Lectures on

The Theory of Algebraic Functions

of One Variable
by

M. Deuring

Notes by

C.P. Ramanujam

No part of this book may be reproduced in any

form by print, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research, Apollo Pier Road, Bombay - 1

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Bombay
1959

Contents
1 Lecture 1
1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Ordered Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Valuations, Places and Valuation Rings . . . . . . . . . .

1
1
2
3

2 Lecture 2
3
(Contd.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7
7

3 Lecture 3
9
4
The Valuations of Rational Function Field . . . . . . . . 9
5
Extensions of Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Lecture 4
6
Valuations of Algebraic Function Fields . . . . . . . . .
7
The Degree of a Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Independence of Valuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
15
17
18

5 Lecture 5
23
9
Divisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6 Lecture 6
27
10 The Space L(U ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11 The Principal Divisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7 Lecture 7
33
12 The Riemann Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
iii

Contents

iv
13

Repartitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Lecture 8
37
14 Differentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
15 The Riemann-Roch theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Lecture 9
16 Rational Function Fields . . . .
17 Function Fields of Degree Two...
18 Fields of Genus Zero . . . . . .
19 Fields of Genus One . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

45
45
46
50
51

10 Lecture 10
55
20 The Greatest Common Divisor of a Class . . . . . . . . 55
21 The Zeta Function of Algebraic... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
11 Lecture 11
61
22 The Infinite Product for (s, K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
23 The Functional Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
24 L-series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
12 Lecture 12
67
25 The Functional Equation for the L-functions . . . . . . . 67
13 Lecture 13
71
26 The Components of a Repartition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
14 Lecture 14
75
27 A Consequence of the Riemann-Roch Theorem . . . . . 75
15 Lecture 15
28 Classes Modulo F

81
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

16 Lecture 16
85
29 Characters Modulo F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Contents

17 Lecture 17
89
30 L-functions Modulo F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
31 The Functional Equations of the L-functions. . . . . . . 89
18 Lecture 18
97
32 Extensions of Algebraic Function Fields . . . . . . . . . 97
19 Lecture 19
103
33 Application of Galois Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
20 Lecture 20
109
34 Divisors in an Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
35 Ramification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
21 Lecture 21
117
36 Constant Field Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
22 Lecture 22
123
37 Constant Field Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
23 Lecture 23
133
38 Genus of a Constant Field Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 133
39 The Zeta Function of an Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Lecture 1
1 Introduction
We shall be dealing in these lectures with the algebraic aspects of the 1
theory of algebraic functions of one variable. Since an algebraic function w(z) is defined implicitly by an equation of the form f (z, w) = 0,
where f is a polynomial, it is understandable that the study of such functions should be possible by algebraic methods. Such methods also have
the advantage that the theory can be developed in the most general setting, viz. over an arbitrary field, and not only over field of complex
numbers (the classical case).
Definition . Let k be a field. An algebraic function field K over k is
a finitely generated extension over k of transcendence degree at least
equal to one. If the transcendence degree of K/k is r, we say that it is a
function field in r variables.
We shall confine ourselves in these lectures to algebraic function
fields of one variable, and shall refer to them shortly as function fields.
If K/k is a function field, it follows from our definition that there
exists an X in K transcendental over k, such that K/k(X) is a finite algebraic extension. If Y is another transcendental element of k, it should
satisfy a relation F(X, Y) = 0, where F is a polynomial over K which
does not vanish identically. Since Y is transcendental by assumption, 2
the polynomial cannot be independent of X. Rearranging in powers of
X, we see that X is algebraic over k(Y). Moreover,

1. Lecture 1

2
[K : k(Y)] = [K : k(X, Y)].[k(X, Y) : k(Y)]

[K : k(X)].[k(X, Y) : k(Y)] <

and thus Y also satisfies the same conditions as X. Thus, any transcendental element of K may be used as a variable in the place of X.
The set of all elements of K algebraic over k forms a subfield k
of K, which is called the field of constants of K. Hence forward, we
shall always assume, unless otherwise stated, that k = k , i.e., that k is
algebraically closed in K.

2 Ordered Groups
Definition . A multiplicative(additive) Abelian group W with a binary
relation < (>) between its elements is said to be an ordered group if
0(1) for , W, one and only one of the relations < , = , <
( > , = > ) holds.
0(2) < , < < ( > , > > )
0(3) < , W < ( > , W + > + )

We shall denote the identity (zero) element by 1(0). In this and

the following section, we shall express all our results in multiplicative
notation. > shall mean the same thing as < .
Let W0 be the set { : W < 1}. W0 is seen to be a semi group by
0(2) and 0(3). Moreover, W = W0 {1}W01 is a disjoint partitioning of
W (where W01 means the set of inverses of elements of W0 ). Conversely,
if an Abelian group W can be partitioned as W0 {1} W01 , where W0
is a semi-group, we can introduce an order in W by defining < to
mean 1 W0 ; it is immediately verified that 0(1), 0(2) and 0(3) are
fulfilled and that W0 is precisely the set of elements < 1 in this order.
For an Abelian group W, the map n (n any positive integer)
is in general only an endomorphism. But if W is ordered, the map is a
monomorphism; for if is greater than or less than 1, n also satisfies
the same inequality.

3. Valuations, Places and Valuation Rings

3 Valuations, Places and Valuation Rings

We shall denote the non-zero elements of a field K by K .
Definition. A Valuation of a field K is a mapping v of K onto an ordered
multiplicative (additive) group W (called the group of the valuation or
the valuation group) satisfying the following conditions:
V(1) For a, b K , v(ab) = v(a)v(b) (v(ab) = v(a) + v(b)); i.e. v is
homomorphism of the multiplicative group K onto W.
V(2) For a, b, a+b K , v(a+b) max(v(a), v(b)) (v(a+b)) min(v(a)
v(b)))
V(3) v is non-trivial; i.e., there exists an a K with v(a) , 1(v(a) , 0)
Let us add an element 0() to W satisfying the following
(1) 0.0 = .0 = 0. = 0 for every W(+ = + = + = ),
(2) > 0 for every W( < ). If we extend a valuation v to the 4
whole of K by defining v(0) = 0 (v(0) = , the new mapping also
satisfies V(1), V(2) and V(3).
The following are simple consequences of our definition.
(a) For a K, v(a) = v(a). To prove this, it is enough by V(1) to
prove that v(1) = 1. But v(1). v(1) = v(1) = 1 by V(1), and
hence v(1) = 1 by the remark at the end of 2.
(b) If v(a) , v(b), v(a + b) = max(v(a), v(b)). For let v(a) < v(b). Then,
v(a + b) max(v(a), v(b)) = v(b) = v(a + b a) max(v(a +
b), v(a)) = v(a + b)
(c) Let ai K, (i = 1, . . . n). Then an obvious induction on V(2) gives
n
P
n
v( ai ) max v(ai ), and equality holds if v(ai ) , v(a j ) for i , j.
1

i=1

(d) If ai K, (i = 1, . . . n) such that

n
P
1

ai = 0, then v(ai ) = v(a j ) for

at least one pair of unequal indices i and j. For let ai be such that

1. Lecture 1

4
v(ai ) v(ak ) for k , i. Then v(ai ) = v(

n
P

k=1
k,i

ak ) max(v(ak )) = v(a j )
k=1
k,i

for some j , i, which proves that v(ai ) = v(a j ).

P
P
P
Let be a field. By (), we shall mean the set of elements of
together with an abstract element X
with the following properties.
+ = + = for every
.
X
. = . = for every
, , 0.
+ and 0. are not defined.
5

Definition. A place of a field K is a mapping of K into

P
may be any field ) such that

U() (where

P(1) (a + b) = (a) + (b).

P(2) (ab) = (a).(b).

P(3) There exist a, b K such that (a) = and (b) , 0 or .

P(1)andP(2) are to hold whenever the right sides have a meaning.
From this it follows, taking the b of P(3), that (1)(b) = (b), so
that (1) = 1, and similarly (0) = 0.
Consider the set O of elements a K such that (a) , . Then by
P(1), P(2) and P(3), O is a ring which is neither zero nor the whole of
P
P
K, and is a homomorphism of this ring into . Since is a field, the
kernel of this homomorphism is a prime ideal Y of O
1
Let b be an element in K which is not in O . We contend that ( ) =
b
1
0. For if this mere not true, we would get 1 = (1) = (b). ( ) = ,
b
1
by P(2). Thus Y , and thus Y is precisely the set of non-units of
b
O . Since any ideal strictly containing Y should contain a unit, we see
P
that Y is a maximal ideal and hence the image of O in is again a
P
field. We shall therefore always assume that is precisely the image of
P
O by , or that is a mapping onto U().
The above considerations motivate the

3. Valuations, Places and Valuation Rings

Definition . Let K be a field. A valuation ring of K is a proper subring

1
is in O.
6
O of K such that if a K , at least one of the elements a
a
In particular, we deduce that O contains the unity element. Let Y be
the set of non-units in O. Then Y is a maximal ideal. For, let a O, b
1
Y . If ab < Y , ab would be a unit of O, and hence
O. This implies
ab
1
1
= O, contradicting our assumption that b is a non-unit of
that a
ab b
O. Suppose that c is another element of Y . To show that b c Y ,
we may assume that neither of them is zero. Since O is a valuation ring,
c
b
b
bc
b
O. If
at least one of or , say , is in O. Hence, 1 =
c
b
c
c
c
1
bc
1
1
O, and hence

=
O,
b c were not in Y ,
bc
bc
c
c
contradicting our assumption that c Y . Finally, since every element
outside Y is a unit of O, Y is a maximal ideal in O.

Lecture 2
3 (Contd.)
In this lecture, we shall establish the equivalence of the concepts of val- 7
uation, place and valuation ring.
P
P
Two places 1 : K 1 () and 2 : K 2 () are said to
P
P
be equivalent if there exists an isomorphism of 1 , onto 2 such that
2 (a) = 1 (a) for every a, with the understanding that () = .
This is clearly an equivalence relation, and thus, we can put the set
of places of K into equivalence classes. Moreover, equivalent places 1
and 2 obviously define the same valuation rings O1 and O2 . Thus, to
every equivalence class of places is associated a unique valuation ring.
Conversely, let O be any valuation ring and Y its maximal ideal.
P
Let be the quotient field O/Y and the natural homomorphism of
P
P
O onto . It is an easy matter to verify that the map : K U{}
defined by

(a) if a O
(a) =

if a < O

is a place, whose equivalence class corresponds to the given valuation

ring O.
Let v1 and v2 be two valuations of a field K in the ordered group
W1 and W2 . We shall denote the unit elements of both the groups by 1, 8
since it is not likely to cause confusion. We shall say that v1 and v2 are
equivalent if v1 (a) > 1 if and only if v2 (a) > 1.
Let v1 and v2 be two equivalent valuations. From the definition, it
follows, by taking reciprocals, that v1 (a) < 1 if and only if v2 (a) < 1,
7

2. Lecture 2

and hence (the only case left) v1 (a) = 1 if and only if v2 (a) = 1. Let
be any element of W1 . Choose a K such that v1 (a) = (this is
possible since v1 is onto W1 ). Define () = v2 (a). The definition
is independent of the choice of a since if b were another element with
v1 (b) = , then v1 (ab1 ) = 1 so that v2 (ab1 ) = 1, i.e. v2 (a) = v2 (b).
Thus, is a mapping from W1 onto W2 (since v2 is onto W2 ). It is easy
to see that is an order preserving isomorphism of W1 onto W2 and we
have v2 (a) = (.v1 )(a) for every a K . Thus, we see that the definition
of equivalence of valuations can also be cast into a form similar to that
for places.
Again, equivalence of valuations is an equivalence relation, and we
shall that equivalence classes of valuations of a field K correspond canonically and biunivocally to valuation rings of the field K.
Let v be a valuation and O be the set of elements a in K such that
v(a) 1. It is an immediate consequence
! of the definition that O is a
1
1
ring. Also, if a K, v(a) > 1, then v
< 1 and hence O. Thus, O
a
a
is a valuation ring. Also, if v1 and v2 are equivalent, the corresponding
rings are the same.
Suppose conversely that O is a valuation ring in K and Y its maximal ideal. The set difference O Y is the set of units of O and hence
a subgroup of the multiplicative group K . Let : K K /O Y
be the natural group homomorphism. Then (O ) is obviously a semigroup and the decomposition K /O Y = (O ) {1}U (O )1 is
disjoint, Hence, we can introduce an order in the group K /O Y and
it is easy to verify that is a valuation on K whose valuation ring is
precisely O.
Summarising, we have
Theorem. The valuations and places of a field K are, upto equivalence,
in canonical correspondence with the valuation rings of the field.

Lecture 3
4 The Valuations of Rational Function Field
Let K = k(X) be a rational function field over k ; i.e., K is got by ad- 10
joining to k a single transcendental element X over k. We seek for all
the valuations v of K which are trivial on k, that is, v(a) = 1 for every
a K . It is easily seen that these are the valuations which correspond
to places whose restrictions to k are monomorphic.
We shall henceforward write all our ordered groups additively.
P
Let be a place of K = k(X) onto (). We consider two cases

Case 1. Let (X) = , . Then, the polynomial ring k[X] is contained

in O , and Y k[X] is a prime ideal in k[X]. Hence, it should be of
the form (p(X)), where p(X) is an irreducible polynomial in X. Now, if
g(X)
r(X) K, it can be written in the form r(X) = (p(X))
, where g(X)
h(X)
and h(X) are coprime and prime to p(X). Let us agree to denote the
P
image in of an element c in k by c , and that of a polynomial f over k
by f. Then,we clearly have

0
if > o

g()
(r(x)) =
if = 0

h()

if < 0

Conversely, suppose p(X) is an irreducible polynomial in k[X] and 11

a root of p(X). The above equations then define a mapping of k(X)
onto k() {}, which is a place, as is verified easily. We have thus
determined all places of k(X) under case 1 (upto equivalence).
9

3. Lecture 3

10

If Z is the additive group of integers with the natural order, the valuation v associated with the place above is given by v(r(X)) = .
1
Case 2. Suppose now that (X) = . Then ( ) = 0. Then since K =
X
1
k(X) = k( ), we see that is determined by an irreducible polynomial
X
1
1
p( ), and since ) = 0, p(Y) should divide Y. Thus, p(Y) must be Y
X
X
(except for a constant in k), and if
a0 + a1 x + + an xn
, an , bm , 0,
b0 + b1 x + + bm xm

o
a
a
0
1

1 mn xn + n1 + + an

an
x
(X)

(r(X)) =
=

bm
b0
b1

xm + xm1 + + bm

r(X) =

if m > n
if m = n
if m < n

The corresponding valuation with values in Z is given by v(r(X)) =

m n = deg r(X), where the degree of a rational function is defined in
the degree of the numerator-the degree of the denominator.
We shall say that a valuation is discrete if the valuation group may
be taken to be Z. We have in particular proved that all valuations of a
rational function field trivial over the constant field are discrete. We shall
extend this result later to all algebraic function fields of one variable.

5 Extensions of Places
12

P
Given a field K, a subfield L and a place L of L into , we wish to
P
P
prove in this section that there exists a place K of K into 1 , where 1
P
is a field containing and the restriction of K to L is L . Such a K is
called an extension of the place L to K. For the proof of this theorem,
we require the following
Lemma (Chevalley). Let K be a field, O a subring and a homomorphism of O into a field which we assume to be algebraically closed.
Let q be any element of K , and O[q] the ring generated by O and q in

5. Extensions of Places

11

K. Then can be extended into a homomorphism of at least one of

1
the rings O[q], O[ ], such that restricted to O coincides with .
q
Proof. We may assume that is not identically zero. Since the image
of O is contained in a field, the kernelof is a prime ideal
 Y which is
a
1
a, b O, b < Y . Clearly, O 1
not the whole ring O. Let O = O
b
is a ring with unit, and
has a unique extension to O 1 as a homomora  (a)
phism, give by
=
. The image by is then the quotient field
b
(b)
P
of (O). We shall denote (a)

by a for a O 1 .

P
Let X and X be indeterminates over O 1 and respectively. can
P
be extended uniquely to a homomorphism of O 1 [X] onto [X]
which
takes X to X by defining
(a
0 + a1 X + + an X n ) = a 0 + a 1 X + + a n X n .
Let U be the ideal O 1 [X] consisting of all polynomials which van- 13
P
ish for X = q, and let U be the ideal (U
) in [X].
We consider three
cases.
Case 1. Let U = (0). In this case, we define (q) to be any fixed
element of . is uniquely determined on all other elements of O 1 [q]
by the requirement that it be a ring homomorphism which is an extension
of .
In order that it be well defined, it is enough to verify that if any
polynomial over O 1 vanishes for q, its image by vanishes for (q).
But this is implied by our assumption.
P
where f is a nonCase 2. Let U , (0), , [X].
Then U = ( f (X)),
P
in (there is a
constant polynomial over . Let be any root f (X)
root in since is algebraically closed). Define (q) = . This can be
extended uniquely to a homomorphism of O 1 [q], since the image by of
f (X),
and therefore
any polynomial vanishing for q is of the form f (X)

vanishes for X = .
P
Then the homomorphism clearly cannot
Case 3. Suppose U = [X].
1
1
be extended to O [q]. Suppose now that it cannot be extended to O 1 [ ]
q

12

14

3. Lecture 3

either. Then if denotes the ideal of all polynomials in O 1 [X] which

P
1
vanish for , and if is the ideal ()in

[X], we should have =

q
P
[X]. Hence, there exist polynomials f (X) = a0 + a1 X + + an X!n and
1
= 0.
b0 + b1 X + + bm X m such that (
f (X)) = (g(X))

= 1, f (q) = g
q
We may assume that f and g are of minimal degree n and m satisfying
the required conditions. Let us assume that m n. Then, we have
a 0 = b 0 = 1, a i = b j = 1 for i, j > 0. Let g0 (X) = b0 X m + + bm .
Applying the division algorithm to the polynomials bn0 f (X) and g0 (X),
we obtain
bn0 f (X) = g0 (X)Q(X) + R(X), Q(X), R(X) O 1 [X], deg R < m.
Substituting X = q, we obtain R(q) = 0. Also, acting with ,
we
have
= g 0 (X)
Q(
X)
+ R(
X)
= Q(
X)
X m + R(
X),

1 = b n0 f(X)
X)
= 0, R(
X)
= 1. Thus, R(X) is a polynoand hence, we deduce that Q(
X)
= 1, and deg F(X) < m n, which contradicts
mial with R(q) = 0, R(
our assumption on the minimality of the degree of f (X). Our lemma is
thus prove.
We can now prove the
Theorem. Let K be a field and O a subring of K. Let be a homomorphism of O in an algebraically closed field . Then it can be extended
either to a homomorphism of K in or to a place of K in (). In
particular, any place of a subfield of K can be extended to a place of K.
Proof. Consider the family of pairs { , O }, where O is a subring if
K containing O and a homomorphism of O in extending on O.
The family is non-empty, since it contains (, O). We introduce a partial
order in this family by defining ( , O ) > ( , O ) if O O and
is an extension of .


15

The family clearly being inductive, it has a maximal element by

Zorns lemma. Let us denote it by (, O). O is either the whole of K or

5. Extensions of Places

13

a valuation ring of K. For if not, there exists a q K such that neither

1
q nor belongs to O. we may then extend to a homomorphism of
q
" #
1
in . Since both these rings contain O
at least one of O[q] or O
q
strictly, this contradicts the maximality of (, O).
If O were not the whole of K, must vanish on every non! - unit of
1
1
O; for if q were a non-unit and (q) , 0, we may define
=
q
(q)
" #
1
, which again contradicts
and extend this to a homomorphism of O
q
the maximality of O. This proves that can be extended to a place of
K by defining it to be outside O.
In particular, a place of a subfield L of K , when considered as a
homomorphism of its valuation ring O and extended to K, gives a place
on K; for if where a homomorphism of the whole of K in , it should
be an isomorphism (since the kernel, being a proper ideal in K, should
be the zero ideal). But being an extension of , the kernel contains at
least one non-zero element.
Corollary . If K/k is an algebraic function field and X any element of
K transcendental over k, there exists at least one valuation v for which
v(X) > 0.
Proof. We have already shown in the previous section that there exists
a place Y1 in k(X) such that vY1 (X) > 0. If we extend this place Y1 to a
place Y of K, we clearly have vY (X) > 0.


Lecture 4
6 Valuations of Algebraic Function Fields
It is our purpose in this paragraph to prove that all valuations of an al- 16
gebraic function field K which are trivial on the constant field k are
discrete. Henceforward, when we talk of valuations or places of an algebraic function field K, we shall only mean those which are trivial on k.
Valuations will always be written additively. We require some lemmas.
Lemma 1. Let K/L be a finite algebraic extension of degree [K : L] = n
and let v be a valuation on K with valuation group V. If V denotes the
subgroup of V which is the image of L under v and m the index of V in
V, we have m n.
Proof. It is enough to prove that of any n + 1 elements 1 , . . . n+1 of V,
at least two lie in the same coset modulo V .

Choose ai K such that v(ai ) = i (i = 1, . . . n + 1). Since there can
be at most n linearly independent elements of K over L, we should have
n+1
X

li ai = 0, li L, not all li being zero .

i=1

This implies that v(li ai ) = y(l j a j ) for some i and j, i , j (see Lecture
1, 3). Hence, we deduce that
v(li ) + v(ai ) = v(li ai ) = v(l j a j ) = v(l j ) + v(a j ),
i j = v(ai ) v(a j ) = v(l j ) v(li ) V
15

4. Lecture 4

16

and i and j are in the same coset modulo V . Our lemma is proved.
17
Let V be an ordered abelian group. We shall say that V is archimedean if for any pair of elements , in V with > 0, there corresponds
an integer n such that n > . We shall call any valuation with value
group archimedean an archimedean valuation.
Lemma 2. An ordered group V is isomorphic to Z if and only if (i) it is
archimedean and (ii) there exists an element > 0 in V such that it is
the least positive element; i.e., > 0 .
Proof. The necessity is evident. Now, let be any element of V.

Then by assumption, there exists a smallest integer n such that n

< (n + 1). Thus,
0 n < (n + 1) n = ,
and since is the least positive element, we have = n. The mapping
V n Z is clearly an order preserving isomorphism, and the
lemma is proved.
Lemma 3. If a subgroup V of finite index of an ordered group V is
isomorphic to Z, V is itself isomorphic to Z.


Proof. Let the index be V : V = n. Let , be any two elements of
V, with > 0. Then n and n are in V , n > 0.

18

Since V is archimedean, there exists an integer m such that mn >

n, from which it follows that m > .
Again, consider the set of positive elements in V. Then n are in
V and are positive, and hence contain a least element n (since there is
an order preserving isomorphism between V and Z). Clearly, is then
the least positive element of V.
V is therefore isomorphic to Z, by Lemma 2.
We finally have the
Theorem. All valuations of an algebraic function field K are discrete.

7. The Degree of a Place

17



Proof. If X is any transcendental element of K/k , the degree K : k(X)

< . Since we know that all valuations of k(X) are discrete, our result
by applying Lemma 1 and Lemma 3.


7 The Degree of a Place

Let Y be a place of an algebraic function field K with constant field k
onto the field kY . Since Y is an isomorphism when restricted to k,
we may assume that kY is an extension of k. We shall moreover assume
that kY is the quotient OY /MY where OY is the ring of the place Y
and MY the maximal ideal. We now prove the
Theorem. Let Y be a place of an algebraic function field. Then kY /k is
an algebraic extension of finite degree.
Proof. Choose an element X , 0 in K such that Y (X) = 0. Then X
should
since Y is trivial on the field of constants.
 be transcendental,

Let K : k(X) = n < . Let 1 , . . . n+1 be any (n + 1) elements of 19

kY . Then, we should have i = Y (ai ) for some ai K(i = 1, . . . n + 1).

