, §6.3]).
However, as the following lemma shows, their computation reduces to that of
H 2 (G, J).
Lemma 1.17 Let G be a finite group. Then there exists a natural isomorphism
H 3 (G, Z) ' H 2 (G, J), where Z and J are considered as trivial G-modules.
Indeed, it is well known (cf. [ANT, Chapter 4, §6]) that the cohomology
groups H i (G, A) are annihilated by multiplication by |G|. Since the additive
group Q is uniquely divisible, it follows that H i (G, Q) = 0 for all i ≥ 1. As the
exact sequence 0 → Z → Q → J → 0 yields the exact sequence
0 = H 2 (G, Q) → H 2 (G, J) → H 3 (G, Z) → H 3 (G, Q) = 0,
the desired result follows.

It is clear that H i (G, A) is functorial in the second argument, viz. any G-
homomorphism of abelian G-groups f : A → B induces a homomorphism
of cohomology groups f ∗ : H i (G, A) → H i (G, B). We will now discuss some
aspects of functoriality in the first argument. First, if H is a subgroup of G,
then by restricting cocycles to H we obtain the restriction map
res : H i (G, A) → H i (H, A).
Next, if N is a normal subgroup of G and A an abelian G-group, then the

group of fixed points AN is a (G/N)-group, and the canonical homomorphism
G → G/N induces the inflation map
inf : H i (G/N, AN ) → H i (G, A).

Moreover, in this case one can define an action of G/N on H i (N, A) such that
the image of the restriction map res : H i (G, A) → H i (N, A) lies in the group of
fixed points H i (N, A)G/N . Lastly, one can define the transgression map
tra : H 1 (N, A)G/N → H 2 (G, AN )
such that we have an exact sequence

inf res
0 → H 1 (G/N, AN )→H 1 (G, A) → H 1 (N, A)G/N
tra inf
→ H 2 (G/N, AN )→H 2 (G, A), (1.9)
which is actually the initial segment of the Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence

corresponding to the extension
1 → N → G → G/N → 1
(we refer the reader to Koch [1970] for details of the construction).
Let us now recall a method that allows one to replace the cohomology
of a subgroup H ⊂ G by that of G. First, given any H-module A, we define
the induced G-module indH G (A) as the set of all maps f : G → A satisfying
f (hg) = hf (g) for all g ∈ G and h ∈ H; the G-action on indH G (A) is given by
(g f )(x) = f (xg). The evaluation map at the identity indH
G (A) → A, f 7→ f (1),
gives rise to a homomorphism
H i (G, indH i
G (A)) → H (H, A). (1.10)
It turns out that this homomorphism is an isomorphism (“Shapiro’s Lemma”).

Now assume that H is of finite index in G and that A is a G-group. Let
π : indHG (A) → A be the G-homomorphism given by
X
π( f ) = xf (x−1 ).
x∈G/H
Passing to cohomology, we obtain the corestriction map
cor : H i (H, A) ' H i (G, indH i

G (A)) → H (G, A),
where ' denotes the inverse of the isomorphism in (1.10), and the second map
is induced by π. Note that in dimension zero, cor : AH → AG coincides with the
P
trace map Tr(a) = g∈G/H ga (or, in multiplicative notation, the norm map).
Sometimes one needs to consider continuous cohomology of a topologi-
cal group G with coefficients in a topological abelian group A endowed with
a continuous action G × A → A. These cohomology groups are defined by
considering continuous cochains in place of the usual ones. In this book, we
will deal exclusively with continuous cohomology of a profinite (i.e., compact
1.3 Cohomology 23
totally disconnected) group G with coefficients in a discrete G-group A. In this

setting, the continuity of the action of G on A means that A = U AU , where
S
the union is taken over all open normal subgroups U ⊂ G. A profinite group
G can be described as the projective (inverse) limit G = lim G/U, where U
←−
runs over a fundamental system of neighborhoods of the identity consisting of
normal subgroups (the basic properties of profinite groups will be reviewed
in §3.2); then the cohomology group H i (G, A) of a discrete G-group A can
be written as the inductive (direct) limit lim H i (G/U, AU ) taken with respect
−→
to the inflation maps H i (G/U, AU ) → H i (G/V , AV ) for U ⊃ V . An impor-
tant example of a continuous action of a profinite group on a discrete group
is when the absolute Galois group G = G(K̄/K) of a perfect field K (endowed
with the Krull topology) acts on the additive or multiplicative group of K̄ or
on some other object A with a K-structure (cf. §2.2). Then the correspond-
ing cohomology groups H i (G, A) are called Galois cohomology groups and
denoted H i (K, A).
One can easily show that the cohomology of a profinite group G with coef-
ficients in a discrete group A retains all the standard properties of abstract
cohomology. In particular, a short exact sequence of discrete G-groups and
G-homomorphisms 0 → A → B → C → 0 gives rise to the long exact
cohomology sequence (1.6), and an extension 1 → N → G → G/N → 1 of
profinite groups induces the initial segment of the Hochschild–Serre spectral
sequence (1.9).
1.3.2 Non-abelian Cohomology

In the theory of algebraic groups, one often encounters cocycles with values in
the group of points of an algebraic group over some (finite or infinite) Galois
extension of the base field, i.e., generally speaking, in a noncommutative group.
Such noncommutative cocycles arise elsewhere, for example in the study of
crossed products of a noncommutative algebra with a finite group. We refer
the reader to Giraud (1971) for a detailed study of noncommutative cohomol-
ogy and its various applications. In this section, we will briefly review some
basic concepts related to noncommutative cohomology (cf. Serre [1997] for
the details) that we will need in our treatment of the Galois cohomology of
algebraic groups.
Let G be a (discrete or profinite) group that acts on a set A; in the topological
setting, we assume that A is discrete and the action of G is continuous. We then
call A a G-set. If A is a group and G acts on A by group automorphisms, we
call A a G-group. Given a G-set A, we define H 0 (G, A) to be the set AG of

G-fixed elements. If A is a G-group, then clearly H 0 (G, A) is a group.
For a G-group A, a continuous map f : G → A is said to be a 1-cocycle
with values in A if, for any s, t in G, we have f (st) = f (s)s( f (t)). It is often
convenient to treat 1-cocycles as families indexed by elements of G and to write
f as { fs : s ∈ G} where fs = f (s). Sometimes we will use exponential notation
for the action of G, writing sa instead of s(a). With these notations, the 1-
cocycle condition becomes fst = fs sft . The set of all 1-cocycles will be denoted
by Z 1 (G, A). Note that Z 1 (G, A) is always nonempty as it contains the trivial
cocycle given by fs = e, the identity element of A, for all s in G. Two cocycles
(as ) and (bs ) are said to be equivalent if there is an element c in A such that
bs = c−1 as sc for all s in G. (One can easily verify that this indeed defines an
equivalence relation on Z 1 (G, A).) The set of equivalence classes is called the
first cohomology set and is denoted by H 1 (G, A). If A is an abelian group, then
this definition of H 1 is consistent with the one given in §1.3.1; in particular,
H 1 (G, A) is then an abelian group. In general, H 1 (G, A) does not have any
natural group structure and is only a pointed set whose distinguished element
is the equivalence class of the trivial cocycle. As in the commutative case, if
G = lim G/U is a profinite group, then H 1 (G, A) = lim H 1 (G/U, AU ) is the
←− −→
direct limit of pointed sets taken relative to the inflation maps H 1 (G/U, AU ) →
H 1 (G/V , AV ) for U ⊃ V , defined in the obvious way. In general, if g : H → G
is a group homomorphism and f : A → B is a homomorphism of a G-group
A into an H-group B compatible with g, i.e., satisfying f (g(s) a) = s f (a) for all
s ∈ H, a ∈ A, then we can define a map Z 1 (G, A) → Z 1 (H, B) by sending
(as ) to (bs = f (ag(s) )), which then induces a map of pointed sets H 1 (G, A) →
H 1 (H, B).
We say that a sequence of cohomology sets is exact if it is exact as a
sequence of pointed sets, i.e., if the preimage of the distinguished element
is equal to the image of the preceding map. (The distinguished element in the
zero dimensional cohomology H 0 (G, A) is the identity element of A.) We now
describe some useful exact sequences that we will need later. Let A be a sub-
group of a G-group B that is invariant under the action of G. Then there is a
natural action of G on B/A which makes B/A into a G-set, and we can con-
sider the set H 0 (G, B/A), whose distinguished element is the coset A. For any
element of H 0 (G, B/A) = (B/A)G , choose a representative b in B, and for s in
G let as = b−1 s b. It is easily seen that as ∈ A and (as ) ∈ Z 1 (G, A). Moreover,
the equivalence class of this cocycle does not depend on the choice of b, so we
obtain a map δ : H 0 (G, B/A) → H 1 (G, A).
1.3 Cohomology 25
Direct computation shows that we have the following exact sequence of

