MathLabs
TheoremProved

Ostrowski's theorem (1916)

Statement

Every nontrivial absolute value on Q\mathbb{Q} is equivalent either to the usual absolute value ∣⋅∣∞|\cdot|_\infty, or to ∣⋅∣p|\cdot|_p for exactly one prime pp.

Why is it true?

This says the 'places' of Q\mathbb{Q} — the essentially different ways to measure size and complete the field — are exactly the classical primes 2,3,5,7,…2, 3, 5, 7, \dots together with one extra 'infinite prime' ∞\infty standing for the usual absolute value. Nothing distinguishes ∞\infty structurally from any pp; it just happens to be the one Archimedean place. This single fact is the seed of the adeles and the entire local-global philosophy of modern number theory: to understand Q\mathbb{Q}, study it simultaneously at every place R,Q2,Q3,Q5,…\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{Q}_2, \mathbb{Q}_3, \mathbb{Q}_5, \dots.

Proof sketch

Sketch. Let ∣⋅∣|\cdot| be a nontrivial absolute value on Q\mathbb{Q}. Case 1 (non-Archimedean): if ∣n∣≤1|n| \le 1 for every integer nn, the set p={n∈Z:∣n∣<1}\mathfrak{p} = \{n \in \mathbb{Z} : |n| < 1\} is a prime ideal of Z\mathbb{Z} (it is closed under addition by the ultrametric inequality, which any absolute value with ∣n∣≤1|n|\le1 on Z\mathbb{Z} automatically satisfies, and under multiplication by primality), hence p=(p)\mathfrak{p} = (p) for a unique prime pp; comparing ∣p∣|p| to p−1p^{-1} and using multiplicativity shows ∣⋅∣|\cdot| is equivalent to ∣⋅∣p|\cdot|_p. Case 2 (Archimedean): if ∣n0∣>1|n_0| > 1 for some integer n0n_0, write any integer n>1n > 1 in base n0n_0 and use the triangle inequality together with ∣n0k∣=∣n0∣k→∞|n_0^k| = |n_0|^k \to \infty to bound ∣n∣|n| above and below by powers of nn itself, forcing ∣n∣=nc|n| = n^c for a constant c∈(0,1]c \in (0,1] independent of nn; this makes ∣⋅∣|\cdot| equivalent to ∣⋅∣∞|\cdot|_\infty.

Topics that use this theorem

Step-by-step proofs

No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.

References

  1. Neal Koblitz (1984). p-adic Numbers, p-adic Analysis, and Zeta-Functions · DOI:10.1007/978-1-4612-1112-9
  2. Peter Scholze (2012). Perfectoid spaces · arXiv:1111.4914