I’d like to take a quick (one-post) break from simplicial methods. This summer, I will be studying étale cohomology and the proofs of the Weil conjectures through the HCRP program. I have currently been going through the basic computations in étale cohomology, and, to help myself understand one point better, would like to mention a very pretty and elementary argument I recently learned from Johan de Jong’s course notes on the subject (which are a chapter in the stacks project).

**1. Motivation via étale cohomology**

When doing the basic computations of the étale cohomology of curves, one of the important steps is the computation of the sheaf (that is, the multiplicative group of units), and in doing this one needs to know the cohomology of the generic point. That is, one needs to compute

where for a field of transcendence degree one over the algebraically closed ground field, and the “et” subscript means étale cohomology. Now, ultimately, whenever you have the étale cohomology of a field, it turns out to be the same as Galois cohomology. In other words, if , then the small étale site of is equivalent to the site of continuous -sets, and consequently the category of abelian sheaves on this site turns out to be equivalent to the category of continuous -modules. Taking the étale cohomology of this sheaf then turns out to be the same as taking the group cohomology of the associated -module. So, if you’re interested in étale cohomology, then you’re interested in Galois cohomology. In particular, you are interested in things like group cohomologies of the form

**2. Central simple algebras**

Now it turns out that this is the Brauer group. I might do a post on this someday, but it turns out that the Brauer group has an interpretation as the set (which has a natural group law) of finite-dimensional *simple* -algebras with center , modulo a suitable equivalence. In particular, the *unit* of the Brauer group is represented by the matrix ring (for any ). So let’s accept this fact, along with the other assertions I stated without proof. The upshot is that if is a field of transcendence degree one over an algebraically closed field, or in other words, is the function field of a curve, then we might very well be interested in classifying central simple -algebras. In particular, we have the following result:

Theorem 1If is of transcendence degree one over an algebraically closed field, then any central simple -algebra is isomorphic to for some . In particular, the Brauer group of is trivial.

Now, by the Artin-Wedderburn structure theory for simple algebras, we know that any simple -algebra is of the form for a division ring. Here if the algebra is *central* simple, then must be central over —that is, the center of must be itself. Thus, if we want to prove this fact, it suffices to show that if is as above, the only finite-dimensional division ring over , whose center is , is just itself.

**3. The reduced norm**

This result on central simple algebras is what we are going to prove, and the key point is that there will exist a multiplicative *norm map*

as with the commutative case, except it’s not going to be quite the same.

Proposition 2Let be a central simple algebra of degree over a field . Then there is a multiplicative map

which commutes with base change and will be the determinant if is algebraically closed.

Now, indeed, we are going to define this map using *descent*. Namely, we know that locally in the fpqc topology, looks like a matrix algebra where is a separable extension of . That is, after we make an fpqc base change (e.g. to the algebraic closure), becomes a matrix algebra. So we have the determinant map on the matrix algebra—since the determinant is an invariant of a matrix ring, being stable under automorphisms (because any automorphism of a matrix ring is given by conjugation, by the Skolem-Noether theorem)—it “glues.” In this way we can define the determinant by fpqc base change and descent. So we get this map

called the *reduced norm*, and, if we choose a basis for , then

is a homogeneous polynomial of degree in the variables . This is easy to see because it is true when is replaced by its algebraic closure, so it holds true for as well.

However, if is a division algebra, then it is clear that the multiplicativity of the norm implies that it maps to . In particular, if , then we get a homogeneous polynomial of degree in variables that has no root in , from the above norm map. Motivated by this, we make:

Definition 3A field isquasi-algebraically closedor if any homogeneous polynomial of degree in variables has a nontrivial root.

For instance, an algebraically closed field is (rather uninterestingly) . It follows that:

Proposition 4A field has trivial Brauer group.

Indeed, we have seen that if a field has a nontrivial central simple extension of degree (which without loss of generality can be assumed to be a division algebra), then the reduced norm gives an example of a polynomial of degree in variables with no nontrivial roots.

**4. Function fields are **

So, we have now showed that being quasi-algebraically closed or is sufficient for the vanishing of the Brauer group , and we may state:

Theorem 5 (Tsen’s theorem)A field of transcendence degree over an algebraically closed field is and, in particular, its Brauer group is trivial.

We are actually going to prove a more general result. Say that a field is if any homogeneous polynomial of degree in variables has a nontrivial root. This is obviously a weaker condition that being .

Theorem 6If is algebraically closed and an extension of transcendence degree , then is .

To prove this, we can assume first that is finitely generated, as any polynomial will have coefficients in a finitely generated subextension. This means that is the function field of an irreducible variety over the ground , as there is an equivalence of categories between finitely generated extensions of and integral varieties up to birational equivalence. So there is an (irreducible) variety , which by taking the projective closure of an open subset we may assume projective, and we have and is of dimension . We can assume normal by taking the normalization. Given some homogeneous polynomial of degree in variables, we want to find rational functions such that

The idea will be to stratify the space of rational functions by their poles. Let be a very ample divisor on ; now sections of correspond to rational functions with poles at most along , for each . Now can be thought of as a map from

because has degree . So it is a polynomial map (of degree ) between two finite-dimensional -vector spaces. If and , we can think of the condition as saying that we have homogeneous polynomials of degree on a space of dimension , and we want to find a nontrivial common root.

So in other words, we are trying to see that the intersection of hypersurfaces in affine space , which we are given contains the origin, contains something more than the origin, at least for large. By standard dimension theory, we can do this if

Indeed, cutting with a hypersurface can drop the dimension of an affine variety by at most one—*at least* if the intersection is nonempty. So we need to know something about and . However, we know that these are the Hilbert polynomials of the variety, and consequently for ,

It follows that , and this will be less than for , by assumption. It follows that for large , there is always a nontrivial zero of the map which shows that the field is .

This computation is a key step in the cohomology of curves.

May 8, 2011 at 6:20 am

Do you have an idea if/what you will research? Are you supposed to publish something original, a survey, or is it ok to just learn? Who will be your advisor? Did you decide on the Weil conjectures alone or in discussions? What aspects of them do you have in mind more precisely?

Thanks for the post on Tsen’s theorem, very nice. It would have been nice to add some history -like why/when Tsen, 🙂 or who applied it to Galois cohomology. But that is hard to judge as this is probably readily available on wiki.

I mean, in general the question is (no need to answer): how much repetition is useful on the web, between blogs, wikis, published articles, and notes on personal webpages?

May 8, 2011 at 8:50 am

For now, the plan is to go through the main arguments (as in SGA 4 and 4.5) and learn about the standard technical tools and results: proper/smooth base change, Poincare duality, Grothendieck-Verdier duality, etc.. and their applications to the Weil conjectures. I’ll probably think about some concrete examples, but my primary goal at this stage is not research. I’m working with Dennis Gaitsgory; we had decided on the topic a couple of months back.

I don’t actually know what Tsen actually had in mind when he proved the theorem (and his paper is in German, so I probably can’t read it too easily). I’ll probably write a long set of notes on whatever I learn, as I have a habit of doing, which will overlap with posts such as this one. I’ve never really minded repetition. To my knowledge, nobody in the blathosphere has talked much about etale cohomology (that is, the foundations).

June 30, 2011 at 11:42 am

Hello,

The inequality in definition 3 is backwards. The number of variables should be larger than the degree, i.e. .

June 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

Thanks. I’ve fixed it.