pointed sets
δ α
1 → H 0 (G, A) → H 0 (G, B) → H 0 (G, B/A)→H 1 (G, A)→H 1 (G, B), (1.11)
where α is induced by the embedding A ,→ B. Furthermore, if c1 , c2 ∈

H 0 (G, B/A), then δ(c1 ) = δ(c2 ) if and only if there exists b in BG with
c2 = bc1 . Consequently, the elements of the kernel of the map H 1 (G, A) →
H 1 (G, B) are in one-to-one correspondence with the orbits of BG on (B/A)G . If
A is a normal subgroup of B, then (1.11) can be extended by one more term:
δ α β
· · · → H 0 (G, B/A)→H 1 (G, A)→H 1 (G, B)→H 1 (G, B/A). (1.12)
Of special interest is the case where A is a central subgroup of B, as this is

precisely the situation arising in the analysis of universal covers of algebraic
groups. Set C = B/A and let ϕ : B → C be the canonical homomorphism.
Then H 1 (G, A) is a group and the map δ : H 0 (G, C) = C G → H 1 (G, A) is
a group homomorphism, which in the sequel will be called the coboundary
map. Using the centrality of A, we can define a natural action of the group
H 1 (G, A) on the set H 1 (G, B) as follows: given a = (as ) ∈ Z 1 (G, A) and
b = (bs ) ∈ Z 1 (G, B), we set a·b = (as bs ) ∈ Z 1 (G, B). It turns out that the orbits
of this action are precisely the fibers of the map β : H 1 (G, B) → H 1 (G, C).
Furthermore, since A is commutative, the group H 2 (G, A) is defined, and as we
will now show, there is a map ∂ : H 1 (G, C) → H 2 (G, A) extending (1.12) to an
exact sequence
β ∂
· · · → H 1 (G, B)→H 1 (G, C)→H 2 (G, A). (1.13)
Let c = (cs ) ∈ Z 1 (G, C), and for each s in G, let bs in B be such that
ϕ(bs ) = cs . Then set as,t = bs sbt b−1
st . It is clear that as,t ∈ A and moreover,
one easily checks that the map G × G → A given by (s, t) 7→ as,t is a 2-
cocycle (i.e., an element of Z 2 (G, A)). It turns out that the cohomology class of
this cocycle depends neither on the choice of the cocycle c in its cohomology
class in H 1 (G, C) nor on that of the elements bs , so we obtain a well-defined
connecting morphism ∂ : H 1 (G, C) → H 2 (G, A). The fact that (1.13) is exact
is verified by direct computation. Note that in the noncommutative case, ∂
may not be related to any group structure; moreover, its image in H 2 (G, A) is
generally not a subgroup.
In the noncommutative case, the exact sequences described earlier carry
substantially less information than in the commutative case, as information
about the kernel of a map of pointed sets generally does not allow us to draw
any conclusions about other fibers. This difficulty can be partially overcome
by using a method based on the concept of twisting (cf. Serre [1997], Chap-
ter 1, §5). We now recall some basic definitions. Let A be a G-group and F
be a G-set with a given A-action that is compatible with the action of G, i.e.,
s(a · f ) = s(a) · s( f ) for any s ∈ G, a ∈ A, f ∈ F. Then, given an arbitrary
cocycle a = (as ) ∈ Z 1 (G, A), we can define a new action of G on F by the
formula
s̄( f ) = as (s( f )) for s in G.
We denote F equipped with this action by a F, and say that a F is obtained

from F by twisting using a. It is easy to see that a F depends functorially on
F (with respect to A-morphisms F → F 0 ) and that twisting commutes with
direct products. If a and b are equivalent cocycles, then the G-sets a F and b F
are isomorphic. Moreover, if F has some additional structure (such as that of a
group) that is preserved by the action of A, then a F also inherits this structure.
We will examine a whole series of examples of twists in §2.3, but for now
we will limit ourselves to one example that comes up in the analysis of exact
sequences. Namely, consider the case where A = F acts on itself by inner
automorphisms. Then, for any cocycle a in Z 1 (G, A) the twisted group a A is
defined, and moreover, the first cohomology sets of A and A0 = a A are related
as follows:
Lemma 1.18 There is a bijection ta : Z 1 (G, A0 ) → Z 1 (G, A) defined by send-

