DOCSLIB.ORG

Milnor Conjectures and Quadratic Forms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Milnor Conjectures and Quadratic Forms Milnor Conjectures and Quadratic Forms R. Parimala Department of Mathematics Emory University Second Abel Conference: A Mathematical Celebration of John Milnor February 1, 2012 IMA, University of Minnesota Introduction “Milnor had had a deep and affectionate interest in quadratic form theory. His paper Algebraic K-theory and quadratic forms continues to guide much of the current research in the algebraic theory of quadratic forms.” — H. Bass (1993) bq : V × V ! k associated bilinear form 1 b (v; w) = q(v + w) − q(v) − q(w) q 2 T (q) = bq(ei ; ej ) Gram matrix of q, fe1; ··· ; eng a basis of V (V ; q) is nondegenerate if T (q) is invertible. Witt rings and filtration F field, char(F) 6= 2 (V ; q) quadratic form over F (V ; q) is nondegenerate if T (q) is invertible. Witt rings and filtration F field, char(F) 6= 2 (V ; q) quadratic form over F bq : V × V ! k associated bilinear form 1 b (v; w) = q(v + w) − q(v) − q(w) q 2 T (q) = bq(ei ; ej ) Gram matrix of q, fe1; ··· ; eng a basis of V Witt rings and filtration F field, char(F) 6= 2 (V ; q) quadratic form over F bq : V × V ! k associated bilinear form 1 b (v; w) = q(v + w) − q(v) − q(w) q 2 T (q) = bq(ei ; ej ) Gram matrix of q, fe1; ··· ; eng a basis of V (V ; q) is nondegenerate if T (q) is invertible. 0 m 0 n 0 Witt equivalence. q ∼ q () q ? h ' q ? h () q0 ' q0 W (F) = Witt equivalence classes of quadratic forms under ? and ⊗. I(F) ideal of W (F) of even-dimensional forms In(F) = I(F)n Witt rings and filtration h = (F 2; xy) hyperbolic plane r Theorem. (Witt decomposition) (V ; q) = (V0; q0) ? h q0 anisotropic, uniquely determined by q r = Witt index of q. Witt rings and filtration h = (F 2; xy) hyperbolic plane r Theorem. (Witt decomposition) (V ; q) = (V0; q0) ? h q0 anisotropic, uniquely determined by q r = Witt index of q. 0 m 0 n 0 Witt equivalence. q ∼ q () q ? h ' q ? h () q0 ' q0 W (F) = Witt equivalence classes of quadratic forms under ? and ⊗. I(F) ideal of W (F) of even-dimensional forms In(F) = I(F)n In(F) is additively generated by n-fold Pfister forms Witt rings and filtration n-fold Pfister form: hha1; a2;:::; anii = h1; −a1i ⊗ h1; −a2i ⊗ · · · ⊗ h1; −ani Witt rings and filtration n-fold Pfister form: hha1; a2;:::; anii = h1; −a1i ⊗ h1; −a2i ⊗ · · · ⊗ h1; −ani In(F) is additively generated by n-fold Pfister forms • H0(F; Z=2Z) = Z=2Z × × • H1(F; Z=2Z) = F =F 2 (Kummer isomorphism) × (a) 2 H1(F; Z=2Z) denotes the square class of a 2 F 2 • H (F; Z=2Z) = 2Br(F) The cup product (a):(b) represents the quaternion algebra with generators i; j and relations i2 = a, j2 = b, ij = −ji. Galois cohomology ΓF = Gal(Fs=F) n n H (F; Z=2Z) = H (ΓF ; Z=2Z) = n( ( = ); = ) −!lim H Gal L F Z 2Z L=F finite Galois × × • H1(F; Z=2Z) = F =F 2 (Kummer isomorphism) × (a) 2 H1(F; Z=2Z) denotes the square class of a 2 F 2 • H (F; Z=2Z) = 2Br(F) The cup product (a):(b) represents the quaternion algebra with generators i; j and relations i2 = a, j2 = b, ij = −ji. Galois cohomology ΓF = Gal(Fs=F) n n H (F; Z=2Z) = H (ΓF ; Z=2Z) = n( ( = ); = ) −!lim H Gal L F Z 2Z L=F finite Galois • H0(F; Z=2Z) = Z=2Z 2 • H (F; Z=2Z) = 2Br(F) The cup product (a):(b) represents the quaternion algebra with generators i; j and relations i2 = a, j2 = b, ij = −ji. Galois