Numerical evidence for higher order Stark-type conjectures
Kevin McGown, Jonathan Sands, Daniel Valli\`eres

TL;DR
This paper develops a systematic numerical approach to test higher order Stark-type conjectures across various abelian extensions, and verifies these conjectures for nearly 20,000 real cubic extensions with small discriminant.
Contribution
It introduces a general method for numerically testing higher order Stark-type conjectures applicable to any abelian extension of number fields.
Findings
Numerical verification of conjectures for 19,197 fields with discriminant less than 10^{12}
Method applicable regardless of signature and splitting types
All tested cases support the conjectures in the examined range.
Abstract
We give a systematic method of providing numerical evidence for higher order Stark-type conjectures such as (in chronological order) Stark's conjecture over , Rubin's conjecture, Popescu's conjecture, and a conjecture due to Burns that constitutes a generalization of Brumer's classical conjecture on annihilation of class groups. Our approach is general and could be used for any abelian extension of number fields, independent of the signature and type of places (finite or infinite) that split completely in the extension. We then employ our techniques in the situation where is a totally real, abelian, ramified cubic extension of a real quadratic field. We numerically verify the conjectures listed above for all fields of this type with absolute discriminant less than , for a total of examples. The places that split completely in these extensions are…
| Types | Total | ||||||||||||||
| Galois abelian | |||||||||||||||
| Galois non-abelian | |||||||||||||||
| Non Galois | |||||||||||||||
| Total |
| Statements | Total | ||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Total |
| Statements | Total | ||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Total |
| Statements | Total | ||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Statement | |||||||||||||||
| Total |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory · Coding theory and cryptography · Advanced Algebra and Geometry
Numerical evidence for higher order Stark-type conjectures
Kevin McGown, Jonathan Sands, Daniel Vallières
Abstract.
We give a systematic method of providing numerical evidence for higher order Stark-type conjectures such as (in chronological order) Stark’s conjecture over , Rubin’s conjecture, Popescu’s conjecture, and a conjecture due to Burns that constitutes a generalization of Brumer’s classical conjecture on annihilation of class groups. Our approach is general and could be used for any abelian extension of number fields, independent of the signature and type of places (finite or infinite) that split completely in the extension.
We then employ our techniques in the situation where is a totally real, abelian, ramified cubic extension of a real quadratic field. We numerically verify the conjectures listed above for all fields of this type with absolute discriminant less than , for a total of examples. The places that split completely in these extensions are always taken to be the two real archimedean places of and we are in a situation where all the -truncated -functions have order of vanishing at least two.
Contents
1. Introduction
In a well-known series of four papers, Harold Stark formulated several conjectures regarding the special value at of Artin -functions. In [12], he formulated what is now known as Stark’s main conjecture (or Stark’s conjecture over ) for a general Artin -function, and in [13], he formulated a more refined conjecture for -functions associated to abelian extensions of number fields having order of vanishing one at (referred to henceforth as Stark’s abelian rank one conjecture). After some previous work of Sands, Stark and Tangedal, Stark’s abelian rank one conjecture was extended to higher order of vanishing -functions by Rubin (Conjecture of [10]) and by Popescu (Conjecture of [9]). Popescu’s and Rubin’s conjectures are closely related, though not equivalent in general. Popescu carefully studied a comparison theorem between the two, and he showed that Rubin’s conjecture implies his, and at times, they are equivalent. For more information on these matters, we refer the reader to Theorem of [9].
All these conjectures have been studied extensively by various authors. An impressive amount of work in gathering numerical evidence for Stark’s abelian rank one conjecture has been done over the years. But to our knowledge, very few authors have provided numerical evidence for Rubin’s or Popescu’s conjecture in the case where the -functions have order of vanishing greater than or equal to two. (The only two such works known to us are [7] and [11].) The goal of this investigation is to remedy this situation. After completing this paper, it was brought to our attention that Stucky (see [14]) very recently completed his master’s thesis on the subject, but his approach is different than ours.
Roughly speaking, Popescu’s conjecture predicts that a certain arithmetical object built out of -units, called an evaluator, lies in a meaningful lattice inside a vector space over . The idea is to use an Artin system of -units in order to give a precise formula for the evaluator that then allows one to check if it lies in the expected lattice. There is no canonical choice for an Artin system of -units, and different systems give different representations for the evaluator. Nevertheless, they can be found algorithmically. It is worth pointing out that Stark originally used Artin systems of -units in order to state his main conjecture in [12], but they have since been superseded by the use of a more abstract result on rationality of linear representations due to Herbrand. In §3.1 below, we give a definition of an Artin system of -units, since it is essential to our approach.
It follows from our formula (see Proposition 3.18 below) that the evaluator will lie in the underlying rational vector space provided Stark’s conjecture over is true. Stark’s conjecture over can be interpreted as a rationality statement about an element in constructed out of special values of -truncated -functions at . Recently, Burns formulated a conjecture (Conjecture in [4]) that would provide bounds for the denominators of this element (and also provides a generalization of Brumer’s classical conjecture on annihilation of class groups). Hence, we also give numerical evidence for Stark’s conjecture over and Burns’s conjecture.