ing a cocycle x = (xs ) in Z 1 (G, A0 ) to the cocycle y = (xs as ) in Z 1 (G, A).
Passing to cohomology, ta induces a bijection τa : H 1 (G, A0 ) → H 1 (G, A),
which takes the distinguished element of H 1 (G, A0 ) to the class of the
cocycle a.
This enables us to “multiply” cocycles, although the result has values in the
twisted group. By this method, replacing the groups in sequences (1.11)–(1.13)
by the corresponding twisted groups (i.e., by twisting these sequences), one
can describe the fibers of all the maps in the original sequences. For example,
take a ∈ Z 1 (G, A), and let us describe the fiber α −1 (α(a)) in the sequence
(1.11), where a is also used to denote the corresponding cohomology class in
H 1 (G, A). For this, we need to pass to the twisted groups A0 = a A and B0 = a B
and examine the corresponding exact sequence:
δ α0
1 → H 0 (G, A0 ) → H 0 (G, B0 ) → H 0 (G, B0 /A0 )→H 1 (G, A0 )→H 1 (G, B0 ).
(1.110 )
Then the bijection τa of Lemma 1.18 gives rise to a bijection between the ele-
ments of ker α 0 and those of the fiber α −1 (α(a)). On the other hand, it follows
1.3 Cohomology 27
from (1.110 ) that the elements of ker α 0 are in one-to-one correspondence with
the orbits of (B0 )G on (B0 /A0 )G .
We will next give a criterion for the class of a cocycle b ∈ Z 1 (G, B) to lie
in the image of α. For this, we consider the action of B on the homogeneous
space B/A by left translations; then one can define the twisted space b (B/A)
for any b in Z 1 (G, B).
Lemma 1.19 b ∈ im α ⇔ H 0 (G, b (B/A)) 6= ∅.
The fibers of ∂ in the sequence (1.13) are computed in a similar way. Namely,
let c = (cs ) ∈ Z 1 (G, C). Since A is a central subgroup of B, the conjugation
action of B descends to an action of C that is trivial on A. Twisting the exact
sequence 1 → A → B → C → 1 by means of c, we obtain the exact sequence
1 → A → c B → c C → 1, which gives rise to a new connecting morphism
∂c : H 1 (G, c C) → H 2 (G, A). Direct computation shows that this map interacts
with the bijection τc : H 1 (G, c C) → H 1 (G, C) from Lemma 1.18 as follows:
∂(τc (x)) = ∂c (x)∂(c),
where the product is taken in H 2 (G, A). It follows that the elements of the fiber
∂ −1 (∂(c)) are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of ker ∂c , which
in turn correspond bijectively to the orbits of H 1 (G, A) on H 1 (G, c B).
If H is a normal subgroup of G (which we assume to be closed in the top-
ological setting), then, as in the commutative case, the quotient group G/H
acts on AH , so one can define the set H 1 (G/H, AH ) and the inflation map
H 1 (G/H, AH ) → H 1 (G, A). If H 1 (G, A) → H 1 (H, A) is the restriction map,
then the sequence
1 → H 1 (G/H, AH ) → H 1 (G, A) → H 1 (H, A),
which is the noncommutative analog of the Hochschild–Serre spectral
sequence (1.9), is exact.
We conclude this section by considering induced sets and a noncommuta-
tive version of Shapiro’s lemma. Since these topics are not treated in Serre
(1997), we provide all the details. Let H be a (closed) subgroup of G. Then for
any H-set (respectively H-group) B we can define the G-set (respectively G-
group) A = indH G (B) consisting of all (continuous) maps a: G → B satisfying
a(ts) = t a(s) for all t ∈ H, s ∈ G, on which G acts by ra(s) = a(sr) for r in G.
The G-set (respectively G-group) A, or any G-set (G-group) that is isomorphic
to A, is said to be induced. The map A → B given by a 7→ a(1) is compatible
with the inclusion H ⊂ G, hence it induces maps
ϕi : H i (G, A) → H i (H, B) for i = 0, 1.
Proposition 1.20 (SHAPIRO’S LEMMA, NONCOMMUTATIVE VERSION ). The

maps ϕi are bijections.
PROOF: We will consider the cases i = 0 and i = 1 separately. First, let i = 0.

If a ∈ H 0 (G, A), then a is a map G → B, which is fixed by the action of
G, i.e., a = ra for all r ∈ G. The definition of the G-action on A shows that
the latter is equivalent to a(s) = a(sr) for all s, r ∈ G, so setting s = 1 we see
a is a constant map. By construction ϕ0 (a) = a(1) ∈ BH = H 0 (H, B), hence
ϕ0 (a) = ϕ0 (b) implies a = b, proving that ϕ0 is injective. On the other hand,
for any c in H 0 (H, B), the constant map a : G → B given by a(s) = c lies in A;
moreover, it is clear that a ∈ H 0 (G, A) and ϕ0 (a) = c. Thus, ϕ0 is surjective,
hence bijective.
Now let i = 1. To show that ϕ1 is injective, suppose we have cocycles
a = (ar ) and b = (br ) ∈ Z 1 (G, A) such that ϕ1 takes the same value on the
corresponding cohomology classes. This means that there exists c ∈ B such
that
ar (1) = c−1 br (1) rc for all r ∈ H.
Then, letting d be an element of A such that d(1) = c and replacing b by the

equivalent cocycle b0 = (d −1 br rd), we may assume that
ar (1) = br (1) for all r ∈ H. (1.14)
The definition of a 1-cocycle yields the following identities for all r, s, t ∈ G:
ars (t) = ar (t)r as (t) = ar (t)as (tr),

brs (t) = br (t)r bs (t) = br (t)bs (tr).
Plugging in r = t−1 in (1.14), we obtain
at−1 s (t)bt−1 s (t)−1 = at−1 (t)bt−1 (t)−1 (1.15)
for all s in H. Let us define a function c : G → B by
c(t) = bt−1 (t)at−1 (t)−1 .
Then (1.15) implies that for all s ∈ H we have
c(st) = bt−1 s−1 (st)at−1 s−1 (st)−1

= s(bt−1 s−1 (t)at−1 s−1 (t)−1 ) = s(bt−1 (t)at−1 (t)−1 ) = s(c(t)),
proving that c ∈ A. On the other hand, one easily verifies that ar = c−1 br rc for
all r in G, so a and b are equivalent cocycles. This proves that ϕ1 is injective.
1.4 Simple Algebras over Local Fields 29
To prove surjectivity, let us take an arbitrary cocycle b = (br ) ∈ Z 1 (H, B).

Let v : H\G → G be a (continuous) section such that v(H) = 1. For s in G, set
w(s) = sv(Hs)−1 ∈ H. We define as : G → B for s ∈ G by
as (t) = w(t) bw(v(t)s) .
Direct computation shows that as ∈ A and the family a = (as ) is a cocycle in

Z 1 (G, A) such that ϕ1 (a) = b. This establishes surjectivity and completes the
proof of the proposition.
The following simple statement is often useful:
Lemma 1.21 Suppose H is of finite index in G. Then a G-group A is induced

(with respect to H) if and only if there exists an H-subgroup B ⊂ A such that
A is the direct product of the translates sB, where s runs over some system of
right coset representatives modulo H.
For example, if L is a finite Galois extension of a number field K with Galois

group G, and we fix an extension u of v ∈ V K to L and let H = G(u) denote
the corresponding decomposition group, then it follows from (1.2) that the
G-module L ⊗K Kv is isomorphic to indH G (Lu ).
1.4 Simple Algebras over Local Fields