cohomology ΓF = Gal(Fs=F) n n H (F; Z=2Z) = H (ΓF ; Z=2Z) = n( ( = ); = ) −!lim H Gal L F Z 2Z L=F finite Galois • H0(F; Z=2Z) = Z=2Z × × • H1(F; Z=2Z) = F =F 2 (Kummer isomorphism) × (a) 2 H1(F; Z=2Z) denotes the square class of a 2 F Galois cohomology ΓF = Gal(Fs=F) n n H (F; Z=2Z) = H (ΓF ; Z=2Z) = n( ( = ); = ) −!lim H Gal L F Z 2Z L=F finite Galois • H0(F; Z=2Z) = Z=2Z × × • H1(F; Z=2Z) = F =F 2 (Kummer isomorphism) × (a) 2 H1(F; Z=2Z) denotes the square class of a 2 F 2 • H (F; Z=2Z) = 2Br(F) The cup product (a):(b) represents the quaternion algebra with generators i; j and relations i2 = a, j2 = b, ij = −ji. The discriminant × ×2 1 e1 : I(F) ! F =F = H (F; Z=2Z) n e1(V ; q) = (−1) det T (q) , 2n = dim V 2 ker(e1) = I (F) Classical invariants for quadratic forms The dimension mod 2 0 e0 : W (F) ! Z=2Z = H (F; Z=2Z) e0(V ; q) = dim V (mod 2) ker(e0) = I(F) Classical invariants for quadratic forms The dimension mod 2 0 e0 : W (F) ! Z=2Z = H (F; Z=2Z) e0(V ; q) = dim V (mod 2) ker(e0) = I(F) The discriminant × ×2 1 e1 : I(F) ! F =F = H (F; Z=2Z) n e1(V ; q) = (−1) det T (q) , 2n = dim V 2 ker(e1) = I (F) 2 Example: e2(h1; −ai ⊗ h1; −bi) = (a) · (b) 2 H (F; Z=2Z) Classical invariants for quadratic forms The Clifford invariant 2 2 e2 : I (F) ! 2Br(F) = H (F; Z=2Z) e2(V ; q) = [C(q)] 2 2Br(F) C(q) = Clifford algebra of (V ; q) = T (V )=hv ⊗ v − q(v)i. Classical invariants for quadratic forms The Clifford invariant 2 2 e2 : I (F) ! 2Br(F) = H (F; Z=2Z) e2(V ; q) = [C(q)] 2 2Br(F) C(q) = Clifford algebra of (V ; q) = T (V )=hv ⊗ v − q(v)i. 2 Example: e2(h1; −ai ⊗ h1; −bi) = (a) · (b) 2 H (F; Z=2Z) 3 • Is ker(e2) = I (F)? Classical invariants for quadratic forms Classical questions. • Is e2 onto? Is 2Br(F) generated by quaternion algebras? Classical invariants for quadratic forms Classical questions. • Is e2 onto? Is 2Br(F) generated by quaternion algebras? 3 • Is ker(e2) = I (F)? Milnor conjecture (1970). The map en extends to a homomorphism n n en : I (F) ! H (F; Z=2Z) which is onto with kernel In+1(F). Milnor Conjecture (MC) Theorem. (Arason 1975) The assignment n en(hha1;:::; anii) = (a1) · (a2) ····· (an) 2 H (F; Z=2Z) is well-defined on the isomorphism classes of n-fold Pfister forms. Milnor Conjecture (MC) Theorem. (Arason 1975) The assignment n en(hha1;:::; anii) = (a1) · (a2) ····· (an) 2 H (F; Z=2Z) is well-defined on the isomorphism classes of n-fold Pfister forms. Milnor conjecture (1970). The map en extends to a homomorphism n n en : I (F) ! H (F; Z=2Z) which is onto with kernel In+1(F). Milnor Conjecture (MC) Equivalently, there is an isomorphism M n n+1 M n (en): I (F)=I (F) −! H (F; Z=2Z) n≥0 n≥0 of the graded Witt ring and the graded cohomology ring. • MC is a theorem due to Voevodsky (2003) and Orlov–Vishik–Voevodsky (2007). • MC as stated above is a consequence of two conjectures of Milnor relating Milnor ring K∗F with mod 2 Galois cohomology ring and the graded Witt ring. Milnor Conjecture (MC) • MC for n = 2 is a theorem of Merkurjev (1981)—the first major breakthrough for a general field. • MC as stated above is a consequence of two conjectures of Milnor relating Milnor ring K∗F with mod 2 Galois cohomology ring and the graded Witt ring. Milnor Conjecture (MC) • MC for n = 2 is a theorem of Merkurjev (1981)—the first major breakthrough for a general field. • MC is a theorem due to Voevodsky (2003) and