Also, we note that our work provides numerical evidence for the leading term conjecture (namely, the equivariant Tamagawa number conjecture for the pair ), since Burns showed in [3] that it implies Popescu’s conjecture (see also [5]). Moreover, Burns showed that the leading term conjecture implies his conjecture under some technical conditions (see Theorem of [4]).
In this paper, we use our approach to provide numerical evidence for Stark’s, Rubin’s, Popescu’s, and Burns’s conjectures by computing the examples where the top field is a totally real number field of absolute discriminant less than that is a ramified abelian cubic extension of a real quadratic number field and where the split places in the extension are always taken to be the two archimedean ones of the base field (the set is taken to be the minimal one). As far as we know, the conjectures above are still open in this setting, except for when the top field is abelian over by previous results of Burns. (See Theorem of [3] and Corollary of [4].) Our method is fairly general and could be used as well to numerically verify various refinements and generalizations of both Rubin’s and Popescu’s conjectures, such as Conjecture of [17] and various other ones contained in [4] and [6].
Note that for the cubic extensions considered above, the group of roots of unity is -cohomologically trivial. (See Lemma of [9] for instance.) Hence, by Theorem of [9], Rubin’s conjecture is equivalent to Popescu’s conjecture. Computationally, it is more convenient to work with Popescu’s conjecture, since one does not have to deal with an auxiliary set of primes needed in the statement of Rubin’s conjecture. This allows us to focus solely on Popescu’s conjecture. Moreover, in this case, Theorem of [4] implies that Burns’s conjecture follows from the leading term conjecture.
The paper is organized as follows. We start in §2 with a review of -truncated -functions and the Dirichlet logarithmic map. In §3 we gather the necessary theoretical results. We give a clear definition of an Artin system of -units in §3.1 and this allows us to give a description of Stark’s regulator in terms of an Artin system of -units in §3.2. We present Stark’s main conjecture over in §3.3, Popescu’s conjecture in §3.4, and Burns’s conjecture in §3.5. We study in detail a very simple example in §3.6 in the order of vanishing one case. Most of the material contained in §3 is not new, but we rephrase everything in terms of our central notion of an Artin system of -units. In the end, §3.1, Proposition 3.11, Theorem 3.14, and Proposition 3.18 are our main tools that when combined together allow us to provide numerical evidence for Stark’s, Rubin’s, Popescu’s, and Burns’s conjectures. In §4 we explain our numerical calculations. We outline our method in §4.1 and present the results of our computations with a few examples in §4.2. Finally, §5 contains tables that summarize our data.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Edward Roualdes and Nicholas Nelson of California State University, Chico for allowing us to use their computer for our calculations.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Basic notation
Let be a number field. We denote its ring of integers by . A place of will be denoted by or . If is a finite place then it corresponds to a prime ideal of , and we shall use the words “place” or “prime” interchangeably. The corresponding residue field will be denoted by or . Its cardinality is denoted by or . To each place , there is an associated normalized absolute value defined as follows. Here denotes an arbitrary element of , and denotes the usual absolute value on .
- (1)
If is a real place with corresponding real embedding , then . 2. (2)
If is a complex place with corresponding pair of complex embeddings , then . 3. (3)
If is a finite place with corresponding prime ideal , then , where is the usual valuation associated to .
With these normalizations, we have the product formula: for all ,
[TABLE]
where the product is over all places of .
Throughout this paper, we let be the set of infinite places of . The number of real infinite places is denoted by and the number of complex infinite places by . Hence . Moreover, will always denote a finite set of places of that contains . We have the -integers defined by
[TABLE]
and we set . The group is known as the group of -units of . The structure of as an abelian group is well-known: it follows from the -unit theorem that
[TABLE]
where consists of the roots of unity in . We set .
2.2. The -truncated -functions
For simplicity, we shall restrict ourselves to abelian extensions of number fields . The Galois group of is denoted by . As earlier, we fix a finite set of places of that is assumed to contain , and we denote the set of places of lying above places in by . The results of this section are well-known, and we refer the reader to [8] for more details.
Given a place of , one has a short exact sequence
[TABLE]
where and are the inertia and decomposition group respectively, associated to the place . We let be an element of that is mapped to the Frobenius automorphism in via the isomorphism If is unramified in , then is unique, since . In this case, is called the Frobenius automorphism at .
Given a place , we define an element of as follows:
[TABLE]
Throughout this paper, we denote the trivial character by . If is such that , then
[TABLE]
Given , the corresponding -truncated -function is defined by
[TABLE]
This infinite product converges absolutely and defines a holomorphic function for .
The -functions satisfy a functional equation which we now recall. Let and let be a real infinite place. Then there are two possibilities: either or . We let
- (1)
be the number of real infinite places such that , 2. (2)
be the number of real infinite places such that .