1.4.1 Simple Algebras and the Brauer Group
Let A be a finite-dimensional central simple algebra over a field K. By the
Artin–Wedderburn Theorem, A is isomorphic to a matrix algebra Mn (D)
over a unique (up to isomorphism) central division K-algebra D, and then
dimK A = n2 dimK D. In turn, one shows that dimK D is the square of a pos-
itive integer d, called the index of D (and also of A). It is well known that
if K is finite or algebraically closed, then necessarily d = 1, in other words,
there are no noncommutative finite-dimensional central division algebras over
K. If K = R and d > 1, then D is isomorphic to the division algebra H of
Hamilton quaternions. Over non-Archimedean local fields and number fields,
there exist division algebras of arbitrary index. To describe them we will need
several results from the theory of simple algebras (cf., for example, Farb and
Dennis [1993]; Gille and Szamuely [2017]; Herstein [1994]; Pierce [1982]).
One of the basic results is the Skolem–Noether Theorem: if B1 and B2 are
simple subalgebras of a central simple K-algebra A, then any isomorphism
σ : B1 → B2 of K-algebras extends to an inner automorphism of A. To analyze
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“Then that devil found out about it! For he was a devil, Mr.
Sheringham,” Mrs. Plant said, looking at Roger with wide eyes, in
which traces of horror still lingered. “I could never have imagined that
anyone could be so absolutely inhuman. Oh! It was hell!” She
shuddered involuntarily.
“He demanded money, of course,” she went on after a minute in
a calmer voice; “and I paid him every penny I could. You must
understand that I was willing to face any sacrifice rather than that my
husband should be told. The other night I had to tell him that I had no
more money left. I lied when I told you what time I went into the
library. He stopped me in the hall to tell me that he wanted to see me
there at half-past twelve. That would be when everyone else was in
bed, you see. Mr. Stanworth always preserved the greatest secrecy
about these meetings.”
“And you went at half-past twelve?” Roger prompted
sympathetically.
“Yes, taking my jewels with me. I told him that I had no more
money. He wasn’t angry. He never was. Just cold and sneering and
horrible. He said he’d take the jewels for that time, but I must bring
him the money he wanted—two hundred and fifty pounds—in three
months’ time.”
“But how could you, if you hadn’t got it?”
Mrs. Plant was silent. Then gazing unseeingly at the rose bed, as
if living over again that tragic interview, she said in a curiously
toneless voice, “He said that a pretty woman like me could always
obtain money if it was necessary. He said he would introduce me to
a man out of whom I—I could get it, if I played my cards properly. He
said if I wasn’t ready with the two hundred and fifty pounds within
three months he would tell my husband everything.”
“My God!” said Roger softly, appalled.
Mrs. Plant looked him suddenly straight in the face.
“That will show you what sort of a man Mr. Stanworth was, if you
didn’t know,” she said quietly.
“I didn’t,” Roger answered. “This explains a good deal,” he added
to himself. “And then, I suppose, Jefferson came in?”
“Major Jefferson?” Mrs. Plant repeated, in unmistakable
astonishment.
“Yes. Wasn’t that when he came in?”
Mrs. Plant stared at him in amazement.
“But Major Jefferson never came in at all!” she exclaimed. “What
ever makes you think that?”
It was Roger’s turn to be astonished.
“Do I understand you to say that Jefferson never came in at all
while you were in the library with Stanworth?” he asked.
“Good gracious, no,” Mrs. Plant replied emphatically. “I should
hope not! Why ever should he?”
“I—I don’t really know,” Roger said lamely. “I thought he did. I
must have been mistaken.” In spite of the unexpectedness of her
denial, he was convinced that Mrs. Plant was telling the truth; her
surprise was far too genuine to have been assumed. “Well, what
happened?”
“Nothing. I—I implored him not to be so hard and to be content
with what I had paid him and give me back the evidence he’d got,
but——”
“Where did he keep the evidence, by the way? In the safe?”
“Yes. He always carried the safe about with him. It was supposed
to be burglar-proof.”
“Was it open while you were there?”
“He opened it to put my jewels in before I went.”
“And did he leave it open, or did he lock it up again?”
“He locked it before I left the room.”
“I see. When would that be?”
“Oh, past one o’clock, I should say. I didn’t notice the time very
particularly. I was feeling too upset.”
“Naturally. And nothing of any importance occurred between his
—his ultimatum and your departure upstairs?”
“No. He refused to give way an inch, and at last I left off trying to
persuade him and went up to bed. That is all.”
“And nobody else came in at all? Not a sign of anybody else?”
“No; nobody.”
“Humph!” said Roger thoughtfully. This was decidedly
disappointing; yet somehow it was impossible to disbelieve Mrs.
Plant’s story. Still, Jefferson might have come in later, having heard
something of what had taken place from outside the room. At any
rate, it appeared that Mrs. Plant herself could have had no hand in
the actual murder, whatever provocation she might have received.
He decided to sound her a little farther.
“In view of what you’ve told me, Mrs. Plant,” he remarked rather
more casually, “it seems very extraordinary that Stanworth should
have committed suicide, doesn’t it? Can you account for it in any
way?”
“No, I certainly can’t. It’s inexplicable to me. But, Mr. Sheringham,
I am so thankful! No wonder I fainted when you told us after
breakfast. I suddenly felt as if I had been let out of prison. Oh, that
dreadful, terrible feeling of being in that man’s power! You can’t
imagine it; or what an overwhelming relief it was to hear of his
death.”
“Indeed I can, Mrs. Plant,” Roger said with intense sympathy. “In
fact, what surprises me is that nobody should ever have killed him
before this.”
“Do you imagine that people never thought of that?” Mrs. Plant
retorted passionately. “I did myself. Hundreds of times! But what
would have been the use? Do you know what he did—in my case, at
any rate, and so in everyone else’s, I suppose? He kept the
documentary evidence against me in a sealed envelope addressed
to my husband! He knew that if ever he met with a violent death the
safe would be opened by the police, you see; and in that case they
would take charge of the envelope, and presumably many other
similar ones, and forward them all to their destinations. Just imagine
that! Naturally nobody dared kill him; it would only make things
worse than before. He used to gloat over it to me. Besides, he had
always a loaded revolver in his hand when he opened the safe, in
my presence at any rate. I can tell you, he took no chances. Oh, Mr.
Sheringham, that man was a fiend! Whatever can have induced him
to take his own life, I can’t conceive; but believe me, I shall thank
God for it on my bended knees every night as long as I live!”
She sat biting her lip and breathing heavily in the intensity of her
feelings.
“But if you knew the evidence was kept in the safe, why weren’t
you frightened when it was being opened by the inspector?” Roger
asked curiously. “I remember glancing at you, and you certainly
didn’t seem to be in the least perturbed about it.”
“Oh, that was after I’d had his letter, you see,” Mrs. Plant
explained readily. “I was before, of course; terribly frightened. But not
afterwards, though it did seem almost too good to be true. Hullo! isn’t
that the lunch bell? We had better be going indoors, hadn’t we? I
think I have told you all you can want to know.” She rose to her feet
and turned towards the house.
Roger fell into step with her.
“Letter?” he said eagerly. “What letter?”
Mrs. Plant glanced at him in surprise. “Oh, don’t you know about
that? I thought you must do, as you seemed to know everything.
Yes, I got a letter from him saying that for certain private reasons he
had decided to take his own life, and that before doing so he wished
to inform me that I need have no fears about anything, as he had
burnt the evidence he held against me. You can imagine what a
relief it was!”
“Jumping Moses!” Roger exclaimed blankly. “That appears to
bash me somewhat sideways!”
“What did you say, Mr. Sheringham?” asked Mrs. Plant curiously.
Roger’s dazed and slightly incoherent reply is not recorded.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Mr. Sheringham is Disconcerted
Roger sat through the first part of lunch in a species of minor
trance. It was not until the necessity for consuming a large plateful of
prunes and tapioca pudding, the two things besides Jews that he
detested most in the world, began to impress itself upon his
consciousness, that the power of connected thought returned to him.
Mrs. Plant’s revelation appeared temporarily to have numbed his
brain. The one thing which remained dazzlingly clear to him was that
if Stanworth had written a letter announcing his impending suicide,
then Stanworth could not after all have been murdered; and the
whole imposing structure which he, Roger, had erected, crumbled
away into the sand upon which it had been founded. It was a
disturbing reflection for one so blithely certain of himself as Roger.
As soon as lunch was over and the discussion regarding trains
and the like at an end, he hurried Alec upstairs to his bedroom to talk
the matter over. It is true that Roger felt a certain reluctance to be
compelled thus to acknowledge that he had been busily unearthing
nothing but a mare’s nest; but, on the other hand, Alec must know
sooner or later, and at that moment the one vital necessity from
Roger’s point of view was to talk. In fact, the pent-up floods of talk in
