Today we’ll talk about the basic theory of Brauer groups for certain types of fields. If the last post was too poorly written to comprehend, the only thing that will be used from it is that for fields we can refer to “the” Brauer group without any ambiguity because the cohomological definition and the Azumaya (central, simple) algebra definition are *canonically* isomorphic in this case.

Let’s just work our way from algebraically closed to furthest away from being algebraically closed. Thus, suppose is an algebraically closed field. The two ways to think about both tell us quickly that this is . Cohomologically this is because , so there are no non-trivial Galois cohomology classes. The slightly more interesting approach is that any central, simple algebra over is already split, i.e. a matrix algebra, so it is the zero class modulo the relation we defined last time.

I’m pretty sure I’ve blogged about this before, but there is a nice set of definitions that measures how “far away” from being algebraically closed you are. A field is called if for any such that any homogeneous polynomial (with coefficients) of degree in variables has a non-trivial solution.

Thus the condition just says that all polynomials have non-trivial solutions, i.e. is algebraically closed. The condition is usually called being quasi-algebraically closed. Examples include, but are not limited to finite fields and function fields of curves over algebraically closed fields. A more complicated example that may come up later is that the maximal, unramified extension of a complete, discretely valued field with perfect residue field is .

A beautiful result is that if is , then we still get that . One could consider this result “classical” if done properly. First, by Artin-Wedderburn any finite dimensional, central, simple algebra has the form where is a finite dimensional division algebra with center . If you play around with norms (I swear I did this in a previous post somewhere that I can’t find!) you produce the right degree homogeneous polynomial and use the condition to conclude that . Thus any central, simple algebra is already split giving .

We might give up and think the Brauer group of any field is , but this is not the case (exercise to test understanding: think of ). Let’s move on to the easiest example we can think of for a non- field: for some prime . The computation we do will be totally general and will actually work to show what is for any that is complete with respect to some non-archimedean discrete valuation, and hence for a local field.

The trick is to use the valuation ring, to interpolate between the Brauer group of and the Brauer group of , a field! Since is the fraction field of , the first thing we should check is the Leray spectral sequence at the generic point . This is given by .

By Hilbert’s Theorem 90, we have . Recall that last time we said there is a canonical isomorphism given by specialization. This gives us a short exact sequence from the long exact sequence of low degree terms:

Now we use that and to get that . As already mentioned, nothing in the above argument was specific to . The same argument shows that any (strict) non-archimedean local field also has Brauer group .

To get away from local fields, I’ll just end by pointing out that if you start with some global field you can try to use a local-to-global idea to get information about the global field. From class field theory we get an exact sequence

which eventually we may talk about. We know what all the maps are already from this and the previous post. The first is specialization (or corestriction from a few posts ago, or most usually this is called taking invariants). Then the second map is just summing since each term of the direct sum is a .

Next time we’ll move on to Brauer groups of curves even though so much more can still be said about fields.

## One thought on “Brauer Groups of Fields”