Introduction

Birational anabelian geometry asks how much of a function field can be recovered from its Galois-theoretic invariants. In the Bogomolov program, the field has algebraically closed constants, and the relevant invariants are much smaller than the full absolute Galois group. The present paper proves the reconstruction assertion for the first two Milnor KK-groups modulo a single prime, with their multiplication. The result includes the isomorphism statement: it identifies every compatible linear isomorphism, as well as the ambiguity in the field isomorphism that induces it.

The reconstruction theorem

Fix a prime ℓ\ell and put Λ=Fℓ\Lambda= \mathbb{F}_{\ell}. For a field FF of characteristic different from ℓ\ell, set

VF=F×/(F×)ℓ,RF=span⁡Λ{[x]⊗[1−x]:x∈F∖{0,1}}.V_F = F^{\times}/(F^{\times})^{\ell}, \qquad R_F = \operatorname{span}_{\Lambda}\{[x] \otimes[1-x] : x \in F \setminus\{0,1\}\}.

We write VFV_F additively, so [xy]=[x]+[y][xy] = [x] + [y]. Let

WF=(VF⊗ΛVF)/RF,mF:VF⊗ΛVF⟶WF.W_F = (V_F \otimes_{\Lambda} V_F)/R_F, \qquad m_F : V_F \otimes_{\Lambda} V_F \longrightarrow W_F.

Thus VF=K1M(F)/ℓV_F = K^M_1(F)/\ell and WF=K2M(F)/ℓW_F = K^M_2(F)/\ell, with mFm_F the Milnor product. A Λ\Lambda-linear isomorphism Θ:VK→VL\Theta: V_K \to V_L is compatible if

(Θ⊗Θ)(RK)=RL.(\Theta\otimes\Theta)(R_K) = R_L.

Equivalently, there is a unique linear isomorphism Θ2:WK→WL\Theta_2 : W_K \to W_L intertwining the products. Write Isom⁡M(VK,VL)\operatorname{Isom}_M(V_K,V_L) for the set of compatible isomorphisms. Multiplication by a∈Λ×a \in\Lambda^{\times} acts on this set; the induced degree-two map is then multiplied by a2a^2.

Let K/kK/k and L/lL/l be finitely generated extensions of algebraically closed fields. Write FiF^i for the perfect closure of a field FF: it equals FF in characteristic zero and ⋃r≥0F1/pr\bigcup_{r\geq0} F^{1/p^r} in characteristic p>0p>0. Denote by Isom⁡i(K,L)\operatorname{Isom}^i(K,L) the field isomorphisms α:Ki→Li\alpha: K^i \to L^i satisfying α(k)=l\alpha(k)=l. In positive characteristic, identify two such isomorphisms if they differ by postcomposition with Frob⁡Ln\operatorname{Frob}_L^n, n∈Zn \in\mathbb{Z}, where Frob⁡L(z)=zp\operatorname{Frob}_L(z)=z^p. Denote the resulting set by Isom⁡Fi(K,L)\operatorname{Isom}^i_F(K,L); in characteristic zero take no quotient, and if the characteristics differ this set is empty.

Purely inseparable extension induces canonical isomorphisms on VV and WW. Indeed, for an extension of exponent at most rr, inclusion and the prp^r-power homomorphism compose to the prp^r-power map on each field. On Milnor groups in degrees one and two this composition is multiplication by prp^r and p2rp^{2r}, respectively, both invertible modulo ℓ\ell. Passing to the union proves the assertion for perfect closures. Thus α\alpha induces a compatible map α1:VK→VL\alpha_1 : V_K \to V_L, and postcomposition by Frob⁡Ln\operatorname{Frob}_L^n multiplies it by pnp^n in Λ×\Lambda^{\times}. There is consequently a canonical map

Isom⁡Fi(K,L)⟶Isom⁡M(VK,VL)/Λ×.(1)\operatorname{Isom}^i_F(K,L) \longrightarrow\operatorname{Isom}_M(V_K,V_L)/\Lambda^{\times}. \tag*{(1)}

Theorem 1.1. Let ℓ\ell be any prime. Let K/kK/k and L/lL/l be finitely generated extensions of arbitrary algebraically closed fields, with char⁡k,char⁡l≠ℓ\operatorname{char} k,\operatorname{char} l \ne\ell and trdeg⁡(K/k),trdeg⁡(L/l)≥2\operatorname{trdeg}(K/k),\operatorname{trdeg}(L/l) \geq2. Then (1.1) is bijective. In particular, a compatible isomorphism VK→VLV_K \to V_L forces equality of the characteristics and of the relative transcendence degrees.

Only the two vector spaces and their bilinear product enter this statement. The proof recovers the valuations and rational-subfield images needed for reconstruction from this datum. The scalar is one global element of Fℓ×\mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{\times}; at ℓ=2\ell=2 this ambiguity is trivial.

Historical context

Bogomolov proposed reconstructing higher-dimensional function fields over algebraically closed constants from the pro-ℓ\ell quotient in which commutators are central [1]. Bogomolov and Tschinkel proved reconstruction for surfaces over algebraic closures of finite fields [2], and subsequently for higher-dimensional function fields over those constants [4]. Pop independently completed reconstruction in this constant-field setting [7]. These results established that a small part of the Galois group can retain the geometry needed to recover a field. Over more general algebraically closed constants, Pop also obtained reconstruction from pro-ℓ\ell data endowed with divisorial inertia, in relative transcendence degree greater than two [9], Theorem 1.1.

The finite-coefficient problem requires additional control of the global reconstruction. Topaz proved a Milnor-theoretic isomorphism theorem in relative transcendence degree at least five when the degree-one and degree-two mod-ℓ\ell groups and their product are supplied together with all rational subgroups [12], Theorem B. Those subgroups are the images of the multiplicative groups of relatively algebraically closed rational one-variable subfields. Theorem 1.1 obtains the required rational subfields from the product itself, and its point-value argument applies in every relative dimension at least two.

Algebraic dependence has provided another route from multiplicative invariants to field structure. Bogomolov and Tschinkel used Milnor KK-theory modulo infinitely divisible elements in characteristic zero [3]. Cadoret and Pirutka reconstructed regular function fields over perfect constants from the multiplicative quotient by constants together with algebraic dependence, and derived applications to integral Milnor KK-theory [5]. Topaz later proved reconstruction from rational Milnor KK-theory in absolute transcendence degree at least five [15]. These results clarify the role of algebraic dependence, while using invariants different from the single-prime datum considered here.

Our local inputs are the alternating-pair valuation theory recorded in [13], Section 2 and Pop’s density theorem for minimized inertia [8]. We state the precise forms used below. The bounded-support and incidence method is adapted from [6], Sections 4–6. The finite-coefficient bounded-support and incidence arguments are proved here. The support estimate also has an antecedent in the bounded-genus curve sections and Hurwitz argument of Bogomolov and Tschinkel [4], Section 6, Proposition 6.1. The proof uses no pro-ℓ\ell field-reconstruction theorem as a premise.

The proof and its main ingredients

The argument begins with a compatible map Θ\Theta and its dual on the compact character spaces AF=Hom⁡(F×,Λ)A_F = \operatorname{Hom}(F^\times,\Lambda). Two characters f,gf,g form an alternating pair when f(x)g(1−x)=f(1−x)g(x)f(x)g(1-x)=f(1-x)g(x) for every x≠0,1x \ne0,1. This condition is visible in the Milnor product and is therefore preserved by Θ\Theta. Established local theory turns alternating subspaces into valuations. Section 2 uses it to recover the transcendence degree and the inertia and decomposition spaces of quasi-divisorial valuations, and the character spaces of their iterated residue fields. These valuations may act nontrivially on the constants; their residue constants can therefore have positive characteristic even when the original field has characteristic zero.

The next task is to recover curve subfields: relatively algebraically closed intermediate fields k⊂E⊂Kk \subset E \subset K of transcendence degree one over kk. Individual mod-ℓ\ell classes record only orders modulo ℓ\ell, so a divisor can disappear when its multiplicity is divisible by ℓ\ell. We control this loss by passing to residual curves. Section 3 uses Pop’s density theorem to recognize residual curves whose constants are algebraic closures of finite fields, together with all their point order lines.

Section 4 then constructs a residual curve of bounded genus for any finite independent list of classes in VLV_L. It preserves independence and realizes each support degree on a fixed projective model of LL as the number of nonzero point orders on the residual curve. For each nonconstant t∈Kt \in K, applying Riemann–Hurwitz to five fixed members of its pencil bounds the total degree of the divisor support of every class Θ([t−a])\Theta([t-a]), a∈ka \in k, on that model.

For a curve subfield EE, choose t∈E∖kt \in E \setminus k. The supporting prime divisors of the classes Θ([t−a])\Theta([t-a]) form an infinite set of bounded degree, hence lie in a finite-type family. The valuation correspondence shows that each class in Θ(VE)\Theta(V_E) has an ℓ\ell-th-power residue along all but finitely many of these divisors. Section 5 studies the incidence variety of pairs consisting of a point and a divisor containing it. Restricting its parameter space to a curve produces a finite extension of LL containing the curve’s function field. After passage to this extension, the classes come from that one-variable parameter field. The argument then descends them to a curve subfield P⊂LP \subset L and proves Θ(VE)=VP\Theta(V_E)=V_P.

Two features are useful specifically for finite coefficients. One parameter curve works for every class. For each class, a finite change of parameter space allows normality to extend a generic ℓ\ell-th root of a representative across the smooth locus where that representative is a unit. This avoids any restriction on the cardinality of the constants. Moreover, the incidence field is the compositum of LL and the parameter field. This identity permits exact descent, retaining information that a norm could annihilate modulo ℓ\ell.

Once curve subfields correspond, Section 6 recognizes true divisors, which are trivial on the constants, and a sufficiently large family of rational subfields on which every point is detected. A quotient of two local parameters at a smooth point supplies such a subfield. These quotients generate the function field, and the construction works already in dimension two. Matching their point-order lines gives bijections between the corresponding projective lines of points.

Section 7 recovers field operations from simultaneous values of these rational functions. A blowup at a smooth point detects all coordinates of a finite tuple at once. Additive triples yield rational expressions, allowing pp-power roots in characteristic pp, for the transported addition law. Their one-variable slices align all point bijections, outside finite sets, with a single isomorphism of constant fields. An identity of rational functions removes the apparent freedom caused by finite exceptional sets in those slices. The resulting correspondence preserves every algebraic relation among the chosen generators and hence gives an isomorphism of perfect fields.

Finally, Section 8 proves that this isomorphism induces the original map up to one scalar, and that scalar action of a field automorphism forces it to be a Frobenius power. Throughout, the pro-ℓ\ell density input concerns individual fields. The given mod-ℓ\ell isomorphism is never lifted to a pro-ℓ\ell isomorphism.

Conventions

A function field F/kF/k means a finitely generated field extension. Its constants kk will be algebraically closed. A curve is a geometrically integral variety of dimension one, and its function field has a unique smooth projective model over algebraically closed constants. A field extension is regular if it is separable and its base is relatively algebraically closed. Points of varieties over an algebraically closed field mean rational points unless a scheme point is specified. The phrase “for general points” means on some dense Zariski open subset. We continue to use VF=F×/(F×)ℓV_F=F^\times/(F^\times)^\ell for residue fields of characteristic ℓ\ell, as a multiplicative quotient, without a Galois-cohomological interpretation.

Alternating characters and quasi-divisorial valuations

We first recover valuations from the degree-two relations. The local theory is most naturally expressed on the dual of the multiplicative group. Its multiplicative formulation also applies to residue fields of characteristic ℓ\ell, which will occur in the argument.

For any field FF, put

AF=Hom⁡(F×,Λ)=Hom⁡Λ(VF,Λ),Λ=Fℓ.A_F = \operatorname{Hom}(F^\times,\Lambda)=\operatorname{Hom}_{\Lambda}(V_F,\Lambda), \qquad\Lambda= \mathbb{F}_{\ell}.

Here the definition of VFV_F is used in every characteristic. Give AFA_F the topology of pointwise convergence, with Λ\Lambda discrete. Choosing a basis of VFV_F identifies AFA_F with a product of copies of Λ\Lambda. In particular it is compact, and evaluation identifies VFV_F with Hom⁡cont(AF,Λ)\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{cont}}(A_F,\Lambda): a continuous linear form on that product depends on only finitely many coordinates.

A pair f,g∈AFf,g\in A_F is alternating if

f(x)g(1−x)=f(1−x)g(x)(x∈F∖{0,1}).f(x)g(1-x)=f(1-x)g(x) \qquad(x\in F\setminus\{0,1\}).

A subset is alternating if every pair of its elements is alternating. The determinant functional

[x]⊗[y]⟼f(x)g(y)−f(y)g(x)[x]\otimes[y]\longmapsto f(x)g(y)-f(y)g(x)

annihilates RFR_F exactly when f,gf,g are alternating. Thus the isomorphism Θ\Theta in Theorem 1.1 induces a continuous linear isomorphism

Φ=Θ∗:AL→∼AK\Phi=\Theta^*:A_L\xrightarrow{\sim}A_K

that preserves alternating pairs in both directions.

We consider valuations up to equivalence and write v≤wv\leq w when vv is a coarsening of ww. Write UvU_v and Uv1U_v^1 for its units and principal units, FvFv for its residue field, and vFvF for its value group. The minimized inertia and decomposition spaces are

Iv=Uv⊥⊂Dv=(Uv1)⊥⊂AF,I_v=U_v^\perp\subset D_v=(U_v^1)^\perp\subset A_F,

where perpendiculars refer to evaluation. A subset of AFA_F is valuative if it is contained in some IvI_v. Restriction to units gives a continuous map

ρv:Dv⟶AFv\rho_v:D_v\longrightarrow A_{Fv}

with kernel IvI_v. Surjectivity will be established for the valuations we use below.

The established local input

The following form of alternating-pair valuation theory collects [13], Fact 2.1, Lemma 2.5, Theorem 2.6, and Corollary 2.7. We state it for finite coefficients; the field in this statement need not have characteristic different from ℓ\ell.

Theorem 2.1 (Alternating-pair valuation theory). Let FF be a field and set AF±={f∈AF:f(−1)=0}A_F^{\pm}=\{f\in A_F:f(-1)=0\}.

(i) Every valuative subset Σ⊂AF\Sigma\subset A_F has a unique coarsest valuation vΣv_\Sigma with Σ⊂IvΣ\Sigma\subset I_{v_\Sigma}. In particular, vΣv_\Sigma coarsens every valuation whose inertia contains Σ\Sigma. For such a valuation ww, this coarsening is obtained by quotienting wFwF by its largest convex subgroup contained in w(⋂f∈Σker⁡f)w(\bigcap_{f\in\Sigma}\ker f). (ii) If S⊂AF±S \subset A_F^\pm is an alternating linear subspace, its valuative elements form a valuative subspace S0S_0 of codimension at most one. Moreover S⊂DvS0S \subset D_{v_{S_0}}.

(iii) If Σ⊂AF±\Sigma\subset A_F^\pm is valuative and g∈AF±g \in A_F^\pm is alternating with every element of Σ\Sigma, then g∈DvΣg \in D_{v_\Sigma}.

The coefficient convention in [13], Section 2.1 explicitly allows Z/ℓ\mathbb{Z}/\ell; its fraction field is then Fℓ\mathbb{F}_\ell, so its character space is exactly AFA_F. The case ℓ=2\ell= 2 is included in the local theorem. For the fields over algebraically closed constants considered here, every character kills the constants and hence −1-1, so AF±=AFA_F^\pm= A_F.

Value groups and residue characters

For the remainder of this section, let F/κF/\kappa be a finitely generated extension of an algebraically closed field, and put s=trdeg⁡(F/κ)s = \operatorname{trdeg}(F/\kappa). No restriction is imposed on its characteristic. We first record the valuation facts that turn the local theorem into an intrinsic description of codimension-one valuations.

Lemma 2.2. For every valuation vv of FF, the field κv\kappa_v is algebraically closed, the group vF/vκvF/v\kappa is torsion free, and

rrank⁡(vF/vκ)+trdeg⁡(Fv/κv)≤s.(2)\operatorname{rrank}(vF/v\kappa) + \operatorname{trdeg}(Fv/\kappa_v) \le s. \tag*{(2)}

Here rrank⁡(G)=dim⁡Q(G⊗ZQ)\operatorname{rrank}(G) = \dim_{\mathbb{Q}}(G \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Q}). If equality holds, then Fv/κvFv/\kappa_v is finitely generated and vF/vκvF/v\kappa is a finitely generated free abelian group. Equality passes to every coarsening and to the induced residue valuation. Conversely, equality for a valuation and an induced residue valuation gives equality for their composition.

