Generalizations of Class Field Theory
One natural development in number theory is to understand and construct nonabelian class field theories which provide information about general Galois extensions of global fields. Often, the Langlands correspondence is viewed as a nonabelian class field theory and indeed when fully established it will contain a very rich theory of nonabelian Galois extensions of global fields. However, the Langlands correspondence does not include as much arithmetical information about finite Galois extensions as class field theory does in the abelian case. It also does not include an analog of the existence theorem in class field theory, i.e. the concept of class fields is absent in the Langlands correspondence. There are several other nonabelian theories, local and global, which provide alternative to the Langlands correspondence point of view.
Another natural development in arithmetic geometry is to understand and construct class field theory which describes abelian extensions of higher local and global fields. The latter come as function fields of schemes of finite type over integers and their appropriate localization and completions. Higher local and global class field theory uses algebraic K-theory and appropriate Milnor K-groups replace which is in use in one-dimensional class field theory. Higher local and global class field theory was developed by A. Parshin, Kazuya Kato, Ivan Fesenko, Spencer Bloch, Shuji Saito and other mathematicians. There are attempts to develop higher global class field theory without using algebraic K-theory (G. Wiesend), but his approach does not involve higher local class field theory and a compatibility between the local and global theories.
Read more about this topic: Class Field Theory
Famous quotes containing the words class, field and/or theory:
“The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness.”
—Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870–1924)
“I would say that deconstruction is affirmation rather than questioning, in a sense which is not positive: I would distinguish between the positive, or positions, and affirmations. I think that deconstruction is affirmative rather than questioning: this affirmation goes through some radical questioning, but it is not questioning in the field of analysis.”
—Jacques Derrida (b. 1930)
“every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.”
—Thomas Nagel (b. 1938)