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 $K_lambda$













9












$begingroup$


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











$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    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
    9 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
    9 hours ago















9












$begingroup$


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











$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    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
    9 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
    9 hours ago













9












9








9


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 7 hours ago







Alison Miller

















asked 10 hours ago









Alison MillerAlison Miller

3,01312128




3,01312128







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    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
    9 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
    9 hours ago












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    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
    9 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
    9 hours ago







3




3




$begingroup$
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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

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
    9 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









11












$begingroup$

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
    9 hours ago















11












$begingroup$

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
    9 hours ago













11












11








11





$begingroup$

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 10 hours ago









VenkataramanaVenkataramana

9,09412951




9,09412951











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
















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















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




$begingroup$
Good point! That's certainly simpler than the adelic proof.
$endgroup$
– Alison Miller
9 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







Popular posts from this blog

Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inchanging text on user mouseoverShould certain functions be “hard to find” for powerusers to discover?Custom liking function - do I need user login?Using different checkbox style for different checkbox behaviorBest Practices: Save and Exit in Software UIInteraction with remote validated formMore efficient UI to progress the user through a complicated process?Designing a popup notice for a gameShould bulk-editing functions be hidden until a table row is selected, or is there a better solution?Is it bad practice to disable (replace) the context menu?