Define
[TABLE]
where is the discriminant of , the conductor of the character and . Then
[TABLE]
where is a complex number with absolute value satisfying .
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let and let be any finite set of places of containing . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
If , then the theorem follows from the known properties of the gamma function, the functional equation (3), and the non-trivial fact that if . If , then the theorem follows by considering what is happening with the Euler factors at the places in . ∎
The -truncated Dedekind zeta function of is defined by
[TABLE]
for and can be extended to a function that is holomorphic everywhere except for a simple pole at . Its Taylor expansion at begins as
[TABLE]
where is the -class number of and the -regulator. Note that one can rewrite the order of vanishing of at as
[TABLE]
where we write rather than in order to simplify the notation. The -truncated Dedekind zeta function can be written in terms of the -truncated -functions as follows:
[TABLE]
Let us write
[TABLE]
The order of vanishing is known due to Theorem 2.1. Combining (4) and (5), one has
[TABLE]
In the 1970s, Stark proposed a conjectural formula for . After some preliminaries, we shall present his main conjecture in §3.3 below.
If , we let
[TABLE]
be the corresponding idempotent in the semisimple finite dimensional -algebra . One easily checks that
[TABLE]
We introduce the -equivariant -function
[TABLE]
which is a meromorphic function from into . We will also make use of the standard notation instead of and we set
[TABLE]
2.3. The logarithmic map
We label the places
[TABLE]
so that , and in doing so, we introduce an ordering on . For each , we fix a place of lying above . Following Tate in [15], we let be the free abelian group on the places in . We have a short exact sequence of -modules
[TABLE]
where the map is the augmentation map and its kernel. Recall that is defined by setting for all and extending by linearity.
If if a finite abelian group, a -module and a subfield of , then we write rather than . We define the logarithmic map
[TABLE]
by the formula
[TABLE]
whenever . Because of the product formula (1), takes values in . Its extension to will be denoted by the same symbol. Not only is this map a -linear map, but it is also -equivariant; hence, it is a -module morphism. The -unit theorem implies that induces an isomorphism of -modules
[TABLE]
Recall that we have an injection of -modules defined by
[TABLE]
(The group acts trivially on .) After tensoring with , we get an injective morphism of -modules that we denote by the same symbol . This map allows us to view inside of , so that .
Proposition 2.2**.**
Let .
- (1)
If , then
[TABLE] 2. (2)
For the trivial character, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Tensoring the short exact sequence (7) with gives the short exact sequence of -modules
[TABLE]
Since acts trivially on , part (1) follows at once. To show that , the main point is to use the equality
[TABLE]
that is valid for all places and all places of lying above . It then immediately follows that . ∎
The following proposition, though simple, is quite useful.
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let be a non-trivial character. Furthermore, let and let be a place of lying above . In , we have
- (1)
If , then , 2. (2)
If , then .
Proof.
Let be a complete set of representatives of . Then
[TABLE]
If , then this last line is
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if , then we get zero, since
[TABLE]
∎
Using the previous proposition, one can give a different formula for the order of vanishing of the -truncated -functions.
Theorem 2.4**.**
Let . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The first equality follows from Theorem 2.1, Proposition 2.3 and Proposition 2.2. The second one follows from the isomorphism (8). ∎
For each , we define by the formula
[TABLE]
where from now on we write rather than . Its extension to will also be denoted by . Note that the maps are -equivariant.
Proposition 2.5**.**
For , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be a complete set of representatives of and let . Then
[TABLE]
∎
Let us look at the behavior of the maps on various isotypical components of . For the next proposition, it may be helpful to observe that is the -module morphism defined by for . ( acts trivially here.)
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let and .
- (1)
Suppose and . If , then
[TABLE] 2. (2)
If , then
[TABLE]
Proof.
For (1), we proceed as follows. Note that if , then for all . Hence, for all , we have
[TABLE]
Summing over all gives
[TABLE]
Since , we have
[TABLE]
and this proves (1). Point (2) is a simple calculation left to the reader. ∎
If is an integer satisfying , we want to study the -module morphism
[TABLE]
defined on pure wedges by the formula . In order to do so, we let
[TABLE]
For any totally ordered set , such as , the symbol will denote the set of -tuples , where , and . If is such that with , then we set
[TABLE]
and we define by the following formula on pure wedges
[TABLE]
Note that for all , the map is a -module morphism. It is worth pointing out that the morphism (9) is injective, since is semisimple. Combining with Proposition 2.5, one gets for a pure wedge the formula
[TABLE]
Finally, we see what happens when we restrict the maps to some isotypical components of .
Proposition 2.7**.**
Let be such that . Moreover, let be such that there exists for which . Then,
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof.
If , then
[TABLE]
Now, there exists such that . Hence, Proposition 2.6 implies
[TABLE]
for all . ∎
3. Stark’s conjecture
3.1. Artin systems of -units
Recall that Stark’s original idea was to break down the -regulator into components, and Artin systems of -units played an important role in doing so. In this section, we give a definition for an Artin system of -units. As before, is an abelian extension of number fields, and is a finite set of places of containing . We start with the following definition.