Roger’s bosom that were striving for exit had been causing him
something very nearly approaching physical pain during the last few
minutes.
“Alexander!” he exclaimed dramatically as soon as the door was
safely shut. “Alexander, the game is up!”
“What do you mean?” Alec asked in surprise. “Have the police
got on the trail now?”
“Worse than that. Far worse! It appears that old Stanworth was
never murdered at all! He did commit suicide, after all.”
Alec sat down heavily in the nearest chair. “Good Lord!” he
exclaimed limply. “But what on earth makes you think that? I thought
you were so convinced that it was murder.”
“So I was,” Roger said, leaning against the dressing table. “That’s
what makes it all the more extraordinary, because I really am very
seldom wrong. I say it in all modesty, but the fact is indisputable. By
all the laws of average, Stanworth ought to have been murdered. It
really is most inexplicable.”
“But how do you know he wasn’t?” Alec demanded. “What’s
happened since I saw you last to make you alter your mind like this?”
“The simple fact that Mrs. Plant received a note from old
Stanworth, saying that he was going to kill himself for private
reasons of his own or something.”
“Oh!”
“I can tell you, it knocked me upside down for the minute.
Anything more unexpected I couldn’t have imagined. And the trouble
is that I don’t see how we can possibly get round it. A note like that is
a very different matter to that statement.”
“You know, I’m not sure that I’m altogether surprised that
something like this has turned up,” Alec said slowly. “I was never
quite so convinced by the murder idea as you were. After all, when
you come to look at all the facts of the case, although they certainly
seemed to be consistent with murder, were no less consistent with
suicide, weren’t they?”
“So it appears,” Roger said regretfully.
“It was simply that you’d got the notion of murder into your head
—more picturesque, I suppose—and everything had to be construed
to fit it, eh?”
“I suppose so.”
“In fact,” Alec concluded wisely, “it was an idée fixe, and
everything else was sacrificed to it. Isn’t that right?”
“Alexander, you put me to shame,” Roger murmured.
“Well, anyhow, that shows you what comes of muddling in other
people’s affairs,” Alec pointed out severely. “And it’s lucky you hit on
the truth before you made a still bigger idiot of yourself.”
“I deserve it all, I know,” Roger remarked contritely to his hair-
brush.
It was Alec’s turn to be complacent now, and he was taking full
advantage of it. As he lay back leisurely in his chair and smoked
away placidly, he presented a perfect picture of “I told you so!” Roger
contemplated him in rueful silence.
“And yet——!” he murmured tentatively, after a few moments’
silence.
Alec waved an admonitory pipe.
“Now, then!” he said warningly.
Roger exploded suddenly. “Well, say what you like, Alec,” he
burst out, “but the thing is dashed queer! You can’t get away from it.
After all, our inquiries haven’t resulted in nothing, have they? We did
establish the fact that Stanworth was a blackmailer. I forgot to tell
you that, by the way. We were perfectly right; he had been
blackmailing Mrs. Plant, the swine, and jolly badly, too. Incidentally,
she hadn’t the least idea that his death might be anything else than
suicide, and Jefferson didn’t come into the library while she was
there; so I was wrong in that particular detail. I’m satisfied she was
telling the truth, too. But as for the rest—well, I’m dashed if I know
what to think! The more I consider it, the more difficult I find it to
believe that it was suicide, after all, and that all those other facts
could have been nothing but mere coincidences. It isn’t reasonable.”
“Yes, that’s all very well,” Alec said sagely. “But when a fellow
actually goes out of his way to write a letter saying that——”
“By Jove, Alec!” Roger interrupted excitedly. “You’ve given me an
idea. Did he write it?”
“What do you mean?”
“Why, mightn’t it have been typed? I haven’t seen the thing yet,
you know, and when she mentioned a letter it never occurred to me
that it might not be a hand-written one. If it was typed, then there’s
still a chance.” He walked rapidly towards the door.
“Where are you going to now?” Alec asked in surprise.
“To see if I can get a look at this blessed letter,” Roger said,
turning the handle. “Mrs. Plant’s room is down this passage, isn’t it?”
With a quick glance up and down the passage, Roger hurried
along to Mrs. Plant’s bedroom and tapped on the door.
“Come in,” said a voice inside.
“It’s me, Mrs. Plant,” he replied softly. “Mr. Sheringham. Can I
speak to you a minute?”
There came the sound of rapid footsteps crossing the floor and
Mrs. Plant’s head appeared at the door.
“Yes?” she asked, not without a certain apprehension. “What is it,
Mr. Sheringham?”
“You remember that letter you mentioned this morning? From Mr.
Stanworth, I mean. Have you still got it, by any chance, or have you
destroyed it?”
He held his breath for her reply.
“Oh, no. Of course I destroyed it at once. Why?”
“Oh, I just wanted to test an idea. Let me see.” He thought
rapidly. “It was pushed under your door or something, I suppose?”
“Oh, no. It came by post.”
“Did it?” said Roger eagerly. “You didn’t notice the postmark, did
you?”
“As a matter of fact I did. It seemed so funny that he should have
taken the trouble to post it. It was posted from the village by the
eight-thirty post that morning.”
“The village, was it? Oh! And was it typewritten?”
“Yes.”
Roger held his breath again. “Was the signature written or
typewritten?”
Mrs. Plant considered.
“It was typewritten, as far as I remember.”
“Are you sure of that?” Roger asked eagerly.
“Ye-es, I think so. Oh, yes; I remember now. The whole thing was
typewritten, signature and all.”
“Thank you very much, Mrs. Plant,” Roger said gratefully. “That’s
all I wanted to know.”
He sped back to his own room.
“Alexander!” he exclaimed dramatically, as soon as he was
inside. “Alexander, the game is on again!”
“What’s up now?” Alec asked with a slight frown.
“That letter sounds like a fake, just the same as the confession. It
was all typewritten, even the signature, and it was posted from the
village. Can you imagine a man in his sane senses deliberately
going down to the village to post his letter, when all he had to do was
to push it under her door?”
“He might have had others to post as well,” Alec hazarded,
blowing out a great cloud of smoke. “Would Mrs. Plant’s be the only
one?”
“H’m! I never thought of that. Yes, he would. But still, it’s rather
unlikely that he should have posted hers as well, I should say. By the
way, it was that letter which accounted for her change of attitude
before lunch. She knew then that she had nothing to fear from the
opening of the safe, you see.”
“Well, how do matters stand now?”
“Exactly as they did before. I don’t see that this really affects it
either way. It’s only another instance of the murderer’s cunning. Mrs.
Plant, and possibly, as you say, one or two others, might raise
awkward questions at Stanworth’s sudden death; therefore their
apprehensions must be allayed. All that it really does as far as we
are concerned, is to confirm the idea that the murderer must have a
very intimate knowledge of Stanworth’s private affairs. Of course it
shows that the safe was opened that night, and it brings our old
friends, the ashes in the hearth, into prominence once more as being
in all probability the remains of the blackmailer’s evidence. Curious
that that first guess of mine should have turned out to be so near the
truth, isn’t it?”
“And what about Jefferson?” Alec asked quietly.
“Ah, yes, Jefferson. Well, I suppose this affair of the letter and the
fact that he did not break in on Mrs. Plant and Stanworth in the
library that night and consequently was not helped by that lady—I
suppose all this gives him credit for rather more brains than I had
been willing to concede him; but otherwise I don’t see that his
position is affected.”
“You mean, you still think he killed Stanworth?”
“If he didn’t, can you tell me who did?”
Alec shrugged his shoulders. “I’ve told you I’m convinced you’re
barking up the wrong tree. It’s no good going on repeating it.”
“Not a bit,” Roger said cheerfully.
“So what are you going to do?”
“Exactly what I was before. Have a little chat with him.”
“Rather ticklish business, isn’t it? I mean, when you’re so very
uncertain of your ground.”
“Possibly. But so was Mrs. Plant for that matter. I think I shall be
able to handle friend Jefferson all right. I shall be perfectly candid
with him, and I’m willing to wager a small sum that I shall be back
here within half an hour with his confession in my pocket.”
“Humph!” Alec observed sceptically. “Are you going to accuse
him directly of the murder?”
“My dear Alec! Nothing so crude as that. I shan’t even say in so
many words that I know a murder has been committed. I shall simply
ask him a few pointed and extremely pertinent questions. He’ll see
the drift of them all right; Master Jefferson is no fool, as we have
every reason to know. Then we shall be able to get down to things.”
“Well, for goodness’ sake do bear in mind the possibility (I won’t
put it any stronger than that) that Jefferson never did kill Stanworth
at all, and walk warily.”
“Trust me for that,” Roger replied complacently. “By the way, did I
tell you that Mrs. Plant received that letter just before going into
lunch? It caught the eight-thirty post from the village.”
“Did it?” Alec said without very much interest.
“By Jove!” Roger exclaimed suddenly. “What an idiot I am! That’s
conclusive proof that Stanworth couldn’t have posted it himself, isn’t
it? Fancy my never spotting that point before!”
“What point?”
