Is there an elementary proof that there are infinitely many primes that are *not* completely split in an abelian extension?Is there an “elementary” proof of the infinitude of completely split primes?How many primes stay inert in a finite (non-cyclic) extension of number fields?Is there an “elementary” proof of the infinitude of completely split primes?For what subsets S of (Z/nZ)* is there a Euclidean proof that there are infinitely many primes whose residues lie in S?Where does the principal ideal theorem (from CFT) go?Characterizing primes that split completely vs. primes with a given splitting behaviorDensity of primes of degree one in Bauer's Theorem (Application of Chebotarev Density)Elementary Proof of Infinitely many primes $mathfrakp in mathbbZ[i]$ in the sector $theta < arg mathfrakp <phi $Rank growth in ray class fields of primes that are inert in an imaginary quadratic extensionAn elementary proof that, for every fixed $n in mathbf N^+$, there are infinitely many primes $equiv -1 bmod n$Existence of infinitely many Heegner points that are divisible by $p^n$ in $K_lambda$

Is there an elementary proof that there are infinitely many primes that are *not* completely split in an abelian extension?


Is there an “elementary” proof of the infinitude of completely split primes?How many primes stay inert in a finite (non-cyclic) extension of number fields?Is there an “elementary” proof of the infinitude of completely split primes?For what subsets S of (Z/nZ)* is there a Euclidean proof that there are infinitely many primes whose residues lie in S?Where does the principal ideal theorem (from CFT) go?Characterizing primes that split completely vs. primes with a given splitting behaviorDensity of primes of degree one in Bauer's Theorem (Application of Chebotarev Density)Elementary Proof of Infinitely many primes $mathfrakp in mathbbZ[i]$ in the sector $theta < arg mathfrakp <phi $Rank growth in ray class fields of primes that are inert in an imaginary quadratic extensionAn elementary proof that, for every fixed $n in mathbf N^+$, there are infinitely many primes $equiv -1 bmod n$Existence of infinitely many Heegner points that are divisible by $p^n$ in $K_lambda$













7












$begingroup$


I'm currently in the middle of teaching the adelic algebraic proofs of global class field theory. One of the intermediate lemmas that one shows is the following:



Lemma: if L/K is an abelian extension of number fields, then there are infinitely many primes of K that do not split competely in L.



Of course this is implied by Cebotarev's density theorem, but the adelic proof uses only algebra/topology and finiteness of class number/Dirichlet's units theorem.



There is a well-known elementary proof, (see eg this MO question) that there are infinitely many primes that are split in L/K. I was wondering whether there is also an elementary argument for infinitude of non-split primes in the extension? (As usual the notion of "elementary" is flexible, but I'm looking for something that uses a minimum of machinery.)



One possibility would be to distill the adelic proof into something algebraic, although this seems hard. Another option would be to look for ideals of O_K that are not norms from O_L: any such ideal must have a factor which does not split completely.



One of the answers to the MathOverflow question linked above does mention the paper Primes of degree one and algebraic cases of Čebotarev's theorem of Lenstra and Stevenhagen, which gives an elementary proof under the assumption that L contains a nontrivial ray class field of K. But it seems that one still needs to prove the first inequality in some form to use this.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $K=mathbbQ$ this follows from Kronecker-Weber. Suppose $LsubsetmathbbQ(zeta_n)$ corresponds to a proper subgroup $Hleq (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^times$. A rational prime $pnmid n$ splits completely in $L$ iff $pmod n$ is in $H$. If $p_1,ldots,p_m$ are primes not dividing $n$ that do not split completely, we can pick $rin(mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^timesbackslash H$ and use the CRT to find a positive integer $Q$ congruent to $1$ mod $p_1cdots p_m$ and congruent to $r$ mod $n$. Then $Q$ must have a prime divisor that does not split completely, which is not $p_1,ldots,p_m$.
    $endgroup$
    – Julian Rosen
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JulianRosen Yes, and I believe that's the argument that Lenstra and Stevenhagen generalize to arbitrary ray class fields.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago















7












$begingroup$


I'm currently in the middle of teaching the adelic algebraic proofs of global class field theory. One of the intermediate lemmas that one shows is the following:



Lemma: if L/K is an abelian extension of number fields, then there are infinitely many primes of K that do not split competely in L.



