Here are two things that I have mistakenly believed at various points in my "adult mathematical life":
For a field $k$, we have an equality of formal Laurent series fields $k((x,y)) = k((x))((y))$.
Note that the first one is the fraction field of the formal power series ring $k[[x,y]]$. For instance, for a sequence ${a_n}$ of elements of $k$, $sum_{n=1}^{infty} a_n x^{-n} y^n$ lies in the second field but not necessarily in the first. [Originally I had $a_n = 1$ for all $n$; quite a while after my original post, AS pointed out that that this actually does lie in the smaller field!]
I think this is a plausible mistaken belief, since e.g. the analogous statements for polynomial rings, fields of rational functions and rings of formal power series are true and very frequently used. No one ever warned me that formal Laurent series behave differently!
[Added later: I just found the following passage on p. 149 of Lam's Introduction to Quadratic Forms over Fields: "...bigger field $mathbb{R}((x))((y))$. (This is an iterated Laurent series field, not to be confused with $mathbb{R}((x,y))$, which is usually taken to mean the quotient field of the power series ring $mathbb{R}[[x,y]]$.)" If only all math books were written by T.-Y. Lam...]
Note that, even more than KConrad's example of $mathbb{Q}_p^{operatorname{unr}}$ versus the fraction field of the Witt vector ring $W(overline{mathbb{F}_p})$, conflating these two fields is very likely to screw you up, since they are in fact very different (and, in particular, not elementarily equivalent). For instance, the field $mathbb{C}((x))((y))$ has absolute Galois group isomorphic to $hat{mathbb{Z}}^2$ -- hence every finite extension is abelian -- whereas the field $mathbb{C}((x,y))$ is Hilbertian so has e.g. finite Galois extensions with Galois group $S_n$ for all $n$ (and conjecturally provably every finite group arises as a Galois group!). In my early work on the period-index problem I actually reached a contradiction via this mistake and remained there for several days until Cathy O'Neil set me straight.
Every finite index subgroup of a profinite group is open.
This I believed as a postdoc, even while explicitly contemplating what is probably the easiest counterexample, the "Bernoulli group" $mathbb{B} = prod_{i=1}^{infty} mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$. Indeed, note that there are uncountably many index $2$ subgroups -- because they correspond to elements of the dual space of $mathbb{B}$ viewed as a $mathbb{F}_2$-vector space, whereas an open subgroup has to project surjectively onto all but finitely many factors, so there are certainly only countably many such (of any and all indices). Thanks to Hugo Chapdelaine for setting me straight, patiently and persistently. It took me a while to get it.
Again, I blame the standard expositions for not being more explicit about this. If you are a serious student of profinite groups, you will know that the property that every finite index subgroup is open is a very important one, called strongly complete and that recently it was proven that each topologically finitely generated profinite group is strongly complete. (This also comes up as a distinction between the two different kinds of "profinite completion": in the category of groups, or in the category of topological groups.)
Moreover, this point is usually sloughed over in discussions of local class field theory, in which they make a point of the theorem that every finite index open subgroup of $K^{times}$ is the image of the norm of a finite abelian extension, but the obvious question of whether this includes every finite index subgroup is typically not addressed. In fact the answer is "yes" in characteristic zero (indeed $p$-adic fields have topologically finitely generated absolute Galois groups) and "no" in positive characteristic (indeed Laurent series fields do not, not that they usually tell you that either). I want to single out J. Milne's class field theory notes for being very clear and informative on this point. It is certainly the exception here.
No comments:
Post a Comment