“Why, the first post out from the village is five o’clock. That letter
must have been posted between five and eight-thirty—four hours or
more after Stanworth was dead!”
CHAPTER XXV.
The Mystery Finally Refuses to Accept
Mr. Sheringham’s Solution
Roger had no time to waste. Mrs. Plant, Alec, and himself were
all to leave by the train soon after five o’clock; the car would be
ready to take them into Elchester at half-past four. Tea was to be at
four, and the time was already close on three. He had an hour left in
which to disentangle the last remaining threads. As he stood for a
moment outside the morning-room door it seemed to Roger as if
even this narrow margin were half an hour more than he needed.
Jefferson was still at work among the piled-up papers. He
glanced up abstractedly as Roger entered the room and then smiled
slightly.
“Come to offer me a hand again?” he asked. “Devilish good of
you, but I’m afraid there’s absolutely nothing I can turn over to you
this time.”
Roger drew a chair up to the other side of the table and seated
himself deliberately.
“As a matter of fact, I hadn’t,” he said slowly. “I wanted to ask you
one or two questions, Jefferson, if you would be good enough to
answer them.”
Jefferson looked slightly surprised.
“Questions? All right, fire away. What can I tell you?”
“Well, the first thing I want to ask you,” Roger shot out, “is—
where were you at the time that Stanworth died?”
A look of blank astonishment was followed in Jefferson’s face by
an angry flush.
“And what the devil has that got to do with you?” he asked
abruptly.
“Never mind for the moment what it has to do with me,” Roger
replied, his heart beating a little faster than usual. “I want you to
answer that question.”
Jefferson rose slowly to his feet, his eyes glittering ominously.
“Do you want me to kick you out of the room?” he said in a strangely
quiet voice.
Roger leaned back in his chair and watched him unmoved.
“Do I understand that you refuse to answer?” he said evenly. “You
refuse to tell me where you were between, say, one and three
o’clock on the morning that Stanworth died?”
“Most decidedly I do. And I want to know what the hell you think
that has to do with you?”
“It may have nothing and it may have everything,” Roger said
calmly. “But I advise you to tell me, if not for your own sake at least
for the lady’s.”
If this was a chance shot, it had certainly got home. Jefferson’s
face took on a deeper tinge and his eyes widened in sheer fury. He
clenched his fists till the knuckles showed up white and menacing.
“Damn you, Sheringham, that’s about enough!” he muttered,
advancing towards the other. “I don’t know what the devil you think
you’re playing at, but——”
A sudden bluff darted into Roger’s mind. After all, what was a
man like Jefferson doing as secretary to a man like Stanworth? He
decided to risk it.
“Before you do anything rash, Jefferson,” he said quickly, “I’d like
to ask you another question. What was Stanworth blackmailing you
for?”
There are times when bluff pays. This was one of them. Jefferson
stopped short in his stride, his hands fell limply to his sides and his
jaw drooped open. It was as if he had been struck by a sudden and
unexpected bullet.
“Sit down and let’s talk things over quietly,” Roger advised, and
Jefferson resumed his seat without a word.
Roger reviewed the situation rapidly in his mind.
“You see,” he began in conversational tones, “I know quite a lot of
what’s been going on here, and in the circumstances I really have no
alternative but to find out the rest. I admit that it places me in rather
an awkward situation, but I can’t see that I can very well do anything
else. Now what I suggest, Jefferson, is that we both put our cards on
the table and talk the thing over as two men of the world. Do you
agree?”
Jefferson frowned. “You don’t appear to give me much option, do
you? Though what it has to do with you, I’m really hanged if I can
see.”
It was on Roger’s lips to retort that Jefferson would very probably
be hanged if he didn’t, but fortunately he was able to control himself.
“I should have thought that would have been obvious,” he said
smoothly. “I can hardly leave things as they are, can I? Still, we’ll
pass over that for the present. Now Stanworth was, as I know, a
blackmailer, and there can be no doubt as to that affecting the
situation in no small degree.”
“What situation?” Jefferson asked in puzzled tones.
Roger glanced at him shrewdly. “The situation,” he said firmly. “I
think we both understand to what I am referring.”
“I’m blessed if I do,” Jefferson retorted.
“Of course if you take up that attitude——!” Roger said
tentatively. “Still, perhaps it’s a little early to get down to brass tacks,”
he added, after a moment’s pause. “We’ll confine ourselves to the
other aspect for a time, shall we? Now Stanworth, I take it, had some
definite hold over you. Would you mind telling me exactly what that
was?”
“Is this necessary?” Jefferson demanded shortly. “My private
affair, you know. Why the deuce should you want to concern yourself
in it?”
“Don’t talk like that, Jefferson, please. You must see what course
you’ll force on me if you do.”
“Damned if I do! What course?”
“To put the whole thing in the hands of the police, naturally.”
Jefferson started violently. “Good God, you wouldn’t do that,
Sheringham!”
“I don’t want to do so, of course. But you really must be frank with
me. Now please tell me all about your relations with Stanworth. I
may tell you, to save you trouble, that I am already in full possession
of all the similar facts with regard to—well, the lady in the case.”
“The devil you are!” Jefferson exclaimed in undisguised
astonishment. “Oh, well, if I’ve got to tell you, I suppose I must.
Though what in the name of goodness it can have to—— However!”
He leaned back in his chair and began to fiddle abstractedly with
the papers in front of him.
“It was this way. My regiment was in India. Pal of mine and I were
both in love with the same girl. No bad blood or anything like that.
Good friends all the time. He got her. Wanted to get married at once,
but very hard up, of course. We all were. He’d got a lot of debts, too.
Damned fool went and drew a check on another man’s account.
Forged it, if you like. Absurd thing to do; bound to come out. There
was a hell of a row, but we managed to keep it confined to a few of
us. Chap came and confessed to me; asked what on earth he’d
better do. They hadn’t found out who’d done it yet, but when they did
it would be all up with him. Lose the girl and everything; she was
fond enough of him, but straight as a die herself. Couldn’t have stood
the disgrace. Well, what could I do? Couldn’t stand by and see all
this happen. Went to the colonel and told him I’d done the blessed
thing. Only thing to do.”
“By Jove, you sportsman!” Roger exclaimed involuntarily.
“Sportsman be damned! Wouldn’t have done it for him alone. I
was thinking of the girl.”
“And what happened?”
“Oh, it was hushed up as much as possible. I had to send in my
papers, of course, but the fellow didn’t prosecute. Then that hound
Stanworth got wind of the story somehow and managed to lay his
hands on the check, which had never been destroyed. Perfect
godsend to him, of course. Gave me choice of taking on this job with
him or letting the whole thing be passed on to the police. No
alternative. I had to take on the job.”
“But why on earth did he want you as his secretary? That’s what I
can’t understand.”
“Simple enough. He wanted to push his way in among the sort of
people I knew. I was a sort of social sponsor for him. Damned
unpleasant job, of course, but what could I do? Besides, when I took
the job on I didn’t know anything about him. Thought he was just a
new-rich merchant and I was his only victim in the threatening line.
Soon found out, of course; but too late to back out then. That’s all.
Satisfied?”
“Perfectly. Sorry I had to ask you, but you see how it is. Well, I’m
dashed if I can blame you. I’d have done the same thing myself. But
I’d like to have the story of it from your own lips.”
“Just told you the story.”
“No, the other one, I mean.”
“What other one?”
“Oh, don’t beat about the bush like this. You know perfectly well
what I’m driving at. I’ll put it in the original form, if you like. Where
were you during the night that Stanworth died?”
Jefferson’s angry flush returned.
“Now look here, Sheringham, that’s too much. I’ve told you things
I never dreamed I’d have to tell anyone, and I’m not going to have
you probing any farther into my business. That’s final.”
Roger rose to his feet. “I’m sorry you take it like that, Jefferson,”
he said quietly. “You leave me no alternative.”
“What are you going to do then?”
“Tell the police the whole story.”
“Are you mad, Sheringham?” Jefferson burst out angrily.
“No, but I think you are, not to trust me,” Roger retorted, hardly
less so. “You don’t think I want to tell them, do you? It’s you who are
forcing me to do so.”
“What, through not telling you what—what I was doing that
night?”
“Of course.”
There was a short pause, while the two glared at each other.
“Come back in a quarter of an hour,” Jefferson said abruptly. “I’ll
think it over. Have to consult her, of course, first.”
Roger nodded acquiescence to this proposal and hurried out of
the room. Exultantly he sought Alec.
“I told you so, Alexander,” he cried triumphantly, as soon as he
was fairly inside the room. “Jefferson’s on the point of confession!”
“He’s not!” Alec exclaimed incredulously.
“He is indeed. And there’s a lot more to it than that. I’ve bluffed
him into believing that I know a lot more than I do really, and he’s
going to tell me all sorts of other things as well. He’s let one cat out
of the bag already. I can tell you. Mrs. Plant is in it, after all!”