There therefore exist polynomials fi (X) in k[X] such that
n+1
P
fi (X)ai = 0, not all fi (X) having constant term zero.

i=1

Writing fi (X) = li + Xgi (X), we have

n+1
X
i=1

li ai = X

n+1
X

ai gi (X), and taking

i=1

n+1
n+1
P
P
the Y -image,
li i = Y (X)
ai gi (Y X) = 0, li k, not all li being
i=1
i=1
zero.
Thus, we deduce that the degree of kY /k is at most n.
The degree fY of kY over k is called the degree of the place Y .
Note that fY is always 1. If the constant field is algebraically closed
(e.g. in the case of the complex number field), fY = 1, since kY , being
an algebraic extension of k, should coincide with k.

4. Lecture 4

18

Finally, we shall make a few remarks concerning notation.

If Y is a place of an algebraic function field, we shall denote the corresponding valuation with values in Z by vY (vY is said to be a normed
valuation at the place Y ). The ring of the place shall be denoted by
OY and its unique maximal ideal by Y . (This is not likely to cause any
confusion).

8 Independence of Valuations
20

In this section, we shall prove certain extremely useful result on valuations of an arbitrary field K.
Theorem. Let K be an arbitrary field and vi (i = 1, . . . n) a set of valuations on K with valuation rings Oi such that Oi 1 O j if i , j. There is
then an element X K such that v1 (X) 0, vi (X) < 0 (i = 1, . . . n).
Proof. We shall use induction. If n = 2, since O1 1 O2 , there is an
X O1 , X < O2 , and this X satisfies the required conditions. Suppose
now that the theorem is true for n 1 instead of n. Then there exists a
Y K such that
v1 (Y) 0, vi (Y) < 0 (i = 2, . . . n 1).

Since O1 nsubsetOn , we can find a Z K such that
v1 (Z) 0, vn (Z) < 0
Let m be a positive integer. Put X = Y + Z m . Then
v1 (Y + Z m ) min(v1 (Y), mv1 (Z)) 0
Now suppose r is one of the integers 2, 3, . . . n. If vr (Z) 0, r cannot
be n, and since vr (Y) < 0, we have
vr (Y + Z m ) = vr (Y) < 0.

8. Independence of Valuations
21

19

If vr (Z) < 0 and vr (Y + Z mr ) 0 for some mr , for m > mr we have

vr (Y + Z m ) = vr (Y + Z mr + Z m Z mr ) = min(vr (Y + Z mr ), vr (Z m Z mr )),
and vr (Z m Z mr ) = vr (Z mr ) + vr (1 Z mmr ) = mr vr (Z) < 0,
Since vr (1 Z mmr ) = vr (1) = 0
Thus, vr (Y + Z m ) < 0 for large enough m in any case. Hence X
satisfies the required conditions.
If we assume that the valuations vi of the theorem are archimedean,
then the hypothesis that Oi 1 O j for i , j can be replaced by the weaker
one that the valuations are inequivalent (which simply states that Oi ,
O j for i , j).
To prove this, we have only to show that if v and v1 are two archimedean valuations such that the corresponding valuation rings O and O 1
satisfy O O 1 , then v and v1 are equivalent.
For, consider an element
!
1
1
< 0, and consequently is not
a K such that v(a) > 0. Then, v
a !
a
1
< 0, v1 (a) > 0. Conversely,
in O, and hence not in O 1 . Thus, v1
a
suppose a K and v1 (a) > 0. Then by assumption, v(a) 0. Suppose
now that v(a) = 0. Find b K such that v(b) < 0. If n is any positive
integer, we have v(an b) = nv(a) + v(b) < 0, an b < O.
But since v1 is archimedean and v1 (a) > 0, for large enough n we
have
v1 (an b) = nv1 (a) + v1 (b) > 0 , an b O 1 .
22

This contradicts our assumption that O 1 O, and thus, v(a) >

0. Hence v and v1 are equivalent. Under the assumption that the vi
archimedean, we can replace in the theorem above the first inequality
V1 (X) 0 even by the strict inequality v1 (X) > 0. To prove this let
X1 K satisfy v1 (X1 ) 0, vi (X1 ) < 0, i > 1. Let Y be an element in
K with v1 (Y) > 0. Then, if X = X1 m Y, where m is a sufficiently large
positive integer, we have
v1 (X) = v1 (X1m Y) = mv1 (X1 ) + v1 (Y) > 0,
vi (X) = vi (X1m Y) = mvi (X1 ) + vi (Y) < 0, i = 2, . . . , n.

4. Lecture 4

20

We shall hence forward assume that all valuations considered are

archimedean. To get the strongest form of our theorem, we need two
lemmas.
Lemma 1. If vi (i = 1, . . . n) are inequivalent archimedean valuations,
and i are elements of the corresponding valuations group, we can find
Xi (i = 1, . . . n) in K such that vi (Xi 1) > i , v j (Xi ) > j , i , j
Proof. Choose Yi K such that
vi (Yi ) > 0, v j (Yi ) < 0 for j , i.
1
. Then, if m is chosen large enough, we have (since the
1 + Yim
valuation are archimedean)
Put Xi =

v j (Xi ) = v j (1 + Yim ) = mv j (Yi ) > j ,

23

i, j

Yim
) = mvi (Yi ) vi (1 + Yim ) = mvi (Yi ) > i .
1 + Yim
since v i(1 + Yim ) = 0.

and vi (Xi 1) = vi (

A set of valuations vi (i = 1, . . . n) are said to be independent if given

any set of elements ai K and any set of elements i in the respective
valuation groups of vi , we can find an X K such that
vi (X ai ) > i .
We then have the following
Lemma 2. Any finite set of inequivalent archimedean valuations are
independent.
Proof. Suppose vi (i = 1, . . . n) is a given set of inequivalent archimedean
valuations. If ai K and i are elements of the valuation group of the
n

vi , put i = i min vi (a j ). Choose Xi as in Lemma 1 for the vi and i .

j=1

Put X =

n
P

ai Xi . Then

X
n
vi (X ai ) = vi a j X j + ai (Xi 1) > i + min vi (a j ) = i ,
j=1
j,i

8. Independence of Valuations
and our lemma is proved.

21


Finally, we have the following theorem, which we shall refer to in

future as the theorem of independence of valuations.
Theorem . If vi (i = 1, . . . n) are inequivalent archimedean valuations,
i is an element of the value group of vi for every i, and ai are given 24
elements of the field, there exists an element X of the field such that
vi (X ai ) = i
Proof. Choose Y by lemma 2 such that vi (Y ai ) > i . Find bi K such
that vi (bi ) = i and an Z K such that vi (Z bi ) > i . Then it follows
that vi (Z) = min(vi (Z bi ), vi (bi )) = i .

Put X = Y + Z. Then,
vi (X ai ) = vi (Z + Y ai ) = vi (Z) = i ,
and X satisfies the conditions of the theorem.
Corollary. There are an infinity of places of any algebraic function field.
Proof. Suppose there are only a finite number of places Y1 , . . . , Yn . 
Choose an X such that vYi (X) > 0 (i = 1, . . . n). Then, vYi (X +
1) = vYi (1) = 0 for all the places , Yi , which is impossible since X an
consequently X + 1 is a transcendental element over k.

Lecture 5
9 Divisors
Let K be an algebraic function field with constant field k. We make the

25

Definition . A divisor of K is an element of the free abelian group generated by the set of places of K. The places themselves are called prime
divisors.
The group of divisors shall be written multiplicatively. Any element U of the group of divisors can be written in the form
Y
Y vY (U )
U =
Y

where the product is taken over all prime divisors Y of K, and the
vY (U ) are integers, all except a finite number of which are zero. The
divisor is denoted by n.
We say that a divisor U is integral if vY (U ) 0, for every Y , and
that U divides if U 1 is integral. Thus, U divides if and only if
vY () vY (U ) for every Y .
Two divisors U and are said to be coprime if vY (U , 0 implies
that vY () = 0.
The degree d(U ) of a divisor U is the integer
X
fY vY (U ),
d(U ) =
Y

where fY is the degree of the place Y .

23

26

5. Lecture 5

24

The map U d(U ) is a homomorphism of the group of divisors

into the additive group of integers. The kernel of this homomorphism
is the subgroup of divisors of degree zero.
An element X of K is said to be divisible by the divisor U if vY (X)
vY (U ) for every Y . Two elements X, Y K are said to be congruent
modulo a divisor U (written X ( mod U )) if X Y is divisible by
U.
Let S be a set prime divisors of K. Then we shall denote by (U /S )
the set of elements X K such that vY (X) vY (U ) for every Y in S .
It is clear that (U /S ) is a vector space over the constant field k, and
also that if U divides , (/S ) (U /S ). Also, if S and S 1 are two
sets of prime divisors such that S S 1 , then (U /S 1 ) (U /S )).
Finally, (U /S ) = (/S ) if U 1 contains no Y belonging to S with
a non-zero exponent.
If S is a set of prime divisor which is fixed in a discussion and U a
divisor, we shall denote by U the new divisor got from U by omitting
Q vY (U )
all Y which do not occur in S : U =
Y
Y S

Theorem . Let S be a finite set of prime divisors and U , two divisors

such that U divides . Then,
dimk
27

(U /S )
= d( ) d(U ) = d( U1 ).
(/S )

Proof. By our remark above, we may assume that U = U and = .

Moreover, it is clearly sufficient to prove the theorem when =
U Y , where Y is a prime divisor belonging to S . For, if = U Y1 ..Yn
we have
dimk

(U /S )
(U /S )
= dimk
+
(/S )
(U Y1 /S )
(UY1 Yn1 /S
(U Y1 /S )
dimk
+ + dimk
(U Y1 Y2 /S )
(/S )

and d() d(U ) = d(Y1 ) + d(Y2 ) + + d(Yn ).

Hence, we have to prove that if U is a divisor such that all the

prime divisors occurring in it with non-zero exponents are in S , and Y

9. Divisors

25

any prime divisor in S , we have

dimk

(U /S )
= fY = f.
(U Y /S )

By the theorem on independence of valuations, we may choose an

element u K such that
28
vU (u) = vU (U ) for all U in S .
If X1 , X2 , . . . X f +1 are any f + 1 elements of (U /S ), the elements
X1 u1 , . . . X f +1 u1 are all in UY . But since the degree of kU = OY /Y
over k is f , we have
f +1
X

ai Xi u1 Y , ai k, not all ai being zero .

i=1

Hence,

fP
+1
i=1

ai Xi (U Y /S ), ai k, not all ai being zero, thus

(U /S )
is f .
(U Y /S )
Now, suppose Y1 , . . . Y f are f elements of OY such that they are linearly independent over k modulo Y . ChooseYi1 K such that

proving that the dimension over k of the quotient

vY (Yi1 Yi ) > 0, vU (Yi1 ) 0 for U , Y , U S .(i = 1, f ).

By the first condition, Yi1 Yi ( mod Y ), and hence Yi and Yi1 determine the same element in kY . But by the second condition, the elements uYi1 belong to (U /S ), and since Y1 , . . . Y f are linearly independent mod Y , no linear combination of uY11 , . . . uY 1f with coefficients
in k- at least one of which is non-zero-can lie in (U Y /S ). Thus,
(U /S )
f.
dimk
(U Y /S )
This proves our theorem.

Lecture 6
10 The Space L(U )
Let U be any divisor of an algebraic function field K.
29
We shall denote by L(U ) the set of all elements of K which are
divisible by U . Clearly L(U ) = (U /S ) if S is the set of all prime
divisors of K, and thus we deduce that L(U ) is a vector space over k and
if U divides , L(U ) L(). We now prove the following important
Theorem . For any divisor U , the vector space L(U ) is finite dimensional over k. If we denote its dimension by l(U ), and if U divides ,
we have
l(U ) + d(U ) l() + d().
Proof. Let S be the set of prime divisors occurring in U or .
Then, it easy to see that
L() = L(U ) (/S )
Hence, by Noethers isomorphism theorem,
L(U )
L(U ) + (/S ) L(U /S )
L(U )
=

,
L()
L(U ) (/S )
L(/S )
(/S )
(U /S )
L(U )
dimk
= d() d(U )
and therefore, dimk
L()
(/S )
Now, choose for any integral divisor which is a multiple of U and
is not the unit divisor n. Then, L() = (0); for if X were a non-zero
element of L( ), it cannot be a constant since vY (X) vY () > 0 for
27

6. Lecture 6

28

at least one Y , and it cannot be transcendental over k since vY (X) 30

vY () 0 for all Y .

This is not possible. This together with the above inequality proves
that dimk L(U ) = l(U ) < , and our theorem is completely proved.
Since L(N ) clearly contains only the constants, l(N ) = 1.

11 The Principal Divisors

We shall now associate to every non-zero element of K a divisor. For
this, we need the
Theorem . Let X K . Then there are only a finite number of prime
divisors Y with vY (X) , 0.
Proof. If X k, vY (X) = 0 for all Y and the theorem is valid.
Hence assume that X is transcendental over k. Let [K : k(X)] = N.
Suppose Y1 , . . . Yn are prime divisors for which vYi (X) > 0. Let =
n
Q
Yi vYi (X), and S = {Y1 , . . . Yn }.


i=1

Then, dimk

(N /S )
(/S )

= () =

n
P

i=1

fYi vYi (X). We shall show that this is

at most equal to N.
Let in fact Y1 , . . . , YN+1 be any (N + 1) elements of (N /S ). Since
N+1
P
[K : k(X)] = N, we should have
f j (X)Y j = 0, f j (X) k[X], with
j=1

at least one f j having a non-zero constant term. Writing f j (X) = a j +

N+1
N+1
P
P
Xg j (X), the above relation may be rewritten as
a j Y j = X
gj
1

(X)Y j , not all a j being zero, and hence

N+1
N+1

X
X

vY
g j (X)Y j vY (X)
a j Y j = vY (X) + vY
1

31

11. The Principal Divisors

This proves that

N+1
P
1

n
X

29

a j Y j (/S ), and therefore

fYi vYI (X) = d() = dimk

i=1

(N /S )
N,
(/S )

1
By considering instead of X, we deduce that the number of prime
X
divisors Y for which vY (X) < 0 is also finite, and our theorem follows.
The method of defining the divisor (X) corresponding to an element
X K is now dear. We define the numerator zX of X to be the divisor
Q
Y vY (X) (the product being taken over all Y for which vY (X) >
vY (X)>0
Q
0), the denominator NX of X to be the divisor
Y vY (X) , and the
Q

vY (X)

vY (X)<0
zX

.
NX
If X, Y K , clearly (XY) = (X)(Y) and (X 1 ) = (X)1 . Thus,
the principal divisors form a subgroup Z of the group of divisors .

is called the group of divisor classes. The

The quotient group R =
Z
following sequence of homomorphisms is easily seen to be exact (i.e.,
the image of a homomorphism is equal to the kernel of the next).

principal divisor (X) of X to be

vy (X),0

1 k K R 1.
In the course of the proof of the above theorem, we proved the inequalities d(N x ) N, d(zx ) N, for a transcendental X, where [K :
k(X)] = N.
We will now show that equality holds
32
Theorem . Let X be a transcendental element of K, and put N = [K :
k(X)]. Then,
d(zX ) = d(NX ) = N.
In order to prove the theorem, we shall first prove a lemma. We
shall say that Y K is an integral algebraic function of X, if it satisfies
a relation
Y m + fm1 (X)Y m1 + + fo (X) = o, fi (X) k[X].

6. Lecture 6

30
We then have the

Lemma. If Y is an integral algebraic function of X, and a prime divisor

Y does not divide NX , it does not divide NY .
Proof. Since Y does not divide NX , vY (X) 0, and hence
mvY (Y) = vY (Y m ) = vY ( fm1 (X)Y m1 +
m1

+ f0 (X)) min(vY (Y)) = 0 vY (Y),

=0

for some 0 such that 0 0 m 1. This proves that (m 0 )vY (Y)

0, vY (Y) 0, and therefore Y does not divide NY . Now, let Y be any
element of K satisfying the equation
fm (X)Y m + + f0 (X) = 0
Then, the element Z = fm (X)Y satisfying the equation
Z m + gm1 (X)Z m1 + + go (X) = 0,
33

where gk (X) = fk (X) fmmk1 (x), and hence Z is an integral function of

X

Suppose then that Y1 , . . . YN is a basis of K/k(X). By the above
remark, we any assume that the Yi are integral functions of X. The
elements X i Y j (i = 0, . . . t; j = 1, . . . N) are then linearly independent
over k, for any non-negative integer t. By the above lemma, we can find
integer s such that NXs (Y j ) are integral divisors. Hence, NXs+t (X i )(Y j )
is an integral divisor for (i = 0, . . . t, j = 1, . . . N), which implies that
X i Y j are elements of L(NXst ). Since these are linearly independent
and N(t + 1) in number, we obtain
N(t + 1) 1(NXst ) l(N ) + d(N ) d(NXst ) = 1 + (s + t)d(N x ),
the latter inequality holding because NXst divides N .
Nt + N 1
N as t , which taken together
Thus, d(NX )
s+t
with the opposite inequality we proved earlier shows that d(NX ) = N.
It is clearly sufficient to show that d(NX ) = N, since the other fol1
lows on replacing X by and observing that k(X) = k(1/X).
X

11. The Principal Divisors

31

Corollary 1. If X K , d((X)) = 0. This is clear when X is a constant.

If X be a variable, d((X)) = d(zX ) d(NX ) = N N = 0. Hence we get
the exact sequence
1 k K R0 1,
0
where 0 is the group of divisor of degree zero and R0 =
is the group
Z
of divisor classes of degree zero.
Corollary 2. Suppose C R is a class of divisors. IF U , are two
divisors of this class, there exists an X K such that U = (X).
Hence, d(U ) = d((X)) + d() = d(), and therefore we may define the 34
degree d(C) of the class C to be the degree of any one of its divisors.
Corollary 3. If X is any transcendental element, there exists an integer
Q dependent only on X such that for all integral m, we have
l(NXm ) + d(NXm ) Q.
Proof. We saw in the course of the proof of the theorem that for t 0,
l(NXst ) N(t + 1) = d(NX )(t + 1),
and writing m = s + t, we obtain for m s,
l(NXm ) + d(NXm ) (1 s)d(NX ) = Q.
For m < s, since NXs divides NXm , we have
l(NXm ) + d(NXm ) l(NXs ) + d(NXs ) Q.


Lecture 7
12 The Riemann Theorem
In the last lecture, we saw that if X is any element of K, the integer 35
l(N m ) + d(NXm ) remains bounded below as m runs through all integral values. We now prove the following stronger result, known as
Riemanns theorem.
Theorem . Let X be any transcendental element of K and (1 g) the
lower bound of l(NXm ) + d(NXm ). Then, for any divisor U ,
l(U ) + d(U ) 1 g.
Proof. Let U = U1 U21 , where U1 and U2 are integral divisors. Then
clearly U21 divides U , and we have
l(U ) + D(U ) l(U21 ) + d(U21 ).
It is therefore enough to prove the inequality with U21 in the place
of U .

The key to the proof lies in the statement that l() + d() is unaltered
when we replace by (Z), where (Z) is a principal divisor. To prove
this, consider the map defined on L() by
Y L() YZ
This is clearly a k-isomorphism of the vector space L() onto the
vector space L((Z)). This proves that l() = l((Z)), and since we
already know that d() = d((Z)), our statement follows.
33

7. Lecture 7

34

Observe now that for any non-negative integer m, we have l(NXm 36

U2 ) + d(NXm U2 ) l(NXm ) + d(NXm ) l g. Since X is transcendental, d(NX ) > 0 and it follows that for large enough m,
l(NXm U2 ) md(NX d(U2 ) + l g > 0
For such an m therefore, there exists a non-zero element Z in L(NXm
U ). This clearly means that the divisor (Z)NXm U21 is integral, or that
NXm divides (Z)U21 . Hence, we deduce that
l(U21 ) + d(U21 ) = l((Z)U21 ) + d((Z)U21 )
1(NXm ) + d(NXm ) l g
which proves our theorem.
The integer g is called the genus of the field. Since
1 + 0 = l(N ) + d(N ) 1 g,
it follows that g is always non-negative. The integer (U 1 ) = l(U ) +
d(U ) + g 1, which is non-negative by the above theorem, is called the
degree of speciality of the divisor U . We say that U is a non-special or
special divisor according as (U 1 ) is or is not equal to zero. We shall
interpret (U 1 ) later. Incidentally, we have proved that if U is any
divisor and X K , the dimensions of the spaces L(U (X)) and L(U )
are the same.
This enables us to define the dimension of a divisor classC. Choose
any element U 1 in C and define the dimension N(C) of C to be l(U ).
By the remark, this is independent of the choice of U 1 in C.

13 Repartitions
37

We now consider the following question, to which we are led naturally

by the theorem of 7. If for every place Y of K, we are given an element
XY of K, can we find an X in K such that vY (XXY ) 0 holds for every
Y ? A necessary condition for such an X to exist is that vY (XY ) 0
for all but a finite number of Y . For, suppose vY (XY ) < 0 for some Y .
Then, since vY (X XY ) 0,
vY (X) = vY (X XY + XY ) = min(vY (X XY ), vY (XY )) = vY (XY ) < O,

13. Repartitions

35

and this can hold for at most a finite number of Y . We now make the
following
Definition . A repartition C is a mapping Y GY of the set of prime
divisors Y of K into the field K such that vY (CY ) o for all but a finite
number of Y .
We can define the operations of addition and multiplication in the
space X of repartitions in an obvious manner. If C and G are two repartitions, and a an element of the constant field k,
(C + G )Y = CY + GY , (C G )Y = CY GY , (aC )Y = aCY .
The newly defined mappings are immediately verified to be repartitions. Thus, X becomes an algebra over the field k. We can imbed
the field K in X by defining for every X K the repartition CX by the
equations (CX )Y = X for every Y . The condition for this to be a repartition clearly holds, and one can easily verify that this is an isomorphic 38
imbedding of K in the algebra X.
We can now extend to repartitions the valuations of the field K by
defining for every place Y ,
vY (C ) = vY (CY ).
Clearly, we have the following relations
vY (C G ) = vY (C ) + vY (G )
vY (C + G ) min(vY (C ), vY (G )),
and vY (CX ) = vY (X)
This leads to the notion of the divisibility of a repartition C by a
divisor U . We shall say that C is divisible by U if vY (C ) vY (U )
for every Y , and that C and G are congruent modulo U (C G (U ) in
symbols) if C G is divisible by U .
The problem posed at the beginning of this article may be restated
in the following generalised form. Given a repartition C and a divisor
U , to find an element X of the field such that X C (U ). (The original
problem is the case U = N ).
If U is a divisor, let us denote by (U ) the vector space (over k) of
all repartitions divisible by U . Then we have the following

7. Lecture 7

36

Theorem . If U and are two divisors such that U divides , then

(U ) () and
dimk
39

(U )
= d() d(U ).
()

Proof. Let S denote the set of prime divisors occurring in either U or

(U /S )
with a non-zero exponent. Since dimk
= d() d(U ), it is
(/S )
(U /S )
(U )
enough to set up an isomorphism of
onto the space
. 
(/S )
()
If x (U , /S ), define a repartition Gx as follows:

X if Y S
(GX )Y =

0 if Y < S

Clearly, GX (U ), and X GX is a k-homomorphism of (U /S )

into (U ). The image of an element X (U /S ) lies in () if and
only if vY (X) vY () for every Y S , i.e., if and only if X (/S ).
(U )
(U /S )
into
. We shall show
Thus, we have an isomorphism of
(/S )
()
that this is onto. Given any repartition C (U ), find X K such that
vY (X C ) vY () for every Y S .
This means that the repartition GX C is an element of (). Also,
the above condition implies that for Y S , vY (X) min(vY (C ),
vY ()) vY (U ). Thus, X is an element of (U /S ) and its image in
(U )
is the coset C + (). Our theorem is thus proved.
()

Lecture 8
14 Differentials
In this article, we wish to introduce the important notion of a differential 40
of an algebraic function field. As a preparation, we prove the
Theorem. If U and are two divisors and U divides , then
(U ) + K
= (l() + d()) (l(U ) + d(U ))
() + K
X
dimk
= (U 1 ) = l(U ) + d(U ) + g 1.
(U ) + K

dimk
and

Proof. We have
(U ) + K (U ) + (() + K)
(U )
=

() + K
() + K
(() + K) (U )
But it is easily verified that (() + K) (U ) = () + L(U ).
Hence, we obtain
(U )/ ()
(U )
(U ) + K

() + K
() + L(U ) () + L(U )/ ()
(U )/ ()
(U )/ ()
=
L(U )/L(U ) ()
L(U )/L()
Thus,
dimk

(U ) + K
(U )
L(U )
= dimk
dimk
() + K
()
L()
37

8. Lecture 8

38

= (d() d(U )) (l(U ) l()) = (l() + d()) (l(U ) + d(U )),

41

which is the first part of the theorem.