Proof. The value group of an algebraically closed field is divisible, and its residue field is algebraically closed. If nγ∈vκn\gamma\in v\kappa for γ∈vF\gamma\in vF, choose δ∈vκ\delta\in v\kappa with nδ=nγn\delta= n\gamma. Ordered abelian groups are torsion free, so γ=δ\gamma= \delta. This proves torsion-freeness of the relative group.

Choose elements x1,…,xa∈F×x_1,\ldots,x_a \in F^\times whose values are rationally independent modulo vκv\kappa, and units y1,…,yby_1,\ldots,y_b whose residues are algebraically independent over κv\kappa_v. These elements are algebraically independent over κ\kappa. Indeed, in a putative polynomial relation, distinct monomials in the xix_i have distinct values modulo vκv\kappa. Within a coefficient polynomial in the yjy_j, its terms of least value cannot cancel, by algebraic independence of their residues after rescaling by a constant. The nonzero summands obtained by grouping according to monomials in the xix_i have distinct values, so their sum cannot vanish. This proves (2.2) by taking maximal such families.

Suppose equality holds and choose these families with a+b=sa + b = s. Then FF is finite over F′=κ(x1,…,xa,y1,…,yb)F' = \kappa(x_1,\ldots,x_a,y_1,\ldots,y_b). The same least-value calculation gives

vF′/vκ≅Za,F′v=κv(y‾1,…,y‾b).vF'/v\kappa\cong\mathbb{Z}^a,\qquad F'v = \kappa_v(\overline{y}_1,\ldots,\overline{y}_b).

The fundamental inequality for the finite extension F/F′F/F' shows that [vF:vF′][vF : vF'] and [Fv:F′v][Fv : F'v] are finite. Thus the residue extension is finitely generated, while the relative value group is finitely generated and torsion free, hence free.

For the assertion about composition, write v=w∘uv = w \circ u, meaning that uu is a coarsening and ww is the induced valuation on FuFu. The value groups fit into the exact sequence

0⟶w(Fu)/w(κu)⟶vF/vκ⟶uF/uκ⟶0.0 \longrightarrow w(Fu)/w(\kappa u) \longrightarrow vF/v\kappa\longrightarrow uF/u\kappa\longrightarrow0.

Apply (2.2) first to uu, and then to ww on Fu/κuFu/\kappa u. The sum of the two inequalities is precisely the inequality for vv. Consequently equality for vv forces equality in both, and equality in both equality for vv. This use of the inequality on Fv/κvFv/\kappa v is legitimate even before finite generation is known: the algebraic-independence argument proving it applies to arbitrary field extensions of finite transcendence degree.

Definition 2.3. A quasi-divisorial valuation, or quasi-prime divisor, of F/κF/\kappa is a valuation minimal under coarsening among those with

vF/vκ≅Z,trdeg⁡(Fv/κv)=s−1.vF/v\kappa\cong\mathbb{Z}, \qquad\operatorname{trdeg}(Fv/\kappa v)=s-1.

A quasi-prime divisor trivial on κ\kappa is called a prime divisor, or a true prime divisor. A quasi-prime rr-divisor is a composition of rr successive quasi-prime divisors on the resulting residue fields.

Lemma 2.2 shows that for a quasi-prime rr-divisor vv, the residue field is a function field of transcendence degree s−rs-r over κv\kappa v, and

vF/vκ≅Zr.(3)vF/v\kappa\cong\mathbb{Z}^{r}. \tag*{(3)}

The isomorphism concerns abstract abelian groups; no ordering of Zr\mathbb{Z}^{r} is specified.

Lemma 2.4. Suppose vF/vκvF/v\kappa is free abelian of finite rank. Then restriction to units induces a canonical topological isomorphism

Dv/Iv→∼AFv.(4)D_v/I_v \xrightarrow{\sim} A_{Fv}. \tag*{(4)}

Two elements of DvD_v are alternating if and only if their images in AFvA_{Fv} are alternating. If ww is a valuation of FvFv, then

Iw∘v=ρv−1(Iw),Dw∘v=ρv−1(Dw),I_{w\circ v}=\rho_v^{-1}(I_w), \qquad D_{w\circ v}=\rho_v^{-1}(D_w),

where the inverse images are taken inside DvD_v.

Proof. There is an exact sequence of abelian groups

1⟶(Fv)×/(κv)×⟶F×/(κ×Uv1)⟶vF/vκ⟶0.1\longrightarrow(Fv)^\times/(\kappa v)^\times\longrightarrow F^\times/(\kappa^\times U_v^1) \longrightarrow vF/v\kappa\longrightarrow0.

For the kernel assertion, rescale by a constant an element whose value lies in vκv\kappa, and then take its residue. The last group is free, so the sequence splits as a sequence of abstract groups. Dualizing into Λ\Lambda is consequently exact. Characters kill the algebraically closed constants on both sides, giving the asserted surjection ρv\rho_v with kernel IvI_v. Its induced bijection is a homeomorphism because its source is compact and its target Hausdorff.

For alternation, if v(x)>0v(x)>0, then 1−x∈Uv11-x\in U_v^1, and the identity (2.1) holds for any pair in DvD_v. The case v(1−x)>0v(1-x)>0 is the same. If v(x)<0v(x)<0, then (1−x)/(−x)∈Uv1(1-x)/(-x)\in U_v^1, so every character in DvD_v takes the same value on xx and 1−x1-x. The remaining case is v(x)=v(1−x)=0v(x)=v(1-x)=0, when the identity is exactly its residue-field counterpart. Conversely, lift any residue element different from zero and one to test the residue identity.

Finally Uv1U_v^1 is contained in both Uw∘vU_{w\circ v} and Uvw∘v1U_{v^1_{w\circ v}}. Under reduction of vv-units, these two groups map respectively onto UwU_w and Uw1U_w^1. Their annihilators therefore give (2.5).

We will also use the following consequence of valuation approximation. It explains why intersections of decomposition spaces yield inertia.

Lemma 2.5. Let v1v_1, v2v_2 be incomparable valuations of a field, and let uu be their finest common coarsening. Then

Uv11Uv21=Uu,Dv1∩Dv2=Iu.U_{v_1}^1 U_{v_2}^1=U_u, \qquad D_{v_1}\cap D_{v_2}=I_u.

Proof. The induced valuations w1,w2w_1,w_2 on the residue field FuF u are independent. For a∈(Fu)×a \in(F u)^\times, the approximation theorem gives b∈(Fu)×b \in(F u)^\times with

w1(b−1)>0,w2(b−a)>w2(a).w_1(b-1)>0,\qquad w_2(b-a)>w_2(a).

Thus b∈Uw11b \in U^1_{w_1} and a/b∈Uw21a/b \in U^1_{w_2}, proving Uw11Uw21=(Fu)×U^1_{w_1}U^1_{w_2}=(F u)^\times. Reduction maps Uw11U^1_{w_1} onto Uvi1U^1_{v_i}, and both groups Uvi1U^1_{v_i} contain Uu1U^1_u. Lifting the product identity gives the first equality; taking annihilators gives the second.

Recovering dimension and quasi-divisors

The next argument follows the alternating-space method of [13], Fact 3.2 and Theorem 3.3. We give the details so that the argument remains available in characteristic ℓ\ell.

Proposition 2.6. The maximum dimension of an alternating subspace of AFA_F is ss. If S⊂AFS \subset A_F is alternating of dimension ss, and vv is the valuation associated to its valuative part S0S_0, then S0=IvS_0=I_v and equality holds in (2) for $v.

Proof. For any torsion-free abelian group GG of finite rational rank,

dim⁡Λ(G/ℓG)≤rrank⁡(G).\dim_{\Lambda}(G/\ell G)\leq\operatorname{rrank}(G).

Indeed, representatives of linearly independent classes modulo ℓ\ell are rationally independent: an integral relation can be divided by the greatest common divisor of its coefficients, using torsion-freeness, and the resulting relation has a coefficient nonzero modulo ℓ\ell. Since characters of vFvF kill its divisible subgroup vκv\kappa, this proves

dim⁡Iv≤rrank⁡(vF/vκ).\dim I_v\leq\operatorname{rrank}(vF/v\kappa).

Now let SS be alternating. By Theorem 2.1, its valuative part S0S_0 is a subspace of codimension at most one and, for its associated valuation vv, S0⊂IvS_0\subset I_v and S⊂DvS\subset D_v. Moreover S∩Iv=S0S\cap I_v=S_0, since every element of IvI_v is valuative. If S=S0S=S_0, then

dim⁡S≤dim⁡Iv≤rrank⁡(vF/vκ)≤s.\dim S\leq\dim I_v\leq\operatorname{rrank}(vF/v\kappa)\leq s.

If S≠S0S\ne S_0, an element of S∖S0S\setminus S_0 has nonzero image under ρv\rho_v, whose kernel is always IvI_v. Thus AFv≠0A_{F v}\ne0. Since κv\kappa_v is algebraically closed, this implies trdeg⁡(Fv/κv)≥1\operatorname{trdeg}(F v/\kappa_v)\geq1, and hence

dim⁡S=dim⁡S0+1≤rrank⁡(vF/vκ)+trdeg⁡(Fv/κv)≤s.\dim S=\dim S_0+1\leq\operatorname{rrank}(vF/v\kappa)+\operatorname{trdeg}(F v/\kappa_v)\leq s.

If dim⁡S=s\dim S=s, equality throughout the applicable chain gives S0=IvS_0=I_v and equality in (2).

To attain the bound, choose a transcendence basis of F/κF/\kappa, take a full coordinate flag on its rational function field, and prolong the associated valuation to FF. It is trivial on κ\kappa, and its value group is a finite-index extension of Zs\mathbb{Z}^s, hence is abstractly Zs\mathbb{Z}^s. Its inertia has dimension ss and is alternating by Lemma 2.4. For s=0s=0, the field is κ\kappa, its character space is zero, and the assertion has the same interpretation.

We can now identify the one-dimensional inertia spaces solely through maximal alternating subspaces. Once inertia is identified, alternation with it identifies decomposition as well.

Proposition 2.7. Assume s≥2s \ge2. A line H⊂AFH \subset A_F is the inertia of a quasi-divisorial valuation if and only if

H=S1∩S2for alternating subspaces S1,S2⊂AF of dimension s.H = S_1 \cap S_2 \quad\text{for alternating subspaces } S_1,S_2 \subset A_F \text{ of dimension }s.

The quasi-divisorial valuation vv with Iv=HI_v = H is unique. For any nonzero h∈Hh \in H, its decomposition space is

Dv={g∈AF:(h,g) is alternating}.D_v = \{g \in A_F : (h,g) \text{ is alternating}\}.

Proof. Suppose first that vv is quasi-divisorial. On Fv/κvF_v/\kappa_v choose two independent full discrete flag valuations w1,w2w_1,w_2, trivial on κv\kappa_v. To obtain them, start with coordinate flags on a rational subfield of transcendence degree s−1s-1, with distinct first prime divisors, and prolong to the finite extension FvF_v. Independence survives prolongation. Indeed, a valuation on a finite field extension that restricts trivially to the smaller field is trivial, since its value group is then finite and hence zero. Thus a common nontrivial coarsening of w1,w2w_1,w_2 would restrict to a common nontrivial coarsening of the original independent flag valuations, which is impossible.

The inertia spaces Iw1,Iw2I_{w_1},I_{w_2} have zero intersection by approximation. Set vi=wi∘vv_i = w_i \circ v and Si=IviS_i = I_{v_i}. Each viv_i has relative value group Z\mathbb{Z}, so its inertia is alternating of dimension ss. By (2.5), the intersection S1∩S2S_1 \cap S_2 is IvI_v.

Conversely, suppose (2.6) holds. Let Si,0S_{i,0} be the valuative part of SiS_i, with associated valuation viv_i. Proposition 2.6 gives

Si,0=Ivi,Si⊂Dvi,dim⁡Ivi≥s−1≥1,S_{i,0} = I_{v_i}, \qquad S_i \subset D_{v_i}, \qquad\dim I_{v_i} \ge s-1 \ge1,

and viv_i has equality in (2). We first show that HH is valuative. If, for example, v1≤v2v_1 \le v_2, then

0≠Iv1⊂S1∩S2=H,0 \ne I_{v_1} \subset S_1 \cap S_2 = H,

so H=Iv1H = I_{v_1}. The other comparable case is symmetric. If the valuations are incomparable, Lemma 2.5 puts HH inside the inertia of their finest common coarsening. In either case every element of HH is valuative. Because it lies in each SiS_i, it then lies in each Si,0S_{i,0}, giving

H=Iv1∩Iv2.H = I_{v_1} \cap I_{v_2}.

Let u=vHu = v_H. By Theorem 2.1, it coarsens each viv_i, and therefore

H⊂Iu⊂Iv1∩Iv2=H.H \subset I_u \subset I_{v_1} \cap I_{v_2} = H.

Equality in (2) passes to uu. Its relative value group is free, so dim⁡Iu=1\dim I_u = 1 implies uF/uκ≅ZuF/u\kappa\cong\mathbb{Z} and trdeg⁡(Fu/κu)=s−1\operatorname{trdeg}(F_u/\kappa_u) = s-1. If a coarsening u′≤uu' \le u still has relative rank one, its one-dimensional inertia is contained in IuI_u, hence equals HH. The defining coarseness of vH=uv_H = u then gives u≤u′u \le u', so u=u′u = u'. Thus uu is quasi-divisorial.

For uniqueness, if vv is any quasi-divisor with Iv=HI_v = H, its associated coarsening vHv_H has the same inertia. Equality in (2) passes to that coarsening, so it too has relative rank one and residue transcendence degree s−1s-1. Minimality of vv forces v=vHv = v_H.

Finally, an element of DvD_v is alternating with hh by Lemma 2.4, since hh has zero residue image. Conversely, an element alternating with hh belongs to DvH=DvD_{v_H} = D_v by Theorem 2.1.

Lemma 2.8. If vv is a quasi-prime rr-divisor, with r≥1r \ge1, then its value group has no nonzero ℓ\ell-divisible convex subgroup. Moreover v=vIvv = v_{I_v}; in particular its inertia determines the valuation. Proof. First suppose r=1r=1. An ℓ\ell-divisible convex subgroup CC of vFvF maps to zero in vF/vκ≅ZvF/v\kappa\cong\mathbb{Z}, and hence lies in vκv\kappa. Coarsening by CC therefore leaves the relative value group unchanged. Lemma 2.2 shows that the residue transcendence degree remains s−1s-1, so minimality of vv forces C=0C=0.

For a composite flag, the value group of its final quasi-prime step is a nonzero convex subgroup B⊂vFB \subset vF with the property just proved. If C⊂vFC \subset vF were a nonzero ℓ\ell-divisible convex subgroup, then B∩C≠0B \cap C \ne0, since convex subgroups are linearly ordered by inclusion. This intersection is ℓ\ell-divisible: division by ℓ\ell in CC stays in BB by convexity. It is also convex in BB, a contradiction.

Put Γ=vF\Gamma=vF. Since Γ/vκ≅Zr\Gamma/v\kappa\cong\mathbb{Z}^{r} and vκv\kappa is divisible, the common kernel in Γ\Gamma of all characters in IvI_v is

vκ+ℓΓ=ℓΓ.v\kappa+\ell\Gamma=\ell\Gamma.

Every convex subgroup contained in ℓΓ\ell\Gamma is itself ℓ\ell-divisible: an ℓ\ell-th part exists in Γ\Gamma, and convexity places it in the subgroup. The first assertion therefore shows that the largest such convex subgroup is zero. The coarsening description in Theorem 2.1 now gives v=vIvv=v_{I_v}.

Corollary 2.9. For the fields K/kK/k, L/lL/l of Theorem 1.1, a compatible isomorphism Θ\Theta forces trdeg⁡(K/k)=trdeg⁡(L/l)=d\operatorname{trdeg}(K/k)=\operatorname{trdeg}(L/l)=d, say. Its dual Φ\Phi matches the inertia–decomposition pairs of quasi-prime divisors, and, successively, the pairs of quasi-prime rr-divisors for 1≤r≤d−11 \le r \le d-1. For a matched pair of valuations vv on KK and ww on LL, it induces a topological linear isomorphism

ALw→∼AKvA_{L_w}\xrightarrow{\sim} A_{K_v}

preserving alternating pairs in both directions.