Definition 3.1**.**
An Artin system of -units is a collection of -units
[TABLE]
such that the group morphism
[TABLE]
defined by satisfies the following properties:
- (1)
is -equivariant, 2. (2)
for some that satisfies .
Note that acts trivially on . Moreover, since
[TABLE]
one has is finite. As a result, an Artin system of -units can be conveniently described by an exact sequence of -modules
[TABLE]
where is some -module with finite cardinality. Letting , and applying the snake lemma to the commutative diagram
[TABLE]
leads to the short exact sequence of -modules
[TABLE]
Therefore, the morphism induces by restriction an injective morphism of -modules
[TABLE]
In particular, the image of via gives a group of -units that is of finite index in .
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let be an Artin system of -units, and let be a non-trivial character. Furthermore, let and let be a place of lying above . In , we have
- (1)
If , then , 2. (2)
If , then .
Proof.
Tensoring the exact sequence (11) with leads to the short exact sequence of -modules:
[TABLE]
Since and acts trivially on , we get an isomorphism of -modules
[TABLE]
The result then follows from Proposition 2.3. ∎
From now on, for , we let
[TABLE]
Note that is fixed by if and only if
[TABLE]
for some .
Theorem 3.3**.**
Let be a finite abelian extension of number fields and let be a finite set of places of containing . Then there exist Artin systems of -units.
Proof.
For the reader’s convenience, we include here the proof contained in [1]. (In [1], only the case was treated, but the argument works for any finite set of places that contains .) For each , let be such that
- (1)
2. (2)
for all satisfying .
The existence of -units with those properties is a well-known result of algebraic number theory. See § of Chapter V in [8] for instance. Then set
[TABLE]
where . Note that . A simple calculation shows that the -units still satisfy
- (1)
2. (2)
for all satisfying .
If , then there exists such that . Set
[TABLE]
The -units do not depend on the choice of . Moreover, they satisfy
[TABLE]
for all and also
- (1)
2. (2)
for all places satisfying .
By Lemma 3.5 below, removing any -unit from the set gives a system of independent -units. Therefore, there is precisely one relation among them, say
[TABLE]
for some integers . Since the group acts transitively on the places lying above a fixed place , we see that for all , there exists such that whenever . Taking the inverses of some of the if necessary, one can assume that for all . The set is the desired Artin system of -units, since the kernel of the -module morphism defined by is , where
[TABLE]
and . ∎
Remark 3.4**.**
It is always possible to take just by setting in the last proof. Then one has
[TABLE]
Numerically, it is more convenient to allow any , because the index
[TABLE]
is usually smaller.
The following lemma is simple and we skip its proof.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let be a matrix satisfying
- (1)
* whenever ,* 2. (2)
* for all .*
Then .
Remark 3.6**.**
We remark that an Artin system of -units exists as well in the case of a non-abelian Galois extension , but we restrict ourselves to the abelian case in this paper.
3.2. The Stark regulator
If is any number field, let us start by reminding the reader about the regulator of a subgroup of units of . For the moment, we fix a finite set of places of , and we let .
Definition 3.7**.**
Given a subgroup of such that is finite, we define as follows. If is a set of units whose classes in form a -basis, then consider the matrix
[TABLE]
where and . The regulator is defined to be the determinant of the matrix (13) after removing one row.
Note that removing a different row or choosing another -basis for will change the determinant by at most a sign. Hence, this definition makes sense modulo . Also, we have
[TABLE]
The following proposition is well-known, and we skip its proof.
Proposition 3.8**.**
Given a subgroup of such that is finite, we have
[TABLE]
We now go back to our setting where is a finite abelian extension of number fields and is a finite set of places of containing . Even though it is not clear how to break up into -components, it is possible to do so with , where is a group of -units coming from an Artin system of -units. (Here we write rather than in order to simplify the notation.) This fact was recognized by Stark in [12], and this gives a way of breaking up into -components, at least up to a rational number, namely the index . Here is how this works. Starting with an Artin system of -units and its corresponding morphism , we have an induced morphism of -modules . We will now look at the isomorphism of -modules
[TABLE]
Since this map is a linear endomorphism of the -vector space , we can talk about its determinant. Recall also that from (12), is a group of finite index in .
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let be an Artin system of -units with corresponding morphism . Then
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
Let be any place of . Note that the images of the -units in form a basis of the -vector space . These -units also form a -basis of modulo its torsion subgroup. We calculate
[TABLE]
Hence as we wanted to show. ∎
Moreover, is a morphism of -modules, we have
[TABLE]
Definition 3.10**.**
Let be an Artin system of -units with corresponding morphism . Given , one defines the Stark regulator associated to and to be
[TABLE]
Combining Proposition 3.8, Proposition 3.9 and (14) leads to the formula
[TABLE]
We now present an alternative description of the Stark regulator. Given an Artin system of -units and an integer satisfying , we will write rather than .