Orlov–Vishik–Voevodsky (2007). Milnor Conjecture (MC) • MC for n = 2 is a theorem of Merkurjev (1981)—the first major breakthrough for a general field. • MC is a theorem due to Voevodsky (2003) and Orlov–Vishik–Voevodsky (2007). • MC as stated above is a consequence of two conjectures of Milnor relating Milnor ring K∗F with mod 2 Galois cohomology ring and the graded Witt ring. Milnor’s definition of K2 is inspired by Steinberg, Moore, and Matsumoto. His definition of Kn for n > 2 is "purely ad hoc"! Milnor K -theory K0(F) = Z × K1(F) = F × × K∗(F) = T (F )=ha ⊗ (1 − a); a 2 F ; a 6= 1i fa1;:::; ang denotes the image of a1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ an in Kn(F) Milnor K -theory K0(F) = Z × K1(F) = F × × K∗(F) = T (F )=ha ⊗ (1 − a); a 2 F ; a 6= 1i fa1;:::; ang denotes the image of a1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ an in Kn(F) Milnor’s definition of K2 is inspired by Steinberg, Moore, and Matsumoto. His definition of Kn for n > 2 is "purely ad hoc"! Norm residue map and MC1 p prime, p 6= char F Definition. (Bass–Tate) The Kummer isomorphism × ×p ∼ 1 F =F −! H (F; µp) extends to a homomorphism called the norm residue map n ⊗n hn;F : Kn(F)=p Kn(F) −! H (F; µp ) sending fa1; a2;:::; ang to (a1) · (a2) ····· (an). Theorem. (Voevodsky 2003) MC1 holds. Norm residue map and MC1 Milnor Conjecture (MC1). For p = 2, hn;F is an isomorphism for all n. Theorem. (Merkurjev 1981) For p = 2, h2;F is an isomorphism. Norm residue map and MC1 Milnor Conjecture (MC1).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Slices of Hermitian K-Theory and Milnor's Conjecture on Quadratic Forms
    Slices of hermitian K-theory and Milnor’s conjecture on quadratic forms Oliver R¨ondigs Paul Arne Østvær October 15, 2018 Abstract We advance the understanding of K-theory of quadratic forms by computing the slices of the motivic spectra representing hermitian K-groups and Witt-groups. By an explicit computation of the slice spectral sequence for higher Witt-theory, we prove Milnor’s conjecture relating Galois cohomology to quadratic forms via the filtration of the Witt ring by its fundamental ideal. In a related computation we express hermitian K-groups in terms of motivic cohomology. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Slices and the slice spectral sequence 4 3 Algebraic and hermitian K-theory 8 4 Slices 11 4.1 Algebraic K-theory..................................... 11 4.2 Homotopy orbit K-theory ................................. 11 4.3 Hermitian K-theory .................................... 14 4.4 Themysterioussummandistrivial . ......... 17 4.5 HigherWitt-theory............................... ...... 21 5 Differentials 21 5.1 Mod-2 algebraic K-theory................................. 21 arXiv:1311.5833v2 [math.KT] 30 May 2017 5.2 Hermitian K-theory,I ................................... 23 5.3 HigherWitt-theory............................... ...... 25 5.4 Hermitian K-theory,II................................... 27 6 Milnor’s conjecture on quadratic forms 28 7 Hermitian K-groups 36 A Maps between motivic Eilenberg-MacLane spectra 40 1 1 Introduction Suppose that F is a field of characteristic char(F ) = 2. In [33] the Milnor K-theory of F is defined 6 in terms of generators and relations by KM (F )= T ∗F ×/(a (1 a)); a = 0, 1. ∗ ⊗ − 6 Here T ∗F × is the tensor algebra of the multiplicative group of units F ×.