Proof. The maximum alternating dimension is preserved by Φ\Phi, giving equality of transcendence degrees by Proposition 2.6. Proposition 2.7 then identifies corresponding quasi-prime inertia and decomposition spaces. Quotienting by inertia and using Lemma 2.4 gives the indicated isomorphism on residue characters, with its alternating relation.

As long as the residual transcendence degree is at least two, apply Proposition 2.7 again there. The inverse-image identities (2.5) identify the resulting pairs with those of compositions on the original fields. Lemma 2.8 shows that each such inertia determines its composite valuation, so this matching is independent of any choice of a presentation as a flag. At each step Lemma 2.2 supplies finitely generated residue fields over algebraically closed residue constants. The local results apply even if one of these fields has characteristic ℓ\ell. Iteration ends after d−1d-1 steps, with function fields of curves.

Recognizing points on residual curves

Corollary 2.9 identifies the residue character spaces at quasi-prime (d−1)(d-1)-divisors. These residue fields have transcendence degree one, but their point valuations are not yet distinguished inside their character spaces. We now recognize those terminal residues whose constant fields are algebraic closures of finite fields. For these residues we also recognize every point inertia line. The construction uses Pop’s density theorem for an individual field, followed by reduction of its characters modulo ℓ\ell.

Fix a function field F/κF/\kappa over an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from ℓ\ell, of transcendence degree d≥2d \ge2, and let vv be a quasi-prime (d−1)(d-1)-divisor. Put

F0=Fv,κ0=κv.F_0=Fv,\qquad\kappa_0=\kappa v.

By Lemma 2.4, restriction to units induces a surjective map ρv:Dv→AF0\rho_v:D_v\to A_{F_0} with kernel IvI_v. Define

SFin=⋃w quasi-prime divisorIw‾⊂AF,Jv=ρv(SFin∩Dv)⊂AF0.(5)S_F^{\mathrm{in}}=\overline{\bigcup_{\substack{w\ \mathrm{quasi\text{-}prime\ divisor}}}I_w}\subset A_F,\qquad J_v=\rho_v(S_F^{\mathrm{in}}\cap D_v)\subset A_{F_0}. \tag*{(5)}

Here the bar denotes the closure of the union, rather than the subgroup generated by that union. In particular JvJ_v is a set of characters, not in general a subspace. It is stable under multiplication by Λ\Lambda, so it makes sense to consider the family of lines contained in JvJ_v. Both sets in (5), and this family of lines, are preserved by the isomorphisms already constructed in Section 2.

The density input and reduction of coefficients

A valuation cc of a function field B/bB/b, with bb algebraically closed, is a constant reduction if trdeg⁡(Bc/bc)=trdeg⁡(B/b)\operatorname{trdeg}(Bc/bc)=\operatorname{trdeg}(B/b). The composition of a constant reduction with a prime divisor of Bc/bcBc/bc is called a c.r. quasi-prime divisor. The trivial constant reduction is allowed, so ordinary prime divisors belong to this class. For a constant reduction, Lemma 2.2 gives cB=cbcB=cb: the relative value group is torsion free of rational rank zero. After composition with a prime divisor, the relative value group is therefore Z\mathbb{Z}. The final discrete step is an innermost convex subgroup of the composed value group. Every proper coarsening kills this step and has all its remaining values supplied by constants. This proves the minimality required of a quasi-prime divisor and justifies the terminology.

For the density statement, temporarily use ℓ\ell-adic characters:

A^E=Hom⁡(E×,Zℓ),I^a=Hom⁡(E×/Ua,Zℓ),D^a=Hom⁡(E×/Ua1,Zℓ).\widehat{A}_E=\operatorname{Hom}(E^\times,\mathbb{Z}_\ell),\qquad\widehat{I}_a=\operatorname{Hom}(E^\times/U_a,\mathbb{Z}_\ell),\qquad\widehat{D}_a=\operatorname{Hom}(E^\times/U_a^1,\mathbb{Z}_\ell).

These groups have the topology of pointwise convergence. Restriction to units and passage to residue give a map ρ^v:D^v→A^F0\widehat{\rho}_v:\widehat{D}_v\to\widehat{A}_{F_0}. Define S^Fin\widehat{S}_F^{\mathrm{in}} and J^v\widehat{J}_v by the same formulas as in (5), with hats on the character groups and on ρv\rho_v.

Theorem 3.1 (Pop’s residual density input). Let F/κF/\kappa be a function field over an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from ℓ\ell. Suppose that a valuation vv of FF, with Fv/κvFv/\kappa v a function field, has the following properties:

  • (i) vFvF has no nonzero ℓ\ell-divisible convex subgroup;

  • (ii) there is a subfield κ⊂κ1⊂F\kappa\subset\kappa_1\subset F such that

κ1v=κv,trdeg⁡(F/κ1)=trdeg⁡(Fv/κ1v)=1.\kappa_1v=\kappa v,\qquad\operatorname{trdeg}(F/\kappa_1)=\operatorname{trdeg}(Fv/\kappa_1v)=1.

Then J^v\widehat{J}_v contains the full minimized inertia group I^u\widehat{I}_u of every c.r. quasi-prime divisor uu of Fv/κvFv/\kappa v.

This is the consequence of [8, Theorem 1.2 and the proof of Theorem 4.2, p. 351, item 2] with the notation introduced on p. 348. The auxiliary field κ1\kappa_1 is not required to be algebraically closed. The minimized interpretation in residue characteristic ℓ\ell is explained in [8, Remark 4.1 and the appendix, Section A].

We verify the hypotheses for our terminal valuation vv. Lemma 2.8 shows that vFvF has no nonzero ℓ\ell-divisible convex subgroup. It remains to construct the auxiliary field κ1\kappa_1.

Choose elements x1,…,xd−1∈F×x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1}\in F^\times whose values are rationally independent modulo vκv\kappa, and set κ1=κ(x1,…,xd−1)\kappa_1=\kappa(x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1}). Distinct monomials in the xix_i have different values modulo vκv\kappa. Thus every nonzero polynomial in these elements has a unique term of least value, proving algebraic independence over κ\kappa. If a quotient of two such polynomials has value zero, their least terms have the same monomial. Its residue is the residue of the quotient of their coefficients, and consequently belongs to κv\kappa v. This proves κ1v=κv\kappa_1v=\kappa v; the two transcendence degrees required by Theorem 3.1 are now one.

Lemma 3.2. For a quasi-prime (d−1)(d-1)-divisor vv of F/κF/\kappa, the set JvJ_v contains the inertia line Iu⊂AF0I_u\subset A_{F_0} of every c.r. quasi-prime divisor uu of F0/κ0F_0/\kappa_0.

Proof. Reduction of character values gives continuous maps

rE:A^E⟶AE.r_E:\widehat{A}_E\longrightarrow A_E.

They carry I^a\widehat{I}_a into IaI_a, carry D^a\widehat{D}_a into DaD_a, and commute with restriction to units. In particular,

rF(S^Fin)⊂SFin,ρvrF=rF0ρ^von D^v.r_F(\widehat{S}^{\mathrm{in}}_F)\subset S^{\mathrm{in}}_F,\qquad\rho_v r_F=r_{F_0}\widehat{\rho}_v\quad\text{on }\widehat{D}_v.

The first inclusion follows from continuity and the definition as a closure of a union.

Fix a c.r. quasi-prime divisor uu of F0/κ0F_0/\kappa_0. Characters with either coefficient ring annihilate the divisible group uκ0u\kappa_0. Since uF0/uκ0≅ZuF_0/u\kappa_0\cong\mathbb{Z}, reduction I^u→Iu\widehat{I}_u\to I_u is surjective. Given χ∈Iu\chi\in I_u, choose a lift χ^∈I^u\widehat{\chi}\in\widehat{I}_u. Theorem 3.1 supplies η^∈S^Fin∩D^v\widehat{\eta}\in\widehat{S}^{\mathrm{in}}_F\cap\widehat{D}_v with ρ^v(η^)=χ^\widehat{\rho}_v(\widehat{\eta})=\widehat{\chi}. Then rF(η^)r_F(\widehat{\eta}) belongs to SFin∩DvS^{\mathrm{in}}_F\cap D_v and has residual image χ\chi. Hence χ∈Jv\chi\in J_v. □

The argument needs only the displayed inclusion between the two closed unions. It does not assert that reduction commutes with their intersection with decomposition groups, and it makes no use of a lift of Θ\Theta.

Valuative characters and the relation among point orders

The density input gives a lower bound for JvJ_v. To control its other elements, we use the fact that taking this closed union introduces no nonvaluative characters.

Lemma 3.3. Every element of SFinS^{\mathrm{in}}_F is valuative. Every element of JvJ_v is valuative as a character of F0F_0.

Proof. Let V(F)\mathcal{V}(F) be the space of valuation rings of FF, with its compact patch topology. In AF×V(F)A_F\times\mathcal{V}(F), the condition that a character χ\chi annihilates the unit group of a valuation ring O\mathcal{O} is closed. Indeed, for each x∈F×x\in F^\times, failure of this condition is witnessed by the open conditions

x,x−1∈O,χ(x)≠0.x,x^{-1}\in\mathcal{O},\qquad\chi(x)\ne0.

The projection of the closed incidence set to AFA_F is compact, hence closed. This projection is precisely the set of valuative characters, which contains every IwI_w and therefore contains SFinS^{\mathrm{in}}_F.

Now let χ∈Iu∩Dv\chi\in I_u\cap D_v for some valuation uu. If u≤vu\leq v, then χ∈Iv\chi\in I_v and its residual image is zero. If v≤uv\leq u, then restriction to UvU_v shows that ρv(χ)\rho_v(\chi) annihilates the units of the induced valuation u/vu/v on F0F_0. In the remaining case let aa be the finest common coarsening of uu and vv. Approximation for the independent induced valuations on FaF_a gives

Ua=UuUv1.U_a=U_uU_v^1.

For example, a prescribed nonzero residue can be written as an induced uu-unit times an induced principal vv-unit by choosing an element close to 11 at the first valuation and close to that residue at the second. Lifting gives the displayed identity; the remaining factor in Ua1U_a^1 is already a unit for both refinements. Thus χ\chi annihilates UaU_a, and χ∈Ia⊂Iv\chi\in I_a\subset I_v. Its residual image is again zero. □

We next record how the points of a complete curve appear in its character space, in the finite-coefficient form of Topaz’s calculation in [8], appendix, Lemma 5, pp. 354–355. This description will also be used for curve subfields later.

Lemma 3.4 (Point orders). Let B/bB/b be a function field of transcendence degree one over an algebraically closed field, and let C/bC/b be its smooth projective curve. For x∈C(b)x \in C(b), let δx=ord⁡x mod ℓ∈AB\delta_x = \operatorname{ord}_x \bmod\ell\in A_B. The lines Λδx\Lambda\delta_x are distinct and nonzero. The family (δx)x∈C(b)(\delta_x)_{x\in C(b)} tends to zero outside finite subsets, and the continuous summation map

∏x∈C(b)Λ⟶AB,(ax)x⟼∑xaxδx\prod_{x\in C(b)} \Lambda\longrightarrow A_B,\qquad(a_x)_x \longmapsto\sum_x a_x\delta_x

has kernel consisting exactly of the constant families. If char⁡(b)≠ℓ\operatorname{char}(b) \ne\ell, the common kernel in VBV_B of the δx\delta_x has dimension 2g(C)2g(C).

Proof. Approximation at distinct point valuations proves that each δx\delta_x is nonzero and that their lines are distinct. A function on CC has only finitely many zeros and poles. Hence every fixed element of B×B^\times is annihilated by all but finitely many δx\delta_x, which proves the asserted convergence and defines (3.2), with continuous evaluation at each function.

A family (ax)x(a_x)_x defines a homomorphism from the divisor group of CC to Λ\Lambda, sending the point divisor xx to axa_x. It lies in the kernel of (3.2) precisely when this homomorphism vanishes on principal divisors, or equivalently factors through Pic⁡(C)\operatorname{Pic}(C). The group Pic⁡0(C)(b)\operatorname{Pic}^0(C)(b) is ℓ\ell-divisible: multiplication by ℓ\ell on the Jacobian is a surjective isogeny, and bb is algebraically closed. This remains true in characteristic ℓ\ell. Every homomorphism Pic⁡(C)→Λ\operatorname{Pic}(C) \to\Lambda therefore factors through the degree map Pic⁡(C)→Z\operatorname{Pic}(C) \to\mathbb{Z}. Since all point divisors have degree one, its coefficient family is constant. Conversely, constant families annihilate principal divisors.

Finally, if all point orders of f∈B×f \in B^\times are divisible by ℓ\ell, write div⁡(f)=ℓD\operatorname{div}(f) = \ell D and associate to [f][f] the class of DD in Pic⁡(C)[ℓ]\operatorname{Pic}(C)[\ell]. This gives an isomorphism from the common kernel to Pic⁡(C)[ℓ]\operatorname{Pic}(C)[\ell]: surjectivity follows from the definition of torsion in Pic⁡(C)\operatorname{Pic}(C); injectivity follows because b×b^\times is ℓ\ell-divisible. When char⁡(b)≠ℓ\operatorname{char}(b) \ne\ell, the ℓ\ell-torsion of the Jacobian is isomorphic to (Z/ℓ)2g(C)(\mathbb{Z}/\ell)^{2g(C)}.

An intrinsic test for finite-field constants

We now adapt the curve-like relation criterion of [8], Theorem 4.2 and appendix, Main Theorem I, p. 353 to the family of lines in JvJ_v. Let Lv\mathcal{L}_v be the family of one-dimensional subspaces of AF0A_{F_0} contained in JvJ_v. Choose a nonzero generator eH∈He_H \in H for each H∈LvH \in\mathcal{L}_v. Consider the following conditions:

(i) the family (eH)H∈Lv(e_H)_{H\in\mathcal{L}_v} tends to zero outside finite subsets;

(ii) the resulting summation map

∏H∈LvΛ⟶AF0,(aH)H⟼∑HaHeH\prod_{H\in\mathcal{L}_v} \Lambda\longrightarrow A_{F_0},\qquad(a_H)_H \longmapsto\sum_H a_H e_H

has a one-dimensional kernel generated by a family whose every coordinate is nonzero.

These conditions are independent of the choices of generators. Changing generators rescales the coordinates of the product, and, because Λ\Lambda is finite, preserves the convergence in the first condition. They are also preserved by topological linear isomorphisms of the residual character spaces.

Proposition 3.5. For a quasi-prime (d−1)(d-1)-divisor vv of F/κF/\kappa, the family Lv\mathcal{L}_v satisfies the preceding two conditions if and only if κv\kappa_v is algebraic over a finite field. When this holds, Lv\mathcal{L}_v consists exactly of the point inertia lines of the smooth projective curve of Fv/κvF_v/\kappa_v. Consequently the matching in Corollary 2.9 recognizes these terminal valuations and matches their full point families.

Proof. Suppose first that κ0\kappa_0 is algebraic over a finite field. Every valuation on κ0\kappa_0 is trivial. A nontrivial valuation of the one-variable field F0F_0 trivial on κ0\kappa_0 is a point valuation on its smooth projective curve: properness gives a closed center, and the discrete valuation ring at that smooth point is dominated by the valuation ring. Writing each function as a power of a uniformizer times a local unit identifies the two valuations. Thus Lemma 3.3 shows that every line in Lv\mathcal{L}_v is a point line. The converse inclusion follows from Lemma 3.2, using the trivial constant reduction. Lemma 3.4 now proves the two conditions.

Suppose instead that κ0\kappa_0 is not algebraic over a finite field. There is a nontrivial valuation bb on κ0\kappa_0: in characteristic zero extend a nontrivial valuation of the prime field; in positive characteristic use a transcendental element, extend its variable valuation to a rational transcendence basis, and prolong to κ0\kappa_0. Choose a transcendental t∈F0t \in F_0 with F0/κ0(t)F_0/\kappa_0(t) finite. The Gauss extension of bb to κ0(t)\kappa_0(t), followed by a prolongation to F0F_0, gives a constant reduction cc. Indeed the rational residue field has transcendence degree one, and finite prolongation gives a finite residue extension. The value group of cc equals its constant-value subgroup: the Gauss extension has this property, and a finite prolongation has finite value-group index, whereas the constant-value group is divisible.