Proposition 3.11**.**
Let be an Artin system of -units.
- (1)
Let be such that . Let
[TABLE]
and let be the unique element of such that for all . Then, one has
[TABLE] 2. (2)
Let be the trivial character. Let
[TABLE]
and let be any element of . Then, one has
[TABLE]
where is the unique index in that is not in .
Proof.
Starting with the exact sequence (11), one gets the following short exact sequence of -modules:
[TABLE]
Since acts trivially on , and , one gets an isomorphism of -modules:
[TABLE]
By Proposition 2.3, a -basis for is given by and therefore, a -basis for is given by . It follows that a -basis for the one-dimensional -vector space is given by . Using Proposition 2.7, we calculate
[TABLE]
and this shows (1).
For (2), we proceed as follows. Let and let . Since is a -basis for , we get that
[TABLE]
is a -basis for . The isomorphism
[TABLE]
implies then that is a -basis for . It follows that a -basis for is given by . We calculate
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
Remark 3.12**.**
Proposition 3.11 can be viewed as a generalization of §, Chapter I of [15] (in the abelian setting).
3.3. Stark’s conjecture over
Now that we have decomposed the -regulator into -components, at least up to a rational number, the hope is that the decomposition (6) would somehow match the decomposition (15) and this is expressed in the following first conjecture of Stark (namely, Conjecture on page of [12] reformulated as Conjecture on page of [15]). Note that the original conjecture was formulated for a general -truncated Artin -function, whereas we only treat the case where is an abelian extension of number fields. But there is no loss in generality in doing so for Stark’s conjecture over because of Proposition of [15]. (Stark-type conjectures over in the non-abelian setting have only recently been formulated. See, for instance, [4].)
Conjecture 3.13** (Stark’s conjecture over ).**
Let be an Artin system of -units. For , we set
[TABLE]
Then
- (1)
, 2. (2)
* for all .*
We shall now rephrase Stark’s conjecture over in a slightly different way. Let us define
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.14**.**
Stark’s conjecture over for all is equivalent to
[TABLE]
Proof.
Assume first that Stark’s conjecture over is true for all . If , we have
[TABLE]
Hence, . Conversely, if we define for via the equation
[TABLE]
then the and the are related via the formulas
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This last equation shows that if , then . Moreover, if , then for all . But this last equation can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
and this shows the desired result. ∎
3.4. Popescu’s conjecture
In this subsection, will stand for an integer satisfying . Popescu’s conjecture concerns the -truncated -functions having minimal order of vanishing only, and is formulated under the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3.15**.**
- (1)
The set contains and the places that ramify in . 2. (2)
The set contains at least places that split completely in , say . 3. (3)
The set satisfies .
Points and together with Theorem 2.1 imply that for all . From now on, we let
[TABLE]
We also define
[TABLE]
Moreover, we set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that , and . Moreover if satisfies of Hypothesis 3.15 and , then , which are trivial in this case, are the unique decomposition groups contained in by Theorem 2.1.
Proposition 3.16**.**
- (1)
Assuming that the set satisfies of Hypothesis 3.15, the -linear morphism
[TABLE]
where , is an isomorphism of -modules. 2. (2)
Assuming that , then for any the map
[TABLE]
is an isomorphism of -modules. Moreover, on for any .
Proof.
For the first part, note that
[TABLE]
It is therefore sufficient to show that is injective. But if for some , then
[TABLE]
by Proposition 2.7. Since is injective, we get that as we wanted to show.
For the second part, a simple calculation using the product formula shows that on for all . Now, we have again
[TABLE]
and hence it is sufficient to show that is injective. But if for some , then it follows that for all . Therefore, by Proposition 3.16 we have
[TABLE]
Since is injective, this ends the proof. ∎
We now define some evaluators that are the main objects of study regarding Popescu’s conjecture.
Definition 3.17**.**
- (1)
Assuming (2) of Hypothesis 3.15, we define the evaluator to be the unique element of such that
[TABLE]
where . 2. (2)
Assuming that , for , we define the evaluator to be the unique element of satisfying
[TABLE] 3. (3)
Assuming (2) and (3) of Hypothesis 3.15, we let
[TABLE]
where .
The uniqueness of these evaluators follow from Proposition 3.16. Moreover, is the unique element of satisfying
[TABLE]
The following proposition turns out to be important for us.
Proposition 3.18**.**
With the notation as above, if satisfies (2) and (3) of Hypothesis 3.15, and if is an Artin system of -units, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be an Artin system of -units. Assuming first that , and using Propositions 3.2 and 3.11, we calculate
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
If , the calculation is similar and left to the reader. ∎
As a corollary, we obtain:
Corollary 3.19**.**
If Stark’s conjecture over is true, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
This follows from Proposition 3.18, Theorem 3.14, and the fact that . ∎
Remark 3.20**.**
Corollary 3.19 is well-known, but has never been spelled out explicitly in terms of an Artin system of -units. See for instance Proposition of [10].