Of course this is implied by Cebotarev's density theorem, but the adelic proof uses only algebra/topology and finiteness of class number/Dirichlet's units theorem.



There is a well-known elementary proof, (see eg this MO question) that there are infinitely many primes that are split in L/K. I was wondering whether there is also an elementary argument for infinitude of non-split primes in the extension? (As usual the notion of "elementary" is flexible, but I'm looking for something that uses a minimum of machinery.)



One possibility would be to distill the adelic proof into something algebraic, although this seems hard. Another option would be to look for ideals of O_K that are not norms from O_L: any such ideal must have a factor which does not split completely.



One of the answers to the MathOverflow question linked above does mention the paper Primes of degree one and algebraic cases of Čebotarev's theorem of Lenstra and Stevenhagen, which gives an elementary proof under the assumption that L contains a nontrivial ray class field of K. But it seems that one still needs to prove the first inequality in some form to use this.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $K=mathbbQ$ this follows from Kronecker-Weber. Suppose $LsubsetmathbbQ(zeta_n)$ corresponds to a proper subgroup $Hleq (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^times$. A rational prime $pnmid n$ splits completely in $L$ iff $pmod n$ is in $H$. If $p_1,ldots,p_m$ are primes not dividing $n$ that do not split completely, we can pick $rin(mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^timesbackslash H$ and use the CRT to find a positive integer $Q$ congruent to $1$ mod $p_1cdots p_m$ and congruent to $r$ mod $n$. Then $Q$ must have a prime divisor that does not split completely, which is not $p_1,ldots,p_m$.
    $endgroup$
    – Julian Rosen
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JulianRosen Yes, and I believe that's the argument that Lenstra and Stevenhagen generalize to arbitrary ray class fields.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago













7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


I'm currently in the middle of teaching the adelic algebraic proofs of global class field theory. One of the intermediate lemmas that one shows is the following:



Lemma: if L/K is an abelian extension of number fields, then there are infinitely many primes of K that do not split competely in L.



Of course this is implied by Cebotarev's density theorem, but the adelic proof uses only algebra/topology and finiteness of class number/Dirichlet's units theorem.



There is a well-known elementary proof, (see eg this MO question) that there are infinitely many primes that are split in L/K. I was wondering whether there is also an elementary argument for infinitude of non-split primes in the extension? (As usual the notion of "elementary" is flexible, but I'm looking for something that uses a minimum of machinery.)



One possibility would be to distill the adelic proof into something algebraic, although this seems hard. Another option would be to look for ideals of O_K that are not norms from O_L: any such ideal must have a factor which does not split completely.



One of the answers to the MathOverflow question linked above does mention the paper Primes of degree one and algebraic cases of Čebotarev's theorem of Lenstra and Stevenhagen, which gives an elementary proof under the assumption that L contains a nontrivial ray class field of K. But it seems that one still needs to prove the first inequality in some form to use this.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm currently in the middle of teaching the adelic algebraic proofs of global class field theory. One of the intermediate lemmas that one shows is the following:



Lemma: if L/K is an abelian extension of number fields, then there are infinitely many primes of K that do not split competely in L.



Of course this is implied by Cebotarev's density theorem, but the adelic proof uses only algebra/topology and finiteness of class number/Dirichlet's units theorem.



There is a well-known elementary proof, (see eg this MO question) that there are infinitely many primes that are split in L/K. I was wondering whether there is also an elementary argument for infinitude of non-split primes in the extension? (As usual the notion of "elementary" is flexible, but I'm looking for something that uses a minimum of machinery.)



One possibility would be to distill the adelic proof into something algebraic, although this seems hard. Another option would be to look for ideals of O_K that are not norms from O_L: any such ideal must have a factor which does not split completely.