Choose a point valuation qq on F0c/κ0cF_0c/\kappa_0c, and form u=q∘cu=q\circ c. This is a c.r. quasi-prime divisor, whose value group contains the final discrete step as an innermost convex subgroup. In particular uF0/uκ0≅ZuF_0/u\kappa_0 \cong\mathbb{Z}, so IuI_u is a nonzero line, and it belongs to Lv\mathcal{L}_v. It is different from every true point line. To see this, let pp be a point valuation of F0/κ0F_0/\kappa_0. The valuation uu is nontrivial on constants, so cannot coarsen pp. Conversely, a proper coarsening of uu kills its innermost discrete subgroup and retains only values supplied by constants; it cannot equal the nontrivial valuation pp that is trivial on constants. Thus pp and uu are incomparable. Since pp has rank one, their finest common coarsening is trivial. Approximation gives Ip∩Iu=0I_p\cap I_u=0, proving the assertion even with Λ\Lambda-coefficients.

All point lines already belong to Lv\mathcal{L}_v, and their generators have the nonzero relation of Lemma 3.4, after rescaling to the chosen generators. If the first condition holds for the full family, extend this relation by zero on the additional lines. It is a nonzero kernel vector with a zero coordinate, contradicting the second condition. If the first condition fails, the family also fails the stated test. This proves the equivalence. □

A uniform bound for the support of a pencil

Fix a normal integral projective model X⊂PlnX\subset\mathbb{P}^n_l of L/lL/l. For h∈VLh\in V_L, define

supp⁡X(h)={D⊂X:D is a prime divisor and ord⁡D(h)≠0 in Λ}.\operatorname{supp}_X(h)=\{D\subset X:D\text{ is a prime divisor and }\operatorname{ord}_D(h)\ne0\text{ in }\Lambda\}.

Its degree is

sX(h)=∑D∈supp⁡X(h)deg⁡(D).s_X(h)=\sum_{D\in\operatorname{supp}_X(h)}\deg(D).

The orders modulo ℓ\ell, and hence this finite set and its degree, depend only on the class hh. We will prove that, for each t∈K∖kt\in K\setminus k, the integers sX(Θ([t−a]))s_X(\Theta([t-a])) are bounded independently of a∈ka\in k. The method is to realize any finite selection of these classes on a residual curve of bounded genus. The point correspondence from Section 3 then turns the desired bound into a Riemann–Hurwitz estimate. The bounded-genus and Hurwitz method appears in [4], Section 6, proof of Proposition 6.1; we adapt the bounded-support construction of [6], Sections 4–6 to finite coefficients.

Finite Kummer tests

We first record why only finitely many classes can disappear in a finitely generated extension.

Lemma 4.1. Let E/FE/F be a finitely generated field extension, where char⁡F≠ℓ\operatorname{char} F \ne\ell and μℓ⊂F\mu_{\ell} \subset F. The kernel of VF⟶VEV_F \longrightarrow V_E is finite dimensional over Λ\Lambda.

Proof. Let F′F' be the relative algebraic closure of FF in EE. Choose a transcendence basis x\mathbf{x} for E/FE/F such that [E:F(x)]=N<∞[E:F(\mathbf{x})]=N<\infty. For every finite extension F1/FF_1/F contained in F′F', the tuple x\mathbf{x} remains algebraically independent over F1F_1, and

[F1:F]=[F1(x):F(x)]≤N.[F_1:F]=[F_1(\mathbf{x}):F(\mathbf{x})]\le N.

The finite subextensions of F′/FF'/F form a directed system with bounded degrees. One of them has maximal degree and contains all the others; thus F′/FF'/F is finite.

If rr independent classes in VFV_F vanish in VEV_E, choose representatives f1,…,fr∈F×f_1,\ldots,f_r\in F^\times and their ℓ\ell-th roots in EE. Those roots belong to F′F', and Kummer theory gives

[F(f11/ℓ,…,fr1/ℓ):F]=ℓr.[F(f_1^{1/\ell},\ldots,f_r^{1/\ell}):F]=\ell^r.

Hence ℓr≤[F′:F]\ell^r\le[F':F], which bounds the kernel dimension.

The following geometric observation explains why a single smooth curve can preserve any specified finite Kummer extension. Its irreducibility assertion is useful because the cover can have arbitrarily large degree.

Lemma 4.2. Let UU be a smooth integral locally closed subvariety of projective space over an algebraically closed field, of dimension at least two. Let Y→UY\to U be a finite étale morphism with YY integral. For general hyperplanes HH, both U∩HU\cap H and Y×U(U∩H)Y\times_U(U\cap H) are nonempty, smooth, and integral.

Proof. Smoothness of U∩HU\cap H is Bertini’s smoothness theorem for an embedded smooth variety, valid in every characteristic [11], Lemma 33.47.3, Tag 0FD6. It implies smoothness upstairs because the cover is étale. We give the irreducibility argument, applied to either Y→PnY\to\mathbb{P}^n or U→PnU\to\mathbb{P}^n.

Write f:Y→Pnf:Y\to\mathbb{P}^n for the resulting quasi-finite morphism and a=dim⁡Y≥2a=\dim Y\ge2. Let H=(Pn)∨\mathcal{H}=(\mathbb{P}^n)^\vee be the space of hyperplanes. In the incidence of triples (y1,y2,H)(y_1,y_2,H) with f(y1),f(y2)∈Hf(y_1),f(y_2)\in H, the locus f(y1)≠f(y2)f(y_1)\ne f(y_2) is a projective space bundle with fiber Pn−2\mathbb{P}^{n-2} over a nonempty open of Y×YY\times Y. It is therefore irreducible of dimension 2a+n−22a+n-2. The locus of pairs with equal images has dimension at most aa, by quasi-finiteness; its hyperplane incidence has dimension at most a+n−1<2a+n−2a+n-1<2a+n-2.

For a general hyperplane, f−1(H)f^{-1}(H) is nonempty and has pure dimension a−1a-1. Nonemptiness follows because the image of ff contains an open of its aa-dimensional closure; purity follows from the principal ideal theorem on the integral variety YY. Thus every component of the square of the generic hyperplane section has dimension 2a−22a-2 over the function field of H\mathcal{H}. No such component can be contained in the equal-image incidence, whose total dimension is too small. The square of the generic section is consequently irreducible.

This implies geometric irreducibility of the generic section. Indeed, if it had more than one geometric component, ordered pairs of points lying on the same component and on different components would give two distinct Galois-invariant unions of components of its square. Its already established generic smoothness excludes nonreducedness. Geometric integrality spreads to a nonempty open of H\mathcal{H}, which proves the assertion for general hyperplanes.

Proposition 4.3 (Finite curve test). There is an integer GX≥0G_X \ge0, depending only on the embedded model XX, with the following property. Given g1,…,gm∈L×g_1,\ldots,g_m \in L^\times whose classes in VLV_L are independent, there is a quasi-prime (d−1)(d-1)-divisor ww of L/lL/l such that:

(i) lwl_w is algebraically closed and algebraic over a finite field of characteristic different from ℓ\ell, and LwL_w is the function field of a smooth projective curve Cw/lwC_w/l_w of genus at most GXG_X;

(ii) the gjg_j are ww-units and their residue classes are independent in VLwV_{L_w};

(iii) for every jj,

#{x∈Cw(lw):ord⁡x(gj‾)≠0(modℓ)}=sX([gj]).\#\{x \in C_w(l_w) : \operatorname{ord}_x(\overline{g_j}) \ne0 \pmod{\ell}\} = s_X([g_j]).

Proof. We first construct a curve over ll, then specialize its finite defining data, and finally realize that specialization by a valuation of LL.

A curve preserving orders and independence. Let D1,…,DqD_1,\ldots,D_q be the prime divisors occurring in the divisors of the gjg_j. There is a closed subset B⊂XB \subset X of codimension at least two such that X∖BX \setminus B is smooth, the Di∖BD_i \setminus B are smooth pairwise disjoint Cartier divisors, and near each Di∖BD_i \setminus B every gjg_j is a power of a local equation of DiD_i times a unit. Outside their union the functions are units. To obtain BB, remove the singular locus of the normal variety XX, the singular and non-Cartier loci of the DiD_i, their pairwise intersections, and the exceptional loci of these local expressions. Each has codimension at least two.

On the smooth open U=X∖(B∪D1∪⋯∪Dq)U = X \setminus(B \cup D_1 \cup\cdots\cup D_q), the simultaneous root cover defined by the equations zjℓ=gjz_j^\ell= g_j is finite étale. Kummer theory and independence say that it is integral of degree ℓm\ell^m. Successively choose d−1d-1 general hyperplanes. Apply Lemma 4.2 to the cover on each successive open section, and Bertini smoothness to the base and its specified divisors. We obtain a smooth integral projective curve C⊂XC \subset X that avoids BB, meets every DiD_i transversely in exactly deg⁡Di\deg D_i distinct points, and has an integral root cover over C∩UC \cap U. The latter cover still has degree ℓm\ell^m, so the restricted classes of the gjg_j are independent. At a point of C∩DiC \cap D_i their orders are exactly their orders along DiD_i. These are all their zeros and poles on CC, proving the required equality of support counts over ll.

The genus of this curve is independent of the chosen functions. At each stage we may also require the hyperplane to avoid the associated points of the preceding scheme section. Multiplication by its equation is then injective, so the Hilbert polynomial of a section is the first difference of the preceding Hilbert polynomial. The final scheme section avoids BB, and on X∖BX \setminus B the successive sections are smooth by Bertini. Hence the final scheme section is reduced and equals CC, even if intermediate sections had embedded components supported in BB. Its Hilbert polynomial, and thus its genus, depend only on the Hilbert polynomial of the embedded XX. Denote this genus by GXG_X. This argument does not require XX to be Cohen–Macaulay.

Specialization of the finite data. Choose a finitely generated subring R⊂lR \subset l in which ℓ\ell is invertible and over which the preceding data are defined. Enlarge RR by finitely many elements and localize it as follows. The smooth open of XX containing CC, the flag sections in that open, and their inclusions descend with their dimensions, smoothness, and geometric integrality preserved in every geometric fiber. The final curve descends as a smooth projective curve of genus GXG_X. Include the coordinates of its finitely many zeros and poles and the local parameter–unit expressions for the functions. After shrinking Spec⁡R\operatorname{Spec} R, they give disjoint point sections with the same orders and no other zeros or poles. The root cover over the complement of those sections remains finite étale of degree ℓm\ell^m, with geometrically integral fibers. Thus independence and the support counts persist in every geometric fiber under consideration.

Here the spreading statements have their usual finite-presentation meaning: finitely many schemes, morphisms, functions, and identities descend after adjoining finitely many coefficients [11], Tags 01ZM, 0C0C, 081F; smoothness and flatness hold after shrinking; and geometric integrality at the generic point persists on an open [11], Tags 0578, 0559. The Hilbert polynomial in the projective flat family of curves is constant; its constant term is the fiberwise Euler characteristic, locally constant in this proper flat family [11], Lemma 36.32.2, Tag 0B9T. For the orders, the identities gj=uπeg_j = u\pi^e on finitely many neighborhoods, with uu invertible and π\pi a parameter for the relevant section, preserve the integer ee. On the complement of these neighborhoods the functions and their inverses are regular. Properness of the curve ensures that these finitely many open conditions still cover every fiber after shrinking.

We also include a presentation of the function field, so that the specialized variety will be the residue field of a valuation. Choose a separating transcendence basis x1,…,xdx_1,\ldots,x_d for L/lL/l and a primitive element yy for the finite separable extension L/l(x1,…,xd)L/l(x_1,\ldots,x_d). Write its monic minimal polynomial as Q(Y)∈l(x)[Y]Q(Y) \in l(\mathbf{x})[Y]. After inverting a polynomial in x\mathbf{x}, this gives a finite integral model over an open of affine dd-space. Descend that model, a common dense open with the model already chosen, and the rational expressions for all the gjg_j. By geometric integrality and further localization of RR, the reduced polynomial in every geometric fiber is irreducible of the same degree as QQ and gives that fiber’s function field. All denominators in the coefficients and in the expressions being used remain nonzero, and the gjg_j agree with the specified nonzero functions there.

Realization by a valuation. Choose a closed point s∈Spec⁡Rs \in\operatorname{Spec} R. Its residue field is finite, of characteristic different from ℓ\ell. A valuation of Frac⁡R\operatorname{Frac} R dominating RsR_s extends to ll; equivalently, one may directly choose a valuation ring of ll dominating RsR_s [11], Lemma 10.50.2, Tag 00IA. Write its residue field as λ0\lambda_0. Since ll is algebraically closed, so is λ0\lambda_0. We may arrange that the ultimate residue field is algebraic over the finite field κ(s)\kappa(s). Indeed let bb be the algebraic closure of κ(s)\kappa(s) inside λ0\lambda_0, and choose a transcendence basis T\mathcal{T} for λ0/b\lambda_0/b. On b(T)b(\mathcal{T}) give the basis elements rationally independent values in an ordered free abelian group with basis T\mathcal{T} and give b×b^\times value zero. Every polynomial has a unique term of least value, so this defines a valuation with residue bb. Extend it to the algebraic extension λ0/b(T)\lambda_0/b(\mathcal{T}). Its residue extension is algebraic and thus still equals bb. Composing valuations gives a valuation uu of ll with residue λ=b\lambda=b. Its center on RR remains ss, since the second valuation is trivial on the finite field κ(s)\kappa(s). An ordered free abelian group exists for any cardinality of T\mathcal{T}, so this construction imposes no cardinality condition on ll.

Give l(x)l(\mathbf{x}) the Gauss extension of uu: the values of the xix_i are zero and their residues are algebraically independent over λ\lambda. Prolong it to LL, obtaining wXw_X. The coefficients of QQ are integral at the Gauss valuation and its reduction is the specified irreducible polynomial over λ(x‾)\lambda(\overline{\mathbf{x}}). Since QQ is monic, yy is integral; its residue therefore has degree deg⁡Q\deg Q. The fundamental inequality for a finite extension of valued fields now forces

wXL=ul,LwX=λ(x‾,y‾).w_XL = ul,\qquad Lw_X = \lambda(\overline{\mathbf{x}},\overline{y}).

Thus wXw_X is a constant reduction with precisely the specialized function field as residue, and each gjg_j has the prescribed residue.

On LwXLw_X, take the successive true divisor valuations of the specialized smooth flag, ending at its curve. Compose them with wXw_X. Write w1w_1 for the first composition. It is quasi-divisorial: its value group Γ\Gamma has a convex kernel Z\mathbb{Z} over wXLw_XL, while the constant values map isomorphically onto wXL=v ⁣lw_XL = v\!l. Consequently Γ/w1l≅Z\Gamma/w_1l \cong\mathbb{Z}. Every nonzero convex subgroup of Γ\Gamma contains this innermost Z\mathbb{Z}, so any proper coarsening has value group generated by constant values and loses the relative rank-one contribution. This proves the required minimality. The remaining steps are true divisor steps. Their composition ww is therefore a quasi-prime (d−1)(d-1)-divisor with residue the specialized curve field. All gjg_j are units at the successive generic points. The genus, independence, and support counts already preserved in the specialization give the three conclusions.

Five fibers control the degree

We now transfer the finite tests across Θ\Theta. The curve used for a test is allowed to depend on the tested classes; its genus bound depends only on XX.

Proposition 4.4. For every t∈K∖kt \in K \setminus k,

sup⁡a∈ksX(Θ([t−a]))<∞.\sup_{a\in k} s_X\bigl(\Theta([t-a])\bigr)<\infty.

Proof. Put ha=Θ([t−a])h_a=\Theta([t-a]). The classes [t−a][t-a], a∈ka\in k, are independent in Vk(t)V_{k(t)}, as is seen from their orders at the finite points of the projective line. Lemma 4.1 shows that the kernel of Vk(t)→VKV_{k(t)}\to V_K is finite dimensional. A basis for its intersection with the span of these classes involves only finitely many indices. After removing those indices, we have an infinite set A⊂kA\subset k such that the classes [t−a][t-a], a∈Aa\in A, are independent in VKV_K.

Choose five distinct anchors a1,…,a5∈Aa_1,\ldots,a_5\in A and put Ni=sX(hai)N_i=s_X(h_{a_i}). If char⁡k=0\operatorname{char} k=0, choose the anchors to include b0b_0, b0+1b_0+1, b0+ℓb_0+\ell; this is possible because k∖Ak\setminus A is finite. Fix one further a∈Aa\in A distinct from the anchors and put a6=aa_6=a. Choose representatives g1,…,g6∈L×g_1,\ldots,g_6\in L^\times of ha1,…,ha6h_{a_1},\ldots,h_{a_6}, and apply Proposition 4.3 to these representatives. Let ww be the resulting valuation and CwC_w its residual curve. Their residue classes are independent, so their evaluations on DwD_w are independent by Lemma 2.4. Let vv be the quasi-prime (d−1)(d-1)-divisor of KK corresponding to ww under Corollary 2.9. The evaluations of the six functions uj=t−aju_j=t-a_j, 1≤j≤61\le j\le6, on DvD_v are independent.