If is a -module, then we let ; that is, is the dual of in the category of -modules.
If , then for any integer it induces a -module morphism
[TABLE]
defined by
[TABLE]
If , then iterating this process gives a -module morphism
[TABLE]
defined by . When , we obtain a map
[TABLE]
If is a -module, then we shall denote the natural map by . Moreover, we let
[TABLE]
One can check that is a -submodule of . In [9], Popescu defines the following lattice:
Definition 3.21**.**
With notation as above, we set
[TABLE]
Moreover, he states the following conjecture:
Conjecture 3.22** (Popescu).**
Assuming that Hypothesis 3.15 is satisfied, one has
[TABLE]
Remark 3.23**.**
When , one recovers Stark’s abelian rank one conjecture (Conjecture of [13] or Conjecture on page of [15]), since . That is, if is a finite abelian extension of number fields such that Hypothesis 3.15 is satisfied for , then there exists an -unit satisfying
- (1)
* in ,* 2. (2)
* for all ,* 3. (3)
* is a finite abelian extension of number fields.*
Such an -unit is called a Stark unit and is unique up to a root of unity. If necessary, see § of [18] for a comparison between the various slightly different formulations of Stark’s abelian rank one conjecture that one can find in the literature.
Remark 3.24**.**
If , and is an Artin system of -units, then Proposition 3.18 gives
[TABLE]
Hence, Popescu’s conjecture predicts that
[TABLE]
Note that if , then
[TABLE]
Assuming Stark’s conjecture over , one expects
[TABLE]
Therefore, Stark’s conjecture over and Popescu’s conjecture together predict that for all , there exists an -unit (which depends on and ) such that in one has
[TABLE]
If , one has a similar prediction, but with a slightly different formula for as explained in Proposition 3.18. This observation can be used to perform numerical verifications of Popescu’s conjecture. We explain this in more detail in §4 below.
Remark 3.25**.**
Starting with the short exact sequence of -modules
[TABLE]
and applying the functor , one gets an isomorphism of abelian groups
[TABLE]
since is -free and is finite. In the sequel, we will identify elements of with elements of using this isomorphism.
Furthermore, we remind the reader that given a -module , one has an isomorphism of abelian groups
[TABLE]
given by , where
[TABLE]
Starting with a set of fundamental -units for , we can consider the defined by
[TABLE]
where is the Kronecker symbol. Using the isomorphisms (17) and (18) above, one finds that
[TABLE]
is a generating set for . Therefore,
[TABLE]
Using this last remark, one can check that a given element lies in in finitely many steps.
3.5. Burns’s conjecture
In this subsection, will stand for an integer satisfying . Burns’s conjecture is formulated under the same hypotheses as Popescu’s conjecture, namely Hypothesis 3.15. We let
[TABLE]
We now specialize Conjecture of [4] to the abelian setting and to an -situation rather than a -modified version.
Conjecture 3.26** (Burns).**
With the same notation as above, for every one has
[TABLE]
Moreover,
- (1)
One has
[TABLE] 2. (2)
If is any finite set of places of satisfying , then for any
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
Remark 3.27**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
and Brumer’s classical conjecture on annihilation of class groups predicts that
[TABLE]
Remark 3.28**.**
Note that since is -free, we have an isomorphism of abelian groups
[TABLE]
so from now on, we will identify these two abelian groups.
Remark 3.29**.**
If we start with an Artin system of -units with induced -morphism
[TABLE]
then it induces an injective morphism of -modules
[TABLE]
Therefore, we get an isomorphism of -modules
[TABLE]
Letting
[TABLE]
it is simple to check that the inverse map induces a morphism
[TABLE]
Letting , one has
[TABLE]
Therefore, a particular case of Burns’s conjecture could be phrased as follows:
Conjecture 3.30** (Burns).**
Let be a finite abelian extension of number fields with Galois group and let be a finite set of places of satisfying Hypothesis 3.15. Given an Artin system of -units , one has
[TABLE]
Moreover,
- (1)
One has
[TABLE] 2. (2)
If is any finite set of places of satisfying , then for any
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
3.6. A simple example
In this section, we study in detail a simple example in the order of vanishing one situation. Specifically, we take and , and we let . Note that and we set
[TABLE]
The primes and are ramified in and we let and be the prime ideals of that satisfy
[TABLE]
One has and . Also,
[TABLE]
It follows that . We list the places of as follows:
[TABLE]
where corresponds to the real embedding , to the real embedding , to the prime ideal , and to the prime ideal . From now on, we let
[TABLE]
Note that is a fundamental unit for . We have , where is the unique non-trivial character of . Note that
[TABLE]
A simple calculation using formulas (4) and (5) of §2.2 shows that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover a Stark unit for the data is given by
[TABLE]
that is
[TABLE]
for all . (For details, see for instance Proposition of [18].)
From the calculations above follow that a fundamental system of -units for is given by
[TABLE]
Following the proof of Theorem 3.3, one finds the -units
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
,
that satisfy for , and for all . These -units lead to the Artin system of -units where
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
.