Now, choose a divisor L such that

l(L) + d(L) = 1 g.
Putting Y = min(vY (), vY ), and U =
divides both and L. Hence

Y Y , we see that U

1 g l(U ) + d(U ) l(L) + d(L) = 1 g,

l(U ) + d(U ) = 1 g.

and hence
Moreover, we have
dimk

X
(U ) + K
dimk
= l() + d() 1 + g = (1 ).
() + K
() + K

To prove the opposite inequality, suppose C1 , . . . Cm are m linearly

independent elements of X over k module () + K. If we put Y =
Q Y
min(vY (Ci ), vY ()) and U =
Y , clearly all the Ci lie in (U ).
i

We deduce that
m dimk

(U ) + K
= (l()+d())(l(U )+d(U )) l()+d()1+g,
() + K

X
is finite and (1 ). The second part
() + K
of the theorem is therefore proved.
which proves that dimk

Definition . A differential is a linear mapping of X into k which vanishes on some sub space of the form (U + K).

42

In this case, is said to be divisible by U 1 . is said to be of the

first kind if it is divisible by N
If divides U , clearly (1 ) + K (U 1 ) + K, and therefore
every differential divisible by U is also divisible by .

14. Differentials

39

Consider now the set D(U ) of differentials of K which are divisible by U . This is the dual of the finite dimensional vector space
X/(U 1 )+K , and therefore becomes a vector space over k of dimension
dimk D(U ) = dimk

X
= (U ).
(U 1 ) + K

If 1 and 2 are two differentials divisible by U1 and U2 respectively, their sum is a linear function on X which clearly vanishes on
(U 1 )+K, where U is (U1 , U2 ). (The greatest common divisor (g.c.d.)
Q
of two divisors U1 and U2 is the divisor U = Y min(vY (U1 ),vY (U2 )) .)
Y

Thus, 1 + 2 is a differential divisible by U . Similarly, for a differential divisible by U and an element X K, we define the differential
X by
X(C ) = (XC ).
X is seen to be divisible by (X)U . We then obtain
(XY) = X(Y)
(X + Y) = X + Y
X(1 +2 ) = X1 + X2

It follows that the differentials form a vector space over K. We now

prove the
Theorem. If 0 is a non-zero differential, every differential can be writ- 43
ten uniquely in the form = X0 for some X K. In other words, the
dimension over K of the space of differentials of K is one.
1
Proof. Let 0 be divisible by 1
0 and by . Let U be an integral
divisor, to be chosen suitably later. The two mappings

X0 L(U 1 0 ) X0 0 D(U 1 )
and

X L(U 1 ) X D(U 1 )

are clearly k-isomorphisms of L(U 1 0 ) and L(U 1 ) respectively into

D(U 1 ). Hence, the sum of the dimensions of the images in D(U 1 ).
is
l(U 1 0 ) + l(U 1 ) 2d(U ) d() d(0 ) + 2 2g,

8. Lecture 8

40

and is therefore > dim D(U 1 ) = (U 1 ) = d(U )+g1 if U is chosen

so that d(U ) is sufficiently large. With such a choice of U , therefore,
we see that the images must have a non-zero intersection in D(U 1 ).
Hence, for some X0 and X different from zero, we must have
X0 0 = X, = X0 X 1 0 = Y0 , Y K.
The uniqueness is trivial.

We shall now associate with every differential a divisor. We require a preliminary

44

Lemma . If a differential is divisible by two divisors U and , it is

also divisible by the least common multiple L of U and (Definition
of l.c.m. obvious).
Proof. Suppose C (L1 ). Then,
vY (C ) vY (L) = max(vY (U ), vY (z)).
Define two repartitions C 1 and C by the equations
CY11 = CY , CY = 0 for all C such that vY (U ) vY ()
CY1 = 0, CY = CY for all Y such that vY (U ) < vY ().
C 1 and C are by the above definition divisible by U 1 and Y
spectively, and C = C 1 + C . Hence,

re-

(C ) = (C 1 ) + (C ) = 0.
Since must vanish on K, must vanish on (L1 )+ K. Our lemma
follows

Theorem. To any differential , 0, there corresponds a unique divisor
() such that is divisible by U if and only if () is divisible by U .

15. The Riemann-Roch theorem

41

Proof. Suppose is divisible by a divisor U . Then, the mapping X

L(U 1 ) X D(N ) is clearly a k-isomorphism of L(U 1 ) into
D(N ). Hence, we deduce that
l(U 1 ) dim D(N ) = (N ) = l(N ) + d(N ) + g 1 = g.
On other hand, we have
l(U 1 ) + d(U 1 ) = 1 g + (U ) 2 g,
since (U ) 1. Combining these two inequalities, we deduce that
d(U ) 2g 2.
45

This proves that the degrees of all divisors dividing a certain differential are bounded by 2g 2.

Now, choose a divisor () dividing and of maximal degree. If U
were any another divisor of , the least common multiple of U and
() would have degree at least that of (), and would divide by the
above lemma. Hence, we deduce that = () or that U divides ().
The uniqueness of () also follows from this. Our theorem is proved.
Corollary 1. If X K , (X) = (X)(). This follows from the easily
verified fact that U divides if and only if (X)U divides X.
This corollary, together with the theorem that the space of differentials is one dimensional over K, proves that the divisors of all differentials form a class W. This class is called the canonical class

15 The Riemann-Roch theorem

Let C be a class and U any divisor of C. If Ui (i = 1, . . . , n) are elements
of C, Ui U 1 = (Xi ) are principal divisors. We shall say that the divisors
Ui , are linearly independent if Xi (i = 1, . . . , n) are linearly independent
over k. This does not depend on the choice of U or of the respectively
Xi of Ui U 1 , as is easy to verify. We now prove the

8. Lecture 8

42

Lemma . The dimension N(C) of a class C is the maximum number of

linearly independent integral divisors of C.
46
Proof. Let U be any divisor of C. Then, the divisors (X1 )U , (X2 )U , . . .,
(Xn )U are linearly independent integral divisors of C if and only if
X1 , . . . , Xn are linearly independent elements of L(U 1 ). Our lemma
follows.

We now prove the celebrated theorem of Riemann-Roch.
Theorem. If C is any divisor class,
N(C) = d(C) g + 1 + N(WC 1 ).
Proof. Let U C. Then,
N(C) = l(U 1 ) = d(U ) g + 1 + (U ) = d(C) g + 1 + (U ).

But (U ) being the dimension of D(U ) is the maximum number of
linearly independent differentials divisible by U . Hence, it is the maximum number of linearly independent differentials 1 , . . . , n such that
(1 )U 1 , (2 )U 1 , . . . , (n )U 1 are integral. By the above lemma, we
conclude that (U ) = N(WC 1 ), and our theorem is proved.
Corollaries E and W shall denote principal and canonical classes respectively.
(a) N(E) = l(n) = 1, d(E) = d(N) = 0.
1 = N(E) = d(E) g + 1 + N(W) = N(W) = g.
g = N(W) = d(W) g + 1 + N(E) = d(W) = 2g 2.
(b) If d(C) < 0, or if d(C) = 0 and C , E, N(C) = 0.
47

If d(C) > 2g 2 or if d(C) = 2g 2 and C , W,

N(C) = d(C) g + 1

15. The Riemann-Roch theorem

43

Proof. Suppose N(C) > 0. Then there exists an integral divisor U

in C, and hence d(C) = d(U ) 0, equality holding if and only if
U = N or C = E.

The second part follows immediately on applying that first part to
the divisor WC 1 .
(c) If W 1 is a class and g1 an integer such that
N(C) = d(C) g1 + 1 + N(W 1C 1 ),
We must have W = W 1 and g = g1 .
Proof. Exactly as in (a), we deduce that N(W 1 ) = g1 , d(W 1 ) = 2g1 2.
Again as in the second part of (b), we deduce that if d(C) > 2g1
2, N(C) = d(C) g1 + 1. Hence, for d(C) > max(2g 2, 2g1 2),
N(C) = d(C) g + 1 = d(C) g1 + 1, g = g1 .
Hence N(W 1 ) = g and d(W 1 ) = 2g 2, and it follows from the
second part of (b) that W = W 1 .

This shows that the class W and integer g are uniquely determined
by the Riemann-Roch theorem.
Let us give another application of the Riemann-Roch theorem. We
shall say that a divisor U divides a class C if it divides every integral
divisor of C. We then have the following
Theorem. If C is any class and U an integral divisor,
N(C) N(CU ) N(C) + d(U )
The first inequality becomes an equality if and only if U divides the
class CU , and the second if and only if U divides the class WC 1 .
Proof. Since the maximum number of linearly independent integral di- 48
visors in CU is clearly greater than or equal to the number of such
divisors in C, the first part of the inequality follows. Suppose now that

8. Lecture 8

44

equality prevails. Then there exists a maximal set 1 , . . . n of linearly

independent integral divisors in C, such that U 1 , . . . U n forms such a
set in CU . But since every integral divisor in CU is linear combination of divisors of such a set with coefficients in k (in an obvious sense),
every integral divisor of CU is divisible by U .

Now, by the theorem of Riemann-Roch,
N(CU ) = d(C) + d(U ) + 1 g + N(WC 1 U 1 ),
and the second inequality together with the condition of equality follows
by applying the first to WC 1 U 1 instead of C.
Corollary. For any class C, N(C) max(0, d(C) + 1).
Proof. If N(C) = 0, there is nothing to prove, if N(C) > 0, there exists
an integral divisor U in C. Hence we obtain
N(C) = N(EU ) N(E) + d(U ) = d(U ) + 1 = d(C) + 1,
and our corollay is proved.

Lecture 9
16 Rational Function Fields
In this lecture, we shall consider some particular function fields and find 49
their canonical class, genus, etc. as illustrations of the general theory.
Let us first consider the rational function fields.
Let K = k(X) be a rational function field in one variable over k. We
shall first show that k is precisely the field of constants of K. For later
use, we formulate this in a more general form.
Lemma. Let K be a purely transcendental extension of a field k. Then k
is algebraically closed in K.
Proof. Let (xi )iI be any transcendence basis of K over k such that
K = k(xi ). Since any element of K is a rational combination of a
finite number of xi , we may assume that I is a finite set of integers
(1, . . . n).

We proceed by induction. Assume first that n = 1. Let be any
f (x1 )
,
element of k(x1 ) algebraic over k. may be written in the form
g(x1 )
where f and g are polynomials over k prime to each other.
We then have
f (x1 ) g(x1 ) = 0
This proves that if were not in k, x1 is algebraic over k(), (since 50
the above polynomial for x1 over K() cannot vanish identically ) and
hence over k which is a contradiction. Hence is in k.
45

9. Lecture 9

46

Suppose now that the lemma holds for n 1 instead on n. If

were an element of k(x1 , . . . xn ) algebraic over k, it is algebraic over
k(x1 , . . . xn1 ). By the first part, it should be the k(x1 , . . . xn1 ), and hence
by induction hypothesis in k. Our lemma is proved.
Let us return to the rational function field K. We have already seen
1
that the prime divisors are (i)NX , the prime divisor corresponding to ,
X
and (ii)Y p(X) , the prime divisors corresponding to irreducible polynomials p(X) in k[X]. If f (X) is a rational function of X over k having the
unique decomposition pe11 (X) per n (X), the principal divisor ( f (X)) is
clearly given by
r
Y
e
deg f
( f (X)) =
Y p (X)NX
=1

It follows that the space L(NXt ) for t 0 consists precisely of

all polynomials of degree t, and since there are t + 1 such polynomials independent over k, and generating all polynomials of degree
t, (1, X, . . . X t for example), we deduce that
N(NXt E) = t + 1.
But by the corollary to the Riemann - Roch theorem, if d(NXt E) =
td(NX ) = t > 2g 2, we should have
N(NXt E) = d(NXt E) + 1 g = t + 1 g,
51

and hence, g = 0. Thus, there are no non-zero differentials of the first

kind.
Since d(NX2 E) = 2 = 2g 2 < 0, it follows that N(NX2 E) = 0 = g.
and hence W = n2
X E.

17 Function Fields of Degree Two Over a Rational

Function Field
We start with a lemma which will be useful for later calculations.

17. Function Fields of Degree . . .

47

Lemma . Let K/k be any algebraic function field and X K any tranf1 (X)
is any rational function of X, then
scendental element. If R(X) =
f2 (X)
z f1 deg R(X)
N
and z f1
f1 and f2 being prime to each other (R(X)) =
z f2 X
and z f2 are prime to each other and both are prime to NX . Moreover,
[k(X) : k(R(X))] = max(deg f1 , deg f2 ).
Proof. Let f (X) be any polynomial over k of the form
f (X) = ao + a1 X + + at X t .
If Y is a prime divisor not dividing NX , i.e., if vY (X) 0, we have
vY ( f (X)) min(vY (X)) o). If on the other hand, Y does occur in
=o
NX , we have vY (X) < o, and hence
vY ( f (X)) = min (vY (X)) = tvY (X)
=ot

Thus, we see that z f is prime to NX and N f (x) = NXt .

Hence, if R(X) =

f1 (X)
, where ( f1 , f2 ) = 1, we have
f2 (X)
(R(X)) =

z f1 deg R(X)
N
z f2 X

We assert that z f1 and z f2 are prime to each other. For if not, let z f1 52
and z f2 have a prime divisor Y in common. Then vY (X) o. Find
polynomials g1 and g2 such that
f1 g1 + f2 g2 = 1.
Then,

0 = vY (1) = vY ( f1 g1 + f2 g2 )

min(vY ( f1 ) + vY (g1 ), vY ( f2 ) + vY (g2 )) > 0,

a contradiction. Thus, z f1 and z f2 are prime to each other.
To prove the last part of the lemma, we may assume without loss of
generality that deg f1 deg f2 or that deg R(X) 0 (otherwise consider
1
). It then follows that
R(X)
zR(X) = z f1 (X) , [k(X) : k(R(X))] = [K : k(R(X))]/[K : k(X)]

9. Lecture 9

48
=

53

d(zR(X) ) d(z f1 (X) ) d(z f1 (X) )

=
=
= deg f1 .
d(NX )
d(NX )
d(NX )

Our lemma is proved.

It follows in particular that k(x) = k(R(X)) if and only if max(deg f1 ,
X +
, , , , k and , 0.
deg f2 ) = 1, or R(X) =
X +
Now, let k be a field of characteristic different from 2, X a transcendental element over k and K a field of degree two over k(X) which
is not got from an algebraic extension of k (viz., K should not be got
by the adjunction to k(X) of elements algebraic over k). Then k is the
constant field of K, for if it were not, there exists an element of K
which is algebraic over k but not in k. cannot lie in k(X), since k is
algebraically closed in k(X). Hence, k(X, ) should be an extension of
degree at least two over k(X), and should therefore coincide with K. But
this contradicts our assumption regarding K.
Now, K can be get the adjunctions to k(X) of an element Y which
satisfies a quadratic equation
Y 2 + bY + c = 0, b, c k(X)
Completing the square ( note that characteristic k , 2), we get
!
!2
b2
b
+ c
Y+
= 0,
2
4
b
satisfies equation of
2
= R(X), R(X) being a rational function of X. Let R(X) =

and hence k(X, Y) = k(X, Y 1 ) where Y 1 = Y +

2

the form 1
r
Q
e
p (X), where p (X) are irreducible polynomials in k[X] and e are
1

integers. Putting e = 2g + , where g are integers and = 0 or

Y1

1, and Y = Q
, we see that k(X, Y) = k(X, Y ), and Y
p gg amma(X)

satisfies an equation of the form

Y 2 =

r
Y
1

p
(X) = D(X),

17. Function Fields of Degree . . .

49

where D(X) is a polynomial which is a product of different irreducible

polynomials.
We shall therefore assume without loss in generality that K = k(X, Y)
with Y 2 = D(X) of the above form. Let us assume that m is the degree
of D.
Now, let be the automorphism of K over k(X) which is not the 54
identity. If Z = R1 (X) + YR2 (X) is any element of K, Z = R1 (X)
YR2 (X). To every prime divisor Y of K, let us associate a prime divisor
Y by the definition

vY (Z) = vY (1 Z)

This can be extended to an automorphism of the group of divisors

(see Lecture 19). We shall denote this automorphism again by , and
the image of a divisor U by U . Since X = X, NX = NX .
Suppose now that Z = R1 (X) + YR2 (X) is any element of L(NXt ) (t
any integer). Applying , we deduce that R1 (X) YR2 (X) should also
be an element of L(NXt ). Adding, 2R1 (X) L(NXt ), R1 (X) L(NXt ).
f1 (X)
, where f1 and g1 are coprime polynomials, we have
If R1 (X) =
g1 (X)
z f deg R1
(R1 (X)) = 1 NX
divisible by NXt , and hence we deduce that zg1 =
zg1
n, and g1 (X) is a constant. Hence R1 (X) is a polynomial of degree t
(if t < o, R1 (X) = 0).
Also, since both Z and Z are in L(NXt ). This implies as before that
DR22 is a polynomial of degree 2t. Hence DR22 is a polynomial
of degree 2t, and since D is square free, R2 is a polynomial of degree
m
t .
2
Conversely, by working back, we see that if R1 is a polynomial of
degree t and R2 a polynomial of degree t = m2 , Z = R1 + YR2
R21

9. Lecture 9

50
L(NXt ) . Hence, we obtain

55

t+1

t
t
N(ENX ) = l(NX ) =
t+1

2t + 2

2t + 2

m
2
m+1
2

if
if
if
if
if

t<0
0 t m2 1 and m even
m and 0 t m1
2
m even and t m2
m odd and t m+1
2 .

Since d(NX ) = [K : k(X)] = 2, for t > g 1, we have d(ENXt ) = 2t >

2g 2 and hence
N(ENXt ) = d(NXt ) g + 1 = 2t g + 1
m
Comparing with the above equations, we deduce that g is 1 if
2
m1
m is even and
if m is odd.
2
Thus, we obtain examples of fields of arbitrary genus over any constant field.
g1
The canonical class of K is ENX . For,

and

d(NXg1 E) = 2g 2,

g 1 + 1 = g
g1
N(NX E) =

0 = g

if g > 0
if g = 0.

If gg > o, there exists a differential of the first kind with () =

Then clearly the differentials , X, . . . , X g1 are all of the first
kind and are linearly independent over k, and as they are g in number,
they form a base over k for all differentials of the first kind.
g1
NX .

18 Fields of Genus Zero

56

We shall find all fields of genus zero over a constant field k.

First, notice that any divisor of degree zero of a field of genus zero
is a principal divisor. For let C be a class of degree 0. Then since
d(C) > 2 = 2g 2, N(C) = d(C) g + 1 = 1 and therefore C = E.

19. Fields of Genus One

51

Now,
d(W 1 ) = 2 > 2g 2, N(W 1 ) = 2 g + 1 = 3,
and therefore there exists three linearly independent integral divisors
U1 , U2 , U3 in the class W 1 (incidentally, this proves there exists integral divisors, and consequently prime divisors of degree at most two).
U1
= (X). Then clearly NX divides U2 , and hence we obtain
Let
U2
[K : k(X)] = d(NX ) d(U2 ) = 2.
Thus, any field of genus zero should be either a rational function
field or a quadratic extension of a rational function field. We have the
following
Theorem . The necessary and sufficient condition for a field of genus
zero to be a rational function field is that it possess a prime divisor of
degree 1.
Proof. If K = k(X), the prime divisor nX satisfies the requisite condition.
Conversely, let Y be a prime divisor of degree 1 of K. Then,
N(Y E) = d(Y ) + 1 = 2, and therefore there are elements X1 , X2 in 57
K linearly independent over k such that X1 Y = U1 and X2 Y = U2
X1
U1
X1
, (X) = ( ) =
, and d(NX )
are integral divisors. Thus if X =
X2
X2
U2
d(U2 ) = d(Y ) = 1. But X is not in k, and hence d(NX ) = 1 = [K : k(X)],
from which it follows that K = k(X). The theorem is proved.


19 Fields of Genus One

Let K/k be an algebraic function field of genus 1. Then, since N(W) =
g = 1 and d(W) = 2g 2 = 0, the canonical class W coincides with the
principal class E.
A function field of genus one which contains at least one prime divisor of degree one is called an elliptic function field. (The genus being
one does not imply that there exists a prime divisor of degree one. In

9. Lecture 9

52

58

fact, it can be proved easily that the field R(X, Y), where R is the field
of real numbers and X, Y transcendental over R and connected by the
relation Y 2 + X 4 + 1 = 0 has every prime divisor of degree two). Let us
investigate the structure of elliptic function fields.
Let Y be a prime divisor of degree one. Then, since d(Y 2 ) = 2 >
2g 2 = 0, we have l(Y 2 ) = 2. Let 1, X be a basis of L(Y 2 ) over k.
Since XY 2 is integral, NX divides Y 2 .NX cannot be Y , since if it were,
we obtain [K : k(X)] = d(NX ) = d(Y ) = 1, K = k(X) and hence g = 0.
Thus, NX should be equal to Y 2 .
Again, since l(Y 3 ) = 3, we may complete (l, X) to a basis (1, X, Y)
of L(Y 3 ) over k. N should divide Y 3 , and since Y is not an element
of L(Y 2 ), N does not divide Y 2 . Thus, N = Y 3 .
The denominators of 1, X, Y, X 2 , XY, X 3 and Y 2 are respectively N,
Y 2 , Y 3 , Y 4 , Y 5 , Y 6 and Y 6 . Since the first six elements have different powers of Y in the denominator, they are linearly independent
elements of L(Y 6 ). But l(Y 6 ) = 6, and the seventh element, being
in L(Y 6 ) should therefore be a linear combination of the first six. We
thus obtain
Y 2 + XY + Y = 3 X 3 + 2 X 2 + 2 X 2 + 1 X + o , , , i k.
f (X)
, f (X),
g(X)
g(X) k[X], ( f (X), g(X)) = 1, and substituting in the above equation,
we easily deduce that g(X) should be a constant, and that Y should be a
polynomial in X of degree 1. But this would mean that Y is divisible
by Y 2 , which we have already ruled out. Hence, [k(X, Y) : k(X)] = 2 =
d(NX ) = [K : k(X)], and consequently, K = k(X, Y).
If the characteristic of k is different from 2, we may as in 16 find a
Z such that K = k(X, Y), with
Now, if Y where a rational function of X, writing Y =

Z 2 = f (X)

59

where f (X) is a cubic polynomial in X with non-repeating irreducible

factors.
A partial converse of the above result is valid. Suppose that K =
k(X, Z), where X is transcendental over k and Z satisfies an equation

19. Fields of Genus One

53

of the form Z 2 = f (X), where f (X) is a cubic polynomial which we

assume to be irreducible. Let ch(k) , 2. Then, the genus of K is one,
by 16. Also, since deg f (X) = 3, Z 2 L(NX3 ), and Nz2 divides NX3 .
But since X is of degree 3 over k(Z), we have d(Nz2 ) = 2d(Nz ) = 2.[K :
k(Z)] = 6 = 3.[K : k(X)] = 3d(NX ), and therefore Nz = NX3 . From this,
it is clear that there exists a prime divisor Y with d(Y ) = 1 such that
Nz = Y 3 , N X = Y 2 .
Finally, suppose a field K is of genus greater than 1. Then, N(W) =
g > o and d(W) = 2g 2 > o, and hence we deduce the existence of
an integral divisor , N of degree 2g 2. Thus, we have proved that
if g > 1, there always exists prime divisors of degree 2g 2. The
minimal degree of prime divisors for a field of genus one is not known.