    [Show full text]
  • A1-Algebraic Topology
    A1-algebraic topology Fabien Morel Abstract. We present some recent results in A1-algebraic topology, which means both in A1-homotopy theory of schemes and its relationship with algebraic geometry. This refers to the classical relationship between homotopy theory and (differential) topology. We explain several examples of “motivic” versions of classical results: the theory of the Brouwer degree, the classification of A1-coverings through the A1-fundamental group, the Hurewicz Theorem and the A1-homotopy of algebraic spheres, and the A1-homotopy classification of vector bundles. We also give some applications and perspectives. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). 14F05, 19E15, 55P. Keywords. A1-homotopy theory, Milnor K-theory, Witt groups. 1. The Brouwer degree Let n ≥ 1 be an integer and let X be a pointed topological space. We shall denote by πn(X) the n-th homotopy group of X. A basic fact in homotopy theory is: Theorem 1.1. Let n ≥ 1, d ≥ 1 be integers and denote by Sn the n-dimensional sphere. n 1) If d<nthen πd (S ) = 0; n 2) If d = n then πn(S ) = Z. A classical proof uses the Hurewicz Theorem and the computation of the integral singular homology of the sphere. Half of this paper is devoted to explain the analogue of these results in A1-homotopy theory [54], [38]. For our purpose we also recall a more geometric proof of 2) inspired by the definition of Brouwer’s degree. Any continuous map Sn → Sn is homotopic to a C∞-differentiable map f : Sn → Sn. By Sard’s theorem, f has at least one regular value x ∈ Sn, so that f −1(x) is a finite set of points in Sn and for each y ∈ f −1(x), the n n differential dfy : Ty(S ) → Tx(S ) of f at y is an isomorphism.
    [Show full text]
  • MILNOR K-THEORY and MOTIVIC COHOMOLOGY 1. Introduction A
    MILNOR K-THEORY AND MOTIVIC COHOMOLOGY MORITZ KERZ Abstract. These are the notes of a talk given at the Oberwolfach Workshop K-Theory 2006. We sketch a proof of Beilinson’s conjecture relating Milnor K-theory and motivic cohomology. For detailed proofs see [4]. 1. Introduction A — semi-local commutative ring with infinite residue fields k — field Z(n) — Voevodsky’s motivic complex [8] Definition 1.1. M M × ⊗n × K∗ (A) = (A ) /(a ⊗ (1 − a)) a, 1 − a ∈ A n Beilinson conjectured [1]: Theorem 1.2. A/k essentially smooth, |k| = ∞. Then: M n η : Kn (A) −→ Hzar(A, Z(n)) is an isomorphism for n > 0. The formerly known cases are: Remark 1.3. — A=k a field (Nesterenko-Suslin [6], Totaro [10]) — surjectivity of η (Gabber [3], Elbaz-Vincent/M¨uller-Stach [2], Kerz/M¨uller-Stach [5]) — η ⊗ Q is isomorphic (Suslin) — injectivity for A a DVR, n = 3 (Suslin-Yarosh [9]) 2. General idea of proof X = Spec A We have a morphism of Gersten complexes which we know to be exact except possibly M at Kn (A): Date: 7/20/06. The author is supported by Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. 1 2 MORITZ KERZ (1) M M M 0 / Kn (A) / ⊕x∈X(0) Kn (x) / ⊕x∈X(1) Kn−1(x) n n n−1 0 / Hzar(A), Z(n)) / ⊕x∈X(0) Hzar(x, Z(n)) / ⊕x∈X(1) Hzar (x, Z(n − 1)) So it suffices to prove: Theorem 2.1 (Main Result). A/k regular, connected, infinite residue fields, F = Q(A).
