Is a central simple algebra necessarily cyclic if it splits after a cyclic Galois extension?

-
http://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Let A A be a central simple algebra of degree n n over k k , dimkA=n2 dim k ⁡ A = n 2 , let K/k K / k be a cyclic galois extension of degree n n . Suppose ...

from Algebra

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Education Websites

-
Image
This article will provide our Top 10 online  education websites .  The Internet is filled with education websites to help students of all ages learn at the pace of their choice.  We would like to personally thank all of these websites for providing quality information on a regular basis! Inside Higher Ed insidehighered.com Inside Higher Ed is a great site for news, opinions and jobs.  Our favorite post is the Cash Monitoring List . Education Websites Educational Technology and Mobile Learning educatorstechnology.com The description tells it all.  Educational Technology and Mobile Learning is a resource of educational web tools and mobile applications for teachers and educators.  Our favorite post is Some Amazing TED Talks on how to be a Leader . Education Websites Mind Shift http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/ Mind Shift is a site that explores the future of learning in all its dimensions.  Our favorite post discusses ho...
Read more

G+ recovery 5 : #IUTeich (3)

-
Image
http://bit.ly/2UGYDqU The final part, starting with a reaction of Mochizuki himself on my previous IUTeich-posts. July 7th, 2013 Mochizuki update While i’ve been away from G+, someone emailed Mochizuki my last post on the problem i have with Frobenioids1. He was kind enough to forward  me M’s reply: “There is absolutely nothing difficult or subtle going on here (e.g., by comparison to the portion of the theory cited in the discussion preceding the statement of this “problem”!).  The nontrivial result is the fact that the degree is rational , i.e., the initial portion of [FrdI], Theorem 6.4, (iii), which is a consequence of a highly nontrivial result in transcendence theory due to Lang (i.e., [FrdI], Lemma 6.5, (ii)).  Once one knows this rationality, the conclusion that distinct prime numbers are not confused with one another is a formal consequence (i.e., no complicated subtle arguments!) of the fact that the ratio of the natural logarithm of any two distinct prime...
Read more