Lecture 10
20 The Greatest Common Divisor of a Class
We wish to find when the greatest common divisor of all integral divisors 60
of a class is different from the unit divisor N. We assert that this is
impossible when d(C) 2g. In fact, let U be an integral divisor of the
class C. Then we obtain
d(C) g + 1 = N(C) = N(CU 1 ) = d(C) d(U ) + 1 g + N(WC 1 U ),
d(U ) = N(WC 1 U ) max(0, d(WC 1U ) + 1)

and since 1 + d(WC 1 U ) 2g 2 2g + 1 + d(U ) = d(U ) 1, we

should have d(U ) = 0 and U = N.
This is in a sense the best possible result. In fact, if there exists a
prime divisor Y of degree 1 in the field, we have d(WY ) = 2g 2, and
hence.
N(WY ) = d(W) + d(Y ) g + 1 = g = N(W),
which proves that Y divides all integral divisor of the class WY . Nevertheless, if g > 0, we can prove that the greatest common divisor of the
canonical class W is N. For, suppose U , N is an integral divisor of W.
Then,
dim L(U 1 ) = N(EU ) = d(U ) + 1 g + N(WU 1 )
= d(U ) + 1 g + N(W) = d(U ) + 1 2.
Thus, there exists a transcendental element X L(U 1 ). The divisor (X)U is then integral. Also, since N(W) = g > o, we can choose
55

10. Lecture 10

56

a differential of the first kind. Then, (X) = ((X)U ).(()U 1 ) is 61

also integral and therefore X is also first kind. By repetition of the
argument, we obtain that X n is of the first kind for all positive integers
n. But since X is transcendental, NX , N , and hence X n cannot be
an integral divisor for large n. This is a contradiction. Our assertion is
therefore proved.
For fields of genus g > o, we shall improve the inequality N(C)
max(o, d(C) + 1).
Lemma. If g > o and d(C) o, C , E, we have
N(C) d(C)
Proof. We may obviously assume that N(C) > o. Then there exists
an integral divisor U in C, and since C , E, U , N , and therefore
d(C) = d(U ) > o. Since G > o, U cannot be a divisor of the class
W,and therefore
g = N(W) > N(WU 1 ) = N(WC 1 )
N(C) = d(C) g + 1 + N(WC 1 ) d(C) g + 1 + g 1 = d(C).
Our lemma is proved

21 The Zeta Function of Algebraic Function Fields

Over Finite Constant Fields

62

In the rest of this lecture and the following two lectures, we shall always
assume that k is a finite field of characteristic p > o and with q = pt
elements,and that K is an algebraic function field with constant field k.
If Y is any prime divisor of K, we shall call the number of elements
in the class field kY the norm of Y . Since [kY : k] = d(Y ), we see
that norm of Y (which we shall denote by NY ) is given by
NY = qd(Y )
We may extend this definition to all divisors, by putting
Y
(NY )vY (U ) = qd(U )
NU =
Y

21. The Zeta Function of Algebraic Function . . .

57

Clearly we have for two divisors U and

NU = NU .N.
Before introduction the zeta function, we shall prove an important
Lemma . For any positive integer m, the number of prime divisors of
degree m is finite. The number of classes of degree zero is finite. (The
latter is called the class number of K and is denoted by h).
Proof. To prove the first part of the lemma, choose any transcendental
element X of K. Let Y be any prime divisor of K with d(Y ) m and
which does not divide NX . (We may neglect those U which divide NX ,
since they are finite in number.) Let Y 1 be the restriction of Y to k(X).
Y 1 must be a place on k(X). Since Y 1 (X) , , there corresponds a
unique polynomial (p(X)) which gives rise to Y 1 .
Now, since kY kY , we obtain
63
deg(p(X)) = d(Y ) d(Y ) m.

Since the number of polynomials of degree m over a finite field is
finite, and since there the are only a finite number of prime divisors Y
of K which divide z p(X) for a fixed p(X), the first part of our theorem is
proved.
To prove the second part, choose and fix an integral divisor Uo such
that d(Uo ) g. If C is any class of degree zero, we have
N(CUo ) d(C) + d(Uo ) g + 1 1,
and hence there exists an integral divisor U in CUo such that d(U ) =
d(CUo ) = d(Uo ). But since
X
d(U ) =
d(Y )vY (U ), d(Y ) 1, vY (U ) 0,

and there are only a finite number of Y with d(Y ) d(Uo ), there are
only a finite of integral U with d(U ) = d(Uo ) and consequently only a
finite number of C with d(C) = 0.
The lemma is completely proved.

10. Lecture 10

58

64

Remark 1. Let denote the least positive integer which is the degree of
a class. since C d(C) is a homomorphism of the group R of divisor
classes into the additive group Z of integers, we see that the degree of
any class of the from where is an integer, and that to any , there
()
()
correspond precisely h classes C1 , . . . , Ch of degree .
Remark 2. The number of integral divisors in any C is precisely
qN(C) 1
. This is clear if N(C) = 0. If N(C) > 0, let U be any inq1
tegral divisor of C. Then all integral divisors of C are of the from
 X (X)U ,
1
where X L(U ), X , 0. Also (X)U = (Y)U if and only if
=N
Y
or X = a, a k . Since the number of non zero elements of L(U 1 ) is
qN(C) 1 and the number of non zero elements of k is q 1 our assertion
follows.
Now, let s = + it be a complex variable. For > 1, we define the
zeta function of the algebraic function field K by the series
(s, K) =

X
U

1
, s = + it, > 1
(NU ) s

the summation

 being extended over all integral divisors of the field K.
1 
1

 =
Since 
, and all the terms of the series are positive
s
(NU )
(NU )
when s is real, the following calculations are valid first for s > 1 and
the for complex s with > 1. In particular, they prove the absolute
convergence of the series
(s, K)
P
(number of integral divisors in C). qsd(C) , the last summation
=
C

being over all classes,

=
65

1 X N(C)
(q
1)qsd(C) ;
q1 C

writing d(C) = , and noticing that qN(C) 1 = 0 if d(C) < 0, the above

21. The Zeta Function of Algebraic Function . . .

59

expression becomes

1 X s X N(Cl () )
h X s
q
q
q

q 1 =o
q 1 =o
l=1
Let us now put U = qs . Then |U| = |qs | = q < 1 since > 1,
and we can sum the second geometric series. Suppose now that g > o.
We may then split the first sum into two parts, the ranging over o
2g 2
2g 2

and the second over >

. (Since d(w) = 2g 2, )

2g 2
is an integer). In the second summation since
divides 2g 2; or

()
()
d(Cl ) = > 2g 2, we may substitute N(Cl ) = g + 1. We
obtain the expression
2g2

h
X
1
h
1 X s X N(C() )
h
q
.
q l +
qs qg+1
q 1 =o
q

1
q

1
1

qs
2g2
l=1

>

2g2

= (s, K) =

h
1 X X N(C() )
U
q l
q 1 =o
l=1

1
h
hq1g (Ug)2g2+

q 1 1 (Uq)
q 1 1 U

(1)

If g = o, N(C) = d(C) g + 1 for all C with d(C) > o, and a similar

computation gives
(S , K) =

1
1
hq
h

q 1 1 (Uq)
q 1 1 U

(2)

(1) and (2) may be combined as follows

(q 1)(s, K) = F(U) + R(U),

(3)

where F(U) is the polynomial

F(U) =

66

od(C)2g2

qN(C) U d(C)

(4)

10. Lecture 10

60
and R(U) the rational function
R(U) = hq1g

(Uq)max(o,2g2+)
h

1 (Uq)
1 U

(5)

These formulae provide the analytic continuation of (s, K) to the

whole plane. The only possible poles are the values of s for which
U = 1 or (qU ) = 1.
For a rational function field K = k(X), since g = o, h = 1 and = 1,
we obtain
(q 1)(s, K) =

1
q1
q

=
1 Uq 1 U (1 Uq)(1 U)

Lecture 11
22 The Infinite Product for (s, K)
Let K be an algebraic function field over a finite constant field k. Then, 67
the function of K can be expressed as an infinite product taken over all
prime divisors of K.
Theorem. For s = + it, and > 1, we have
Y
1
(s, K) =
,
1

(NY
)s
Y
where the product is taken over all prime divisors Y of K. The product
is absolutely convergent, and hence does not depend on the order of the
factors.
Proof. Since > 1, we have for any integer m > o,
1
1 NY
NY m
Y

NY m

!
1
1
+ ,
1+
+
(NY ) s (NY )2s

and since there are only a finite number of factors in the product, each
factor being an absolutely convergent series, we may multiply these to
obtain
Y
X
X
1
1
1
=
+
,
s
s
1 (NY )
(NU )
(NU ) s
NY m

nU m

NU >m

where the first summation is over all integral divisors U with NU m,

and the second over all integral divisors U which do not contain any
61

11. Lecture 11

62

prime divisor U with NU > m and which satisfy the inequality NU >
m.

Hence
 Y



68


1
X 1   X
1
1 



s
s = 
1 (NY )
NU   NU >m (NU ) s 
NU m
NY m
X
1

(NU )
NU >m

1
) ,
NU >m NU
being the remainder of the convergent series for (, K), tends to zero
as m .
The absolute convergence of the product is deduced from the inequality


1
1
1

 1 +
+

 (NY ) + (NY )2
 (NY ) s (NY )2s
and letting m , we obtain the asserted equality, since

As a corollary to this theorem, we see that (s, K) has no zero for

> 1.

23 The Functional Equation

In the last lecture, we obtained the following formula:
(q 1) (s, K) = F(U)
X+ R(U),

where

U = qs ,

qN(C) U d(C)

F(U) =

od(c)2g2

and

69

R(U) = hq1g

(Uq)max(o,2g2+)
h

.
1 (Uq)
1 U

Substituting for N(C) in F(U) from the theorem of Riemann-Roch,

we obtain
X
1
F(U) =
qd(C)g+1+N(WC ) V d(C)
od(C)2g2

23. The Functional Equation

1g

=q

od(C)2g2

63
1
qU

d(WC 1 )2g+2 N(WC 1 )

Writing WC 1 = C 1 , and noticing that C 1 runs through the same set

of classes as C in the summation, we have
!d(C1 )
!
X
1
1
q1 2g2
N(C 1 )
g1 2g2
F(U) = q U
q
=q U
F
.
qU
qU
1
od(C )2g2

We shall prove that a similar functional equation holds for R(U).

First suppose that g > o. Then,
(qU)2g2+
h

1 (qU)
1 U
 2g+2
1
1
)
h.(q. Uq
qU
  +
= hg1g


1
1
1 qU
1 q. Uq



1 2g2+

q
h
qU

= U 2g2 qg1 hq1g



 
1
1

1 g. U q
1 Uq
!
1
= qg1 U 2g2 R
.
qU

R(U) = hg1g

If g = o, the only divisor class of degree zero is E and hence h = 1.

Also, since divides 2g 2 = 2, = 1 or = 2. If = 1, we obtain
1
q1
q

=
1 qU 1 U (1 U)(1 qU)
q1


= q1 U 2 
1
1
1 qU 1 q. qU
!
1
.
= q1 U 2 R
qU

R(U) =

If = 2, we get
R(U) =

70

2

1
q. qU
q
U 2
1
+

=




1 (qU)2 1 U 2 1 1 2 1 q. 1 2
qU
qU

11. Lecture 11

64
!
1
.
=q U R
qU
1

Thus, in any case, we have the functional equation

!
1
g1 2g2
R(U) = q U
R
.
qU
Adding the equation for F(U) and R(U), we see that (s, K) satisfies
the functional equation
(q 1)(s, K) = qg1 qs(22g) (q 1)(1 s, K), or
(s, K) = qg1 qs(22g) (1 s.K)
We may also rewrite this in the from
qs(q1) (s, K) = q(1s)(g1) (1 s, K).
Thus, the function on the left is unaltered by the transformation s
1 s.

24 L-series
We wish to study the L-series associated to characters of the class group
of an algebraic function with a finite constant field.
71

Definition . A character X of finite order on the class group R is a homomorphism of R into the multiplicative group C of non zero complex
numbers such that there exists in integer N with XN (C) = 1 for all C in
R.
X(C) is therefore an N th root of unity for all C. We may define X on
the group v of divisors by comparing with the natural homomorphism
v R, i.e., by putting X(U ) = X(U E) for any divisor U .
The L-function L(s, X, K) associated to a character X (which we
shall always assume to be of finite order) is then defined for s = + it,
> 1 by the series
X
X(U )(NU )s
L(s, X, K) =
U

24. L-series

65

where the summation is over all integral divisors U of the field. The
absolute value of the terms of this series is majorised by the correspondP
1
= (, K) and is therefore absolutely
ing term of the series
(NU )
convergent for > 1. We may prove along exactly the same lines as in
the case of the -function the following product formula:
L(s, X, K) =

Y
Y

1
1 X(Y )(NY )s

where Y runs through all prime divisors and > 1.

Lecture 12
25 The Functional Equation for the L-functions
Let X be a character of finite order on the class group of an algebraic 72
field K over a constant field k with q = p f elements. We consider two
cases.
Case 1. X when restricted to the subgroup Ro of R of all classes of
degree zero, is trivial; i.e., X(Co ) = 1 for Co Ro .
Let be as before the smallest positive integer which is the degree
of a class, and let C () be a class of degree . Then R is clearly the direct
product of Ro and the cyclic group generated by C () . Set X(C () ) =
e2i . We then have
L(s, X, K) =

X(U )(NU )s =

Co Ro

e2in qns

n=
n
U C o C ()

!


X
2i
s 2i
log
q
.
(NU )
=
= s
log q
U

Thus, the L-function reduces to a - function in this case. We can

therefore deduce a functional equation for L(s, X, K) from the functional
equation for (s, K). Define the character X conjugate to X by putting

Clearly, X is a character of finite order on the class group

X(C)
= X(C).
() = e2i . Then, we obtain the following
and is trivial on Ro , also XC
relation for L(s, X, K) by substituting from the functional equation for
67

12. Lecture 12

68
the function.
q

73

s(g1)

!
2i
L(s, X, K) = q
s
log q
!
2i
2(q1) 2i
1s+
=q
q(1s)(g1)
log q
log q
K)
= X(W)q (1s)(g1) L(1 s, X,
s(g1)

since X(W) = (X(C () ))

2i
2g 2
=e
(2g 2)

Case 2. Suppose now that X when restricted to Ro is not identically 1.

Let Co1 be a fixed class with X(Co1 ) , 1. Then,
X
X
X
X(Co1 )
X(Co ) =
X(Co1Co ) =
X(Co ),
Co Ro

and therefore

Co R

Co Ro

Co Ro

X(Co ) =

Again, using the fact that N(C) = 0 if d(C) < 0, we obtain

(q 1)L(s, X, K) =

Co Ro

X(Co )

Xn (C () )(qN(Co C

() )n

1)qns

n=0

2g2

X(Co )

X(Co )

Co Ro

1)

Xn (C () )(qng+1 1)qns

X(Co ) = 0.

n> 2g2

The second sum vanishes, since

Co Ro

Thus, we obtain
(q 1)L(s, X, K) =

od(C)2g2

74

()n )

n=o

Co Ro

Xn (C () )(qN(Co C

The coefficient of U 2g2 is given by

X(C)qN(C) U d(C)

25. The Functional Equation for the L-functions

X

X(C)qN(C) = X(W)

X(Co )qN(Co W)

Co Ro

d(C)=2g2

since

69

X
g1
g
= X(W)
,
X(C
)q
+
q

Co ,E

N(Co W) = d(Co W) g + 1 = g 1 if Co , E and N(W) = g,

g1
g
g1
X(C
)q
+
(q

q
)
= X(W)

Co Ro
= (q 1)X(W)qg1 , 0.

Thus, L(s, X, K) is a polynomial in U = qs of degree 2g 2 and

leading coefficient qg1 X(W)
Again, by substituting from the Riemann-Roch theorem, we have
X
(q 1)L(s, X, K) =
X(C)qN(C) U d(C)
od(C)2g2

X(C)qd(C)g+1+N(WC

1 )

U d(C)

od(C)2g2

= qg1 U 2g2 X(W)

X(WC 1 )qN(WC1)

od(C)2g2

1
qU

!d(WC1 )

Writing C 1 for WC 1 and noting that C 1 runs through exactly the

same range of summation as does C, we obtain
K),
(q 1)L(s, X, K) = (q 1)qg1 U 2g2 X(W)L(1 s, X,
which is again the same functional equation that we got in Case 1. We
have therefore proved the
Theorem. For any character X of finite order,
K).
qs(g1) L(s, X, K) = X(W)q(1s)(g1) L(1 sX,

Lecture 13
26 The Components of a Repartition
Our next aim is to introduce the L-functions modulo an integral divisor 75
of an algebraic function field over a finite constant filed and to obtain
their functional equation. We shall develop the necessary results for this
in this and the next two lectures.
Let K be an algebraic function field over an arbitrary (not necessarily
finite) constant field k. For a repartition C X and a prime divisor Y ,
we define the component C Z of C at Z to be the repartition defined by

CZ if U Y
Z
C (U ) =

0
if Y is a prime divisor other than Y .

The mapping is clearly a k-linear mapping of X into itself. This

induces a linear mapping of the dual of X into itself, by which a differential is taken to a liner map Z : X X given by
Y (C ) = (C Z )

Z is called the component of the differential at Y .Z is not, in

general, a differential. For X K, we have
(X)Y (C ) = (X)(C Z ) = (XC Z ) = ((XC )Y ) = Z (XC )
We shall now prove a lemma which expresses a differential in terms
of its components.
71

13. Lecture 13

72

Lemma . If is a differential and C a repartition, Y (C ) = 0 for all 76

but a finite number of prime divisors Y , and we have
X
Y (C ).
(C ) =
Y

Proof. Let U be a divisor which divides the differential . Let

Y1 , . . . , Yn be the finite number of prime divisors for which either
vYi (U ) , 0 or vYi (C ) < 0. For U , any of the Yi , and any prime
divisor Y , we have
vY (C U ) = vY (C U (Y ))

vC (YU ) if U = Y
=

v (0)
if , Y U

vU (C )

if Y = U
if Y , U

and therefore C U (U ), U (C ) = (C U ) = 0.
Also, if we put Y = C

n
P

vY (U ),

C Yi , we have for any Y ,

i=1

vY (CY )
vY (Y ) =

vY (0) =

if Y is not any of theY1

vY (U ),

if Y is a certain Yi

and therefore Y (U ). Hence,

n
X
X Y
X Y

Y
C i + C i = C i
(C ) = C
=

i=1

i=1

i=1

i=1

n
X

C Yi =

n
X

Yi =

i=1

Y (C ).

Our lemma is proved.

We shall now prove another useful
77

Lemma. Let be a differential and C a prime divisor. Then vY (()) is

the largest integer m such that whenever X K and vY (X) m, we
have Y (X) = 0.

26. The Components of a Repartition

73

Proof. Suppose first that X K with vY (X) vY (()). Then clearly

the repartitions xY is in (()1 ) and therefore Y (X) = (X Y ) =
0.

Now, by the definition of (), does not vanish on the space
(()1 Y 1 ). Hence there exists a repartition C (()1 Y 1 ) such
that (C ) , 0. It is evident that for U , Y , C U (()1 ) and
therefore (C ) , 0. Hence,
X
(C U ) = (C Y )
0 , (C ) =
U

Put X = C Y . Then,
Y (X) = (X Y ) = (C Y ) , 0
and

vY (X) = vY (C ) vY (()) 1.

Thus, vY (()) is the largest m for which vY (X) m implies that

Y (X) = 0.

Lecture 14
27 A Consequence of the Riemann-Roch Theorem
In this lecture, we shall prove a theorem which will be crucial in the 78
proof of the functional equation of the L-functions modulo an integral
divisor.
Let F be an integral divisor and U1 , . . . , Ur the distinct prime divisors occurring in it. We prove a series of lemmas leading upto the proof
of the theorem we mentioned above.
Lemma 1. In any class C, there exists a divisor U such that vU (U ) =
0( = 1, r).
Proof. Let U be any divisor of C. By the independence theorem for
valuations, we may find X K with
vU (X) = vU (U )
Then U = (X)U C satisfies the required conditions.

Let us denote by R the vector space (n/U1 , Ur ) and by i the subspace (F /U1 , . . . Ur ). R is not only a vector space over k, but also an
algebra. In fact, if X, Y R,
vUi (XY) = vUi (X) + vUi (Y) 0, XY R. (i = 1, . . . r) i is an ideal
of R, since X R, Y i implies that
vUi (XY) = vUi (X) + vUi (Y) vUi (F ), XY i.
Thus, the quotient R = R/i is an algebra of
75

79

14. Lecture 14

76
rank dimk =

(n/U r) U r)
= d(F )
(F /U1 Ur )

over the field k.

Now, choose a differential such that the divisor F () is coprime
to F . This is possible by Lemma 1. We shall assume this to be chosen
and fixed throughout the discussion. We define a linear function S on
the algebra R by
r
X
S (X) =
U (X), X R.
=1

S vanishes on the ideal i, for if X i, vU (X) vU (F ), and

since F () is corprime to each U , vU (F ) + vU (()) = 0, vU (F ) =
vU (()). By the last lemma of the previous lecture, we deduce that
S (X) =

r
X

U (X) = 0.

=1

Thus, S induces a linear map from the quotient R to the field k. This
Y)
S (XY).

in turn gives rise to a bilinear form on R defined by (X,

Our next lemma states that this is non - degenerate.
X , 0, there exist a Y R such that S (X.
Y)
= 1.
Lemma 2. If X R,
Since X , 0, we have
Proof. Let X be any element of the coset X.
X < i and vU (X) < vU (F ) = vU (()) for some . Thus, X is a
differential with vU (X) < 0. By the last lemma of the previous lecture,
we deduce that there exists an element Y1 K such that vU (Y1 ) 0 and
(X)U (Y1 ) , 0.

80

Find Y2 K such that

vU (Y2 Y1 ) max(0, vU ((X))),
vU (Y2 ) max(0, vU ((X))). for , .
Since we also have
vU (Y2 ) min(vU (Y2 Y1 ), vU (Y1 )) 0,

27. A Consequence of the Riemann-Roch Theorem

77

Also, for any , , we have by the second

it follows that Y2 R.
U

condition, (X) (Y2 ) = 0. Again, it follows from the first condition

that
(X)U (Y2 Y1 ) = 0, (X)U (Y2 ) = (X)U (Y1 ) , 0
Thus,
S (X Y 2 ) =

r
X
=1

r
X
(XY2 ) =
(X)U (Y2 ) = (X)U (Y2 ) = , 0,
U

=1

and Y = Y 2 satisfies the conditions of our lemma.