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretic Timeline Converging on Motivic Cohomology, Then Briefly Discuss Algebraic 퐾-Theory and Its More Concrete Cousin Milnor 퐾-Theory
    AN OVERVIEW OF MOTIVIC COHOMOLOGY PETER J. HAINE Abstract. In this talk we give an overview of some of the motivations behind and applica- tions of motivic cohomology. We first present a 퐾-theoretic timeline converging on motivic cohomology, then briefly discuss algebraic 퐾-theory and its more concrete cousin Milnor 퐾-theory. We then present a geometric definition of motivic cohomology via Bloch’s higher Chow groups and outline the main features of motivic cohomology, namely, its relation to Milnor 퐾-theory. In the last part of the talk we discuss the role of motivic cohomology in Voevodsky’s proof of the Bloch–Kato conjecture. The statement of the Bloch–Kato conjec- ture is elementary and predates motivic cohomolgy, but its proof heavily relies on motivic cohomology and motivic homotopy theory. Contents 1. A Timeline Converging to Motivic Cohomology 1 2. A Taste of Algebraic 퐾-Theory 3 3. Milnor 퐾-theory 4 4. Bloch’s Higher Chow Groups 4 5. Properties of Motivic Cohomology 6 6. The Bloch–Kato Conjecture 7 6.1. The Kummer Sequence 7 References 10 1. A Timeline Converging to Motivic Cohomology In this section we give a timeline of events converging on motivic cohomology. We first say a few words about what motivic cohomology is. 푝 op • Motivic cohomology is a bigraded cohomology theory H (−; 퐙(푞))∶ Sm/푘 → Ab. • Voevodsky won the fields medal because “he defined and developed motivic coho- mology and the 퐀1-homotopy theory of algebraic varieties; he proved the Milnor conjectures on the 퐾-theory of fields.” Moreover, Voevodsky’s proof of the Milnor conjecture makes extensive use of motivic cohomology.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTIVIC COHOMOLOGY with Z/2-COEFFICIENTS by VLADIMIR VOEVODSKY
    MOTIVIC COHOMOLOGY WITH Z/2-COEFFICIENTS by VLADIMIR VOEVODSKY CONTENTS 1 Introduction..................................................... 59 2 Thedegreemap................................................... 63 3 ThemotivicanalogofMargolishomology..................................... 72 4 Normquadricsandtheirmotives......................................... 77 5 ComputationswithGaloiscohomology...................................... 83 6 Beilinson–Lichtenbaumconjectures........................................ 88 7 Maintheorem.................................................... 94 8 AppendixA.Hypercohomologyofpointedsimplicialsheaves.......................... 99 9 Appendix B. Cechsimplicialschemes.......................................ˇ 101 1. Introduction Let k be a field and l a prime number different from the characteristic of k.Fix a separable closure ksep of k and let µl denote the group of l-th roots of unity in ksep. One may consider µl as a Gal(ksep/k)-module. By definition of µl one has a short exact sequence −→ µ −→ ∗ −→zl ∗ −→ 1 l ksep ksep 1 which is called the Kummer sequence. The boundary map in the associated long exact sequence of Galois cohomology is a homomorphism ∗ 1 (1) k → H (k,µl ). In [1], Bass and Tate proved that for a ∈ k∗ −{1} the cohomology class (a) ∧ (1 − a) 2( ,µ⊗2) lying in H k l is zero i.e. that the homomorphism (1) extends to a homomorph- ism of rings ( ∗)/ → ∗ ,µ⊗∗ (2) T k I H k l where T(k∗)r is the tensor algebra of the abelian group k∗ and I the ideal generated by elements of the form a⊗b for a, b