Note that for all , and
[TABLE]
Hence, the kernel of the map defined by is , where
[TABLE]
To simplify the notation, we let (as we have done throughout) for . Now, using Proposition 3.11, we calculate
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Using the fact that , a simple calculation shows that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
as predicted by Stark’s conjecture over . (See Theorem 3.14.) Note that
[TABLE]
and thus
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.18 then shows that
[TABLE]
Now, Stark’s abelian rank one conjecture, namely Conjecture 3.22 when , predicts that
[TABLE]
in . In other words, we should have
[TABLE]
in up to a root of unity in (that is ). But this is indeed the case as a simple calculation shows.
We calculate furthermore
[TABLE]
Hence, we have
[TABLE]
as predicted by Conjecture 3.30. The annihilation part of Conjecture 3.30 is obviously satisfied, since , and .
4. Numerical calculations
4.1. The algorithm
Let be a real quadratic field, and let be a cubic extension of that is totally real and such that is ramified. We let be the set of places of consisting of the two archimedean places and the finite primes that ramify in . Hence, we always have . We let
[TABLE]
where we agree that and are the two archimedean places. Note that and split completely in , since is assumed to be totally real. We now explain how to numerically verify Stark’s conjecture over , the rank two Popescu conjecture, and Burns’s conjecture in this particular case. All the calculations have been done with the software PARI ([16]).
Step 1**.**
We calculate a fundamental system of -units for , say .
Step 2**.**
For each (), we choose a place lying above .
Step 3**.**
We calculate an Artin system of -units . Here, we follow the proof of Theorem 3.3 and the main step is to find -units that satisfy and for all satisfying . In order to find these -units, we proceed as follows. We consider the matrix
[TABLE]
where , and for , we let be the matrix obtained from by removing the th row. The matrices are square matrices. Furthermore, we let
[TABLE]
Now, if we want to find then we look at , where corresponds to the row involving the place and we calculate
[TABLE]
We then round off the coordinates of to the nearest integer in order to get a vector and we set
[TABLE]
We check that satisfies for all . If not, we repeat the process above with where is a positive integer and we keep increasing until we find a with the desired properties. The last condition is automatically satisfied by the product formula (1).
Step 4**.**
Using Proposition 3.11 and the PARI command bnrL1, we calculate
[TABLE]
to a high precision.
Step 5**.**
Since , Stark’s conjecture over via Theorem 3.14 predicts that
[TABLE]
Using the PARI command algdep, we recognize the numbers as rational numbers.
Step 6**.**
We find the smallest positive integer such that
[TABLE]
Step 7**.**
We calculate
[TABLE]
If Conjecture 3.30 had a positive answer, then one would have (since ). In fact, in all the examples that we computed, we observed numerically that .
Step 8**.**
As explained in Remark 3.25, we calculate for the morphisms .
Step 9**.**
For , we calculate where
[TABLE]
Using Proposition 3.18, Popescu’s conjecture is true if and only if
[TABLE]
for all . (Here , since is totally real.) We can check this as follows. First, we calculate the -units satisfying
[TABLE]
Step 10**.**
Then, we find -units such that we have . These -units satisfy
[TABLE]
Step 11**.**
Finally, we check that the extension is abelian, for . In order to do so, we use the following well-known lemma:
Lemma 4.1**.**
With the setup as above, let and let be a generator for . Then is abelian if and only if .
Proof.
See Lemma of [18] for details if needed. ∎
Step 12**.**
Given an element , one can check that as follows. Pick generators for and check that is a principal ideal for all . A similar procedure also allows one to check that . This allows us to check the annihilation statement of Conjecture 3.30.
4.2. Computational results
Let denote the collection of all totally real number fields such that is a ramified abelian extension and is a real quadratic field. Our aim is to run the algorithm on all fields with . By the standard formula for discriminants in towers we know that
[TABLE]
and by the conductor-discriminant formula (see, for example, Corollary 2 of [2]) we know that where is the conductor of . Consequently, we have:
[TABLE]
Hence to enumerate all fields in up to discriminant it suffices to consider only real quadratic fields with , since .
For each such real quadratic field , we iterate through all ideals of with . For each such , we locate all the cubic subfields of the ray class field that satisfy , where is the conductor of , if any exist.
In turns out that there are real quadratic fields for which there is at least one ramified abelian cubic extension with . The largest square-free integer for which has such a cubic extension is .
For each such extension , we perform the algorithm presented in §4.1 for a total of examples. These calculations took (one-core) CPU hours on an Intel Xeon Haswell 3.20 GHz processor with eight cores.
4.2.1. Popescu’s conjecture
There are three different cases that arise for our cubic extensions :
- (1)
is abelian, 2. (2)
is Galois, but not abelian, 3. (3)
is not Galois.
We list the number fields encountered in each case according to their class number in Table 1 below. As explained before, case (1) is known by previous results of Burns, but we have performed the calculations for the sake of completeness. We now explain one example in detail. Our algorithm completes the calculation for this particular extension of number fields in seconds.