We first normalize these functions so that their residues are a pencil on KvK_v. We claim that v(k(t))=vkv(k(t))=v k. Otherwise the nonzero relative value group of k(t)/kk(t)/k has rational rank one, and the valuation transcendence-degree inequality forces k(t)v=kvk(t)v=kv. Equality in that inequality makes the relative value group cyclic. Any element with value in vkv k can then be multiplied by a constant to become a unit, and its residue can be removed by a further constant. Its class consequently vanishes on DvD_v. Thus evaluation of k(t)×k(t)^\times on DvD_v factors through the cyclic relative value group and has dimension at most one, a contradiction.

The values of all six uju_j are equal. If v(ai)>v(aj)v(a_i)>v(a_j), then uj/(ai−aj)u_j/(a_i-a_j) is a principal unit, contradicting its nonzero evaluation on DvD_v. Write γ\gamma for the common value. For distinct indices, v(ai−aj)≥γv(a_i-a_j)\ge\gamma; a strict inequality would make ui/uju_i/u_j a principal unit and give equal evaluations. Hence every difference ai−aja_i-a_j has value exactly γ\gamma. In positive characteristic the residue characteristic equals char⁡k≠ℓ\operatorname{char} k\ne\ell. In characteristic zero our three specified anchors give v(1)=v(ℓ)=γ=0v(1)=v(\ell)=\gamma=0, so again char⁡(Kv)≠ℓ\operatorname{char}(K_v)\ne\ell.

Choose b∈k×b\in k^\times with v(b)=γv(b)=\gamma and set

τ0=(t−a1)/b,βj=(aj−a1)/b.\tau_0=(t-a_1)/b,\qquad\beta_j=(a_j-a_1)/b.

The βj∈kv\beta_j \in k_v are distinct and uj/b=τ0−βju_j/b = \tau_0 - \beta_j. These residue classes remain independent: the functions uj/bu_j/b are units, their evaluations factor through Dv/IvD_v/I_v, and multiplication by bb changes no class because constants are ℓ\ell-divisible. In particular τ0∉kv\tau_0 \notin k_v. More precisely, the dual of the induced isomorphism Dw/Iw⟶Dv/IvD_w/I_w \longrightarrow D_v/I_v carries [τ0−βj]∈VKv[\tau_0-\beta_j] \in V_{K_v} to [gj]∈VLw[g_j] \in V_{L_w}. Indeed their evaluations on corresponding residual characters are the evaluations of [uj][u_j] and Θ([uj])=[gj]\Theta([u_j]) = [g_j] on the original decomposition spaces. This identifies the individual tested classes, as well as preserving their independence.

Proposition 3.5 says that kvk_v, like lwl_w, is algebraic over a finite field, and that the complete point families on the two residual curves correspond. Let CvC_v be the smooth projective curve with function field KvK_v. Both residue characteristics are different from ℓ\ell; by Lemma 3.4, the dimensions of the common point-order kernels are twice the genera. The residual isomorphism preserves these kernels, so g(Cv)=g(Cw)≤GXg(C_v) = g(C_w) \leq G_X. It also preserves the number of nonzero point orders of each tested class. For the five anchor classes these numbers are N1,…,N5N_1,\ldots,N_5.

Write p=char⁡(kv)>0p = \operatorname{char}(k_v) > 0 and τ0=τpr\tau_0 = \tau^{p^r} with rr maximal. Such an rr exists because a nonconstant function has a nonzero point order, and prp^r must divide that fixed nonzero integer. The function τ\tau defines a separable morphism Cv→Pkv1C_v \to\mathbb{P}^1_{k_v}; write n′n' for its degree. Multiplication of orders by prp^r does not change their vanishing modulo ℓ\ell.

Consider the fiber of this morphism over βi1/pr\beta_i^{1/p^r}. At most NiN_i points in the fiber have ramification index not divisible by ℓ\ell. The other points have index at least ℓ\ell, so there are at most n′/ℓn'/\ell of them. If rir_i is the total number of points in the fiber, then ri≤Ni+n′/ℓr_i \leq N_i + n'/\ell. Since the sum of the ramification indices in a fiber is n′n', and the different exponent at a point is at least its index minus one, the fiber contributes at least n′−ri≥(1−1/ℓ)n′−Nin' - r_i \geq(1 - 1/\ell)n' - N_i to the different. The five fibers are disjoint. Riemann–Hurwitz, with its different term in arbitrary characteristic [11], therefore yields

2g(Cv)−2+2n′≥5(1−1/ℓ)n′−∑i=15Ni,2g(C_v) - 2 + 2n' \geq5(1 - 1/\ell)n' - \sum_{i=1}^{5} N_i,

or

(5(1−1/ℓ)−2)n′≤2GX−2+∑i=15Ni(6)\left(5(1 - 1/\ell) - 2\right)n' \leq2G_X - 2 + \sum_{i=1}^{5} N_i \tag*{(6)}

The coefficient on the left is positive for every prime ℓ\ell, including ℓ=2\ell= 2. Hence n′n' has a bound depending only on the five anchors and XX.

For the additional parameter, the zeros and poles of τ0−β6\tau_0 - \beta_6 lie in two fibers of this same morphism. It has at most 2n′2n' nonzero point orders modulo ℓ\ell. The point correspondence and the finite curve test identify this number with sX(ha)s_X(h_a). This proves a uniform bound for all non-anchor members of AA. Including the anchors and the finitely many parameters outside AA completes the proof.

Recovering curve subfields

The support bound of Proposition 4.4 allows us to pass from individual multiplicative classes to subfields. We prove that Θ\Theta carries the mod-ℓ\ell multiplicative group of every relatively algebraically closed one-variable subfield of KK onto that of such a subfield of LL. The geometric step is an incidence construction: infinitely many divisors of bounded degree form a family, and a curve in its parameter space produces the one-variable field. This follows the bounded-support and incidence method of [6], Sections 4–6. We give the construction and the descent argument in the finite-coefficient setting.

A curve subfield of a function field F/κF/\kappa is a subfield E⊂FE \subset F containing κ\kappa, relatively algebraically closed in FF, and of transcendence degree one over κ\kappa. It is finitely generated: for any t∈E∖κt \in E \setminus\kappa, it is the relative algebraic closure of κ(t)\kappa(t) in FF, which is finite over κ(t)\kappa(t). The natural map VE→VFV_E \to V_F is injective, since an ℓ\ell-th root in FF of an element of EE is algebraic over EE. We henceforth regard VEV_E as a subspace of VFV_F.

Two descent facts

We first record the field-theoretic facts needed to descend the field produced by incidence. Recall that a finitely generated extension F/BF/B is regular if it is separable and BB is relatively algebraically closed in FF; equivalently, FF and an algebraic closure B‾\overline{B} are linearly disjoint over BB.

Lemma 5.1 (Descent from algebraically closed constants). Let F/BF/B be a finitely generated regular extension, where char⁡(B)≠ℓ\operatorname{char}(B) \ne\ell and μℓ⊂B\mu_\ell\subset B. If g∈F×g \in F^\times has an ℓ\ell-th root in FB‾F\overline{B}, then its class in VFV_F lies in the image of VBV_B.

Proof. Choose r∈FB‾r \in F\overline{B} with rℓ=gr^\ell= g. The element rr already belongs to FB′FB' for a finite Galois extension B′/BB'/B. Indeed it is separable over FF, so purely inseparable constant extensions are unnecessary, and we may take a finite Galois closure of the remaining constant extension. By regularity, Gal⁡(FB′/F)=Gal⁡(B′/B)\operatorname{Gal}(FB'/F) = \operatorname{Gal}(B'/B). For γ\gamma in this group,

cγ=γ(r)r∈μℓ.c_\gamma= \frac{\gamma(r)}{r} \in\mu_\ell.

These multipliers form a multiplicative cocycle with values in B′×B'^\times. Hilbert’s Theorem 90 gives b′∈B′×b' \in B'^\times with γ(b′)/b′=cγ\gamma(b')/b' = c_\gamma for every γ\gamma. Thus r/b′∈Fr/b' \in F and b′ℓ∈Bb'^\ell\in B. The equality g=(r/b′)ℓb′ℓg = (r/b')^\ell b'^\ell proves the assertion.

Lemma 5.2 (Intersections of curve subfields). Let F/κF/\kappa be a finitely generated extension of an algebraically closed field of characteristic different from ℓ\ell. If P,Q⊂FP,Q \subset F are distinct curve subfields, then

dim⁡Λ(VP∩VQ)<∞.\dim_{\Lambda}(V_P \cap V_Q) < \infty.

Each VPV_P is infinite dimensional. In particular, an inclusion VP⊂VQV_P \subset V_Q forces P=QP = Q.

Proof. The compositum PQPQ has transcendence degree two over κ\kappa. Otherwise every element of QQ would be algebraic over PP, so relative algebraic closedness of PP in FF would give Q⊂PQ \subset P; reversing their roles would give equality. Let CP,CQC_P,C_Q be their smooth projective curves. The natural map to CP×CQC_P \times C_Q is dominant, since its image has dimension two; consequently PQPQ is the function field of this product.

Inside VPQV_{PQ}, any class coming from both fields has zero order along every divisor {x}×CQ\{x\} \times C_Q. Its representative from PP therefore lies in the common kernel of all point orders of CPC_P. This kernel has dimension 2g(CP)2g(C_P) by Lemma 3.4, so the intersection inside VPQV_{PQ} is finite dimensional. The maps from VPV_P and VQV_Q to VPQV_{PQ} are injective: each factor field is relatively algebraically closed in the function field of the product.

The kernel of VPQ→VFV_{PQ} \to V_F is finite dimensional by Lemma 4.1. To see that passing to FF preserves the finite-intersection conclusion, consider pairs (a,b)∈VP⊕VQ(a,b) \in V_P \oplus V_Q whose images in VFV_F agree. The difference a−ba-b lies in this finite kernel; the kernel of the difference map on such pairs is the intersection already computed in VPQV_{PQ}. The space of these pairs, and hence VP∩VQV_P \cap V_Q in VFV_F, is finite dimensional.

Finally, choose t∈P∖κt \in P \setminus\kappa. The classes [t−a][t-a], a∈κa \in\kappa, are linearly independent in Vκ(t)V_{\kappa(t)}, as their orders at the distinct finite points show. Lemma 4.1 gives only a finite-dimensional kernel on passing to VPV_P, so VPV_P is infinite dimensional.

A family of divisors and a field of constants

The next lemma isolates the geometric construction. Its hypothesis says that every class under consideration becomes an ℓ\ell-th power on almost every divisor in one fixed infinite family. The conclusion realizes all these classes as classes from a single curve field after a finite extension of the ambient field.

Lemma 5.3 (Incidence descent). Let X⊂PlnX \subset\mathbb{P}^n_l be a normal integral projective variety of dimension d≥2d \ge2 over an algebraically closed field ll of characteristic different from ℓ\ell, and put L=l(X)L = l(X). Let SS be an infinite set of prime divisors on XX whose degrees are bounded. Suppose that H⊂VLH \subset V_L is a subspace with the following property: for every g∈L×g \in L^\times with [g]∈H[g] \in H,

ord⁡D(g)=0andg∣D∈l(D)×ℓfor all but finitely many D∈S.(7)\operatorname{ord}_D(g) = 0 \quad\text{and}\quad g|_D \in l(D)^{\times\ell} \quad\text{for all but finitely many } D \in S. \tag*{(7)}

Then there are a finite extension M/LM/L and a one-variable field P0/lP_0/l contained in MM such that M/P0M/P_0 is regular,

M=LP0,M = LP_0,

and the image of HH in VMV_M is contained in the image of VP0V_{P_0}. In particular, every gg as above has an ℓ\ell-th root in MP0MP_0.

Proof. A bounded parameter space. We recall why a degree bound gives a parameter space of finite type. Integral subvarieties of fixed dimension and bounded degree in a fixed projective space have only finitely many Hilbert polynomials; see also [10], Proposition 5.3. One way to establish this boundedness is to cut them out set-theoretically by forms of bounded degree. If an integral subvariety D⊂PnD \subset\mathbb{P}^n has dimension rr and degree at most bb, and x∉Dx \notin D, choose a linear projection to Pr+1\mathbb{P}^{r+1} whose center avoids the join of xx and DD. When DD is already a hypersurface no projection is necessary. The projection is defined on DD and is finite there: a positive-dimensional fiber would contradict ampleness of the pulled-back hyperplane bundle. Its image is a hypersurface of degree at most bb, and its equation pulls back to a form vanishing on DD but not at xx. Multiplication by a form nonzero at xx makes the degree exactly bb if necessary. It follows that the degree-bb forms vanishing on DD cut it out as a reduced set.*

A fixed number of such forms, namely the dimension of the space of degree-bb forms, therefore places all these reduced subvarieties among the geometric reductions of fibers of one projective family of finite type. Such geometric reductions have finitely many Hilbert polynomials. For completeness, over an integral base descend the reduction of the geometric generic fiber to a finite extension of the base function field, and normalize the base in that extension. On a dense open of this finite base change, spread the reduction as a closed subscheme, with nilpotent defining ideal, flat and with geometrically reduced fibers. These properties follow after shrinking from generic flatness and spreading geometric reducedness in the resulting projective flat family [11], Tag 0578. Thus it gives exactly the geometric reductions there, with constant Hilbert polynomial. The complement upstairs has image in a proper closed subset of the original base because the normalization is finite. Noetherian induction on that closed subset proves the assertion. Applying this to the divisors in SS gives the required finite union of Hilbert schemes on XX.

The incidence fields. In that union take a positive-dimensional irreducible component of the closure of the points corresponding to SS. After replacing it by an integral locally closed open subset TT, the tested points are dense in TT, and its universal family

Z⊂X×T⟶TZ \subset X \times T \longrightarrow T

is flat with geometrically integral fibers of dimension d−1d-1. The latter condition is available by constructibility of geometric integrality [11], Tags 0579 and 055B: the tested fibers are integral over the algebraically closed field ll, and their parameter points are dense. Choose an integral locally closed curve T′⊂TT' \subset T, once and for all, and put Z′=Z×TT′Z'=Z \times_T T'. Both ZZ and Z′Z' are integral, by flatness and geometric integrality of their generic fibers. Their maps to XX are dominant. Indeed a proper closed subset of XX can contain only finitely many distinct prime divisors, whereas the fibers over the infinitely many distinct points of TT, or of T′T', are distinct divisors.

The two projections now give

Z′M=l(Z′)↙↘↗XT′L=l(X)P0=l(T′).\begin{aligned} &Z' &&&& M=l(Z')\\ &\swarrow&& \searrow&& \nearrow\\ &X && T' && L=l(X) && P_0=l(T'). \end{aligned}

Since dim⁡Z′=d\dim Z'=d, the extension M/LM/L is finite. Geometric integrality of the generic fiber of Z′→T′Z' \to T' says precisely that M/P0M/P_0 is regular. The inclusion Z′⊂X×T′Z' \subset X \times T' also shows that its function field is generated by the coordinates from the two factors, proving (5.2).

Descent along the fixed curve. We next show that the chosen fields work for every class in HH. Fix g∈L×g \in L^\times with [g]∈H[g] \in H. Let YY be the intersection of the relative smooth locus of Z→TZ \to T with the inverse image of the open subset of XX on which gg is a unit. Every nonempty geometric fiber of Y→TY \to T is integral. Its fibers over the generic points of TT and T′T' are nonempty: the corresponding incidence families dominate XX, and the smooth locus is dense in their geometrically integral fibers.

On YY consider the finite étale cover defined by adjoining an ℓ\ell-th root of gg.

This cover splits on a dense set of the tested fibers. Indeed (7) gives a rational ℓ\ell-th root on each such divisor, and on its smooth unit locus the root and its inverse are regular, by normality. The cover therefore splits on the geometric generic fiber over TT as well. Otherwise, since ℓ\ell is prime and the constants contain μℓ\mu_\ell, its generic Kummer polynomial would be irreducible over that geometric function field. The geometric generic cover would then be integral. Geometric integrality spreads to a nonempty open of TT [11], Tags 0578 and 0559, contradicting the dense set of split fibers.