One of the answers to the MathOverflow question linked above does mention the paper Primes of degree one and algebraic cases of Čebotarev's theorem of Lenstra and Stevenhagen, which gives an elementary proof under the assumption that L contains a nontrivial ray class field of K. But it seems that one still needs to prove the first inequality in some form to use this.







nt.number-theory algebraic-number-theory class-field-theory number-fields elementary-proofs






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







Alison Miller

















asked 5 hours ago









Alison MillerAlison Miller

3,00312128




3,00312128







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $K=mathbbQ$ this follows from Kronecker-Weber. Suppose $LsubsetmathbbQ(zeta_n)$ corresponds to a proper subgroup $Hleq (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^times$. A rational prime $pnmid n$ splits completely in $L$ iff $pmod n$ is in $H$. If $p_1,ldots,p_m$ are primes not dividing $n$ that do not split completely, we can pick $rin(mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^timesbackslash H$ and use the CRT to find a positive integer $Q$ congruent to $1$ mod $p_1cdots p_m$ and congruent to $r$ mod $n$. Then $Q$ must have a prime divisor that does not split completely, which is not $p_1,ldots,p_m$.
    $endgroup$
    – Julian Rosen
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JulianRosen Yes, and I believe that's the argument that Lenstra and Stevenhagen generalize to arbitrary ray class fields.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If $K=mathbbQ$ this follows from Kronecker-Weber. Suppose $LsubsetmathbbQ(zeta_n)$ corresponds to a proper subgroup $Hleq (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^times$. A rational prime $pnmid n$ splits completely in $L$ iff $pmod n$ is in $H$. If $p_1,ldots,p_m$ are primes not dividing $n$ that do not split completely, we can pick $rin(mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^timesbackslash H$ and use the CRT to find a positive integer $Q$ congruent to $1$ mod $p_1cdots p_m$ and congruent to $r$ mod $n$. Then $Q$ must have a prime divisor that does not split completely, which is not $p_1,ldots,p_m$.
    $endgroup$
    – Julian Rosen
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @JulianRosen Yes, and I believe that's the argument that Lenstra and Stevenhagen generalize to arbitrary ray class fields.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago







2




2




$begingroup$
If $K=mathbbQ$ this follows from Kronecker-Weber. Suppose $LsubsetmathbbQ(zeta_n)$ corresponds to a proper subgroup $Hleq (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^times$. A rational prime $pnmid n$ splits completely in $L$ iff $pmod n$ is in $H$. If $p_1,ldots,p_m$ are primes not dividing $n$ that do not split completely, we can pick $rin(mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^timesbackslash H$ and use the CRT to find a positive integer $Q$ congruent to $1$ mod $p_1cdots p_m$ and congruent to $r$ mod $n$. Then $Q$ must have a prime divisor that does not split completely, which is not $p_1,ldots,p_m$.
$endgroup$
– Julian Rosen
4 hours ago





$begingroup$
If $K=mathbbQ$ this follows from Kronecker-Weber. Suppose $LsubsetmathbbQ(zeta_n)$ corresponds to a proper subgroup $Hleq (mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^times$. A rational prime $pnmid n$ splits completely in $L$ iff $pmod n$ is in $H$. If $p_1,ldots,p_m$ are primes not dividing $n$ that do not split completely, we can pick $rin(mathbbZ/nmathbbZ)^timesbackslash H$ and use the CRT to find a positive integer $Q$ congruent to $1$ mod $p_1cdots p_m$ and congruent to $r$ mod $n$. Then $Q$ must have a prime divisor that does not split completely, which is not $p_1,ldots,p_m$.
$endgroup$
– Julian Rosen
4 hours ago













$begingroup$
@JulianRosen Yes, and I believe that's the argument that Lenstra and Stevenhagen generalize to arbitrary ray class fields.
$endgroup$
– Alison Miller
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
@JulianRosen Yes, and I believe that's the argument that Lenstra and Stevenhagen generalize to arbitrary ray class fields.
$endgroup$
– Alison Miller
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