Now, let U be any divisor coprime to F . Then, we assert that L(U )
is a subspace of R. In fact, we have for X L(U ), vU (X) vU (U ) =
0. Also, we assert that L(U ) i = L(U F ). This follows from the
following argument X L(U F ) vU (X) vU (U ) + vU (F ) for
every U vU (X) vU (U ) for every U and vUv (X) vU (F ) for
( = 1, , r). Hence, if we denote by L(U ) the image of L(U ) under the
we have
natural homomorphism form R to R,
dimk (L(U )) = dimk

!
L(U )
L(U ) + i
= dim
i
L(U ) i
L(U )
= l(U ) l(U F ).
= dimk
L(U F )
81

This proves that the dimension of L(U ) depends only on the class
of U . Since there are divisors in any class prime to F , we may define
N0 (C) for a class C to be dimk L(U ) for any U C 1 coprime to F .
For any class C, we shall call the class C = WC 1 F the complementary class of C modulo F . We then prove the following
Lemma 3. For any class C, we have
N0 (C) + N0 (C ) = d(F ).
Proof. Let U C 1 and C 1 be prime to F . Then,
N0 (C) + N0 (C ) = dim L(U ) + dim L()

14. Lecture 14

78
= (l(U ) l(U F )) + (l() l(F )

= N(C) N(CF 1 ) + N(WC 1 F ) N(WC 1 )

= (d(C) g + 1) (d(CF 1 ) g + 1) = d(F )
by the Riemann-Roch theorem. Our lemma is proved.

82

Now, let V be a vector space on a field k and B : V xV K a

non-degenerate bilinear form on V. ( A bilinear form is said to be nondegenerate if for every X , 0, there exist a X1 V such that B(X, X1 ) , 0
and for every Y , 0 there exists a Y1 V such that B(Y1 , Y) , 0. Let
V1 be a subspace of V. Then we define the complementary subspace of
V1 with respect to the bilinear form B to the space V1comp of all elements
Y V such that B(X, Y) = 0 for every X V1 . We then have the
Lemma 4. Let V be a finite dimensional vector space and B a; nondegenerate bilinear form on V. Then, if V1 is a subspace of V, we have
dimk V1 + dimk V1comp. = dim V.
Proof. Let V be the dual of V. We can define a homomorphism :
V V which takes an element X V ot the linear map (X) V
defined by
(X)(Y) = B(Y, X)
Since B is non-degenerate, (X) , 0 if X , 0, and is a monomorphism. Since V is finite dimensional, dim V = dim V = dim (V).
Thus, is also an epimorphism.

Now, let V2 be the complementary subspace of V1 . Then, every
element of (V2 ) is a linear map of V into k which vanishes on the
subspace V1 , and conversely every element of V which vanishes on V1
should be of the form (X), where X V2 . Hence, we deduce that (V2 )
is isomorphic to the dual of the quotient space V/V1 . Therefore,
dimk V2 = dimk (V2 ) = dimk (V/V1 ) = dimk V dimk V1 ,
dimk V1 + dimk V2 = dimk V.
The lemma is proved.

27. A Consequence of the Riemann-Roch Theorem

83

79

Now, let U be a divisor prime to F and the ( already chosen

and fixed ) differential such that ()F is prime to F . We define the
complementary divisor U of U as the divisor ()1 F 1 U 1 . It is
clear that U is also prime to F and that if U 1 C, U 1 C . We
may then state our theorem as follows.
Theorem . The complementary space of L(U ) in R with respect to the
Y)
= S (XY) defined on R is L(U ).
bilinear form B(X,
Proof. Suppose X L(U ) and Y L(U ). Then, for any prime divisor
Y , any of the U , we have
vY (XY) vY (U U ) = vY (()1 F 1 ) = vY (()),
and therefore by the lemma of the previous lecture,
Y (XY) = 0
Hence, we obtain,
= S (XY) =
S (X Y)

n
X

U (XY) =

Y (XY) = (XY) = 0,

i=1

since XY K. Thus, we deduce that

L(U ) ((L(U )compl .

Now, let C and C be the classes of U 1 and U 1 . We then have
dimk L(U ) = N0 (C ) = d(F ) N0 (C)
= dimk R dimk L(U )
= dimk (L(U ))compl.
Y)
= S (X Y)
is non-degenerate by lemma 2. Hence, it follows 84
since B(X,
that (L(U )comp. = L(U ).

Lecture 15
28 Classes Modulo F
Let K be an algebraic function field over an arbitrary constant field k and 85
F an integral divisor of K. We shall denote the distinct prime divisors of
F by U1 , . . . , Ur . We now define some groups associated to the integral
divisor F . In all the cases, it is an easy matter to verify that the sets
defined are closed under taking products or inverses.
F will be the group of divisors coprime to F , and F0 the subgroup
of all elements of F whose degree is zero. K F is the multiplicative
group of elements of K which are coprime to F . E F is the group of
principal divisors coprime to F .
Clearly, k K F , and since two elements of K F define the same
divisors if and only if their ratio is a constant, we have the isomorphism
E F K F /k
Moreover, since every class contains a divisor coprime to F , the
saturation of F by E is the whole of , and consequently
F /EF =

F E
= = R,

F
E
E
E

and similarly Fo /EF 0 .

We shall say that X Y( mod + F ) if vUi (X Y) vUi (F ) (i = 86
1, r). The condition is evidently equivalent to saying that X Y
(F /U1, Ur ). Let KF be the set of elements X of K which satisfy X
1( mod + F ). If X KF , it follows that vUi (X) = min(vUi (X 1),
81

15. Lecture 15

82

vUi (1)) = 0. Hence, if X, Y K , we have XY Y 1( mod + F ) and

1
therefore XY KF . Similarly,
is also in KF . Since X KF U i
X
(X) = 0, we deduce that KF . EF shall denote the group of principal
divisors of KF K F . EF elements of KF . It follows from the above
inclusion that EF E F . EF is called the ray modulo F .

If F , N, it is easy to see that k KF = 1 . Hence, we deduce, in
KF k
K
this case, that EF =

KF .
k
kF k
The class group modulo F is by definition the quotient group RF =
F
/EF and its elements are called classes modulo F . The subgroup
R0F = F0 /EF of RF is called the group of classes modulo F of degree
zero and its order hF is called the class number modulo F . In the case
of a finite field k, hF can be expressed in terms of the class number h.
We have the following theorem.
Theorem. Let the constant field k be finite with q elements and let F be
an integral divisor different from N. Then,
!
r
1
hNF Y
1
hF =
q 1 =1
NU
Proof. From the isomorphisms
R0 F0 /E F
87

it follows that

Again,

and

h= 

F0 /EF
E F /EF

hF
EF
EF


:1

K F /KF
K F /k
K F
EF
,
EF
KF k /k
KF k
KF k /KF

KF k
k

k ,
kF
k KF

28. Classes Modulo F

83

since F , N and therefore k KF = {1}. Hence, we obtain

i
h h F
K : K F .
q1

hF =


Now , K F is precisely the set of elements of (N/U1 , . . . Ur ) which
do not lie in any of the spaces (Ui /U1 , . . . Ur ). Also, if X, Y K F ,
they belong to the same coset modulo KF if and only if XY 1 1
(mod + F ) X Y (mod + F ) ( since Y is coprime to F )
X Y (F /U1 Ur ). We deduce from these facts that (with S =
(U1 , . . . Ur ))
X
X
(Ui U j /s)
h
i
(Ui /s
(n/s)
qdim (F /s) +
qdim (F /s)
K F : KF = qdim (F /s)
i

d(F )

=q

i, j

d(F )d(Ui )

= N(F )

r
Y
=1

qd(F )d(Ui )d(U j )

i, j

1
NU

Substituting this expression in the value of hF , we get the required 88

result.
Note that the theorem is not valid when F = N. In fact, we have
R0N = R0 and hN = h.
We shall end this lecture with a simple lemma asserting the existence
of sufficiently many divisors in any class modulo F .
Lemma. If U is any given divisor, any class CF modulo F contains a
divisor prime to U .
Proof. Let U0 be any divisor of CF . Find a Y K such that
vU (Y 1) vU (F ) ( = 1, . . . , r)
and

vU (Y) = vU (Y0 ) if vY (U ) , 0 and Y , U

Then it is easy to verify that = U0 (Y) satisfies the conditions of the

lemma.


Lecture 16
29 Characters Modulo F
We shall now introduce the characters of an algebraic function field K 89
modulo an integral divisor F
Definition . A chapter X modulo an integral divisor F is a homomorphism of RF into the multiplicative group of complex numbers with absolute value one.
If U is a divisor prime to F , we put X(U ) = X(U EF ). If U =
/L , where and L are mutually coprime and integral and L coprime
to F whereas is not, we define X(U ) = 0. X is this defined as a
complex valued function on a subset of V , and is clearly multiplicative
(i.e., if X(U )) and X() are defined, X(U ) = X(U X()). Note that X
is defined in particular on all integral divisors of K.
Let X be a character mod F of K. An integral divisor F 1 is said
to be a modulus of definition of X if for any X K coprime to F and
X 1( mod + F ) we have X((X)) = 1. F itself is clearly a modulus of
definition. The reason for our terminology is provided by the following
Theorem. If X is a character mod F and F 1 a modulus of definition
of X, there exists a unique character X1 of K mod F 1 such that for any
divisor U prime to F F 1 ,
X(U ) = X1 (U )
Conversely, if X and X1 are two characters mod F and F 1 respec- 90
85

16. Lecture 16

86

tively such that whenever U is coprime to F F 1 , we have X(U ) =

X1 (U ), then F is a modulus of definition of X and X1 is the character
associated to X by the first part of the theorem.
Proof. Suppose F 1 is a modulus of definition of X. If CF 1 is any class
modulo F 1 , we can find a divisor U in CF 1 coprime to F and we define
X1 (CF 1 ) = X(U ).

The definition is independent of the choice of U in CF 1 . For ,if
CF 1 and is coprime to F , there exists an X K such that U 1 =
(X), X 1( mod + F 1 ) and X coprime to F . Hence
X(U 1 ) = X((X)) = 1,
X(U ) = X().
So defined, X1 is evidently a character modulo F 1 which satisfies
the condition
X(U ) = X1 (U )

91

if U is coprime to F F . The uniqueness follows from the fact that this

definition of F 1 is forced upon us by the above condition.
The first of our theorem is proved.
To prove the second part, suppose X and X1 are two characters modulo F and F 1 respectively satisfying the above condition. Then, if (X)
is coprime to F and X 1(F 1 ), (X) is coprime to F F 1 , and therefore
X((X)) = X1 ((X)) = 1
This proves that F 1 is a modules of definition of X and X1 the associated character mod F 1 .
Corollary. F is a modulus of definition of X1 .
Our next theorem states that to any given character, there exists a
smallest modulus of definition. To prove this, we require the following

29. Characters Modulo F

87

Lemma. If F 1 and F are two moduli of definition of a character modulo F , their greatest common divisor F is also a modulus of definition.
Proof. Let X be coprime to F and X 1( mod F ). Find a Y K
such that



vY (XY 1) vY (F 1 ) + vY (X) if vY (F 1 F 1 > 0,

(1)


1

vY (X(Y 1)) vY (F ) + vY (X) if vF (F F

> 0,
(2)


and vY (Y 1) vY (F F F ) + vY (X) if Y divides F F F but does
not belong to the first two categories.
(3)

Since F is the greatest common divisor of F and F the first two 92

categories are mutually exclusive, and the third category is by definition
exclusive of (1) or (2).

Now, one can easily verify that (Y) is coprime to F . Hence, (XY) is
also coprime to F . We now assert that Y 1 ( mod + F ) and XY 1(
mod + F ). To verify the first, suppose Y is a prime divisor dividing
F . Then Y must occur in one of the three categories. If Y belongs to
(1),
vY (Y 1) = vY (XY 1 + 1 X) vY (X)
min(vY (XY 1), vY (X 1)) vY (X),
and since vY (X 1) vY (F ) = vY (F ) > 0, vY (X) = 0, and the
right hand side of the inequality becomes
min(vY (F ), vY (F )) = vY (F ).
If Y belongs to category (2), we get


vY (Y 1) vY (F ) + vY (X) vY (X) vY (F ).

Finally, for Y in (3), we get again

vY (Y 1) vY (F ).

88

93

16. Lecture 16

The second congruence XY 1 (mod + F ) can be proved similarly. Since F and F are moduli of definition, we deduce that X(Y) =
X(XY) = 1. Hence X(X) = 1. This completes the proof of the fact that
F is a modulus of definition.
The theorem we mentioned is a fairly easy consequence.
Theorem . Let X be a character of K mod F . Then there exists a
unique integral divisor m such that it divides every modulus of definition
of X and every integral divisor which is divisible by it is a modulus of
definition. m is called the conductor of X.
If X1 , is the associated character to m, the conductor of X1 is m
itself.
Proof. By the previous lemma, the g.c.d. of all moduli of definition of
X is an integral divisor which satisfies all the conditions of the first part
of the theorem. Let X1 , be the associated character mod m. If the
conductor of X1 , is m1 , it is clear that m1 is also a modulus of definition
of X. Hence m divides m1 , and m1 divides m since m1 is the conductor
of X1 . Thus, m = m1 . Our theorem is proved.

A character F modulo F is said to be primitive or proper if F is
the conductor of X.

Lecture 17
30 L-functions Modulo F
Throughout this lecture, we shall assume that K is an algebraic function 94
field over a finite constant field k with q = p f elements. Let F be
an integral divisor of K and X a character modulo F . For a complex
variable s = + it > 1, we define the L-function w.r.t. the character
F by the infinite series
L(s, X) =

X X(U )
,
(NU ) s
U

the summation being over all integral divisors. The absolute convergence, etc. of the series do not offer any difficulty to prove, and we may
also get the following product formula:
!1
Y
X(Y )
for > 1.
L(s, X, K) =
1
(NY ) s
Y

31 The Functional Equations of the L-functions.

Before proceeding to the proof of the functional equation of the Lfunctions, we shall prove some essential lemmas. Since it is possible
to prove these in a general setting, we shall do so.
Let A be a commutative algebra with unit element 1 of finite rank f
over a finite k with q elements. We shall assume that a mapping X of A
into the complex number is given with the following properties:
89

17. Lecture 17

90
95

1) (X) = 0 if and only if X is a zero divisor is A

2) (XY) = (X)(Y) for X, Y A
3) (X) = (X) for X A and k
4) If X is a zero divisor of A, there exists a Y in A such that XY = X and
(Y) , 0, (Y) , 1.
We shall also assume that a k-linear mapping S of A in k is given
which is such that if X A, X , 0, There exists a Y A such that
S (XY) = 1. Lastly, we assume that a complex valued function is
P
given on k such that (a) (0) = 1 and (b)
() = 0. (e.g, (0)) =
k

1
for , 0 satisfies the required conditions). We then
1, () =
q1
have the following lemmas.
Lemma 1. Let V be a vector subspace of A. Then,

qdim V if Y Vcomp .
(S (XY)) =

0
otherwise .
XV
X

Proof. If Y Vcomp , S (X, Y) = 0 for every X V and the first equality

follows from condition (a) for .

If Y < Vcomp , we can find X1 V such that S (X1 Y) = 1. Complete
X1 to a basis X1 , . . . Xd of V over k. Then the sum on the left is

d
X X
X

1 + S 1 Xi Y = 0,
S i Xi Y =
1 ,...,d K

i=1

1 ,...,d K 1 K

i=2

P
since for fixed 2 , . . . d , the sum 1 + S ( di=2 i Xi Y) runs through all
elements of k when 1 does. Our lemma is proved.
96

Lemma 2. Define the generalised Gaussian sum G(X, ) for X A by

X
G(X, ) =
(Y)(S (XY)).
YA

31. The Functional Equations of the L-functions.

91

Then we have
G(X, ) = (X)G(1, )
Proof. Since A is a finite algebra every non-zero divisor is a unit. (In
fact, if u is a non-zero divisor, ua , ub if a , b, and since A is a
finite set, uA = A. In particular, there exists and element u1 A with
uu1 = 1).

Now, if X is a zero divisor, there exists an element u A by 4) with
Xu = X and (u) , 0 or 1; thus, u, is a non-zero divisor. Hence we
obtain
X
X
G(X, ) =
(Y)(S (XuY)) =
(Yu1 )(S (XY))
YA

YA

= (u )G(X, ),
and since (u1 ) = 1 (u) , 1, G(X, ) = 0 = (X)G(1, ). If X is not a
zero divisor,
X
X
G(X, ) =
(Y)(S (XY)) =
(X 1 Y)(S (Y)) = 1 (X)G(1, ).
YA

YA

Now, the units of A form a finite group and therefore there exists an
integer n , 0 with X n = 1. Hence n (X) = (X n ) = (1) = 1, |(X)| = 1
and 1 (X) = (X). The lemma is proved.
Lemma 3. Let V be a subspace of A and
X
M(V, ) =
(X).

97

XV

Then,
M(Vcomp , )
= q dim V ()M(V, ),
where () depends only on and |()| = q f /2
Proof. By the first two lemmas, we have
q dim V M(Vcomp , )
=

dim V
(X)q

XA

XVcomp

XX
YV XA

(X)(S

(XY))

YV

G(Y, )
=

(X)

(S (XY))

XV

(Y)G(1, )
= G(1, X)M(V,
)

YV

17. Lecture 17

92

Put () = G(1, ).
It only remains to prove that |G(1, )|
= q f /2 .
Now, k can be imbedded in A by the mapping k 1 A.
Also,
X
X
M(k, )
() =
(1) = q 1 , 0.
k

Choose to be real. Taking V = k in the above formula, we obtain

G(1, )G(1, )M(k,

) = G(1, )qM(kcomp )
= qdim kcomp +1 M(k, ),
G(1, )G(1, )
= qf
But since is real,

G(1, )
= G(1, ), and therefore
|()| = |G(1, )|
= q f /2

98

Our lemma is proved.

Since we had ()
= G(1, ), we see that G(1, ) does not depends
on the function . By lemma 2, it follows that G(X, ) is independent of
. (This may also be proved directly.)
We now proceed to the functional equation
Theorem . Let F be an integral divisor which is not the unit divisor
and a proper character modulo F . Then L(s, , K) is a polynomial in
U = qs of degree 2g 2 + d(F ) and satisfies the functional equation
1

K)
qs(g1+ 2 d(F )) L(s, , K) = ()q(1s)(g1+ 2 d(F )) L(1 s, ,
where () is a constant depending on , with |()| = 1.
Proof. Let R be the algebra (N /U1 , . . . Ur ), i the ideal (F /U1 ,
. . . Ur ) and R the quotient algebra R/i.

Now, if X R, X , 0, NX is prime of F and ((X)) is meaningful.
We shall show that ((X)) is constant on the cosets modulo the ideal i.
Let X, Y R, X Y i. If (X) is not coprime to F , (Y) cannot be
coprime to F and therefore ((X)) = ((Y)) = 0. If X is coprime to F ,
we have

Y
1 = vU i (Y X) vU i (F ),
vU i
X

31. The Functional Equations of the L-functions.

93

Y
1( mod + F ), (X) = (Y).
X
Thus, we may define for X R a mapping which again we shall
denote by by the equation

and hence

= ((X)).
(X)
99

Y)
= (XY) and (X)
= (X)
if k .
Clearly we have (X)(
= 0 if and only if vUi (X) > 0 for some i. Find a Y K such
Also, (X)
that
vUi (Y) = vUi (F ) vUi (X)
vUi (Y) = vUi (F ) for j , i.
Y , 0 and X Y = 0. Thus (X)
= 0 implies that
Then, Y R,
X is a zero divisor. Conversely, if X is a zero divisor, we should have
= 0.
vUi (X) > 0 for some i and therefore (X)
Then vUi (Z) > 0 for some i.
Now, suppose Z is a zero divisor in R.
Since is proper character modulo F , FU1i is not a modulus of definition of . Hence there exists an element X K , with (X) coprime to
F , X 1( mod + F Ui 1 ), and ((X)) , 1. Then we have (X 1)Z 0(
and (X)
, 0 or 1.
mod + F ), X Z = Z,
Hence, the map on R satisfies the conditions 1), 2), 3) and 4)
stipulated at the beginning of this lecture. We have already seen (Lecture
=
14) that if is a differential such that F () is coprime to F , S (X)
r
P
S (X) = Ui (X) has all the requisite properties. Now,
i=1

L(s, , K) =

qsd(c)

(U ),

U C

where the first summation is over all classes C and the second over all
integral divisors in the class C. Choose a divisor UC in the class C 100
coprime to F . We have
X

U C

(U ) =

(UC )
q1

XL (UC1 )

((X)),

17. Lecture 17

94

since every integral divisor U C can be written in precisely (q 1)

ways in the form (X)UC , where X is a non-zero element of L(UC1 ).
Again, since UC is coprime to F , L(UC1 ) R and two elements of
L(UC1 ) go to the same coset modulo i if and only if their difference in
L(UC1 )F . We therefore have
X

(U ) =

U C

P
(X)
(UC ) l(U 1 F )
q C
q1
X L(UC1 )

Applying lemma 3 with V = L(UC1 ), we have

X
= M(V, ) = 1 ()qdim V M(Vcomp , ).
(X)

XL(U
C )

But by the theorem of lecture 14, we have

L(UC1 )compl. = L(UC F ())

101

Now, if d(C) < 0, N(C) = l(UC1 ) = 0 and hence M(V, ) = 0. Also,

if d(C) > 2g 2 + d(F ), d(C 1 F W) < 0, and N(C ) = l(UC F ()) = 0;
hence again M(V, ) = 0. Substituting in the expression for L(s, , K),
we see that it is a polynomial in U = qs of degree at most 2g2+d(F ).
We have
X
1
qsd(C) (UC )ql(UC F ) M(L(UC1 ), )
(q 1)L(s, x, K) =
C

1 X sd(C)+N(C)
=

q
(UC )M(L(Uc1 )comp )
() C
1 X sd(C)+N(C)
=
q
(UC )M(L((Uc1 ) ))

() C

by lemma 3,

by the theorem of lecture 14,

X
1
1
q(1s)d(C)g+1+N(WC ) (U
C1 )M(L(UC1 ) ), )

=
()
()F (2s1)(1g)+(1s)d(F )
q
=
()

31. The Functional Equations of the L-functions.

1 )F )

1 1 l(UC
q(1s)d(C ) ((U

)q
C )

95

M(L((UC1 ) ), )

= (q 1)

(()F ) (2s1)(1g)+(1s)d(F )
q
L(1 s, ,
K), since C
()

runs through all classes as C does. This gives

1

qs(g1+ 2 d(F )) L(s, , K) = ()q(1s)(g1+ 2 d(F )) L(1 s, ,

K),
1
d(F )
(()F )q 2
, |()| = 1.
where
() =
()
That the degree in U of L(s, , K) is exactly 2g 2 + d(F ) follows
by comparing the coefficients of highest powers on both sides of the
equation. Our theorem is proved.

Lecture 18
32 Extensions of Algebraic Function Fields
In the next five Lectures, we shall investigate the relations between an al- 102
gebraic function field and an extension of it (see below for definition). In
particular, we consider in the end the connection between the -function
of a function field and the -function of a constant field extension. This
gives in particular the interesting result that for algebraic function fields
over a finite constant field, the smallest positive degree of a divisor is 1.
We start with the definition of an extension.
Definition . Let K be an algebraic function field with constant field k.
An extension of K an algebraic function field L with constant field l such
that L K and l K = k.
Now let L/l be an extension of K/k and K a prime divisor of L. If
vK (X) = 0 for all X K is said to be variable over K or trivial on
K. If this were not true, the restriction of vK to K defines a valuation
of K trivial on k and should therefore correspond to a prime divisor Y
of K. In this case, K is said to be fixed on K and is said to lie over the
prime divisor Y of K. Also, since the restriction of vK to K and vY are
equivalent valuations with values in Z, the latter having the whole of Z
for its value group, there exist a positive integer eL/K (K ) such that
vK (X) = eL/K vY (X) for all X K
eL/K (K ) is called ramification index of K over K.
103
The relation between the residue fields of K and Y is given by the
following
97

18. Lecture 18

98

Lemma . If L/l is an extension of K/k and a prime divisor K of L

lies over a prime divisor Y of K, the residue field KY of Y can be
canonically imbedded in the residue field LK of Y
Proof. Let O, K denote respectively the valuation ring and maximal
ideal of K and O and Y those of Y . Since vK and vY are equivalent
on K, we clearly have O Y and Y = O K . Hence we have
monomorphism Y = O/Y O/K = LK and KY can be considered
as imbedded as a subfield of LK .