    [Show full text]
  • On the Milnor Conjecture (Voevodsky’S Theorem)
    On the Milnor Conjecture (Voevodsky’s Theorem) Anand P. Sawant School of Mathematics Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India. Abstract The Milnor Conjecture was posed by John Milnor in 1970 to give a description of the Milnor K-theory ring of a field F of characteristic different from 2 by means of the graded Witt ring of F, which is determined by the quadratic forms over F. The Milnor Conjecture was proved by Vladimir Voevodsky, for which he was awarded the Fields medal in 2002. In this article, we introduce the Milnor K-theory, starting with the classical algebraic K-theory. We then introduce the Witt ring of a field and describe the Milnor Conjecture and its various versions. This article is based on the talk given in the Mathematics Students’ Seminar at TIFR on 12th August, 2011. 1 Introduction Algebraic K-theory deals with linear algebra over a general ring R and associates a sequence of groups K0(R); K1(R);::: to R. The motivation for algebraic K-theory came from geometric topology. The main object of interest was a (finite) CW-complex or a manifold X and the ring associated to it was the integral group-ring R = Z[G], where G := π1(X) is the fundamental group of X. The study was initiated by J.H.C. Whitehead, who associated an element called Whitehead torsion τ( f ) 2 K1(R) for a map f : X ! Y of finite CW-complexes. He proved that a necessary condition for two homotopy equivalences f; g : X ! Y to be homotopic is τ( f ) = τ(g).
    [Show full text]
  • EXAMPLES for the MOD P MOTIVIC COHOMOLOGY of CLASSIFYING SPACES
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 355, Number 11, Pages 4427{4450 S 0002-9947(03)03177-5 Article electronically published on July 2, 2003 EXAMPLES FOR THE MOD p MOTIVIC COHOMOLOGY OF CLASSIFYING SPACES NOBUAKI YAGITA Abstract. Let BG be the classifying space of a compact Lie group G.Some examples of computations of the motivic cohomology H∗;∗(BG; Z=p)aregiven, by comparing with H∗(BG; Z=p), CH∗(BG)andBP ∗(BG). 1. Introduction Let p be a prime number and k a subfield of the complex number field C.Let k contain a primitive p-th root of unity. Given aL scheme X of finite type over ∗;∗ Z m;n Z k,themodp motivic cohomology H (X; =p)= m;n H (X; =p) has been defined by SuslinL and Voevodsky ([Vo1], [Vo2]). When X is smooth, the subring 2∗;∗ Z 2n;n Z H (X; =p)= n H (X; =p) is identified with the classical mod p Chow ring CH∗(X)=p of algebraic cyles on X. The inclusion tC : k ⊂ C induces a natural transformation (realization map) m;n m;n m tC : H (X; Z=p) ! H (X(C); Z=p), where X(C) is the complex variety of ∗ ∗ C-valued points of X. Let us write the coimage of t ; as M C ∗;∗ m;n m;n (1.1) h (X; Z=p)= H (X; Z=p)= Ker(tC ): m;n 0;1 ∗;∗ It is known that there is an element τ 2 H (Spec(k); Z=p)withtC (τ)=1.Then we have the bigraded Z=p[τ]-algebra monomorphism (1.2) h∗;∗(X; Z=p) ,! H∗(X(C); Z=p) ⊗ Z=p[τ,τ−1] where the bidegree of x 2 Hn(X(C); Z=p)isgivenby(n; n).