I mention this as an answer since it is too long for comments. I do not know what the adelic proof assumes. Suppose that all but finitely many primes of $K$ split completely in $L$. Suppose $d$ is the degree of $L$ over $K$. Then the zeta function of $L$ is the $d$-th power of the zeta function of $K$, up to finitely many factors. But the Zeta functions of $L$ and $K$ have only a simple pole at $s=1$ (implied by finiteness of class number ...). Hence $d=1$ and $L=K$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325264%2fis-there-an-elementary-proof-that-there-are-infinitely-many-primes-that-are-not%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









10












$begingroup$

I mention this as an answer since it is too long for comments. I do not know what the adelic proof assumes. Suppose that all but finitely many primes of $K$ split completely in $L$. Suppose $d$ is the degree of $L$ over $K$. Then the zeta function of $L$ is the $d$-th power of the zeta function of $K$, up to finitely many factors. But the Zeta functions of $L$ and $K$ have only a simple pole at $s=1$ (implied by finiteness of class number ...). Hence $d=1$ and $L=K$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago















10












$begingroup$

I mention this as an answer since it is too long for comments. I do not know what the adelic proof assumes. Suppose that all but finitely many primes of $K$ split completely in $L$. Suppose $d$ is the degree of $L$ over $K$. Then the zeta function of $L$ is the $d$-th power of the zeta function of $K$, up to finitely many factors. But the Zeta functions of $L$ and $K$ have only a simple pole at $s=1$ (implied by finiteness of class number ...). Hence $d=1$ and $L=K$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago













10












10








10





$begingroup$

I mention this as an answer since it is too long for comments. I do not know what the adelic proof assumes. Suppose that all but finitely many primes of $K$ split completely in $L$. Suppose $d$ is the degree of $L$ over $K$. Then the zeta function of $L$ is the $d$-th power of the zeta function of $K$, up to finitely many factors. But the Zeta functions of $L$ and $K$ have only a simple pole at $s=1$ (implied by finiteness of class number ...). Hence $d=1$ and $L=K$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



I mention this as an answer since it is too long for comments. I do not know what the adelic proof assumes. Suppose that all but finitely many primes of $K$ split completely in $L$. Suppose $d$ is the degree of $L$ over $K$. Then the zeta function of $L$ is the $d$-th power of the zeta function of $K$, up to finitely many factors. But the Zeta functions of $L$ and $K$ have only a simple pole at $s=1$ (implied by finiteness of class number ...). Hence $d=1$ and $L=K$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 5 hours ago









VenkataramanaVenkataramana

9,08412951




9,08412951











  • $begingroup$
    Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
    $endgroup$
    – Alison Miller
    4 hours ago















$begingroup$
Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
$endgroup$
– Alison Miller
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
$endgroup$
– Alison Miller
4 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325264%2fis-there-an-elementary-proof-that-there-are-infinitely-many-primes-that-are-not%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-algebraic-number-theory, class-field-theory, elementary-proofs, nt.number-theory, number-fields

Popular posts from this blog

Word for a person who has no opinion about whether god existsWord for having a definite opinion while simultaneously withholding judgment?What's the opposite of “newcomer? Is ”veteran" OK?What do you call an “atheist” who might believe in an afterlife?What's a word for someone who wants to voice opinions but not have them challenged?Word for someone who dismisses contrary opinions as irrational?Somone who thinks they are overly special/out of the ordinaryIs there a word, phrase or idiom for “a person who is incapable of thinking about the future”?The belief that a god is human-likeA word for a non-famous person/thing you have heard a lot aboutAdjective for a person who enjoys taking care of their appearance

What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?What was this set of RPG tools called?As a first-time DM should I let my players play complex character classes and roles?Nymph's Kiss and the RelationshipWhat was the name of this Cleric Prestige Class that shapes metal with its bare hands?Are the 3.5e Dragonlance books third party or official works?What's up with the domain Vile Darkness?What was this 80s book about RPGs?What was the name of this Werewolf band?What book had Rituals to “upgrade” animal companions to keep them viable at higher levels?What was this RPG that had rules for player-owned businesses?

