Definition Using Ideals
The original definition of a Hecke character, going back to Hecke, was in terms of a character on fractional ideals. For a number field K, let m = mfm∞ be a K-modulus, with mf, the "finite part", being an integral ideal of K and m∞, the "infinite part", being a (formal) product of real places of K. Let Im denote the group of fractional ideals of K relatively prime to mf and let Pm denote the subgroup of principal fractional ideals (a) where a is near 1 at each place of m in accordance with the multiplicities of its factors: for each finite place v in mf, ordv(a - 1) is at least as large as the exponent for v in mf, and a is positive under each real embedding in m∞. A Hecke character with modulus m is a group homomorphism from Im into the nonzero complex numbers such that on ideals (a) in Pm its value is equal to the value at a of a continuous homomorphism to the nonzero complex numbers from the product of the multiplicative groups of all archimedean completions of K where each local component of the homomorphism has the same real part (in the exponent). (Here we embed a into the product of archimedean completions of K using embeddings corresponding to the various archimedean places on K.) Thus a Hecke character may be defined on the ray class group modulo m, which is the quotient Im/Pm.
Strictly speaking, Hecke made the stipulation about behavior on principal ideals for those admitting a totally positive generator. So, in terms of the definition given above, he really only worked with moduli where all real places appeared. The role of the infinite part m∞ is now subsumed under the notion of an infinity-type.
Read more about this topic: Hecke Character
Famous quotes containing the words definition and/or ideals:
“... we all know the wags definition of a philanthropist: a man whose charity increases directly as the square of the distance.”
—George Eliot [Mary Ann (or Marian)
“Institutional psychiatry is a continuation of the Inquisition. All that has really changed is the vocabulary and the social style. The vocabulary conforms to the intellectual expectations of our age: it is a pseudo-medical jargon that parodies the concepts of science. The social style conforms to the political expectations of our age: it is a pseudo-liberal social movement that parodies the ideals of freedom and rationality.”
—Thomas Szasz (b. 1920)