Discriminant of An Algebraic Number Field - Definition

Definition

Let K be an algebraic number field, and let OK be its ring of integers. Let b1, ..., bn be an integral basis of OK (i.e. a basis as a Z-module), and let {σ1, ..., σn} be the set of embeddings of K into the complex numbers (i.e. ring homomorphisms K → C). The discriminant of K is the square of the determinant of the n by n matrix B whose (i,j)-entry is σi(bj). Symbolically,

\Delta_K=\operatorname{det}\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \sigma_1(b_1) & \sigma_1(b_2) &\cdots & \sigma_1(b_n) \\ \sigma_2(b_1) & \ddots & & \vdots \\ \vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\ \sigma_n(b_1) & \cdots & \cdots & \sigma_n(b_n) \end{array}\right)^2.


Equivalently, the trace from K to Q can be used. Specifically, define the trace form to be the matrix whose (i,j)-entry is TrK/Q(bibj). This matrix equals BTB, so the discriminant of K is the determinant of this matrix.

Read more about this topic:  Discriminant Of An Algebraic Number Field

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “The definition of good prose is proper words in their proper places; of good verse, the most proper words in their proper places. The propriety is in either case relative. The words in prose ought to express the intended meaning, and no more; if they attract attention to themselves, it is, in general, a fault.”
    —Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834)

    “Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
    —Walter Pater (1839–1894)

    “The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
    —William James (1842–1910)