“Oh, rot!” Alec replied with decision. “That’s out of the question. I
know she isn’t.”
“Don’t be so absurd, Alexander,” Roger retorted somewhat
nettled. “How can you possibly know?”
“Well, anyhow, I’m sure she isn’t,” Alec replied obstinately.
“But my dear chap, friend Jefferson has just gone off to consult
her as to whether he shall tell me the whole story or not. I threatened
him with the police, you see, if he didn’t.”
“I suppose you taxed him outright with the murder, did you?”
“No, Alexander, I didn’t,” Roger answered wearily. “The word
murder was never so much as mentioned. I simply put it that I
wanted to know what he was doing on the night of Stanworth’s
death.”
“And he wouldn’t tell you?” Alec asked, somewhat surprisedly.
“He certainly would not. But he told me a lot of other things. He
was in Stanworth’s power all right. I haven’t got time to tell you the
whole story, but there’s motive enough for him to kill Stanworth
himself, even without the introduction of Mrs. Plant’s side of it. Oh,
the whole thing’s as plain as a pikestaff. I can’t understand why
you’re so sceptical about it all.”
“Perhaps I make a better detective than you do, Roger,” Alec
laughed, a trifle constrainedly.
“Perhaps,” Roger said without very much conviction. He glanced
at his watch. “Well, I’d better be getting back. I wonder if you’d
believe it if I showed you Jefferson’s confession in writing! Would
you?”
“I very much doubt it,” Alec smiled.
Jefferson was no longer alone in the morning room when Roger
returned to it. To the latter’s surprise Lady Stanworth was also there.
She was standing with her back to the window and did not look
round at his entrance. Roger shut the door carefully behind him and
looked inquiringly at Jefferson.
That gentleman did not waste time.
“We’ve talked the matter over,” he said curtly, “and decided to tell
you what you want to know.”
Roger could hardly repress an exclamation of surprise. Why
should Jefferson have imported Lady Stanworth into the matter?
Obviously she must be involved, and deeply, too. Could it be that
Jefferson had taken her into his confidence with regard to Mrs.
Plant? How much did she know, if that were the case? Presumably
everything. Roger felt that the situation was about to prove not a little
awkward.
“I’m glad,” he murmured, half apologetically.
Jefferson was carrying the thing off well. Not only did he appear
to be feeling no fear at all, but his manner was not even that of
defiance. The attitude he had adopted and which sat perfectly
naturally upon him was rather one of dignified condescension.
“But before I answer you, Sheringham,” he said stiffly, “I should
like to say, both on behalf of this lady and myself, that we consider
——”
Lady Stanworth turned to him. “Please!” she said quietly. “I don’t
think we need go into that. If Mr. Sheringham is incapable of
understanding the position into which he has forced us, there can
hardly be any need to labour the point.”
“Quite, quite,” Roger murmured still more apologetically, and
feeling unaccountably small. Lady Stanworth was perhaps the only
person in the world who consistently had that effect upon him.
“Very well,” Jefferson bowed. He turned to Roger. “You wanted to
know where I was on the night that Stanworth shot himself?”
“On the night of Stanworth’s death,” Roger corrected, with a slight
smile.
“On the night of Stanworth’s death then,” Jefferson said
impatiently. “Same thing. As I said before, I fail entirely to see how it
can concern you, but we have decided under the circumstances to
tell you. After all, the fact will be common knowledge soon enough
now. I was with my wife.”
“Your wife?” Roger echoed, scarcely able to believe his ears.
“That is what I said,” Jefferson replied coldly. “Lady Stanworth
and I were married secretly nearly six months ago.”
CHAPTER XXVI.
Mr. Grierson Tries His Hand
For some moments Roger was incapable of speech. This
disclosure was so totally unexpected, so entirely the reverse of
anything that he had ever imagined, that at first it literally took his
breath away. He could only stand and stare, as if his eyes were
about to pop out of his head, at the two entirely unmoved persons
who had sprung this overwhelming surprise upon him.
“Is that what you wished to know?” Jefferson asked courteously.
“Or would you wish my wife to confirm it?”
“Oh, no; no need at all,” Roger gasped, doing his best to pull
himself together. “I—I should like to apologise to you for the apparent
impertinence of my questions and to—to congratulate you, if you will
allow me to do so.”
“Very kind,” Jefferson muttered. Lady Stanworth, or Lady
Jefferson as she was now, bowed slightly.
“If you don’t want me any more, Harry,” she said to her husband,
“there are one or two things I have to do.”
“Certainly,” Jefferson said, opening the door for her.
She passed out without another glance at Roger.
“Look here, Jefferson,” exclaimed the latter impulsively, as soon
as the door was closed again, “I know you must be thinking me the
most appalling bounder, but you must believe that I shouldn’t have
tackled you in that way if I hadn’t got very solid and serious reasons
for doing so. As things have turned out, I can’t tell you at present
what those reasons are; but really it’s something of the greatest
possible importance.”
“Oh, that’s all right, Sheringham,” Jefferson returned with gruff
amiability. “Guessed you must have something up your sleeve. Bit
awkward, though. Ladies, and all that, y’know,” he added vaguely.
“Beastly,” Roger said sympathetically. “As a matter of fact, that’s
a development that had never occurred to me at all, you and Lady
Stanworth being married. If anything, it makes things very much
more complicated than before.”
“Bit of a mystery or something on hand, eh?” Jefferson asked
with interest.
“Very much so,” Roger replied, gazing thoughtfully out of the
window. “Connected with Stanworth, and—and his activities, you
understand,” he added.
“Ah!” Jefferson observed comprehendingly. “Then I’d better not
ask any questions. Don’t want to learn anything more about that side
of things. Seen too many poor devils going through it already.”
“No, but I tell you what,” Roger said, wheeling suddenly about. “If
you could answer a few more questions for me, I should be more
than grateful. Only as a favour, of course, and if you refuse I shall
understand perfectly. But you might be able to help me clear up a
very tricky state of affairs.”
“If it’s anything to do with helping somebody Stanworth got hold
of, I’ll answer questions all night,” Jefferson replied with vigour. “Go
ahead.”
“Thanks, very much. Well, then, in the first place, will you tell me
some details regarding your wife’s relations with Stanworth? It
doesn’t matter if you object, but I should be very glad if you could
see your way to do so.”
“But I thought you said you knew that story?”
Roger did not think it necessary to explain that the lady to whom
he had been referring was not Lady Jefferson. “Oh, I know most of it,
I think,” he said airily, “but I should like to hear it all from you, if I
could. I know that she was in Stanworth’s power, of course,” he
added, making a shot in the twilight, “but I’m not quite clear as to the
precise way.”
Jefferson shrugged his shoulders. “Oh, well, as you seem to
know so much, you’d better have the whole lot straight. Stanworth
nosed out something about her father. His brother was in love with
her, and Stanworth gave her the option of marrying him or having her
father shown up. He could have had the old earl put in the dock, I
believe. Naturally she chose the brother, who, by the way, didn’t
know anything about Stanworth’s activities, so I understand. Quite
an amiable, rather weak sort of a fellow.”
“And since then, of course, Stanworth had the whip hand over
her?”
Jefferson winced. “Yes,” he said shortly. “Even after her father
died, she wouldn’t want the family shown up.”
“I see,” said Roger thoughtfully. So Lady Stanworth had little
enough reason to love her brother-in-law. And since Jefferson fell in
love with her, her cause would naturally become his. Truly he had
motive and to spare for ridding the world of such a man. Yet,
although Jefferson and his wife might easily have concocted the
story of his whereabouts that night, Roger already felt just as
convinced of the former’s innocence as he was before of his guilt.
The man’s manner seemed somehow to preclude altogether the idea
of subterfuge. Had he really killed Stanworth, Roger was sure that he
would have said so by the time that matters had reached this length,
bluntly and simply, just as he had told the story of his own downfall.
But in spite of his convictions, Roger was not such a fool as not
to put the obvious questions that occurred to him.
“Why was your marriage secret?” he asked. “Did Stanworth know
about it?”
“No; he wouldn’t have allowed it. It would have looked like a
combination against him. He wanted us separate, for his own ends.”
“Did you hear the shot that killed him?” Roger said suddenly.
“No. About two o’clock, wasn’t it? I’d been asleep two hours.”
“You did sleep with your wife then, in spite of the necessity of
preserving secrecy?”
“Her maid knew. Used to go back to my room in the early
morning. Beastly hole-and-corner business, but no alternative.”
“And only Stanworth’s death could have freed you, so to speak?”
Roger mused. “Very opportune, wasn’t it?”
“Very,” Jefferson replied laconically. “You think I forced him
somehow to shoot himself, don’t you?”
“Well, I—I——” Roger stammered, completely taken aback.
Jefferson smiled grimly. “Knew you must have some comic idea
in your head. Just seen what you’ve been driving at. Well, you can
rest assured I didn’t. For the simple reason that nobody or no threats