    [Show full text]
  • UNSTABLE MOTIVIC HOMOTOPY THEORY 1. Introduction Morel
    UNSTABLE MOTIVIC HOMOTOPY THEORY KIRSTEN WICKELGREN AND BEN WILLIAMS 1. Introduction Morel{Voevodsky's A1-homotopy theory transports tools from algebraic topology into arithmetic and algebraic geometry, allowing us to draw arithmetic conclusions from topological arguments. Comparison results between classical and A1-homotopy theories can also be used in the reverse direction, allowing us to infer topological results from algebraic calculations. For example, see the article by Isaksen and Østvær on Motivic Stable Homotopy Groups [IØstvær18]. The present article will introduce unstable A1-homotopy theory and give several applications. Underlying all A1-homotopy theories is some category of schemes. A special case of a scheme is that of an affine scheme, Spec R, which is a topological space, the points of which are the prime ideals of a ring R and on which the there is a sheaf of rings essentially provided by R itself. For example, when R is a finitely generated k-algebra, R can be written as k[x1; : : : ; xn]=hf1; : : : ; fmi, and Spec R can be thought of as the common zero locus of the polynomials f1,f2,...,fm, that is to say, f(x1; : : : ; xn): fi(x1; : : : ; xn) = 0 for i = 1; : : : ; mg. Indeed, for a k-algebra S, the set n (Spec R)(S) := f(x1; : : : ; xn) 2 S : fi(x1; : : : ; xn) = 0 for i = 1; : : : ; mg is the set of S-points of Spec R, where an S-point is a map Spec S ! Spec R. We remind the reader that a scheme X is a locally ringed space that is locally isomorphic to affine schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • Algebraic K-Theory, Algebraic Cycles and Arithmetic Geometry
    Algebraic K-theory, algebraic cycles and arithmetic geometry Bruno Kahn Institut de Math´ematiquesde Jussieu 175{179 rue du Chevaleret 75013 Paris France [email protected] Introduction Warning: This paper is full of conjectures. If you are allergic to them it may be harmful to your health. Parts of them are proven, though. In algebraic geometry, one encounters two important kinds of objects: vec- tor bundles and algebraic cycles. The first lead to algebraic K-theory while the second lead to motivic cohomology. They are related via the Chern character and Atiyah-Hirzebruch-like spectral sequences. Vector bundles and algebraic cycles offer very different features. On the one hand, it is often more powerful and easier to work with vector bundles: for example Quillen's localisation theorem in algebraic K-theory is consider- ably easier to prove than the corresponding localisation theorem of Bloch for higher Chow groups. In short, no moving lemmas are needed to handle vector bundles. In appropriate cases they can be classified by moduli spaces, which underlies the proof of finiteness theorems like Tate's theorem [189] and Falt- ings' proof of the Mordell conjecture, or Quillen's finite generation theorem for K-groups of curves over a finite field [66]. They also have a better functo- riality than algebraic cycles, and this has been used for example by Takeshi Saito in [163, Proof of Lemma 2.4.2] to establish functoriality properties of the weight spectral sequences for smooth projective varieties over Qp. On the other hand, it is fundamental to work with motivic cohomology: as E2-terms of a spectral sequence converging to K-theory, the groups involved contain finer torsion information than algebraic K-groups (see Remark 2.2.2), they appear naturally as Hom groups in triangulated categories of motives and they appear naturally, rather than K-groups, in the arithmetic conjectures of Lichtenbaum on special values of zeta functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Remarks on the Milnor Conjecture Over Schemes
    Remarks on the Milnor conjecture over schemes Asher Auel Abstract. The Milnor conjecture has been a driving force in the theory of qua- dratic forms over fields, guiding the development of the theory of coho- mological invariants, ushering in the theory of motivic cohomology, and touching on questions ranging from sums of squares to the structure of ab- solute Galois groups. Here, we survey some recent work on generalizations of the Milnor conjecture to the context of schemes (mostly smooth vari- eties over fields of characteristic 6= 2). Surprisingly, a version of the Milnor conjecture fails to hold for certain smooth complete p-adic curves with no rational theta characteristic (this is the work of Parimala, Scharlau, and Sridharan). We explain how these examples fit into the larger context of the unramified Milnor question, offer a new approach to the question, and discuss new results in the case of curves over local fields and surfaces over finite fields. The first cases of the (as of yet unnamed) Milnor conjecture were studied in Pfister’s Habilitationsschrift [87] in the mid 1960s. As Pfister [88, p. 3] himself points out, \[the Milnor conjecture] stimulated research for quite some time." Indeed, it can be seen as one of the driving forces in the theory of quadratic forms since Milnor's original formulation [69] in the early 1970s. The classical cohomological invariants of quadratic forms (rank, dis- criminant, and Clifford–Hasse–Witt invariant) have a deep connection with the history and development of the subject. In particular, they are used in the classification (Hasse{Minkowski local-global theorem) of quadratic forms over local and global fields.
