In algebraic number theory, the Grunwald–Wang theorem states that—except in some precisely defined exceptional cases—an element x in a number field K is an nth power in K if it is an nth power in the localization for almost all (i.e. all but finitely many) primes of K. For example, a rational number is a square of a rational number if it is a square of a p-adic number for almost all primes p. The Grunwald–Wang theorem is an example of a local-global principle.
It was introduced by Wilhelm Grunwald (1933), but there was a mistake in this original version that was found and corrected by Shianghao Wang (1948).
Contents |
Some days later I was with Artin in his office when Wang appeared. He said he had a counterexample to a lemma which had been used in the proof. An hour or two later, he produced a counterexample to the theorem itself... Of course he [Artin] was astonished, as were all of us students, that a famous theorem with two published proofs, one of which we had all heard in the seminar without our noticing anything, could be wrong.
Grunwald (1933), a student of Hasse, "proved" the erroneous statement that an element in a number field is an nth power if it is an nth power locally almost everywhere. Whaples (1942) gave another "proof" of this incorrect statement. However Wang (1948) discovered the following counter-example: 16 is a p-adic 8th power for all odd primes p, but not a rational (or 2-adic) 8th power. In his doctoral thesis Wang (1950) written under Artin, Wang gave and proved the correct formulation of Grunwald's theorem. This result is what is now known as the Grunwald–Wang theorem. The history of Wang's counterexample is discussed in Roquette (2005, section 5.3)
It is clear that 16 is not a 2-adic 8th power, and hence not a rational 8th power, since the 2-adic valuation of 16 is 4 which is not divisible by 8.
Generally, 16 is an 8th power in a field K if and only if the polynomial has a root in K. Write
Thus, 16 is an 8th power in K if and only if 2, −2 or −1 is a square in K. Let p be any odd prime. It follows from the multiplicativity of the Legendre symbol that 2, −2 or −1 is a square modulo p. Hence, by Hensel's lemma, 2, −2 or −1 is a square in .
16 is not an 8th power in although it is an 8th power locally everywhere (i.e. in for all p). This follows from the above and the equality .
Wang's counter-example has the following interesting consequence showing that one cannot always find a cyclic Galois extension of a given degree of a number field in which finitely many given prime places split in a specified way:
There exists no cyclic degree 8 extension in which the prime 2 is totally inert (i.e. such that has degree 8).
For any let
Note that the th cyclotomic field is
A field is called s-special if it contains , but neither , nor .
Consider a number field K and a natural number n. Let S be a finite (possibly empty) set of primes of K and put
The Grunwald–Wang theorem says that
unless we are in the special case which occurs when the following two conditions both hold:
The failure of the Hasse principle is finite: In the special case, the kernel of
is Z/2.
The field of rational numbers is 2-special since it contains , but neither , nor . The special set is . Thus, the special case in the Grunwald–Wang theorem occurs when n is divisible by 8, and S contains 2. This explains Wang's counter-example and shows that it is minimal. It is also seen that an element in is an nth power if it is a p-adic nth power for all p.
The field is 2-special as well, but with . This explains the other counter-example above.[1]