We now give condition for L/K to be a finite or an arbitrary algebraic
extension.
Lemma . Let L/l be an extension of K/k. Then among the following
statements, (1), (2) and (3) are equivalent and so are (1 ), (2 ) and (3 ).
(1)
(2)
(3)

[l : k] <
[L : K] <
If K is any prime divisor
of L lying over the prime
divisor
Y of K[LK : KY ] <

(1 )
(2 )
(3)

l is algebraic over k.
L is algebraic over K
If K is any prime of L lying over the prime divisor
Y of K, LK is algebraic
over KY

Proof. We shall show that (1) (2) (3). The proof that (1)
(2) (3) is similar, and even simpler

The equation (valid even when either side is infinite)
[LK : k] = [LK : KY ][KY : k] = [LK : l][l : k]
104

show that (1) (3) since [KY : k] and [LY : l] are both finite.
We shall now prove that (1) (2). Let X be any transcendental
elements of K over k. Since X < k and L k = l, X < l and is therefore
transcendental over 1. It follows that [K : k(X)] < and [L : l(X)] < ,
and from the equalities
[L : k(X)] = [L : K][K : k(X)] = [L : l(X)][l(X) : k(X)],
it follows that [L : K] < [l(X) : k(X)] < .

32. Extensions of Algebraic Function Fields

99

We shall now prove that [l(X) : k(X)] = [l : k], which would finish
the proof of the theorem.
Suppose 1 , . . . , n are n linearly independent element of l over K.
We assert that they are also linearly independent over k(X). For it there
were a linear relation among these with coefficients in k(X) with at least
one non-vanishing coefficient, we may clearly assume that it is of the
form
n
X
i gi (X) = 0
i=1

at least one gi (X) with a non-zero constant term. Since X is transcendental over l, we may put X = 0 in the above equation to obtain a linear
relation among the 1 over k with at least one non-zero co-efficient. But
this is impossible since the i are linearly independent by a assumption.
Hence, [l(X); k(X)] [l : k].
To prove the reverse inequality, we may assume that [l : k] < . 105
Hence, there exists a finite set 1 , . . . r of element of l such that l =
k(1 , . . . r ). Then
[l(X) : k(X)] = [k(X, 1 , . . . , r ) : k(X)]
= [k(X), 1 , . . . r ] : k(X, 1 , . . . , r1 ).[k(X, 1 , . . . , r1 )] :
k[X, 1 , . . . , r2 ] . . . [k(X, 1 ) : k(X)]
[k, 1 , . . . r ] : k(, 1 , . . . , r1 ).[k(, 1 , . . . , r2 )] :
k[, 1 , . . . , r2 ] . . . [k(1 ) : k(X)]
since the degree of 1 over k(X, 1 i1 ) is less than or equal to its
degree over the smaller field k(1 i1 ), [k(1 r ) : k] = [l : k].
The proof of the lemma is completed.
We shall call an extension L/l over K/k satisfying any of the conditions (1), (2), (3) of lemma a finite extension. If K is a prime divisor of
L lying over a prime divisor Y of K, the positive integer [LK : KY ] =
dL/K (K ) is called the relative degree of K over K. It follows from the
proof of the above lemma that
dL/K (K ) =

[LK : l][l : k] dL (K )
=
[l : k],
[KY : k]
dK (Y )

18. Lecture 18

100
dL (K )[l : k] = dL/K (K )dK (Y )
106

(The suffix to d indicated the field in which the degree is taken)

If L/l is an algebraic extension of K/k, there does not exist any prime
divisor of L which is variable over K. For, suppose v is a valuation on
L which is trivial on K. Any elements L satisfies an irreducible
equation
n + a1 n1 + + an = 0, ai K,
so that

0 = v(an ) = v() + v(n1 +

+an1 )

If v() > 0, we have

v(n1 + + an1 ) = min((n 1)v(), (n 2)v(),

0) = 0,

and we obtain a contradiction by substituting in the previous equation.

Thus, v cannot be positive for any element of L, which is impossible.
Now, let L/l be any extension of K/k. We shall prove that there are
at most a finite number of prime divisors of L lying over a given prime
divisor Y of K, and that there is at least one.
Let g be the genus of K and let C be the class of the divisor Y g+1 .
Since d(C) = d(Y g+1 ), g + 1, we have
N(C) d(C) g + 1 2,

107

and there exists at least one more integral divisor U in C. Then, Y g+1
U 1 = (X)K where X K and X transcendental over k. Hence X
is also transcendental over l and the divisor (X)L has a decomposiK1a1 Khah
, where h 1, and ai > 0. We assert that
tion (X)L =
NX
K1 , . . . Kn are precisely the divisors of L lying over Y . For, if K
lies over Y , vK (X) > 0 and hence should be one of the Ki ; and since
vKi (X) > 0, the restriction of vKi to K should be a prime divisor occurring in the numerator of (X)K , and the only such prime divisor is Y .
Our contention is proved.
We now have the

32. Extensions of Algebraic Function Fields

101

Theorem . Suppose L/l is an algebraic extension of K/k. Let Y be a

prime divisor of K and K1 , . . . Kh all the prime divisors of L lying over
Y . Then,
h
X
[L : K] =
dL/K (K )eL/K (K )
=1

Proof. Choose an element X K as above. We have

(X)k =

Yt
(NX )K

vK1 (X)

K
(zX )L
= 1
(X)L =
(NX )L

and

vK2 (X)

K2

. . . KhvK h (X)

(NX )L

Therefore we have
[L : l(X)] = d((zX )L ) =

h
X

vK (X)dL (K ) = vY (X)

=1

h
X

eL/K (K )dL (K )

=1

and on the other hand

[K : k(X)] = dK (Y t ) = tdK (Y ) = vY (X)dK (Y ).

Hence,

108
h

[L : K] =
=

[l : k] X
[L : l(X)][l(X) : k(X)]
=
eL/K (K )dL (K )
[K : k(X)]
dK (Y ) =1
h
X

eL/K (K )dL/k (K ),

=1

which is the formula we want.

As corollaries, we deduce the inequalities
h [L : K],
dL/K (K ) [L : K]
and

eL/K (K ) [L : K].

Lecture 19
33 Application of Galois Theory
We shall now recall some basic facts of Galois theory which we shall 109
use in the sequel.
Let A be a field and B a finite algebraic extension of A.B s shall denote the subfields of all separable elements over A of B. The separable
degree [B : A]s is then define to be the degree of the field B s over A.B is
a purely inseparable extension over B s and its degree is called the degree
of inseparability of B over A, and is denoted by [B : A]i . We obtained
the relation
[B : A] = [B : B s ].[B s : A] = [B : A] s .[B : A]i
If B/A is a normal extension, we define the Galois group G(B/A) to
be the group of all automorphisms of B which leave all the elements of
A fixed. The set A1 of all elements left fixed by every automorphism
belonging to G(B/A) is clearly a field containing A. It is called the
fixed field of G(B/A). A1 is a purely inseparable extension of A and B a
separable extension of A1 , and we have
[B : A1 ] = [B : B]s , [A1 : A] = [B : A]i .
We shall now apply these facts to the theory of algebraic functions.
Let L/l ba a extension of K/k. We define the relative separable degree
dL/K (K ) s and the relative inseparable degree dL/K (K )i of a prime di- 110
visor K of L lying over the prime divisor Y of K to be respectively
[LK : KY ] s and [LK : KY ]i . K is said to be separable, inseparable
103

19. Lecture 19

104

or purely inseparable accordingly as dL/K (K )i is equal to one, greater

than one or equal to dL/K (K ).
Suppose now that L1 /l L/l K/k is a tower of algebraic function
fields. Let K 1 be a prime divisor of L1 lying over a prime divisor K
of L, which again lies over a prime divisor Y of K. It is easy to see that
the following relation between the ramification indices holds
eL /K (K 1 ) = eL (K 1 ).eL/K (K )
If moreover we assume that [L1 : K]< , we have
dL1 /K (K 1 ) = dL1 /L (K 1 )dL/K (K ),
and similar relations for the separable and inseparable degrees.
Now, suppose L/l and L1 /l1 are two extensions of K/k and is an
isomorphism of L onto L1 which maps l on l1 and fixes every element
of K. If K is any prime divisor of L, we define the prime divisor K
in L1 by the equation
vK (Y) = vK (1 Y) for Y L1 .

111

Clearly, K K is a one-one and onto mapping of the set of

prime divisors of L onto the prime divisors of L1 . It is also immediate
that the isomorphism maps the valuation ring and the maximal ideal
of K onto those of K . Hence we have an induced isomorphism
:
1
LK LK of the residue class fields. If K lies over a prime divisor
Y of K, K also lies over Y and
fixes every element of KY .
From these facts, it follows that
eL1 /K (K ) = eL/K (K )
and if [L : K] <
dL1 /K (K ) = dL/K (K ).
We have the following theorem for finite normal extensions.
Theorem . Let Ll be a finite normal extension of K/k, and K a prime
divisor of L lying over a prime divisor Y of K. Then every prime divisor
of L lying over Y is of the form K , where is an element of G(L/K)

33. Application of Galois Theory

105

Proof. We have already seen that K lies over Y for every

G(L/K). To prove the converse statement, let K = K1 , . . . , Kh
be all the prime divisors of L lying over Y . Find aY L such that
vK (Y) > 0
vK j (Y) = 0 for j = 2, . . . h.

Then ,
vK (NL/K Y) = [L : K]i

vK (Y) = [L : K]i

G(L/K)

v1 K (Y) > 0,

G(L/K)

since each 1 K for G(L/K) is a certain Ki . Because K lies over 112

Y , we deduce that
vY (NL/K Y) > 0,
and consequently for j = 2, . . . , h, we have
X
vK j (NL/K Y) = [L : K]i
v1 K j (Y) > 0.
G(L/K)

Since at least one term of the sum on the right must be positive,
and since the only prime divisor lying over Y whose valuation on Y is
positive is K , there exists an automorphism j such that K = 1
j K j,
K j = j K for every j. Our theorem is proved.
For the rest of the lecture, we shall assume that L/l is a finite normal
extension of K/k and G(L/K) the Galois group.
If K is a prime divisor of L, we define the decomposition group
(Zerlegungs gruppe) Z(K ) of K to be the subgroup of G(L/K) of all
elements G(L/K) such that K = K . It follows that if , 1
G(L/K), K = 1 K if and only if and 1 belong to the same left
coset of G(L/K) modulo Z(K ). Because of the above theorem, we are
able to deduce that the number of prime divisors of L lying over a fixed
prime divisor of K is equal to the index in G(L/K) of the decomposition
group of any one of them.

19. Lecture 19

106

It is also easy to obtain the relation between the decomposition

groups of two prime divisors K and K lying over the same prime
divisor of K. In fact, we have
Z(K ) K = K K = K 1 Z(K )
113

and therefore Z(K ) = Z(K )1

Theorem . Let K be a prime divisor of L lying over the prime divisor
Y of K. Then LK /KY is a normal extension. Every element of Z(K )
induces an automorphism
of LK over KY , and every automorphism
of LK over KY is got in this way.
Proof. Let K = K1 , K2 , . . . , Kh be all the prime divisors of L lying
over Y . If y LK , we can find a representative of y in the valuation
ring OK of K such that
vK j (y) > 0 for j = 2, . . . , h.

In fact, if y1 is any representative of y, choose a y L such that
vK (y y1 ) > 0
vK j (y) > 0 for j = 2, . . . , h.
y satisfies the required condition.
The field polynomial of y over K is given by

[L:K]i

f (X) =
(X

y)

Now, if < Z(K ), 1 K , K and therefore vK (y) = v1 K

(y) > 0. Passing to the quotient modulo K in the above equation, we
get

[L:K]i

f (X) =
y)
(X

XM,

Z(K )

33. Application of Galois Theory

114

107

where M is a non-negative integer. But this is a polynomial over KY

which is satisfied by y , and which has all its roots lying in LK . LK is
thus a normal extension of KY .
Now if Z(K ), K = K and by what we have already seen,
induces a KY isomorphism
of LK onto LK , i.e. an automorphism of
LK . To prove the final part of the theorem, notice that LK is a separable
extension of the fixed field (KY ) of the Galois group G(LK /KY ), and
is therefore simple. Hence any automorphism of LK /KY is uniquely
determined by its effect on a single element y . But the working above
y) for some
proves that every conjugate of y io of the form y = (
G(L/K). Hence every automorphism of LK over KY is of the form

with G(L/K). Our theorem is proved.

We define the inertia group T (K ) of a prime divisor K of L to
be the subgroup of all elements of Z(K ) for which
is the identity
automorphism of LK . It is clearly a normal subgroup of Z(K ). The
theorem proved above then establishes an isomorphism G(LK /KY )
Z(K )
.
T (K )
We now given some consequences of the theorems of this lecture.
1. [G : (e)] = [L : K] s = h[Z(K ) : (e)].
2. [Z(K ) : T (K )] = [LK : KY ]s = dL/K (K ) s
3. [L; K] =

h
P

=1

eL/K (K )dL/K (K ) = heL/K (K )dL/K (K )

eL/K (K )dL/K (K ) =

[L : K]
[Z(K ) : (e)]
[L : K] s
= [L : K]i [Z(K ) : (e)]

Hence,

115

4. [Z(K ) : (e)] =

eL/K (K )dL/K (K )
[L : K]i

5. [T (K ) : (e)] =

eL/K (K )dL/K (K )
d (K )i
= eL/K (K ) L/K
[L:K]i
[L : K]i dL/K (K ) s

108

19. Lecture 19

It follows from (5) that if L is separable over K, T (K ) , 1 if and

only if at least one of eL/K (K ) or dL/K (K )i is greater than one.

Lecture 20
34 Divisors in an Extension
Let L/l be an arbitrary extension of K/k. We wish to imbed the group 116
of divisors of K in the group of divisors of L in such a way that the
principal divisor (X)K in K of an element X of K goes into the principal
divisor of the element X in L. This condition may also be rewritten in
the form
hi
m
m Y
Y
Y
vY (X)
eL/ (Ki j )vYi (X)
Yi i
Ki j K
i=1

i=1 j=1

where Yi (i = 1, . . . , m) are the prime divisors of K occurring in X and

Ki j ( j = 1, . . . , hi ) are all the prime divisors of L lying over Yi . This
motivates the following
Definition . If U =
with the divisor

m
Q

i=1
hi
m Q
Q

i=1 j=1

Yi

vYi (U )

Ki j L/K

is any divisor of K, we shall identity it

(Ki j )vY i (U )

in L.

It is easy to see that this accomplishes an isomorphic imbedding of

the group vK of divisors of K in the group vL of divisors of L which takes
the principal divisor (X)K to the principal divisor (X)L . Hence we also
get a homomorphism of the class group KK of K the class group KL of
L. From now on, we shall use the same for a divisor or class of K or its
image as a divisor or class of L.
We have the following theorem comparing the degree in K of a di- 117
visor of K and its degree in L
109

20. Lecture 20

110

Theorem. There exists a positive rational number L/K depending only

on L and K such that for any divisor U of K,
dL (U ) = dK (U )/L/K .
Proof. Obviously it suffices to prove that for any two prime divisors Y
and U of K, we have
dL (Y )
dL (U
=
dK (Y ) dK (U )

Assume on the contrary that we have

i.e.,

dL (Y )
dL (U
<
dK (Y ) dK (U )
dL (Y ) dK (Y )
<
dL (U ) dK (U )
Then there is a positive rational m/n such that
dL (Y ) m dK (Y )
< <
dL (U )
n
dK (U )
It follows that for sufficiently large integral t, we have
dK (Y nt U mt ) = t(ndk (Y ) mdK (U )) > 2gK 1

and

dL (Y nt U mt ) = t(ndL (Y ) mdL (U )) < 0

118

It follows from the first inequality and the Riemann-Roch theorem that there exists an element X , 0 in K divisible by the divisor
U mt Y nt . Hence,
(X)K = U U mt Y
and

nt

, U integral

dL ((X)) = dL (U ) t(ndL (Y ) mdL (U )) > 0

by the second inequality. But this is impossible and our theorem is

proved.

34. Divisors in an Extension

111

[l : k]
. For, if Y be any prime
If [L : K] < , the value of L/K is
L:K
divisor of K and Ki (i = 1, . . . , h) be the prime divisors of L lying over
Y , we have
dL (Y ) =

h
X

dL (Ki )eL/K (Ki )

i=1

[L : K]
1 X
dL (Y ).
dL/K (Ki )dK (Y )eL/K (Ki ) =
[l : k] i=1
[l : k]

Now let L/l be an extension of K/k of finite degree and L1 the smallest normal extension of K containing L. Let l1 be the algebraic closure
of l in L1 . Clearly L1 /l1 is an algebraic function field with constant field
l1 . Let G = G(L1 /K) be the Galois group of L1 over K and H be the 119
subgroup of all automorphisms of L1 fixing every element of L. Let
G/H be the set of left cosets of G modulo H. If Y is an element of L, it
is well-known that the norm of Y over K is given by
[L:K]i

Y
,
Y
NL/K (Y) =
G/H

the product being over any set of representatives of the cosets in G/H.
This suggests the following definition for the norm of a divisor of L. (As
already explained, we shall use the same symbol for a divisor of L and
its canonical image as a divisor of L1 ). If U is a divisor of L, we put

[L:K]i

NormL/K U = NmL/K U =
U

G/H

The definition is independent of the choice of the representative

of ,
since U = U if H. (More generally, if L1/l1 and L2 /l2 are
two extension of an algebraic function field and an isomorphism of L1
onto L2 mapping l1 onto l2 and fixing every element of K, maps every
divisor U of K considered as a divisor of L1 onto U considered as a
divisor of L2 ).
We list below the essential properties of the norm

20. Lecture 20

112

1. The norm of a divisor of L is a divisor of K. Hence the norm

mapping is a homomorphism of L into K
2. If K is a prime divisor of L lying over the prime divisor Y of K,
we have
NmL/K K = Y dL/K (K )
120

3. If y L,
NmL/K (y)L = (NmL/K y)K
4. If U K ,
NmL/K U = U [L:K]
5. If L1 L K is a tower of extensions of algebraic function fields,
and U vL1 ,
NmL1 /K U = NmL/K (NmL1 /L U )
Proof. (3) and (4) are immediate consequences of the definition of the
norm. It is also clear that the norm defines a homomorphism of L
into itself. We have only to prove that the image is contained in K to
complete the demonstration of (1). But this will follow if we can prove
(2).

Again, it is enough to prove (5) for prime divisors K1 of L1 because
of (1). But using (2), (5) reduces to the already proved equality
dL1 /K (K1 ) = dL1 /L (K1 )dL/K (K )

121

for a prime divisor K1 of L1 which lies over K of L.

It only remains to prove (2). Let again G be the Galois group of the
smallest normal extension L1 of K containing L.
Then L1 is also normal over L and its Galois group over L is the
subgroup H of G of all automorphisms which fix every element of L.
Let K1 be any prime divisor of L1 lying over the prime divisor K of L.

34. Divisors in an Extension

113

We shall denote by ZK and ZL the decomposition group of K1 over K

and L respectively. The, since L1 is normal over L, we have

eL /L (K1 )
1

K =
,
K1

H/Z

and therefore

[ZL :(e)] eL1 /L (K)[L:K]i

(NL/K K )[ZL :(e)] =

K

H/Z

G/H
L

eL1 /L (K1 )[L:K]i

eL /L (K1 )[L:K]i

Y
Y

Y
1

=
K
=
K

1
1

G/H

eL / (K1 )[L:K]i [ZK :(e)]

1 L

=
K
1

G/ZK

=Y

eL / (K1 )[L:K]i [ZK :(e)]

1 L
eL /K (K1 )
1

=Y

[ZL :(e)]dL/K (K )

since
eL1 /L (K1 )[L : K]i [ZK : (e)] eL/L (K1 ) [L1 : K]i [ZK : (e)]
=
.
eL1 /K (K1 )
[L1 , : L]i
eL1 /K (K1 )
[ZL : (e)]
.dL /K (K1 ) = [ZL : (e)]dL/K (K )
=
dL1 /L(K1 ) 1
122

Since the group of divisors is free, it is also torsion free and our
formula follows.
Finally, for any divisor U of L, we have
dK (NL/K U ) = [l : k]dL (U ).
It is enough to prove this for a prime divisor K . But by the above
result, we have
dK (NL/K K ) = dK (Y

dL/K (K )

which is the result we want.

) = dL/K (K )dK (Y ) = dL (K )[l : k]

20. Lecture 20

114

35 Ramification
We wish to prove two theorems on ramification. The first one is easy.
Theorem . If L/l is an algebraic extension of K/k such that L is purely
inseparable over K, there is exactly one prime divisor K of L lying over
a given prime divisor Y of K and Y = Y pt where p is the characteristic
of K and t a non-negative integer.
123

Proof. Let Y be any element of L. Since L is purely inseparable over K,

n
there exists an integer n such that Y0 = Y p K. Then, if K be any
prime divisor lying over Y , we have
pn vK (Y) = vK (Yo ) = eL/K (K )vY (Yo )
and therefore the value of vK (Y) is uniquely determined by vY (Y0 ).
Hence K is unique.

If we choose Y such that vK (Y) = 1, we deduce that eL/K (K ) divides pn , and our theorem is proved.
We say that a prime divisor K of an extension L of an algebraic
function field K is ramified if eL/K (K ) > 1. We have the following
Theorem. If L is separably algebraic over K, there are at most a finite
number of prime divisors of L which are either ramified or inseparable
over K.
Proof. We give the proof in three steps. We first prove the theorem for
finite normal extension, then for finite separable extension, and finally
in the general case.


124

First assume that L is finite and normal over K. A prime divisor K of L is either ramified or inseparable only if [T (K ) : (e)] =
eL/K (K )dL/K (K )i > 1.
This implies that there is an automorphism of L in the group
T (K ) which is not the identity automorphism. Since L is finite and
separable over K it is a simple extension K(Z) of K. Hence Z , Z.
1
Al least one of the elements Z, lies in OK , and since T (K )
Z

35. Ramification

115

we deduce that one of the two inequalities

vK (Z Z) > 0 or vK

!
1
1

>0
Z Z

should hold. Since there are only finitely many automorphisms of L

over K and only finitely many prime divisors K for which one of the
two inequalities above can be valid, the theorem is proved in this case.
If L/K were finite and separable but not normal, let L1 be the smallest normal extension of K containing L. If a prime divisor K of L is
ramified or inseparable over K, the same property should also hold for
any prime divisor of L1 lying over K . Hence the theorem in this case
follows from the first part.
Finally, suppose L/K is any separably algebraic extension It l is the
constant field of L, L is evidently a finite separable extension of the composite extension Kl. Also, a prime divisor of L in ramified (inseparable)
over K if and only if it is either ramified (inseparable ) over Kl or the
prime divisor of Kl over which it lies is ramified (inseparable) over K.
Our theorem follows from what we have proved above and the following
lemma.
Lemma . If L/l is an algebraic function field which is separably algebraic over K/k and the that L = Kl, there are no prime divisors of L
ramified or separable over K.
Proof. If K is a prime divisor of L which is ramified (inseparable) over
K, find an element Y Kl such that VK (Y) = 1(Y LK is inseparable 125
over KY ). Since Y is a rational combination of a finite number of elements of K and l, Y lies in a finite extension K(1 , . . . n ) of K, where
i are elements of l. We may also assume that L1 = K(1 , . . . n ) is a
normal separable extension of K; for it is already separable, and we have
only to adjoin to it the conjugates of the i (which are finite in number)
to make it normal. Also by our choice of Y, we see that the prime divisor
K1 of L1 over which K lies is ramified (inseparable) over K.