2017 IndyCar Series Contents Series news Teams and drivers Schedule Season summary Footnotes References External links Navigation menu"INDYCAR: Initial 2018 bodywork concepts unveiled"the original"IndyCar confirms switch to Performance Friction brakes in 2017""AJ Foyt Racing will switch to Chevy"the original"Carlos Munoz, Conor Daly will drive for AJ Foyt Racing""Zach Veach's Indy 500 Debut Confirmed with Foyt""No mass exodus from Honda after Ganassi switch""Ex-F1 driver Sato joins Andretti Autosport for 2017 IndyCar season""IndyCar's Ryan Hunter-Reay, sponsor DHL paired through 2020""hhgregg and Andretti Autosport announce partnership for key races in 2016""INDYCAR: Rossi re-signs with Andretti"the original"McLaren Formula 1 - Fernando Alonso to race at Indy 500 with McLaren, Honda and Andretti Autosport""Shank will finally take part in Indy 500 with Harvey, Andretti | MotorSportsTalk""Andretti adds Jack Harvey to Indy 500 field""Ganassi switches to Honda power for 2017""INDYCAR: Chilton returns to Ganassi"the original"IndyCar silly season: Who's going where in 2017?""INDYCAR: Kanaan, NTT Data return to Ganassi"the original"Kimball to remain at Ganassi for 2017""Coyne confirms Bourdais for 2017 IndyCar season""Davison to sub for Bourdais in Indy 500"the original"Gutierrez confirmed for Detroit IndyCar debut""Gutierrez returns with Coyne for rest of 2017 season""Vautier to drive for Coyne at Texas"the original"INDYCAR: Coyne confirms Jones for 2017"the original"Pippa Mann returns to Coyne for Indy 500""Karam, Dreyer & Reinbold teaming up again for Indianapolis 500""Pigot to return to Ed Carpenter Racing""Hildebrand confirmed as full-time Ed Carpenter driver""Veach to replace injured Hildebrand at Barber"the originalNew Team Harding Racing Enters Chaves for 101st Indianapolis 500"Juncos Racing Announces Entry in 101st Running of the Indianapolis 500 :: Juncos Racing""Juncos confirms Pigot for Indy 500""Saavedra confirmed in Juncos' second 500 entry"the original"Lazier confirms Indy 500 run after son's USF2000 debut"the original"Claman DeMelo to race for RLLR at Sonoma"the original"Rahal signs Servia and ace engineer for 2017""IndyCar: Aleshin returns with Schmidt"the original"Aleshin replaced by Saavedra for Toronto""Jack Harvey will pilot SPM No. 7 car at Watkins Glen, Sonoma""Jay Howard confirmed in Tony Stewart's supported SPM Indy entry""INDYCAR: Newgarden to wave the flag at Penske"the original"Pagenaud opts for No. 1 in 2017"the original"Penske confirms Newgarden for 2017""Montoya to stay with Team Penske in 2017""Target leaving IndyCar after 27 seasons with Chip Ganassi""Cavin: IndyCar could see complete driver/team shakeup in 2017""End of the road for KV Racing?""KV Racing confirms closure, equipment sold to Juncos""Juncos confirms IndyCar Series entry"the original"Juncos readies IndyCar program, aims for '17 500"the original"Harding Racing to add Texas, Pocono to schedule"the original"Sato signs with Andretti Autosport for 2017""INDYCAR: Aleshin in Doubt at SPM"the original"Long Beach notebook: JR Hildebrand breaks hand""Hildebrand cleared to return at Phoenix"the original"Bourdais to undergo surgery on multiple fractures""Aleshin loses Schmidt Peterson IndyCar ride""Saavedra in at SPM for Pocono, Gateway"the original"Bourdais to make return at Gateway"the original"The IndyCar Grand Prix no longer is sponsored by Angie's List""2017 IndyCar Series rulebook""2017 Verizon IndyCar Series Official Rulebook"Official websiteeeeee