Algebraic Groups and Number Theory 2Nd Edition Vladimir Platonov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Algebraic Groups and Number Theory 2Nd Edition Vladimir Platonov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Algebraic Groups and Number Theory 2Nd Edition Vladimir Platonov Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Algebraic Groups and Number Theory

2nd Edition Vladimir Platonov

A Textbook of Algebraic Number Theory 1st Edition

Algebraic Number Theory for Beginners Following a Path

Galois Theory and Its Algebraic Background 2nd Edition

Elementary Number Theory 2nd Edition Edmund Landau

Analytic Number Theory for Beginners 2nd Edition

Transcendental Number Theory Alan Baker

On Non Generic Finite Subgroups of Exceptional

Number Theory 1st Edition Andrej Dujella

ALGEBRAIC GROUPS AND NUMBER THEORY

Vladimir Platonov is Principal Research Fellow at the Steklov Mathematical Institute

Andrei Rapinchuk is McConnell-Bernard Professor of Mathematics at the University

Igor Rapinchuk is Associate Professor of Mathematics at Michigan State University.

The translation of the first Russian edition

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,

Preface to the Second English Edition page vii

4.5 Compactness of GR /GZ 246

exposition of a theory built on an abundance of far-reaching results and a syn-

In the course of our exposition, we formulate a considerable number of unre-

K ∗ (resp., K + ) – multiplicative (resp., additive) group of a field K

w|v – extension of valuations

Z (resp., Q, R, C, Qp ) – integers (resp., rational, real, complex, and p-adic

lim – direct/inductive limit

Algebraic Number Theory

1.1 Algebraic Number Fields, Valuations, and Completions

From a purely algebraic point of view, the ring O = OK is easy to describe: if

1.1.2 Valuations and Completions of Algebraic Number Fields

(1) |x|v ≥ 0, with |x|v = 0 if and only if x = 0;

If, instead of (3), the following stronger condition holds:

(30 ) |x + y|v ≤ max{|x|v , |y|v },

the valuation is called non-Archimedean; otherwise, it is called Archimedean.

We shall use both ordinary valuations as well as the corresponding logarith-

Theorem 1.1 (OSTROWSKI) Any nontrivial valuation of Q is equivalent either

(Recall that two valuations | |1 and | |2 on K are called equivalent if they

Thus, the set V K of all pairwise inequivalent valuations of K (or, to put it

of the ordinary absolute value | |∞ on Q, and the set VfK of non-Archimedean

be positive with respect to v if its image under v is a positive number. Let s

neighborhoods of zero in Ov . The quotient ring kv = Ov /pv is a finite field

1.1.3 Unramified and Totally Ramified Field Extensions

Proposition 1.2 For any integer n ≥ 1, there exists a unique unramified

In order to define the reduction σ̄ of a given automorphism σ ∈ Gal(L/Kv ),

Proposition 1.3 Let L/Kv be an unramified extension, and let Uv and UL

Uv /Uv(1) ' kv∗ , Uv(i) /Uv(i+1) ' kv+ , for i ≥ 1, (1.4)

Since L/Kv is unramified, π is also a uniformizer of L, so in the rest of the

where the bar denotes reduction modulo PL .

(i) (i+1) (i) (i+1)

The proof of Proposition 1.3 also yields

PROOF: We begin with the second assertion. Let M be a Galois extension

is taken over all embeddings, σ : L ,→ M over Kv . As we noted earlier, v

But according to the definition of the ramification index, we have pv OL = PeL ,

d = NL/Kv (b) = NL/Kv (a)NL/Kv (c)−1 ∈ Uv(1) .

Let us now return to unramified extensions of Kv . It can be shown that

We know that any two valuations w1 , w2 extending v are conjugate under

Theorem 1.6 (CHEBOTAREV) Let L/K be a finite Galois extension with

In fact, Chebotarev determined a quantitative measure (density) of the set of

Theorem 1.7 (HERMITE) If K/Q is a finite extension that is unramified at all

We will not present here a detailed analysis of totally ramified extensions