It remains to pass this splitting to our fixed curve T′T'. Shrinking TT separately for each gg would not justify this passage: the resulting open could miss T′T'. Instead, descend the geometric generic splitting to a finite extension of l(T)l(T) and let T~→T\widetilde{T} \to T be the finite surjective normalization in that extension. The pullback Y~=Y×TT~\widetilde{Y}=Y \times_T \widetilde{T} is normal, since it is smooth over the normal scheme T~\widetilde{T} [11], Tag 034F. It is also integral. Its generic fiber is geometrically integral, and every irreducible component dominates T~\widetilde{T}: on a normal scheme the components are open, and a smooth map has open image. Thus there is only one component.

The pulled-back finite étale cover of Y~\widetilde{Y} is generically split, and hence split everywhere. To justify the last implication, each component is finite and birational over the normal integral base; it is therefore isomorphic to that base. Take a geometric point of T~\widetilde{T} lying over the generic point of T′T'. The corresponding fiber of Y~\widetilde{Y} is a base change of the nonempty fiber of YY over that generic point. Its split cover shows

g∈(MP‾0)×ℓ.(8)g \in\left(M\overline{P}_0\right)^{\times\ell}. \tag*{(8)}

This reasoning applies to each gg separately, while T′T', MM, and P0P_0 stay fixed. Lemma 5.1, applied to the regular extension M/P0M/P_0, now gives the asserted containment in VMV_M.

Descent to the original function field

We apply incidence to the image of a curve subfield under Θ\Theta. The last step below uses the equality M=LP0M = LP_0 to descend all the way to LL, rather than merely finding a curve field after a finite extension.

Theorem 5.4 (Correspondence of curve subfields). For every curve subfield E⊂KE \subset K there is a unique curve subfield P⊂LP \subset L such that Θ(VE)=VP\Theta(V_E) = V_P. This assignment is a bijection between the curve subfields of K/kK/k and those of L/lL/l.

Proof. Fix a normal integral projective model X⊂PlnX \subset\mathbb{P}^n_l of L/lL/l. Let E⊂KE \subset K be a curve subfield, choose t∈E∖kt \in E \setminus k, and put H=Θ(VE)H = \Theta(V_E). For a∈ka \in k, let ha=Θ([t−a])h_a = \Theta([t-a]), and let SS be the union of their mod-ℓ\ell supports on XX. Proposition 4.4 bounds the degrees of these supports, and hence the degree of every prime divisor in SS.

The set SS is infinite. To see this, first observe that the kernel of all divisor-order maps on XX is finite dimensional. If it contained more than 2GX2G_X independent classes, apply Proposition 4.3 to representatives of a finite independent subset of that size. Their independent residues on the testing curve would all have zero point orders, contradicting Lemma 3.4 and its genus bound. On the other hand, the [t−a][t-a] span an infinite-dimensional subspace of VEV_E, and therefore the hah_a span an infinite-dimensional subspace of VLV_L. If SS were finite, their order vectors would lie in a finite dimensional space; the finite-dimensional kernel just proved would give a contradiction.

We verify (5.1). For each D∈SD \in S, some hah_a has nonzero order at DD. Match the valuation of DD to the quasi-divisorial valuation vv of KK using Proposition 2.7. Its inertia IvI_v has nonzero restriction to EE. Consequently vE/vk≠0v_E/v_k \ne0; this group is a subgroup of the cyclic group vK/vkv_K/v_k, and the valuation transcendence-degree inequality gives Ev=kvE_v = k_v. Restriction of DvD_v to EE therefore factors through vE/vkv_E/v_k and has dimension at most one. Explicitly, an element whose value is in vkv_k can be rescaled by a constant to a unit; its residue is in kvk_v, so a further constant rescaling makes it a principal unit. Since inertia already has nonzero restriction, the images of IvI_v and DvD_v on EE are the same line.

Now let g∈L×g \in L^\times with [g]∈H[g] \in H. Whenever ord⁡D(g)=0\operatorname{ord}_D(g) = 0, inertia at DD annihilates this class. The preceding equality of restriction images, transported through Φ\Phi, implies that decomposition at DD annihilates it too. By Lemma 2.4, its residue is an ℓ\ell-th power in l(D)l(D). Since a fixed rational function has nonzero integral order at only finitely many prime divisors, this proves (5.1). Lemma 5.3 now supplies M/LM/L and P0⊂MP_0 \subset M with M=LP0M = LP_0, M/P0M/P_0 regular, and the image of HH contained in the image of VP0V_{P_0}.

Choose a finite normal extension N/LN/L containing MM, allowing inseparability, and let PNP_N be the relative algebraic closure of P0P_0 in NN. It is a curve subfield of N/lN/l. The image HNH_N of HH in VNV_N is infinite dimensional, by Lemma 4.1, and lies in VPNV_{P_N}. Every LL-automorphism γ\gamma of NN fixes HNH_N pointwise. Thus HN⊂VPN∩Vγ(PN)H_N \subset V_{P_N} \cap V_{\gamma(P_N)}, and Lemma 5.2 forces γ(PN)=PN\gamma(P_N) = P_N.

Put PL=PN∩LP_L = P_N \cap L. This is relatively algebraically closed in LL. It also has transcendence degree one over ll. Indeed the invariant field PNAut⁡(N/L)P_N^{\operatorname{Aut}(N/L)} has transcendence degree one, and it is contained in the fixed field NAut⁡(N/L)N^{\operatorname{Aut}(N/L)}. For a finite normal extension the latter is LL in characteristic zero and is a finite purely inseparable extension of LL in positive characteristic. In the latter case, a uniform pp-power of the invariant field lies in PN∩LP_N \cap L, preserving transcendence degree. Thus PLP_L is a curve subfield of LL.

We now use the compositum identity to obtain containment already in VLV_L. Since PL⊂L⊂MP_L \subset L \subset M and every element of PL⊂PNP_L \subset P_N is algebraic over P0P_0, relative algebraic closedness of P0P_0 in MM gives PL⊂P0P_L \subset P_0. The extension P0/PLP_0/P_L is therefore finite algebraic. Choose the algebraic closures inside a common algebraically closed overfield. Then

MP0‾=LPL‾.M\overline{P_0}=L\overline{P_L}.

Here we used both M=LP0M=LP_0 and the fact that P0P_0 and PLP_L have the same algebraic closure in that overfield.

The extension L/PLL/P_L is regular. Relative algebraic closedness is already known, and separability is automatic in characteristic zero. In characteristic p>0p>0, choose a separating variable uu for PL/lP_L/l. It cannot become a pp-th power in LL: a pp-th root would be algebraic over PLP_L and hence belong to PLP_L, contrary to the choice of uu. Over the perfect field ll, such an element extends to a separating transcendence basis of L/lL/l, by the usual pp-basis criterion. Thus L/l(u)L/l(u), and therefore L/PLL/P_L, is separable.

For each [g]∈H[g]\in H, Lemma 5.3 and (5.4) give an ℓ\ell-th root of gg in LPL‾L\overline{P_L}. Applying Lemma 5.1 once more, now to L/PLL/P_L, yields the exact inclusion Θ(VE)⊂VPL\Theta(V_E)\subset V_{P_L}.

Apply the same argument to Θ−1\Theta^{-1} and PLP_L. For a curve subfield E1E_1 of KK, it gives

Θ(VE)⊂VPL⊂Θ(VE1).\Theta(V_E)\subset V_{P_L}\subset\Theta(V_{E_1}).

Lemma 5.2 and the infinite dimension of VEV_E force E=E1E=E_1. Both inclusions are consequently equalities. The same argument with KK and LL reversed proves surjectivity of the matching, and Lemma 5.2 proves its uniqueness.

True divisors and rational subfields

The curve-subfield correspondence lets us distinguish valuations trivial on the constants from the quasi-divisorial valuations recovered in Section 2. Their restrictions to curve subfields will then identify a family of rational functions with enough point information to recover field operations.

A true prime divisor, or divisorial valuation, of F/κF/\kappa is a quasi-prime divisor trivial on κ\kappa. Its value group is Z\mathbb{Z}; we use the discrete normalization when writing its order character.

The true-divisor criterion below has as a methodological antecedent Topaz’s rational-character criterion [14], via the companion reconstruction manuscript [6]. Here finite coefficients require the finite-dimensional-kernel argument given below; the rational-coefficient statement is not being invoked as a proof of this proposition.

Proposition 6.1 (Recognition of true divisors). Let F/κF/\kappa be one of K/kK/k or L/lL/l. A quasi-divisorial valuation vv of F/κF/\kappa is a true prime divisor if and only if there is a curve subfield E⊂FE\subset F for which

dim⁡Λ(VE∩Dv⊥)<∞.(9)\dim_{\Lambda}(V_E\cap D_v^\perp)<\infty. \tag*{(9)}

Consequently Φ\Phi matches the inertia and decomposition groups of true prime divisors of L/lL/l with those of K/kK/k.

Proof. Suppose first that vv is trivial on κ\kappa. Since the residue field has transcendence degree d−1≥1d-1\ge1, choose a unit tt with transcendental residue, and let EE be the relative algebraic closure of κ(t)\kappa(t) in FF. The valuation is trivial on κ(t)\kappa(t) and therefore on its algebraic extension EE. Reduction embeds EE into FvF_v. Its induced map VE→VFvV_E \to V_{F_v} has finite-dimensional kernel by Lemma [4]. Lemma [2] identifies that kernel with VE∩Dv⊥V_E \cap D_v^\perp, proving eq:6.

Conversely, suppose that the restriction of vv to κ\kappa is nontrivial, and let EE be any curve subfield. Choose x∈E∖κx \in E \setminus\kappa with v(x)≥0v(x) \ge0, replacing a nonconstant element by its inverse if necessary. There are infinitely many c∈κ×c \in\kappa^\times with v(c)>0v(c) > 0, for example the positive powers of one such element. Each 1+cx1+cx is a principal unit for vv. Their classes are independent in Vκ(x)V_{\kappa(x)}: up to constant factors they are [x+c−1][x+c^{-1}], with distinct zeros on the rational curve. The map to VEV_E has only a finite-dimensional kernel by Lemma [4]. These principal units therefore span an infinite-dimensional subspace of VE∩Dv⊥V_E \cap D_v^\perp. This disproves eq:6 for every EE. The final assertion now follows from Theorem [5] and the already established matching of quasi-divisorial pairs.

For a curve subfield E⊂FE \subset F, restriction of characters gives a continuous surjection AF→AEA_F \to A_E, dual to the inclusion VE⊂VFV_E \subset V_F. If a true divisor restricts nontrivially as a valuation on EE, that restriction is a positive integer multiple of a point valuation of the smooth projective curve of EE. Its inertia image in AEA_E is either the corresponding point line or zero; the latter occurs when that integer is divisible by ℓ\ell. Thus we retain the nonzero inertia images when discussing which point lines are detected.

Definition 6.2. A curve subfield E⊂FE \subset F is good if it is rational over the constants and every point line in AEA_E is the nonzero image of the inertia of some true divisor of FF. A good function is an element t∈Ft \in F generating a good subfield κ(t)\kappa(t).

Proposition 6.3 (Recognition of good subfields). The curve-subfield correspondence of Theorem [5] restricts to a bijection on good subfields. For matched good subfields E⊂KE \subset K and P⊂LP \subset L, the induced character isomorphism gives a bijection between the points of their smooth projective rational curves.

Proof. For each curve subfield EE, let QEQ_E be the collection of nonzero images of true divisorial inertia in AEA_E. By Proposition [6], these collections correspond under the induced character isomorphisms. They are subfamilies of the point lines of EE. Choose a nonzero generator of each line. The generators tend to zero outside finite sets, so summation defines a continuous map from a product of copies of Λ\Lambda into AEA_E.

By Lemma [3], when every point occurs, this summation map has one-dimensional kernel, generated by a coefficient family with every coordinate nonzero. A proper subfamily of the point lines has no relation: extending any proposed relation by zero to the missing points would contradict the description of the full relation kernel. Hence the stated kernel property recognizes exactly when QEQ_E contains every point line. Once this holds, the common kernel of their orders on VEV_E has dimension 2g(E)2g(E). Its vanishing recognizes genus zero, equivalently rationality over the algebraically closed constants. Both conditions are preserved by the character isomorphisms. Finally, distinct points have distinct inertia lines, so their matching gives the asserted point bijection.

We now construct enough good functions for the later reconstruction. The construction is local on a smooth model: a ratio of two transverse parameters has a multiplicity-one divisor over every value, and the exceptional divisor of the blowup ensures that the resulting rational subfield is relatively algebraically closed.

Lemma 6.4 (A supply of good functions). Let F/κF/\kappa be a finitely generated extension of an algebraically closed field with trdeg⁡(F/κ)≥2\operatorname{trdeg}(F/\kappa) \ge2 and char⁡(κ)≠ℓ\operatorname{char}(\kappa) \ne\ell. On an integral model of F/κF/\kappa, let qq be a smooth closed point and let a,ba,b be rational functions regular at qq, vanishing there, with independent differentials in the cotangent space at qq. Then t=a/bt=a/b is a good function. Moreover, for every f∈F×f \in F^{\times} there is a good function tt such that ftft is good. Consequently good functions generate FF over κ\kappa, and their classes span VFV_F.

Proof. Blow up the smooth point qq and let vv be the valuation of the exceptional divisor. Write e=trdeg⁡(F/κ)e=\operatorname{trdeg}(F/\kappa). Its residue field is the rational field of Pκe−1\mathbb{P}^{e-1}_{\kappa}. The leading linear forms of aa and bb give independent homogeneous coordinates on the exceptional divisor. Their ratio is the residue of tt and is a rational coordinate in FvF_v. In particular vv is trivial on κ(t)\kappa(t), and κ(t‾)\kappa(\overline{t}) is relatively algebraically closed in FvF_v. The relative algebraic closure of κ(t)\kappa(t) in FF is a finite algebraic extension on which vv is still trivial. It therefore embeds by reduction into FvF_v, over κ(t)≅κ(t‾)\kappa(t) \cong\kappa(\overline{t}). Relative algebraic closedness in the residue field forces this extension to be κ(t)\kappa(t) itself.

For each c∈κc \in\kappa, the function a−cba-cb has nonzero linear term at qq and cuts out a prime divisor locally there, with order one. The function bb is a unit at its generic point because the linear terms of aa and bb are independent. The resulting true divisor has ord⁡(t−c)=1\operatorname{ord}(t-c)=1 and detects the point cc of Pκ1\mathbb{P}^{1}_{\kappa}. The divisor locally cut out by bb similarly detects infinity: aa is a unit at its generic point and tt has a simple pole. Every point line is thus detected, proving that tt is good.

Given f∈F×f \in F^{\times}, choose the smooth point qq in an open set where ff is a unit, and choose a,ba,b as above. The functions fa,bfa,b also vanish at qq with independent differentials, since d(fa)q=f(q) daqd(fa)_q=f(q)\,da_q. Hence both ft=(fa)/bft=(fa)/b and t=a/bt=a/b are good. The equality f=(ft)/tf=(ft)/t proves field generation, and [f]=[ft]−[t][f]=[ft]-[t] proves the spanning assertion for VFV_F.

Lemma 6.5 (A common partner). For any finite list of good functions t1,…,tmt_1,\ldots,t_m of F/κF/\kappa there is a good function ss such that ss is algebraically independent of each tit_i over κ\kappa and

ti+cs is good for every i and every c∈κ×.t_i+cs\text{ is good for every }i\text{ and every }c\in\kappa^{\times}.

Proof. Choose a smooth closed point qq on a model where all the tit_i are regular, and choose a,ba,b vanishing at qq with independent differentials. Put s=a/bs=a/b. It is good by Lemma 6.4. For c≠0c\ne0, write

ti+cs=tib+cab.t_i+cs=\frac{t_i b+ca}{b}.

At qq the numerator has differential ti(q) dbq+c daqt_i(q)\,db_q+c\,da_q, which is independent of dbqdb_q. The same lemma therefore makes every indicated sum good.

Let vv be the exceptional-divisor valuation at qq used in the preceding lemma. The residue of ss is transcendental over κ\kappa. By contrast, the restriction of vv to κ(ti)\kappa(t_i) is centered at the finite point ti(q)t_i(q): the nonzero function ti−ti(q)t_i-t_i(q) has positive order at qq. Its residue field is consequently κ\kappa. If ss were algebraic over κ(ti)\kappa(t_i), relative algebraic closedness of that good subfield in FF would imply s∈κ(ti)s\in\kappa(t_i), contradicting its transcendental residue. This proves the required independence.