Take . The rational prime is ramified in whereas is inert in . Let be the unique prime ideal of lying above and be the unique prime ideal lying above . Let and consider the ray class field . One has and there is a unique subfield that is a cubic abelian extension of . It has class number . The field is Galois over , but its Galois group is not abelian. A defining polynomial for is given by
[TABLE]
Both and are ramified in , so and . We now go through the steps presented in §4.1.
Step 1. A fundamental system of -units is given by the following polynomials modulo :
- (1)
2. (2)
3. (3)
4. (4)
5. (5)
6. (6)
7. (7)
Step 2. The eight places in are
[TABLE]
where is the unique finite prime lying above (similarly for ), and the floating-point numbers correspond to the real embeddings .
Step 3. The matrix is given by
[TABLE]
and we found the -units , () whose coordinates on the system of fundamental -units are given by
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
.
These four -units lead to the following Artin system of -units, given as polynomials modulo :
- (1)
2. (2)
3. (3)
4. (4)
5. (5)
6. (6)
7. (7)
8. (8)
The kernel of the induced -module morphism is given by , where
[TABLE]
Step 4. We obtained
[TABLE]
where the Galois automorphisms are given by
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
.
Step 5. After recognizing the rational numbers, we obtained
[TABLE]
Step 6. Thus .
Step 7. On the other hand, we obtained
[TABLE]
Note that . (In fact, here, but there are cases where , .)
Step 8. The morphism are given by
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
, 5. (5)
, 6. (6)
, 7. (7)
.
Step 9. The coordinates of the on the fundamental -units are given by
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
, 5. (5)
, 6. (6)
, 7. (7)
.
They are all divisible by , as expected.
Step 10. The coordinates of the on the fundamental -units are
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
, 5. (5)
, 6. (6)
, 7. (7)
.
Step 11. The abelian condition is obviously satisfied in this case. (We note that we did find examples where the units are not necessarily squares modulo roots of unity.)
Step 12. Burns’s conjecture is trivially true in this case since .
4.2.2. Burns’s conjecture
Recall that is the smallest positive integer satisfying . Then, as pointed out before, we always have numerically that , whereas Burns’s conjecture predicts only , but we do not know of any theoretical reason that explains this phenomenon. We shall distinguish four different statements:
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
.
Under the assumption , note that (1) implies (2) implies (3) implies (4). We list the number of them for each type of field (Galois abelian, Galois non-abelian and not Galois over ) in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below. Part (1) of Conjecture 3.30 is precisely the fourth statement.
Among our examples, there are only examples where we have to go all the way to the fourth statement. All of them satisfy so there is only one finite ramified prime in those extensions. Among these examples, there are only for which the -class number is not . One of them is as follows.
The base field is . The rational prime splits completely in . Let be one of the two primes lying above and consider the ray class field . One has and thus there is a unique subfield of degree over which we denote by . A defining polynomial for is given by
[TABLE]
and is not Galois over . The prime ramifies in and we let be the unique prime of lying above . Using PARI, we have . We calculated an Artin system of -units (which we do not list here), for which we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that in this case , but . Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
Using PARI, we found an ideal such that generates . If we let
[TABLE]
then is not principal, but is. So we do have
[TABLE]
as predicted by Burns’s conjecture.
Finally, for those examples for which we have to go all the way to the fourth statement, we checked (2) of Conjecture 3.30 as follows: we let and we pick
[TABLE]
to be , where is a non-trivial element of . In every single case, we verified that
[TABLE]
As a final remark, in all our examples, not only does , but also
[TABLE]
It might be of interest to investigate this further.
5. Tables
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Emil Artin. Über Einheiten relativ galoisscher Zahlkörper. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 167:153–156, 1932.
- 2[2] Emil Artin and John Tate. Class field theory . AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2009. Reprinted with corrections from the 1967 original.
- 3[3] David Burns. Congruences between derivatives of abelian L 𝐿 L -functions at s = 0 𝑠 0 s=0 . Invent. Math. , 169(3):451–499, 2007.
- 4[4] David Burns. On derivatives of Artin L 𝐿 L -series. Invent. Math. , 186(2):291–371, 2011.
- 5[5] David Burns, Masato Kurihara, and Takamichi Sano. On zeta elements for 𝔾 m subscript 𝔾 𝑚 \mathbb{G}_{m} . Doc. Math. , 21:555–626, 2016.
- 6[6] David Burns and Alice Livingstone Boomla. On Selmer groups and refined Stark conjectures. Preprint , 2017.
- 7[7] David Grant. Units from 5 5 5 -torsion on the Jacobian of y 2 = x 5 + 1 / 4 superscript 𝑦 2 superscript 𝑥 5 1 4 y^{2}=x^{5}+1/4 and the conjectures of Stark and Rubin. J. Number Theory , 77(2):227–251, 1999.
- 8[8] Serge Lang. Algebraic number theory , volume 110 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1994.