Let T (K1 ) be the inertia group of K1 in L1 over K. Then, we should
have
[T (K1 ) : (e)] = eL1 /K (K1 )dL1 /K (K1 )i > 1,

20. Lecture 20

116

and there exists an element T (K1 ) which is not the identity. But
since T (K1 ),
vK1 ( ) > 0

( = 1, 2, . . . n)

and the being constants, we should have

=
Hence is the identity automorphism when restricted to K and fixes
each one of elements 1 , . . . , n . Hence should be the identity automorphism of L1 = K(1 , . . . n ). This is a contradiction and our theorem
is proved.

Lecture 21
36 Constant Field Extensions
An extension L/l of an algebraic function field K/k is said to be a con- 126
stant field extension If L is the composite extension Kl of K and l.
The following question arises. Given an algebraic function field K/k
and an extension l of k, is it possible to find a constant field extension
L /l of K/k such that l is k-isomorphic to l ? This is not possible in
general, since the constant field of L = Kl will in general be larger than
the isomorphic image l of l. . More precisely, we have the following
Theorem. Let K/k be an algebraic function field and l0 an extension of
k. Then there exists an algebraic function field L/l which is an extension
of K/k with the following properties:
(1) there exists a subfield l0 of l containing k and a k-isomorphism :
l0 l0
(2) L = Kl0 .
If L /l is another extension of K/k with a subfield l0 of l and a kisomorphism : l0 l0 having the properties (1) and (2), there exists a
K-isomorphism : L L such that the restriction of to l0 coincides

with the map 1

0 of l0 onto l0 .
l is a purely inseparable finite extension of l0 .
127
Proof. Construction of a composite field L = Kl0 .
117

21. Lecture 21

118

Let {ui } be a transcendence basis of l0 over k. Take a {ui } of independent transcendental elements ui over K in one-one correspondence
ui ui with the set {ui } and let be the algebraic closure of K({ui }).
Then we have an isomorphism of k(ui ) onto k(ui ) trivial on k, defined
by ui = ui . can be extended to an isomorphism of l0 onto subfield l0
of , and contains the composite field Kl0 = L. Let l be the algebraic
closure of l0 in L.
If X is a transcendental element of K over k, X is also transcendental
over l0 . For if it were not, there exists a finite subset (u1 , . . . un ) of the ui
such that X is algebraic over k(u1 , . . . un ). Hence there exists a relation
of the form
fo (u1 , . . . un )X r + + fr (u1 , . . . un ) = 0, fi k[u1 , . . . un ],
with at least one non-constant polynomial fi . But this would imply that
the set (u1 , . . . un ) is algebraically related over K, a contradiction.
Also, since L = Kl0 , and l0 k,
[L : l0 (X)] [K : k(X)] < ,

128

and therefore L/l is an algebraic function field with constant field l l0 .

The conditions (1) and (2) are evidently fulfilled. Moreover, since, X is
transcendental over l, we have
[l : l0 ] = [l(X) : l0 (X)] [L : l0 (X)] <
Only the second part of the theorem asserting uniqueness upto isomorphism and the last part asserting that l is purely in-separable over l0
remain to be proved.
Suppose L /l is another extension of K/k satisfying the conditions
of the theorem. We have to set up an isomorphism : L L such
that fixes the elements of K and restricted to l0 is the isomorphism

1 = 1
0 of l0 onto l0 . Since any element of L = Kl0 can be written
in the form
P
ki li
ki , kj K, li , lj l0 ,
P
k jl j

36. Constant Field Extensions

119

we should necessarily have

 P k l 
i
P i
kjlj

P
ki 1 (li )
=P
k j 1 (lj )

We make this the definition of . In order to prove that it is well

P
defined, we have to verify that if 0 has the representation ki li , then
P
ki 1 (li ) = 0. To prove that the map is an isomorphism (and also
to prove that the denominator of the right side does not vanish when
P
P
P
k j l j , 0) we have to prove that ki (li ) = 0 ki li = 0.
Thus, we have set up the required isomorphism provided we can 129
prove that
X
X
ki li = 0
ki 1 (li ) = 0.

But since these expressions involve only a finite number of elements

of l0 and l0 , we may assume that l0 (and consequently l0 ) is finitely
generated over k.
A simple argument shows that to prove the pure inseparability of l
over l0 we may also assume that l0 is finitely generated over k.
First assume that l0 is a purely transcendental extension k(u1 , . . . un )
of k. Then l0 = k(u1 , . . . un ), where ui = 1
1 (ui ). Then u1 , . . . un are
algebraically independent over K, and so are u1 , . . . , un . Hence there
exists an isomorphism : L = K(u1 , . . . , un ) K(u1 , . . . un ) = L. In
this case, the constant field l coincides with l0 = k(u1 , . . . , un ). This
follows from the following more general
Lemma . If A is a field which is algebraically closed in another field
B, and if X1 , . . . , Xn is a set of algebraically independent elements over
B, A(X1 , . . . Xn ) is algebraically closed in B(X1 , . . . , Xn ).
Proof. We may clearly assume that n = 1, X1 = X.

f (X)
be any element of B(X), where 0 , 0 is an element
g(X)
of B and f (X) and g(X) are coprime polynomials over B with leading 130
coefficients 1. If is algebraic over A(X), we have
Let = 0

r (X)r + + o (X) = 0, i (X) A[X],

21. Lecture 21

120

i.e.,

o , . . . , r coprime
r r
r (X)o f (X) + + o (X)gr (X)

= 0.

Let be any root of f (X). Substituting X = in the above equation

(which we may do since X is transcendental over B) we obtain
o ()gr () = 0
and since g() , 0, f and g being coprime,
0 () = 0

131

and so is algebraic over A. Since every root of f is algebraic over A

and f (X) has leading coefficient 1, the coefficients of f are algebraic
over A and hence lie in A. Similarly, g is also a polynomial over A.
Substituting for X a root of f (X) g(X), we get, since f () = g() ,
0, r ()r0 + + 0 () = 0, hence 0 is algebraic over A and therefore
in A, since not all i () = 0(0 , . . . r being coprime). Our lemma is
proved.
We are therefore left with the case when l0 is a finite algebraic extension of k. Then we have l0 = k(1 , . . . , m ). We use induction on m.
The result is trivial when m = 0.
Suppose the result holds for m 1 in the place of m. Put k1 =
k(1 , . . . , m1 ) and K1 = Kk1 = K(1 , . . . , m1 ). Let i = 1
1 (i ),

k1 = k (1 m1 ) and K1 = Kk1 = K(1 , . . . m1 ). Let l1 and l1 be

the algebraic closures of k1 and k1 in K1 and K1 respectively. By our
induction hypothesis, we have
(1) an isomorphism 1 : K1 K1 such that 1 when restricted to k1
coincides with the restriction of 1 to k1 , and
(2) l1 and l1 are purely inseparable extensions of k1 and k1 respectively.

Put m = and m = 1
1 (m ) = . Then, L = K1 () and L =
K1 ( ). We would be through if we can extend the isomorphism 1 to
an isomorphism : L L such that ( ) = 1 ( ) and if we prove
that the constant field l of L is purely inseparable over l0 .

36. Constant Field Extensions

121

To prove that we can extend the isomorphism 1 to , it is necessary

and sufficient to show that if F (X) is the irreducible polynomial of
over K1 , 1 F (X) is the irreducible polynomial of over K1 .
Assume that F (X) has leading coefficient 1. Since one of its roots is
algebraic over k1 , all its roots are algebraic over k1 and F (X) is therefore
a polynomial with coefficients in the algebraic closure, l1 of k1 in K1 .
Also, since l1 is purely inseparable over k1 , the irreducible polynomial of 132
t
over k1 is a certain power of F (X) of the form (F (X)) p , t 0. Since
1 is an isomorphism of lo = k1 ( ) onto lo = k1 () with 1 ( ) = ,
t
t
we deduce that 1 (F (X)) p = 1 (F (X)) p is the irreducible polynomial
of over k1 .
Again, since 1 maps k1 onto k1 , it maps the algebraic closure l1 of

k1 in K1 onto the algebraic closure l1 of k1 in K1 . This proves that the

irreducible equation of over K1 (or what is the same, l1 ) with leading
coefficient 1 is equal to 1 F (X) since 1 F (X) is obviously the only
t
irreducible factor of 1 (F (X)) p over l1 .
Hence 1 can be extended to an isomorphism having the requisite
properties.
To prove that l is purely inseparable over l0 , notice that since l1 is
purely inseparable over k1 , l1 () is purely in-separable over k1 () = l0 .
It is therefore sufficient to prove that l is purely inseparable over l1 ().
Now since l1 is algebraically closed in K1 , the irreducible polynomial of over K1 with leading coefficient l coincides with its irreducible
polynomial over l1 . Therefore we have

 

K1 () : K1 = l1 () : l1

 

and similarly
l1 (, X) : l1 (X) = l1 () : l1 .
From these two equalities and the following one

 


K1 () : l1 (X) = K1 () : K1 K1 : l1 (X)



= K1 () : l1 (, X) l1 (, X) : l1 (X) .

we deduce that


 

K1 : l1 (X) = K1 () : l1 (, X) .

133

21. Lecture 21

122

Now, let be a constant of K1 (). Then there exists an integer t 1

t
such that p is separably algebraic over l1 (). By a well-known theot
rem, the extension l1 (, p ) is a simple extension l1 () of l1 . We have


 
 

t
K1 () : l1 (, p , X) = K1 () : l1 (, X) = K1 : l1 (X)

by an argument which is familiar to us, and using our previous equality,

we get
 


t
K1 () : l1 (, p , X) = K1 () : l1 (, X)
t

134

and hence l1 (, p , X) = l1 (, X) and p l1 (, X). Since p is alget

braic over l1 () which is algebraically closed in l1 (, X), p l1 () and
is purely inseparable over l1 ().
Our theorem is completely proved. We shall give an example where
l , l0 . Let k0 be a field of characteristic p > 0 and u and v two algebraically independent elements over k0 . Let k = k0 (u, v) and X a variable
over k. Put K = k(X, Y) where Y satisfies the equation Y p = uX p + v.
We shall show that the constant field is k. If it were not, let k1 be the
constant field. Since K = k(X, Y) is of degree l or p over k(X) and since



 1
k (X) : k(X) = k1 : k > 1, we deduce that K = k1 (X). Hence
Y = u1/p X + v1/p k1 (X). But since X is transcendental over k, (and
hence also over k(u1/p , v1/p ), we deduce that u1/p and v1/p are both in
k1 . Hence
 1   1/p 1/p
 


k : k k(u , v ) : k = k(u1/p , v1/p ) : k(u1/p ) k(u1/p ) : k = p2 ,

while on the other hand



 
 

k1 : k = k1 (X) : k(X) K : k(X)

which is a contradiction.
Now, take l0 = k(v1/p ). Then Kl0 clearly contains the element


Y v1/p
= u1/p and hence l = k(u1/p , v1/p ), l , lo and l : lo = p.
X

Lecture 22
37 Constant Field Extensions
We require some preliminary lemmas.

135

Lemma 1. Let A, B and C be subfields of a given field, B A and C

algebraic of finite degree n over A. Then the composite extension BC is
algebraic over B of degree at most n. Moreover if y1 , . . . yn is a basis of
C over A, BC is spanned by the same set of elements y1 , . . . yn over B.
The degree of BC over B is equal to n if and only if B and C are linearly
disjoint over A.
Proof. Since y1 , . . . yn span C over A, we have in particular C = A(y1 ,
. . ., yn ) and since B A, BC = B(y1 , . . . yn ). Hence any element of BC
can be written as a polynomial in y1 , . . . yn with coefficients in B (since
y1 , . . . yn are algebraic over A), and since any monomial in y1 , . . . , yn can
be written as a linear combination of y1 , . . . , yn with coefficients in A, we
deduce that BC is the vector space spanned by y1 , . . . ..yn over B. Hence
[BC : B] n.

If [BC : B] = n, y1 , . . . yn should also be linearly independent over
B, and since (y1 , . . . yn ) is an arbitrary set of n elements of C linearly
independent over A, B and C are linearly disjoint over A. The converse
is also evident.
Lemma 2. (a) Let B be any purely transcendental extension of A and
C any field containing A and algebraically disjoint with B over A. 136
Then C and B are linearly disjoint over A.
123

22. Lecture 22

124

(b) Let A be algebraically closed in B and C = A() a simple algebraic

extension of A. Then B and C are linearly disjoint over A.
Proof. (a) Let B = A(u )A where u is a set of algebraically independent elements over A. If B and C are not linearly disjoint, there is a
set of elements c1 , . . . cn C which are linearly independent over A
and polynomials fi (u1 , . . . um ), ui , {ui }A not all of which vanish
identically such that
c1 f1 (u1 , um ) + + cn fn (u1 , . . . um ) = 0, fi A[u1 , . . . , um ]
Since u1 , . . . um are algebraically independent over A, they are algebraically independent over C also. We may therefore equate to zero
separately the coefficients of each of the monomial expressions in
u1 , . . . um occurring in the left hand side of the above equation. At
least one of these provides a non-trivial linear combination of the ci
with coefficients in A which vanishes. This is a contradiction.
(b) Since A is algebraically closed in B, the irreducible monic polynomial of over B is actually a polynomial over A, as we have proved
earlier. Hence [B() : B] = [A() : A], and our result follows from
Lemma 1.


137

Lemma 3. Let A, B, C, D be subfields of a given field such that B

A, D C A. Then B and D are linearly disjoint over A if and only if
(i)B and C are linearly disjoint and (ii) D and the composite extension
BC are linearly disjoint over C.
Proof. Suppose first that B and D are linearly disjoint. Then (i) is evidently fulfilled. To prove (ii), suppose di (i = 1, . . . n) is a set of elements
of D linearly independent over C. If they are linearly dependent over
BC, there exists a relation of the form
X X
di
ci j b j = 0 , ci j C, b j B,
i

37. Constant Field Extensions

125

with b j linearly independent over C and not all ci j being zero. On interchanging the orders of summation, we get
X X
bj
di ci j = 0,
j

and we deduce from our hypothesis that

X
ci j di = 0 for all j.
i


But since di are linearly independent over C, we have ci j = 0 for all
i and j. This is a contradiction.
Suppose conversely that (i) and (ii) are fulfilled. Then any set of
elements of B linearly independent over A are, by (i), linearly independent over C, and (since they are also elements of BC) by (ii), linearly
independent over D. Our lemma is proved.
We can now prove the following
Theorem. Let L = Kl0 be a constant field extension of K with the field 138
of constants l l0 . Then the following conditions are equivalent
(A) K and l are linearly disjoint over k.
(B) For every finitely generated subfield l0 of l0 over k, and L1 = Kl10 ,
the constant field of L1 coincides with 110 .
If these are fulfilled, (B) holds for any (not necessarily finitely generated) subfield l10 of l0 , in particular for l0 itself, i,e., l = l0 .
Proof. We shall first show that (A) implies (B) for any subfield l10 of l0 .
Let l1 be the constant field of L1 = Kl10 . It follows from (A) that l1 and
K are linearly disjoint over k.
Let X be any transcendental element of K over k. Then by Lemma
3, K and 11 are linearly disjoint over k if and only if (i) k(X) and l1 are
linearly disjoint over k and (ii) K and l1 k(X) = l1 (X) are linearly disjoint
over k(X).

22. Lecture 22

126

By lemma 2, since k(X) are 11 are algebraically disjoint (i) is always

satisfied. By lemma 1, since 110 (X) 11 (X) and L1 = K110 (X), we have
the inequalities

 
 

L1 : l1 (X) L1 : l1o (X) K : k(X) .

Again by lemma 1, since L1 = Kl1 (X), the equality



139

 

L1 : l1 (X) = K : k(X)

follows from the linear disjointness of K and l1 (X) over k(X).

From these we deduce that if (A) holds, l1 (X) = l10 (X), and since X
is transcendental over l1 , l1 = l10 .
Conversely suppose (B) holds for every finitely generated subfield
l10 of l0 . To prove that 1 and K are linearly disjoint, it is enough to
prove that any finitely generated subfield of 1 over k is linearly disjoint
with K over k. But clearly a finitely generated subfield of l is contained
in the constant field l1 = l10 of L1 = Kl10 , where l10 is a suitable finitely
generated extension of k. It is therefore enough to prove that any finitely
generated subfield l10 of l0 over k is linearly disjoint with K over k.

37. Constant Field Extensions

127

Let l10 = k(1 , . . . m ). Put ki = k(1 , . . . i ), and li = Kki . To show

that l10 and K are linearly disjoint over k, it is enough to show that k1 and
K are linearly disjoint over k, k2 and L1 = KK1 are linearly disjoint over
k1 , etc., and finally l10 = km and Lm1 = KKkm1 are linearly disjoint
over km1 (Lemma 3). But by (B) each ki is algebraically closed in Li
and since ki+1 is a simple extension of ki , our result follows from Lemma
2.

Corollary. If either K or l0 is separably generated over k, then l = l0 .

Proof. By the above theorem, we may assume that l0 is finitely generated over k. Morover, since we have already seen that l = l0 for a purely 140
transcendental extension l0 of k (see Lecture 21), we may assume that l0
is finitely algebraic over k.

Suppose now that l0 is separably algebraic over k. Then L = Kl0 is
separably algebraic over K. But if l, the irreducible monic polynomial of over K lies in k and is therefore separable over k. Hence l is
separable over l0 , and is also purely inseparable l = l0 .
Suppose next that K is separably generated over k. Let X K be
transcendental over k and such that K/k(X) is separable. Then L =
Kl0 (X) is separable over l0 (X). Hence any element of l is separably
algebraic over l0 (X), and since l0 is algebraically closed in l0 (X), l is
separable over l0 . The result follows as before.
Our next theorem runs as follows.

22. Lecture 22

128

Theorem. Let L = l0 K be a constant field extension and L/K the rational number satisfying
L/K dL (U ) = dK (U )
for any divisor U of K. Then L/K is a power of the characteristic with
non-negative exponent (L/K = 1 if the characteristic is zero). It is equal
to one if and only if K and l are linearly disjoint over k.
Proof. Let X be a transcendental element of K. Choose U to be the
numerator of (X). Then, we see that
dK (U ) = [K : k(X)] and dL (U ) = [L : l(X)]
141

Hence,
L/K = 1 dL (U ) = dK (U ) [L : l(X)] = [K : k(X)].
But as we have already seen (see proof of the first theorem of this
lecture) [L : l(X)] = [K : k(X)] if and only if K and l are linearly disjoint
over k.

In particular, if the characteristic is zero, K is separably generated
over k, and by the corollary of the first theorem, the condition (B) of
our first theorem is satisfied. Hence (A) holds, i.e., K and l are linearly
disjoint over k. Hence L/K = 1.
If the characteristic p > 0, let K0 be the largest separable extension
of k(X) contained in K, and L0 = K0 l0 . Then as above, K0 and l0 are
linearly disjoint over k. Hence we obtain


 

K0 : k(X) = L0 : l0 (X)

Also, K/K0 is a purely inseparable extension of degree ps , s 0 and

therefore so is L = Kl0 inseparable of degree ps , where s0 s (lemma
1). Therefore we have



 
K : k(X) l(X) : l0 (X)
K : k(X)
L/K = 
 =


L : l(X)
L : l0 (X)

37. Constant Field Extensions

142

129




K : K0 K0 : k(X) 



= 

 l : l0 = pss0 l : lo
L : L0 L0 : l0 (X)


Thus, we see that L/K is a power of p divisible by l : l0 . Our
theorem is proved.
In particular, we see that if K or l0 is separably generated over k, K
and l are linearly disjoint over k and therefore L/K = 1.
The last theorem of this section relates to the residue class field of a
prime divisor in a constant filed extension.
Theorem . Let L = Kl, where I is separably generated over k. If K
is a prime divisor of L lying over the prime divisor Y of K, LR is the
composite of the two subfields KY and l.
Proof. It is clearly sufficient to prove the theorem when (1) l is purely
transcendental over k and (2) when l is separably algebraic over k.

Case 1. Since KY is algebraic over K, l and KY are linearly disjoint
over k. Let us agree to denote the image in LK of any element Y in the
Any Y OK can be written in the form
valuation ring OK by Y.
n
P

i=1
m
P

j=1

ki li
,
k1j l1j

ki , k1j K, li , l1j 1,

and the two sets of elements (li ) and (l1j ) being linearly independent over
n

k. Find elements a, b of K such that vY (a) = min vY (ki ) and vY (b) =

m

min vY (k1j ).
j=1

i=1

Then clearly for at least one j vY (k1j b) = 0, k1j , 0. The

image LR of the element

aY
is then
b
P
(ki a)li
P 1 1
(k j b)l j

Since the li are linearly independent over k, they are also linearly independent KY and therefore the numerator does not vanish. Similarly the

143

22. Lecture 22

130

aY
in LK is a
b
b
non-zero element of KY l. Since Y OK , it follows that OY and
a
!
!
aY

b
KY l.
hence Y =
a
b

denominator does not vanish, and therefore the image of

Since KY and l are linearly disjoint, the structure of LK is uniquely

determined; in fact LK is purely transcendental over K, and a transcendence basis of l over k is also a transcendence basis of LK over KY .
Since the map Y Y is also uniquely fixed, we see that there is exactly
one prime divisor K of L lying over the prime divisor Y of K.
Case 2. In this case we may not only assume that l is separably algebraic over k, but also that it is finite. In fact, any element of LK is
clearly the image by the place of K of an element of Kl1 , where l1 is
a finite extension of k. If we have proved the theorem for finite separable extensions, it would follow that l1 KY lKY and we would be
through.

144

Suppose l is separably algebraic and of finite degree over k. Then it

is simple and we have l = k(), where is separably algebraic over k of
degree n, say. Let K = K1 , K2 , . . . , Kn be all the prime divisors of L
lying over Y . Let L1 be the smallest normal extension of K containing
L, and K 1 a prime divisor of L1 lying over K . Let i (i = 1, . . . , m) be
all the automorphisms of L1 over K. Then since i K 1 again lies over
the prime divisor of K, its restriction to L is one of the K j .
Let Z LK . Find an element C L such that
vK (C Z) > 0,
and

vK j (C) 0, ( j = 2, . . . h)
By the first condition , C = Z LK .
Since C K(), it can be written uniquely in the form
C = ao + a1 + + an1 n1 , ai K

(the degree of over K being the same as over k, according to a previous

statement).

37. Constant Field Extensions

131

Taking conjugates in the above equation over K, we obtain a set of

n equations
n1
C (i) = a0 + a1 (i) + + an1 (i)
Since is separable of degree n over K, the determinant |(i) j |(i =
1, . . . , n; j = o, . . . , n 1) has a non-zero value, and we may solve the
above equations for ak to obtain


n1
k2
1(1) (1) C1 (1) 
n1 
k2
 (n)
1
(n) C n (n) 
ak = 

n1
1(1) (1) 
n1 
 (n)
1
(n) 

145

The denominator is a constant of the filed L1 . The numerator is a

linear combination of the C (i) with constant coefficients. But we have
1
1
vK 1 (C (i) ) = v1
(C) = e L1 /L ( K )vK j (C) 0
K

where is an automorphism of L1 /K taking C to C (i) and K j is the

prime divisor of L lying below n u1 K 1 .
We may therefore conclude that
vK 1 (ak ) 0, vK (ak ) 0
This means that the ak are in OK and therefore
Z = C = ao + a1 + + an1 n1 lKY .
Our theorem is proved.
From the proof of the theorem when l0 is purely transcendental, the
following fact emerges. If K is a prime divisor of L = Kl0 , l0 being
purely transcendental, and K lies over a prime divisor Y of K, we
have

n
n
X
vK li ai = min(vY (ai ))
i=1

if li l0 and ai K. This follows in fact from the equation

n
X
i=1

li ai =

n
X
i=1

li a i , if ai OY .