    [Show full text]
  • The Milnor Conjecture and the Motivic Bloch-Kato Conjecture
    THE MILNOR CONJECTURE AND THE MOTIVIC BLOCH-KATO CONJECTURE CARL WANG-ERICKSON The following document consists of augmented notes for Talk 9 of the London number theory study group on Motives, which I gave on 7 March 2018.1 The main sources I consulted to put together these talks are [Dug04, Kah97, MVW06]. Of course, errors I introduce are my own responsibility and I welcome emails suggesting corrections. This manuscript benefitted from my attendance in Ambrus P´al'sLSGNT course in Arithmetic and Homotopy. I would also like to thank Alex Betts, Toby Gee, and Adam Morgan for helpful conversations or comments on this manuscript. We are now turning from developments in the theory of motives to its applica- tions. Principal among these are the Milnor conjecture and the motivic Bloch-Kato conjecture (henceforth \Bloch-Kato conjecture"). The main goal of this talk is to outline how motivic cohomology is applied in order to prove these conjectures. Outline. In x1, we state the motivic Bloch-Kato conjecture. In x2, we outline (1) how motivic cohomology is related to the objects of the conjecture and (2) the main property of motivic cohomology needed in order to prove the conjecture. The goal of x3 is to give explicit examples of the kinds of calculations that are involved in proving (1). In x4 we give an outline of the proof of (2). In x5, we give an outline of the full proof of (1). However, x5 is incomplete; I have decided to post these notes anyway, since it is unclear whether I will finish x5.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the BIRS Workshop Quadratic Forms, Algebraic Groups, and Galois Cohomology October 4 to 9, 2003
    Report on the BIRS workshop Quadratic Forms, Algebraic Groups, and Galois Cohomology October 4 to 9, 2003 Richard Elman, Alexander Merkurjev, Jan Min´aˇc, Carl Riehm The algebraic theory of quadratic forms began with the seminal paper of E. Witt [31] in 1937, where what are now called \Witt's Theorem" and the \Witt ring" first appeared. But it was not until a remarkable series of papers [19] by A.Pfister in the mid-1960s that the theory was transformed into a significant field in its own right. The period 1965 to 1980 can be considered the “first phase" of the algebraic theory of quadratic forms and is well documented in the books of T.-Y.Lam [13] (1973) and W.Scharlau [25] (1985). Lam's book itself came at a critical time and greatly influenced the development and popularity of the field. In 1981 another phase began with the first use of sophisticated techniques from outside the field—in this case algebraic geometry|by A.S.Merkurjev, who proved a long-standing conjecture of A.A.Albert on a presentation for the exponent two subgroup of the Brauer group. This answered the first open case of the Milnor conjecture of 1970 [17] on the relationship between algebraic K-theory, the Brauer group and the Witt ring. As the preeminent open problem for many years in the algebraic theory of quadratic forms, the Milnor conjecture exerted a profound influence on the subject. This work was extended shortly thereafter (1982) in a paper by Merkurjev and A.A.Suslin [15], showing that when the field F contains the nth roots of unity, the n- torsion in the Brauer group of F is isomorphic to the algebraic K-group K2(F )=nK2(F ).
    [Show full text]