Recovering the field from simultaneous values

The preceding section recovers the good rational subfields and the points of their projective lines. We now recover the field operations from this information. A single true divisor can detect the values of several good functions at once. The resulting correspondence of algebraic relations will first identify the constant fields and then give an isomorphism of the perfect closures.

For every good function t∈Kt \in K, choose a generator t′∈Lt' \in L of the good rational subfield matched with k(t)k(t) by Proposition 6.3. Its point correspondence, expressed in these coordinates, is a bijection

Bt:P1(k)⟶P1(l).B_t:\mathbb{P}^{1}(k) \longrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}(l).

Changing t′t' by a projective linear transformation, we arrange Bt(∞)=∞B_t(\infty)=\infty. These choices are made independently for the different good functions. At this stage the maps BtB_t are only bijections of sets.

Simultaneous values

For a finite tuple t=(t1,…,tm)\mathbf{t}=(t_1,\ldots,t_m) of good functions, let Xt⊂(Pk1)mX_{\mathbf{t}}\subset(\mathbb{P}^{1}_k)^m be the reduced closure of the image of the rational map defined by the tit_i on a model of K/kK/k. Thus XtX_{\mathbf{t}} is the irreducible variety of algebraic relations among the tit_i. Define Yt⊂(Pl1)mY_{\mathbf{t}}\subset(\mathbb{P}^{1}_l)^m in the same way from the chosen ti′t'_i.

Lemma 7.1 (Simultaneous values). For every finite tuple t\mathbf{t} of good functions there are dense open subsets U⊂XtU\subset X_{\mathbf{t}} and U′⊂YtU'\subset Y_{\mathbf{t}} such that

(∏iBti)(U(k))⊂Yt(l),(∏iBti−1)(U′(l))⊂Xt(k).(10)\left(\prod_i B_{t_i}\right)(U(k))\subset Y_{\mathbf{t}}(l),\qquad \left(\prod_i B_{t_i}^{-1}\right)(U'(l))\subset X_{\mathbf{t}}(k). \tag*{(10)}

Proof. Choose a smooth model open on which all the tit_i are regular and all the differentials dtidt_i are nowhere zero. Such an open exists. In positive characteristic, tit_i cannot be a pp-th power in KK, since its pp-th root would be algebraic over the relatively algebraically closed subfield k(ti)k(t_i). As kk is perfect, this gives dti≠0dt_i\ne0; in characteristic zero the same conclusion is immediate.

At a closed point PP of this open, write ai=ti(P)a_i=t_i(P). The exceptional divisor of the blowup at PP defines a true divisorial valuation vv with

ord⁡v(ti−ai)=1for every i.\operatorname{ord}_v(t_i-a_i)=1\qquad\text{for every }i.

Indeed dti(P)≠0dt_i(P)\ne0 says that ti−ait_i-a_i has order one in the maximal ideal of the regular local ring at PP. Thus restriction of IvI_v to each k(ti)k(t_i) is the nonzero point line at aia_i.

By Proposition 6.1, the matched valuation on LL is a true divisor. Restriction of characters commutes with the correspondence of good subfields, so its center in the ti′t'_i-line is Bti(ai)B_{t_i}(a_i) for every ii. Specializing the target tuple along this valuation shows that (Bti(ai))i(B_{t_i}(a_i))_i belongs to Yt(l)Y_{\mathbf{t}}(l): the generic tuple lies in that closed subvariety of the product of projective lines, and so does its specialization.

The image of the chosen model open in XtX_{\mathbf{t}} is constructible and dense, hence contains a dense open subset UU. Every kk-point of UU has a closed preimage, since its nonempty fiber is of finite type over the algebraically closed field kk. This proves the first inclusion in (7.1). The same argument for Θ−1\Theta^{-1} proves the second. □

These inclusions provide information in the Zariski topology without asserting that any BtB_t preserves that topology. We next apply them to the relation z=t+csz=t+cs. This will force the coordinate bijections to have a common field-theoretic form.

Aligning the constant fields

An element of l(X1,…,Xr)il(X_1,\ldots,X_r)^i will be called a perfect rational function. It has a well-defined value at a general tuple of ll-points: in positive characteristic one first raises it to a sufficiently large pp-power and then takes the unique corresponding root in ll. Here and below, general means belonging to a suitable dense open.

Let Hl\mathcal{H}_l be the group of permutations of P1(l)\mathbb{P}^1(l) generated by PGL⁡2(l)\operatorname{PGL}_2(l), together with x↦xpx \mapsto x^p when char⁡l=p>0\operatorname{char} l=p>0.

Lemma 7.2. A perfect rational function in one variable that is injective on a cofinite subset of P1(l)\mathbb{P}^1(l) agrees there with a unique member of Hl\mathcal{H}_l. In characteristic zero, Hl=PGL⁡2(l)\mathcal{H}_l=\operatorname{PGL}_2(l); in characteristic p>0p>0, every member has a unique expression

M∘Frob⁡n,M∈PGL⁡2(l),n∈Z.M \circ\operatorname{Frob}^n,\qquad M\in\operatorname{PGL}_2(l),\quad n\in\mathbb{Z}.

In particular, Hl\mathcal{H}_l embeds in the group of permutations of P1(l)\mathbb{P}^1(l) modulo agreement outside finite sets.

Proof. In characteristic zero, injectivity on a cofinite set implies that a rational map has degree one. In characteristic pp, choose N≥0N\geq0 such that the given function hh satisfies hpN=r∈l(X)h^{p^N}=r\in l(X). Write r=qpar=q^{p^a}, with a≥0a\geq0 maximal and q∈l(X)q\in l(X) separating. The map qq is also injective on a cofinite set, so its degree is one. Indeed a separating map of degree greater than one has more than one distinct point over a general value, and deleting finitely many points cannot change this. Thus qq is projective linear, and h=Frob⁡a−N∘qh=\operatorname{Frob}^{a-N}\circ q on points.

Conjugating a projective linear transformation by Frobenius raises its coefficients to pp-th powers. This proves the asserted normal form. No nonzero power of Frobenius is projective linear: for a positive exponent the corresponding map has inseparable degree greater than one, and a negative exponent reduces to this case by inversion. The normal form is therefore unique. Finally, two perfect rational functions agreeing cofinitely are equal, as is seen after clearing Frobenius powers and comparing ordinary rational functions.

Write Ta(x)=x+aT_a(x)=x+a and mc(x)=cxm_c(x)=cx, fixing ∞\infty; these transformations generate Aff⁡(k)\operatorname{Aff}(k). We compare bijections of projective point sets modulo finite disagreement. Composition is well defined with this convention, because bijections carry finite sets to finite sets. Membership in Hl\mathcal{H}_l in the next lemma means membership after this identification. Lemma 7.2 ensures that the representing member of Hl\mathcal{H}_l is unique.

Lemma 7.3 (Transported addition). Let t,st,s be algebraically independent good functions such that zc=t+csz_c=t+cs is good for every c∈k×c\in k^\times. For every c∈k×c\in k^\times there is a perfect rational function Rc∈l(X,Y)iR_c\in l(X,Y)^i such that

Rc(x,y)=Bzc(Bt−1(x)+cBs−1(y))for general (x,y)∈l2.R_c(x,y)=B_{z_c}\left(B_t^{-1}(x)+cB_s^{-1}(y)\right)\qquad\text{for general }(x,y)\in l^2.

The one-variable slices of these functions give

BsBt−1∈Hl,BtAff⁡(k)Bt−1⊂Hl.(11)B_sB_t^{-1}\in\mathcal{H}_l,\qquad B_t\operatorname{Aff}(k)B_t^{-1}\subset\mathcal{H}_l. \tag*{(11)}

The second inclusion is an embedding of groups.

Proof. Consider the relation variety YY for (t,s,zc)(t,s,z_c). Its projection to the first two factors is dominant. Indeed k(t)k(t) and k(s)k(s) are distinct curve subfields, so their matched subfields l(t′)l(t') and l(s′)l(s') are distinct. Any two distinct curve subfields have compositum of transcendence degree two: if their compositum had transcendence degree one, relative algebraic closedness would make them equal.

On the dense open of YY given by the inverse inclusion in Lemma 7.1, the third coordinate is forced by the first two to be

Bzc(Bt−1(x)+cBs−1(y)).B_{z_c}\left(B_t^{-1}(x)+cB_s^{-1}(y)\right).

We restrict to finite coordinates, which is permitted because all the coordinate functions are nonconstant and the BB's fix ∞\infty. If dim⁡Y=3\dim Y=3, then Y=(Pl1)3Y=(\mathbb{P}^1_l)^3, and a dense open has infinitely many third coordinates above a general pair (x,y)(x,y), a contradiction. Consequently dim⁡Y=2\dim Y=2.

The projection Y→(Pl1)2Y\to(\mathbb{P}^1_l)^2 is proper, dominant and generically finite. The complement of the open just used has dimension at most one, so its image is a proper closed subset of the base. After removing that image and restricting to the locus of finite fibers, every closed fiber has precisely one point. Thus the finite extension l(Y)/l(x,y)l(Y)/l(x,y) has separable degree one. Indeed, in positive characteristic write the minimal polynomial of the third coordinate as g(Zpe)g(Z^{p^e}), with gg separable; in characteristic zero take the minimal polynomial itself. After shrinking the base to preserve the degree and nonzero discriminant of the separable polynomial, the separable degree counts the distinct points of a general fiber, since taking pep^e-th roots is a bijection on algebraically closed points. The extension is therefore purely inseparable, and the third coordinate gives a perfect rational function RcR_c satisfying (7.2).

Fixing a general yy in (7.2) gives a perfect rational function of xx, agreeing cofinitely with a bijection. A dense open in (Pl1)2(\mathbb{P}^1_l)^2 has cofinite fibers outside finitely many values of yy. Since BsB_s is a bijection, Lemma 7.2 therefore gives

Db:=BzcTcbBt−1∈Hlfor cofinitely many b∈k.D_b:=B_{z_c}T_{c b}B_t^{-1}\in\mathcal{H}_l \qquad\text{for cofinitely many }b\in k.

For two such parameters,

Db−1Db′=BtTc(b′−b)Bt−1.D_b^{-1}D_{b'}=B_tT_{c(b'-b)}B_t^{-1}.

Every element of kk is a difference of two members of a cofinite subset: for any prescribed difference, the two required cofinite sets intersect. Hence all translations conjugated by BtB_t belong to Hl\mathcal{H}_l. The products DbDb′−1D_bD_{b'}^{-1} give the same assertion for BzcB_{z_c}, and then DbD_b gives BzcBt−1∈HlB_{z_c}B_t^{-1}\in\mathcal{H}_l.

Fixing a general xx instead yields

BzcTamcBs−1∈Hlfor cofinitely many a∈k.B_{z_c}T_a m_cB_s^{-1}\in\mathcal{H}_l \qquad\text{for cofinitely many }a\in k.

Composing on the left successively with

BzcT−aBzc−1andBtBzc−1,B_{z_c}T_{-a}B_{z_c}^{-1}\qquad\text{and}\qquad B_tB_{z_c}^{-1},

both already in Hl\mathcal{H}_l, gives

BtmcBs−1∈Hl(c≠0).B_tm_cB_s^{-1}\in\mathcal{H}_l \qquad(c\ne0).

At c=1c=1 this gives BsBt−1∈HlB_sB_t^{-1}\in\mathcal{H}_l. Composing again gives all conjugated multiplications BtmcBt−1B_tm_cB_t^{-1}. This proves (11). Finally, two distinct affine transformations cannot agree outside a finite set; conjugating by a bijection preserves this property. Thus the resulting homomorphism is injective. ∎

We have obtained an affine group action by perfect rational transformations. Its translation subgroup will identify the addition on the constants. The two-variable function R1R_1 is then needed to show that the resulting embedding of constant fields is onto.

Proposition 7.4 (Alignment of the constants). The fields kk and ll have the same characteristic. There is a field isomorphism σ:k→l\sigma: k \to l such that, for every good function tt, there is Ht∈HlH_t \in\mathcal{H}_l with

Bt=Ht∘σoutside a finite subset of P1(k),(12)B_t = H_t \circ\sigma\qquad\text{outside a finite subset of } \mathbb{P}^{1}(k), \tag*{(12)}

where σ(∞)=∞\sigma(\infty) = \infty.

Proof. Choose a good function tt, and use Lemma 6.5 to choose a good ss satisfying the hypotheses of Lemma 7.3. First consider the embedding BtAff⁡(k)Bt−1⊂HlB_t \operatorname{Aff}(k) B_t^{-1} \subset\mathcal{H}_l, with the finite-agreement convention of that lemma.

The affine image is projective linear. In positive target characteristic the Frobenius exponent defines a homomorphism Hl→Z\mathcal{H}_l \to\mathbb{Z}. Its restriction to the affine image is zero: k×k^\times is divisible, while the additive group of kk is divisible in characteristic zero and torsion in positive characteristic. Both groups therefore have zero image in Z\mathbb{Z}, and they generate Aff⁡(k)\operatorname{Aff}(k). In characteristic zero for ll, there is no exponent to consider. We have in either case an embedding into PGL⁡2(l)\operatorname{PGL}_2(l).

Translations yield a field embedding. Let UU be the image of the translation subgroup. This is an infinite abelian subgroup of PGL⁡2(l)\operatorname{PGL}_2(l), normalized by the whole affine image. It cannot contain a nonidentity semisimple element. To see this, such an element has two fixed points, and every element of UU preserves their pair. The subgroup fixing both points has index at most two in UU; it is infinite, hence contains an element of order greater than two. The centralizer of that element is the torus fixing the two points, so all of UU lies in that torus. Any transformation normalizing UU preserves the same pair and acts on UU by either identity or inversion. This contradicts the faithful conjugation action of k×k^\times on its additive group in Aff⁡(k)\operatorname{Aff}(k).

Every nonidentity element of UU is consequently unipotent. Conjugate the image in PGL⁡2(l)\operatorname{PGL}_2(l) so that one such element is a translation with unique fixed point ∞\infty. Its centralizer consists of translations, and hence so does UU. Write this conjugation as postcomposition B=MBtB = M B_t, with M∈PGL⁡2(l)M \in\operatorname{PGL}_2(l). We obtain an injective additive map χ:k→l\chi: k \to l for which

BTbB−1=Tχ(b)B T_b B^{-1} = T_{\chi(b)}

modulo finite disagreement. (7.5)

After rescaling the target coordinate, assume χ(1)=1\chi(1) = 1. The image of mcm_c normalizes UU, hence fixes ∞\infty, and is an affine transformation of some slope λc\lambda_c. Conjugating translations gives

χ(cb)=λcχ(b).\chi(cb) = \lambda_c \chi(b).

Setting b=1b = 1 gives λc=χ(c)\lambda_c = \chi(c). Thus χ\chi is multiplicative as well as additive and is a field embedding. In particular, the characteristics of kk and ll agree.

The field embedding is onto. Set z=t+sz = t + s. Lemma 7.3 gives members Ms,Mz∈HlM_s, M_z \in\mathcal{H}_l such that

Bs=MsB,Bz=MzBB_s = M_s B, \qquad B_z = M_z B

modulo finite disagreement.

Using R1R_1 from (7.2), define the perfect rational function

F(X,Y)=Mz−1(R1(M−1X,MsY)).F(X,Y) = M_z^{-1}\left(R_1\left(M^{-1}X,M_sY\right)\right).

For cofinitely many b∈kb \in k, and for each such bb for cofinitely many X∈lX \in l, equations (7.2) and (7.5) give

F(X,B(b))=B(B−1(X)+b)=X+χ(b).F(X,B(b)) = B\left(B^{-1}(X)+b\right) = X+\chi(b).

Here is the order of the exclusions. First exclude the finitely many values of bb at which B(b)B(b) is infinite, the equality Bs=MsBB_s=M_sB fails, or the corresponding vertical fiber misses the open of (7.2). For each remaining bb, that open excludes only finitely many XX; the equality Bz=MzBB_z=M_zB excludes finitely many more, since its argument is a bijective function of XX. Finally eq:7.5 excludes a finite set of XX, which may depend on bb.

For each fixed remaining bb, (7.6) is therefore an identity of perfect rational functions in XX. Choose X0∈lX_0\in l such that F(X0,Y)F(X_0,Y) is defined and finite for general YY. This choice is possible by expressing a power of FF as a quotient of polynomials and choosing X0X_0 for which its denominator does not vanish identically as a polynomial in YY. Define

h(Y)=F(X0,Y)−X0.h(Y)=F(X_0,Y)-X_0.