146

Lecture 23
38 Genus of a Constant Field Extension
The notations will be the same as in the previous lecture; in addition, 147
we shall denote by gR the genus of a function field R and by FR (U )
the vector space over the constant field of R of elements divisible by the
divisor U . The dimension of FR (U ) will be denoted by NR (U ).R (U )
shall denote the vector space of repartitions of R divisible by the divisor
U.
Theorem 1. If L/K = 1, i.e., if K and l are linearly disjoint over k, gL
gK . For any divisor U of K, a base of F K (U ) is a part of a base of
F L (U ), and hence NK (U ) NL (U ).
Proof. The last part immediately follows from the fact that F K (U )
F L (U ), if we observe that K and l are linearly disjoint over k and that
l = l0 . Taking a divisor U of K such that
dK (U ) > 2gK 2, dL (U ) > 2gL 2,

we have

NK (U ) = dK (U ) gK + 1,
NL (U ) = dL (U ) gL + 1,
and it follows from the previous inequality that gL gK .

Theorem 2. If l0 is separably generated over k, gK = gL and a basis of

F K (U ) is also a base of F L (U ) for any divisor U of K; hence NL (U ) =
NK (U ).
133

23. Lecture 23

134

Proof. We first consider the case l0 = k(u), u transcendental over k. Let 148
Z F L (U ). Then Z can be written uniquely in the from
F(u)
=
Z=
G(u)

n
P

a u
=o
, a , b
m1
P
um +
b u
=o

with F and G coprime. We shall show that b K.

Let K be a prime divisor of L lying over a prime divisor Y of K.

Then by the remark at the end of the previous lecture,
vK (G(u)) = vK (um + bm1 um1 + + bm ) = min(0, vY (b1 ), . . . , vY (bm )) 0

Hence the only possible prime divisors which occur in the numerator
zG(U) of G(u) are those which over K. But now, since Z F L (U ), the
divisor
zF NG
(Z)U 1 =
NF zG U
is integral, and since zG and NG are coprime, any prime divisor occurring in zG must divide zF . But since F and G are coprime, there exist
polynomials F1 (u) and G1 (u) with
F(u)F1 (u) + G(u)G1 (u) = 1.
If F1 (u) = co + c1 u + + ct ut and U a prime divisor of L variable over
K, we would have
vU (F1 (u)) min(vU (c ) + vU (u)) = 0

149

since vU (u) = vU (VU (c )) = 0. Similarly vU (G1 (u)) 0. Hence we

have
0 = v(1) min(vU (F(u)) + vU (F1 (u)), vU (G(u)) + vU (G(u))
min(vU ((F(u))), vU (g(u))),
and therefore zG(u) and zF(u) can not have a common prime divisor.
Therefore zG(u) = N and G(u) is constant.

38. Genus of a Constant Field Extension

135

It follows that for any prime prime divisor Y of K,

vY (Z) = vY (F(u)) = min vY (a ) vY (U )

and therefore a F K (U ).
Thus, we see that F L (U ) is the vector space generated over l = l0 by
F K (U ). from the liner disjointness of K and l, we deduce that NK (U ) =
NL (U ).
Next suppose l = l0 = k() is finite separable (and therefore simple)
over k. Any element Z F L (U ) can be written uniquely in the form
Z = c0 + c1 + + cn1 n1 , ci K
where n is the degree of over k or K.
Let L1 be the smallest normal extension of L over K. Taking conjugates in the above equation over K, we obtain
n1

Z (i) = c0 + c1 (i) + + cn1 (i) (i = 1, . . . n)

We may solve for ck of obtain

k
k2
1(1) (1) Z (1) (1)
k
k2
 (n)
1
(n) Z n (n)
ak = 
1(1)
 (n)
1

150


n1
(1) 
n1 
(n) 


n1
(1) 
n1 
(n) 

The denominator is a constant , 0 and the numerator is a linear

combination of Z (i) with constant coefficients. Since U is a divisor of
K, it may be easily verified that every conjugate Z (i) of Z is divisible by
U in L1 . Hence the ck are divisible by U in L1 and hence in K. We
have proved in this case also that F L (U ) is generated by F K (U ) over i.
The equality NL (U ) = NK (U ) again follows from the liner disjointness
of K and l = lo over k.
The case of any separably generated extension l0 now follows along
familiar lines. Any Z F L (U ) is contained in a field L1 = Kl1 , where
l1 is a finitely separably generated extension of k; hence it is an element
of F L1 (U ). But in the case of a finitely separably generated extension,

23. Lecture 23

136

the theorem follows by induction if we use the first two cases. Hence
we again obtain the fact that F L (U ) is generated by F K (U ) over l, and
the equality NL (U ) = NK (U ).
Choosing a divisor U with dk (U ) > 2gK 2, dL (U ) > 2gL 2
151

we have

dK (U ) = NK (U ) gK + 1,

and

dL (U ) = NL (U ) gL + 1.

But since L/K = 1, it follows that dK (U ) = dL (U ) and therefore

gL = gK . The theorem is completely proved.
Theorem 3. For any constant field extension L of K, we have gL L/K
gK . (In particular gL gK ).
Proof. Since the genus is preserved for for a purely transcendental extension of the constant field, and since L/K = 1for such an extension, it
follows from the obvious formula L/L1 L1 /K = L/K L L1 K that it
is enough to prove the theorem for algebraic extension l0 of k.

First assume that l0 is a finite extension of k with a basis 1 , . . . , n
over k. By lemma 1 of the previous lecture, L/K is a finite extension of
degree no n, and we may assume that 1 , . . . , n0 form a basis of L
over K.
Let us denote by XK and XL the vector spaces of repartitions of K
and L over k and l respectively. We define a map of the direct product
no
Q
XK of XK by itself no times into the space XL by defining the image

=1

of (C1 , . . . , Cn0 )

n0
Q

XK in XL to be the repartition C of L defined by

=1

C (K ) =

no
X

C (Y )

=1

152

for any prime divisor K of L, where Y is the prime divisor of K lying

below K . It is easy to verify that C so defined is a repartition, and that
n0
Q
is a k-isomorphism of
XK into XL . Let the image under be
=1

the subspace XLo of XL XLo is a vector subspace of XL , if the latter is

considered as a vector space over k.

38. Genus of a Constant Field Extension

If y =
n0
Q

n0
P
1

137

x , x K, is any element of L, the element (x1 , . . . , xn0 )

XK (keeping in mind that we have identified K(L) with a subspace

=1
of XK (XL ) and we may use the same symbol for an element of K(L) and
of

the corresponding repartition in XK (XL )) clearly goes to the repartition

y of XL . Hence, XL0 L. We assert that for any divisor U of K, we
have
XL = XL0 + L (U )
To prove this, consider a repartition C of L. Let K1 , . . . , Kr be the
prime divisors of L lying over a prime divisor Y of K. We can find an
element y(Y ) of L satisfying
vK (y(Y ) C (K )) vK (U ), ( = 1, . . . r)
Define a repartition Y of L by
Y (K ) = y(Y ) if K lies over Y and vK 1 (U ) < 0 or if K lies
over Y and vK (C ) , 0 for some prime divisor K 1 lying over Y ,
Y (K ) = 0 otherwise.
Clearly, C Y L (U ). We shall show that Y XL0 . Let y(Y ) = 153
no
P
y1 (Y ), y1 (Y ) K. Define repartitions Y1 of K( = 1, . . . n0 ) by

=1

putting
Y1 (Y ) = y1 (Y ) if vY (U ) , 0 or vK (C ) < 0 for some K lying
over Y , Y1 (Y ) = 0 otherwise.
We then have ((Y11 , . . . , Yn1o )) = Y XL0 . Our assertion in
proved.
Now, if N denotes the unit divisor, we have
Xk
= gK
K (N ) + K
XL
diml
= gL
L (N ) + L

dimk
and

23. Lecture 23

138
From the first equation,

n0 gK = dimk

n0
Q

XK

=1
n0
Q

=1

K (N ) +

n0
Q

=1

and applying
n0 gK = dimK
154

where 0L (U ) is the k-subspace (

XL0
0L (N ) + L

n0
Q

=1

of K.
On the other hand,

K (U )) of XL for any divisor U

XL
XL
= dimk
L (N ) + L
L (N ) + L
o
XLo
X + L (N ) + L
= dimk
= dimk L
L (N ) + L
XLo (L (N ) + L)

ngL = n diml

= dimk

XL0
XL0 (L (N ) + L)

dim
k
oL (N ) + L
oL (N ) + L

(0L (N ) is obviously a subspace of XL0 (L (N ) + L)). Hence we

deduce that
ngL n0 gK
n0
gL gK
n

155

But if X is any element of K transcendental over k, we obtain



 
K : k(X) 
K : k(X)

dK (NX )
L/K =
= 
 = 
 . l(X) : k(X)
dL (NX )
L : l(X)
L : k(X)


l:k
n
=
=
no
L:k

and our result is proved in the case of a algebraic extension l0 of k.

38. Genus of a Constant Field Extension

139

To prove the theorem in the case of an arbitrary algebraic extension,

we shall show that there exists a finite extension l10 of k such that for
L1 = Kl10 , we have L/L1 = 1. It would then follow from theorem 1 that
gL gL1 and our result would follow.
Let X K be transcendental over k and NX the denominator of X.
We have


m = dK (NX ) = K : k(X) ,


m = dL (NX ) = L : l(X) .
A base x1 , . . . . . . xm of K/k(X) spans L over l(X), and hence we have
m m relations
m
X

xC = 0, = 1, 2, . . . . . . , m m

=1

with coefficients C in l(X) such that the m m vectors

(C1 , . . . . . . Cm ) ( = 1, . . . . . . , m m )
are linearly independent over l(X). The rational functions C of X over
l have coefficients in a finitely generated subfield l10 k of l. Since
L1 = Kl10 is spanned by x1 , . . . xm over l10 (X) and since the C are in
l10 (X), we deduce that


dL1 (NX ) L1 : l1X (X) m0 = dL (NX ),
and since we already have L/L1 1, we deduce that L/L 1 = 1.
Our theorem is completely proved.
Remark . If L/K > 2, we can actually assert that L/K gL < gK . For
suppose L/K gL = gK . Let be a non-zero differential of K. Then, we
have
dK (()) 2gk 2
=
,
dL (()) =
L/K
L/K
and hence (since dL (()) is an integer) L/K divides 2gK 2. But from the
equation L/K gL = gK , we deduce that L/K divides gK and hence 2gK .

156

23. Lecture 23

140

This implies that L/K divides 2, L/K 2, which is a contradiction.

Hence we have the strict inequality.
If however L/K = 2, we may have 2gL = gK as the following example follows.
Let k be a field of characteristic
2 and , 1 two elements of k

1

such that k 02 , 12 : k = 4. Then it can be seen easily that if X is

157

a transcendental element over k, the polynomial Y 2 (1 + 1 X 2 ) is

an irreducible polynomial of Y over k(X). Hence, if Y is a root of the
equation Y 2 = 0 + 1 X 2 , [k(X, Y) : k(X)] = 2. Put K = k(X, Y). It
can be proved (see the example for l , l0 given in Lecture 21) that the
constant fields of k(X, Y) is k.
Now, it can be deduced by taking valuations in the equation Y 2 =
0 + 1 X 2 that NY = NX . Hence the elements 1, X, X 2 , . . . X n , Y, Y X, . . .,
Y X n1 are all elements of K divisible by NXn . Since they are linearly
independent, we have l(NXn )] 2n+1, and the Riemann-Roch theorem
gives gK = 0.


 
1

Now, let l0 be any extension of k such that l0 02 , 12 : l0 < 4,

and L = Kl0 . Since gL L/K gK = 0, we

 1 1  have
 necessarily
 gL = 0. We
2
2
shall show that L/K = 2. In fact, since l0 0 , 1 : l0 2, there is a

relation1 of the1 form

2 + 12 = , , , l0 , not all zero.
1

We may solve for 02 and 12 from this and the equation

1

02 + X12 = Y,
 1 1
1
1
since X , 0, thus proving that 02 , 12 l0 (X, Y), l = l0 2 , 12 .

Hence, L = l(X) and dL (NX ) = 1, Since dK (NX ) = 2, L/K = 2.

One can in fact show that the above example covers the general case
when gL = gK and L/K > 1.
To prove this, we first observe that we must have gL = gK = 0, for
otherwise, we would obtain
gL < L/K gL gK .

38. Genus of a Constant Field Extension

141

If now, W were the canonical class of K, d(W 1 ) = 2 and N(W 1 ) = 3.

Hence there exists an integral divisor U in the class W 1 of degree 2,
and NK (U 1 ) = 3. Let 1, X, Y be a basis of F K (U 1 ). Then X is not a 158
constant, and since NX divides U and d(U ) = 2, we see that U = NX .
Hence,


K : k(X) = d(NX ) = 2.

Now, we assert that Y < k(X). For if it were, we can write

f1 (X)
Y=
, f1 and f2 being coprime polynomials.
Then,
f2 (X)
z f1 deg f2 deg f1
N
, and since (Y)NX is integral, we deduce that
(Y) =
z f2 X
f2 is constant and deg f1 = 1. This contradicts our assumption that
1,
 X, Y are linearly independent. Hence, k(X, Y) , k(X), and since
K : k(X) = 2, K = k(X, Y). Also, since L/K > 1, Y should be purely

inseparable over k(X), and therefore satisfy an equation of the form

Y 2 = R(X),

R(X) being a rational function of X. Since Y 2 is divisible by NX2 , we

deduce by an argument similar to the one used above that R(X) is a
polynomial of degree at most two. Thus,
Y 2 = + 1 X + 2 X 2
Since X should also be purely inseparable over k(Y), we deduce that
1 = 0.
  1 1 
Now, if k 2 , 22 : k were not equal to 4, it is less than or equal
to 2. Hence we have a relation of the form
1

2 + 22 = , , , k.
This together with the relation
1

159
1

2 + 22 X = Y

23. Lecture 23

142
1

proves that 2 , 22 , are both in K and hence in k. This would imply that
Y K(X), which if false. Hence,
  1 1 
k 2 , 22 : k = 4.

  1 1
Finally, suppose l0 02 , 22 : l0 = 4. Then for any subfield l10 of l0
  1 1

1
1
2
2
containing k, we have l0 0 , 2 : l0 = 4. Hence the constant field of
Kl10 is l10 . This implies that (see Lecture 22) L/K = 1, a contradiction.
Our assertion is proved.
If gL = gK > 0, we deduce from the equation
gL = L/K gL = gK
that L/K = 1.
We now prove the following
Theorem . If gL = gK and L/K = 1, then for any divisor U of K a
basis of F K (U ) over k is also a basis of F L (U ) over l; in particular
NL (U ) = NK (U ).
Proof. Let us denote by lF K (U ) the vector space generated over l by
F K (U ) in L. Clearly we have lF K (U ) F L (U ). Since L/K = 1, l and
K are linearly disjoint over k and we obtain
NK (U ) = diml lF K (U ) diml F L (U ) = NL (U )
160

Now, let U be any divisor with dK (U ) = dL (U ) < 2 2gK .

Then we have
NK (U ) + dK (U ) = 1 gK ,
NL (U ) + dL (U ) = 1 gL ,
and since dK (U ) = dL (U ) and gK = gL , we obtain
NK (U ) = NL (U ),
and

lF K (U ) = F L (U ).

38. Genus of a Constant Field Extension

143

To draw the same conclusion for an arbitrary divisor U , choose two

divisors and L of K such that (i) the least common multiple of and
L is U and (ii)d() < 2 2gK , d(L) < 2 2gL . This is clearly possible.
We then have F K () F K (L) = F K (U ), F L () F L (L) = F L (U ).
Let 1 , . . . , m be a basis of F K (U ). Complete this to a basis 1 , . . .,
1 , 1 , . . . , m of F K () and to a basis 1 , . . ., n , 1 , . . . , m of F K (L).
We assert that 1 , . . . , m , 1 , . . . , 1 , 1 , . . . , n are linearly independent
elements of K over k. In fact, if we had a linear relation
X
X
X
ai i +
b j j =
ck k , ai , b j , ck k,
since the left side is an element of F K () and the right side an element of 161
P
F K (L), ck k is an element of F K (U ) and therefore ck = 0, ai = 0 and
b j = 0. Hence 1 , . . . , l , 1 , . . . , m , 1 , . . . , n is also a set of linearly
independent elements over l.
Now suppose y is an element of F L (U ) = F L () F L (L). Since
F L () has for basis (1 , . . . , m , 1 , . . . l ) over 1 and y F L (), we have
X
X
b j j , ai , b j l,
ai i +
y=
j

and similarly, since y F L (L) and F L (L) has for basis (1 , . . . , m , 1 ,

. . . , n ), we have
X
X
dk k , c j , dk l.
c j j +
y=
K

Equating the above two expressions for y, we obtain (since 1 , . . .,

m , 1 , . . ., 1 , 1 , . . . , n are linearly independent over l)
ai = ci , b j = dk = 0.
Thus y lF K (U ) and hence we have F L (U ) = lF K (U ). Again by
linear disjointness of l and K over k, we obtain
NK (U ) = NL (U )
Our theorem is proved.

23. Lecture 23

144

The converse of the above theorem is very easy to prove. If

NK (U ) = NL (U ) for all divisors U , or even only for a sequence of 162
divisors U with dk (U ) , we have the following equations for
dk (U ) sufficiently large
NK (U ) + dK (U ) = 1 gK ,
NL (U ) + dL (U ) = 1 gL .
Hence we obtain
L/K =

dK (U ) NK (U ) + 1 gK
=
,
dL (U )
NL (U ) + 1 gL

and letting dK (U ) , and observing that the right hand side has
limit 1, we obtain L/K = 1. Hence dK (U ) = dL (U ) for any divisor U ,
and we obtain gK = gL .
Corollary. If gL = gK and L/K = 1, the natural homomorphism of the
class group KK of K into the class group KL of L is an isomorphism.
Under this isomorphism, the canonical class of K goes to the canonical
class of L.
Proof. Let U be any divisor of K which is a principal divisor in L.
Then dL (U ) = 0 and NL (U ) = 1. By the above theorem, dK (U ) = 0
and NK (U ) = 1. This proves that U is a principal divisor of K, and
thus the kernel of the homomorphism of KK consists of the unit class
alone. Thus, the map is an isomorphism. We shall use the same symbol
for a class of K and its image as a class of L.

163

Also, if WK is the canonical class of K, dL (WK ) = dK (WK ) = 2gL 2

and NL (WK ) = NK (WK ) = gL , which proves that WK is the canonical
class of L.

39 The Zeta Function of an Extension

Let K/k be an algebraic function field with a finite field of constants k
containing q elements. Let k f be the extension of k of degree f . Since

39. The Zeta Function of an Extension

145

k is perfect, k f /k is a separable extension, and hence the constant field

of L f = Kk f is k f . Let Y be a prime divisor of K and K1 , . . . , Kh the
prime divisors of L f lying over Y . Then, since k f /k is separable, the
Ki are unramified over K, and we have
Y = K1 . . . . . . Kh .
Now, since k f /k is separable, we know that LKi = kY k f , and since
the degrees of KY and k f over k are respectively dK (Y ) and f , the
degree of LKi over k is l.c.m. [dK (Y ), f ]. Thus,
f dL f (Ki ) =

f dK (Y
( f, dK (Y ))

But we know that

h
h
i h
i X
f = kf : k = Lf : K =
dL f /K (Ki ) = hdL f /K (K1 ),
i=1

and using the relation

dL/K (K1 )d(Y ) = dL (K )[l; k],
we deduce the formula

164

h = ( f, dK (Y ))
An immediate consequence of the above formula is the following
Theorem . For algebraic function fields with finite constant fields, the
least positive value of the degree of its divisors is 1.
Proof. Let be this least value. Take f = in the above formula.
We obtain, since divides each dK (Y ),

and also

h=
dK (Y )
.
dL f (Ki ) =

23. Lecture 23

146

Substituting in the Euler product for (s, L f ), we obtain

h 
YY
Y
1

s f dL f (K ) 1
1 qsdK (Y )
1q
=

(s, L f ) =

i=1

= ((s, K))h = ((s, K))

Since both (s, L f ) and (s, K) have a pole of order 1 at s = 1, we
deduce that = 1.
Finally, we prove a theorem expressing the zeta function of a finite
constant field extension in term of the L-series of the ground field.
Theorem. With the same notation as above, we have
(s, L f ) =

f
Y

L(s, f, , K)

=1

165

where f, is the character on the class group taking the value e

all classes of degree 1.

2i
f

on

Proof.
(s, L f ) =

Y
1 NL f K
K


s 1

Y Y 

s f dL f (K ) 1
1q
Y K /Y

( f,dK (Y ))

s ( f ,d f(Y ))
K
(1 NK Y
=

f 
YY
Y

1e

2i
f dK (Y

NK Y s

=1

1

(the last follows from the easily established formula


r (r,s)
for positive integral r, s)
1 z (r,s)
=

f
Y
=1


r 
Q
2i
1 e r sz =

=1

! Y
f
2i
,K =
L(s, f, , K)
f log q
=1

The proof of the theorem is complete.

Bibliography
[1] Artin, E. - Algebraic numbers and algebraic functions. Princeton
1950-51.
[2] Artin, E. - Quadratische korper im gebiet der hoheren kongruenzen. I and II. Math. Zeit. 19 (1924) p. 153-206, 207-246.
[3] Chevalley, C. - Introduction to the theory of algebraic functions
of one variable. Mathematical Surveys. Number V I. Amer. Math.
Soc. 1951.
[4] Dedekind, R. & Weber, H. - Theorie der algebraischen funktionen
einer veranderlichen J. reine angew. math. 92(1882) p. 181-290.
[5] Hensel, K. & Landsberg, G. - Theorie der algebraischen funktionen einer variablen und ihre anwendung auf algebraische kurven
und Abelsche Integrale. Leipzing. 1902.
[6] Kronecker, L. - Grundzuge einer arithmetischen theorie der algebraischen grossen. Werke Band 2.
[7] Riemann, B. - Theorie der Abelschen functionen. J. Reine angew.
Math. 54 (1857). Werke Zweite Auflage Erste Abtheilung. V I p.
88-142.

[8] Roch, G. - Uber

die Anzahl der wilkurlicher Konstanten in algebraischen Funktionen. J. reine angew. Math. 64 (1865) p. 372-376.
147

148

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[9] Schmid, H. L. & Teichmuller, O. - Ein neuer bewies fur die Funktion algeichung der L-reihen. Abh. Math. sem. Hans. univer. 15
(1943) p. 85-96.
[10] Schmidt, F. K. - Analytische zahlentheorie in korpern der charakteristik p. Math. Zeit. 33 (1931) p. 1-32.
[11] Schidt, F.K. - zur arithmetischen theorie algebrische funktionen I.
Math. Zeit. 41 (1936) p. 415-438.
[12] Tate, J. - Genus change in inseparable extensions of function fields.
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1952) p. 400-406.
[13] Weil, A. - Zur algebraischen theorie der algebraischen funktionen.
J. reine angew. Math. 179 (1938) p. 129-133.
[14] Weissinger, J. - Theorie der divieoren Kongruenzen. Abh. Math.
sem. Hans. Univer. 12 (1938) p. 115-126.