For all but finitely many of the remaining bb, the denominator is nonzero at Y=B(b)Y=B(b); evaluating the rational identity then gives

χ(b)=h(B(b)).\chi(b)=h(B(b)).

In particular, this evaluation does not require X0X_0 to avoid the original exceptional sets for all bb at once.

The injectivity of χ\chi implies that hh is injective on a cofinite subset of P1(l)\mathbb{P}^1(l). By Lemma 7.2, it represents a member of HlH_l, so χ(k)\chi(k) contains a cofinite subset of ll. An infinite proper subfield cannot be cofinite: if a∉χ(k)a\notin\chi(k), the infinite coset a+χ(k)a+\chi(k) is disjoint from it. Thus χ(k)=l\chi(k)=l. Taking σ=χ\sigma=\chi, the equality σ=hB=hMBt\sigma=hB=hMB_t outside a finite set proves (12) for our initial tt.

The same constant isomorphism works for every good function. For any other good function rr, Lemma 6.5 supplies one good s0s_0 that is algebraically independent of both tt and rr, with t+cs0t+cs_0 and r+cs0r+cs_0 good for every c≠0c\ne0. Lemma 7.3 gives Bs0Bt−1,Bs0Br−1∈HlB_{s_0}B_t^{-1}, B_{s_0}B_r^{-1}\in H_l, hence BrBt−1∈HlB_rB_t^{-1}\in H_l. The alignment already obtained for tt therefore gives (12) for rr, with the same σ\sigma.

The isomorphism of perfect closures

Fix σ\sigma and the HtH_t given by Proposition 7.4, and define

ut=Ht−1(t′)∈Lifor every good function t.u_t=H_t^{-1}(t')\in L^i \qquad\text{for every good function }t.

These are field elements, obtained by projective linear operations and Frobenius powers. They satisfy

l(ut)i=l(t′)i.l(u_t)^i=l(t')^i.

We show that the assignments t↦utt\mapsto u_t preserve every algebraic relation. This is the point where the finite exceptions in the individual coordinate alignments cease to matter.

Theorem 7.5. There is a field isomorphism

α:Ki⟶∼Li,α∣k=σ,\alpha:K^i\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}L^i,\qquad\alpha|_k=\sigma,

such that α(t)=ut\alpha(t)=u_t for every good function tt. In particular, if k(t)k(t) and l(t′)l(t') are matched good rational subfields, then α(k(t)i)=l(t′)i\alpha(k(t)^i)=l(t')^i.

Proof. Let t=(t1,…,tm)\mathbf{t}=(t_1,\ldots,t_m) be a finite tuple of good functions, and let Zt⊂(Pl1)mZ_{\mathbf{t}}\subset(\mathbb{P}^1_l)^m be the relation variety of (ut1,…,utm)(u_{t_1},\ldots,u_{t_m}). We first prove

σ(Xt(k))=Zt(l),(13)\sigma(X_{\mathbf{t}}(k))=Z_{\mathbf{t}}(l), \tag*{(13)}

where σ\sigma acts coordinatewise.

The point map

H=∏iHti−1:(P1(l))m⟶(P1(l))m\mathcal{H}=\prod_i H_{t_i}^{-1}:(\mathbb{P}^{1}(l))^m\longrightarrow(\mathbb{P}^{1}(l))^m

is a Zariski homeomorphism. Projective linear maps are isomorphisms; in positive characteristic the coordinate map [X:Y]↦[Xp:Yp][X:Y]\mapsto[X^p:Y^p] is finite, radicial and surjective, hence a homeomorphism on point spaces, as is its inverse. Products with different powers in different coordinates have the same property. It follows that

H(Yt(l))=Zt(l).\mathcal{H}(Y_t(l))=Z_t(l).

To justify this last equality at the level of relation varieties, place the finite tuple of utiu_{t_i} in one finite purely inseparable extension of LL. On a common model, the tuples (ti′)i(t'_i)_i and (uti)i(u_{t_i})_i are related by H\mathcal{H} wherever they are defined. Their images are dense in their respective relation varieties. Taking closures under the homeomorphism gives the equality.

Apply now the first inclusion of Lemma 7.1. Delete from its source open the finitely many exceptional values in each coordinate where (12) fails. Each deleted coordinate fiber is a proper closed subset, since every tit_i is nonconstant. The resulting open is still dense, and on it H∘∏iBti=σ\mathcal{H}\circ\prod_i B_{t_i}=\sigma. Consequently a dense subset of σ(Xt(k))\sigma(X_t(k)) lies in Zt(l)Z_t(l). The former is the point set of the variety obtained from XtX_t by applying σ\sigma to coefficients, so taking closures gives

σ(Xt(k))⊂Zt(l).\sigma(X_t(k))\subset Z_t(l).

For the reverse inclusion, use the second inclusion of Lemma 7.1. Delete the finitely many target coordinate values at which Bti−1=σ−1Hti−1B_{t_i}^{-1}=\sigma^{-1}H_{t_i}^{-1} fails. Again this leaves a dense open, now in YtY_t, because each target coordinate is nonconstant. Its image under H\mathcal{H} is dense in ZtZ_t and lies in σ(Xt(k))\sigma(X_t(k)). Taking closures proves (13).

Thus, for every polynomial P∈k[T1,…,Tm]P\in k[T_1,\ldots,T_m],

P(t1,…,tm)=0⟺σ(P)(ut1,…,utm)=0.P(t_1,\ldots,t_m)=0\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad\sigma(P)(u_{t_1},\ldots,u_{t_m})=0.

where σ(P)\sigma(P) is obtained by applying σ\sigma to the coefficients. Good functions generate KK by Lemma 6.4. The displayed equivalence for every finite tuple makes the assignments a↦σ(a)a\mapsto\sigma(a) for a∈ka\in k and t↦utt\mapsto u_t for good tt well defined on all polynomial expressions, and preserves their nonzero values. Passing to quotients therefore gives an embedding α0:K↪Li\alpha_0:K\hookrightarrow L^i.

Because LiL^i is perfect, this embedding extends uniquely to an embedding α:Ki↪Li\alpha:K^i\hookrightarrow L^i. Its image contains l=σ(k)l=\sigma(k) and every utu_t, and is itself perfect; by (7.7) it contains the perfection of every matched good rational subfield of LL. All good rational subfields are matched, and their generators generate LL. The image of α\alpha therefore contains LiL^i, proving surjectivity and the final assertion.

Compatibility and uniqueness

Theorem 7.5 gives an isomorphism of perfect fields that carries the perfection of every good rational subfield to the perfection of its match under Θ\Theta. We must prove that its action on all multiplicative classes is Θ\Theta up to a single scalar. We then determine which field automorphisms act by scalars.

Distinguishing divisors by rational subfields

For a true prime divisor vv and a good rational subfield E⊂KE \subset K, consider the restriction Dv→AED_v \to A_E. Its rank here means the dimension of its image as a Λ\Lambda-vector space.

Lemma 8.1. Let vv be a true prime divisor of K/kK/k and let E⊂KE \subset K be a curve subfield. The restriction v∣Ev|_E is trivial if and only if the image of Dv→AED_v \to A_E is infinite-dimensional. If v∣Ev|_E is nontrivial, this image has dimension at most one.

Proof. If v∣Ev|_E is trivial, reduction embeds EE in KvK_v. The kernel of VE→VKvV_E \to V_{K_v} is finite-dimensional by Lemma 4.1, whereas VEV_E is infinite-dimensional. Dualizing and using Lemma 2.4 shows that the restriction of DvD_v to AEA_E has infinite-dimensional image.

Otherwise v∣Ev|_E is a positive multiple of the order at a point xx of the smooth projective curve of E/kE/k. If ff is a unit there, its residue is some c∈k×c \in k^\times, and f/cf/c is a principal vv-unit in KK. Every character in DvD_v therefore kills ff. Its restriction to EE factors through the value group of v∣Ev|_E, which is cyclic. The image has dimension at most one. This argument uses decomposition characters; it remains valid if the ramification multiplicity is divisible by ℓ\ell.

Lemma 8.2. For distinct true prime divisors v1,v2v_1, v_2 of K/kK/k, there is a good rational subfield E⊂KE \subset K such that v1∣Ev_1|_E is trivial and v2∣Ev_2|_E is nontrivial.

Proof. Choose a normal projective model XX on which both valuations have codimension-one centers D1,D2D_1, D_2. We recall why this is possible. For each valuation, lifts of a residue transcendence basis, together with a uniformizer, define a rational subfield over which KK is finite. Normalization of a suitable projective model of that subfield realizes the valuation as a prime divisor. A common normal projective model dominating the two models retains codimension-one centers: the residue field of each new center contains that of the old center, of transcendence degree d−1d-1 over kk.

Choose two distinct closed points P,QP,Q of D1∖D2D_1 \setminus D_2, and a smooth closed point RR of X∖(D1∪D2)X \setminus(D_1 \cup D_2). The first choice is possible because d≥2d \ge2. There is an affine open containing these points and meeting D2D_2; write its coordinate ring as AA, and let p2\mathfrak p_2 be the prime ideal of D2D_2 there. Choose two independent cotangent vectors at RR. The Chinese remainder theorem, applied to p2,mP,mQ,mR2\mathfrak p_2, \mathfrak m_P, \mathfrak m_Q, \mathfrak m_R^2, produces a,b∈Aa,b \in A satisfying

D2D_2PPQQ
aa000011
bb111111

Table 1.

and having value zero and the prescribed independent first-order terms at RR. These ideals are pairwise comaximal, so the prescriptions are independent. By Lemma 6.4, t=a/bt=a/b is good. Its residue on D1D_1 is nonconstant, since it takes different values at P,QP,Q, and its value along D2D_2 is positive. Thus v1v_1 is trivial on k(t)k(t) and v2v_2 is nontrivial there.

The scalar is global

Proposition 8.3. Let Ψ:VK→VK\Psi: V_K \to V_K be a compatible Λ\Lambda-linear automorphism. If Ψ(VE)=VE\Psi(V_E)=V_E for every good rational subfield E⊂KE \subset K, then Ψ=a id\Psi=a\,\mathrm{id} for one a∈Λ×a \in\Lambda^\times.

Proof. By Proposition 6.1, Ψ∗\Psi_* permutes the pairs Iv⊂DvI_v \subset D_v for true prime divisors. Since Ψ\Psi fixes each VEV_E, it preserves the rank of restriction of DvD_v to AEA_E. Lemmas 8.1 and 8.2 therefore force this permutation of true divisors to be the identity.

Fix a good rational subfield EE. Every point line of AEA_E is the nonzero restriction of some IvI_v. The induced dual automorphism ΨE∗=(Ψ∣VE)∗\Psi_E^* = (\Psi|_{V_E})^* of AEA_E therefore fixes every point line. Write

ΨE∗(ord⁡x)=axord⁡x,ax∈Λ×,x∈CE(k),\Psi_E^*(\operatorname{ord}_x) = a_x \operatorname{ord}_x,\qquad a_x \in\Lambda^\times,\qquad x \in C_E(k),

where CEC_E denotes the smooth projective model of EE. The sum of these order characters is zero, and its coefficient families have exactly the diagonal kernel by Lemma 3.4. Continuity permits applying ΨE∗\Psi_E^* to this sum, so all axa_x equal one scalar aEa_E. Since EE is rational, its point orders separate VEV_E, and hence Ψ∣VE=aEid⁡\Psi|_{V_E} = a_E\operatorname{id}.

Let E=k(t)E = k(t) and F=k(s)F = k(s) be any two good rational subfields. On a common smooth model open, t,st,s are regular and both differentials are nonzero. Blow up a closed point of that open. Its exceptional divisor vv has

ord⁡v(t−t(P))=ord⁡v(s−s(P))=1.\operatorname{ord}_v(t-t(P))=\operatorname{ord}_v(s-s(P))=1.

Thus the inertia line IvI_v restricts nontrivially to a point line of both AEA_E and AFA_F. The scalar by which Ψ∗\Psi^* acts on IvI_v must be both aEa_E and aFa_F. All these scalars agree. Good-function classes span VKV_K by Lemma 6.4, proving the claim.

Apply the proposition to Ψ=α1−1Θ\Psi= \alpha_1^{-1}\Theta, where α:Ki→Li\alpha: K^i \to L^i is supplied by Theorem 7.5. The canonical identifications under perfection are compatible with Milnor multiplication. Also α(Ei)\alpha(E^i) is the perfection of the good field matched to EE, so Ψ\Psi fixes VEV_E for every such EE. Consequently Θ=aα1\Theta= a\alpha_1 for a single a∈Λ×a \in\Lambda^\times.

Uniqueness up to Frobenius

Proposition 8.4. Suppose β:Ki→Ki\beta: K^i \to K^i is a field automorphism preserving kk whose action on VKV_K is a scalar. Then β\beta is the identity in characteristic zero and an integral power of Frobenius in positive characteristic.

Proof. Let E=k(t)E = k(t) be good. Its perfection is relatively algebraically closed in KiK^i: if an element is algebraic over EiE^i, clearing Frobenius powers puts an algebraic element over EE in KK, and relative algebraic closedness then puts it in EE. The same applies to β(Ei)\beta(E^i). Choose a nonconstant element of β(Ei)∩K\beta(E^i)\cap K by clearing powers, and let PP be the relative algebraic closure of the rational field it generates in KK. Relative algebraic closedness of β(Ei)\beta(E^i) gives Pi⊂β(Ei)P^i \subset\beta(E^i). Conversely, every element of β(Ei)\beta(E^i) is algebraic over this rational field; clearing powers puts it in PP. Hence β(Ei)=Pi\beta(E^i)=P^i. Since β1\beta_1 is scalar, VP=VEV_P=V_E inside VKV_K. Lemma 5.2 forces P=EP=E.

It follows that β(t)=h(t)\beta(t)=h(t) for a perfect rational function hh generating k(t)ik(t)^i over kk up to perfection. This implies that hh belongs to the group HkH_k of projective transformations and Frobenius powers from Section 7. Indeed, after clearing powers, its separable degree must be one; a larger separable degree could not disappear on passing to perfections. In characteristic zero this says simply that hh is projective linear.

Write ρ=β∣k\rho=\beta|_k. For any two distinct points a,b∈P1(k)a,b\in\mathbb{P}^1(k), choose a rational function fa,b(t)f_{a,b}(t) with divisor [a]−[b][a]-[b]. The point-order vector of β1([fa,b])\beta_1([f_{a,b}]) is supported exactly at

h−1(ρ(a)),h−1(ρ(b)).h^{-1}(\rho(a)),\qquad h^{-1}(\rho(b)).

Here ρ\rho fixes infinity. For negative Frobenius powers, the order vector is interpreted by clearing powers; multiplication by a power of pp is invertible in Λ\Lambda. Both displayed coordinates therefore have nonzero orders. Scalar action on VEV_E implies that the permutation h−1ρh^{-1}\rho fixes every unordered pair of distinct points. On a set with at least three points this forces every point to be fixed: intersect the fixed pairs {a,b}\{a,b\} and {a,c}\{a,c\}. Thus hh and ρ\rho agree on all points.

In particular hh fixes 00, 11, ∞\infty. An element of Hk\mathcal{H}_k with these three fixed points is a pure Frobenius power, or the identity in characteristic zero. In positive characteristic its exponent is determined by ρ\rho and therefore is the same for every good tt. Distinct Frobenius powers act differently on the infinite algebraically closed field kk: equality of two powers would force every element to satisfy Xpn−X=0X^{p^n}-X=0 for some n>0n>0. Good functions generate KK, so β\beta is this same Frobenius power on KK and then on its perfection.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. A compatible Θ\Theta gives equal transcendence degrees by Proposition 2.6. Theorem 7.5 produces a field isomorphism α:Ki→Li\alpha: K^i \to L^i respecting constants; in particular, the characteristics agree. Proposition 8.3 shows that Θ\Theta and α1\alpha_1 differ by a single scalar, proving surjectivity of the stated map. If two field isomorphisms have the same image modulo scalars, their quotient satisfies Proposition 8.4, proving injectivity modulo Frobenius. Conversely, every integral Frobenius power acts on VLV_L by the corresponding nonzero scalar. The map is therefore well-defined and bijective with exactly the stated equivalence relations.

References

  1. [1]F. A. Bogomolov, On two conjectures in birational algebraic geometry, in Algebraic Geometry and Analytic Geometry (Tokyo, 1990), ICM-90 Satellite Conference Proceedings, Springer, Tokyo, 1991, pp. 26–52. doi:10.1007/978-4-431-68172-4_2.DOI
  2. [2]F. Bogomolov and Y. Tschinkel, Reconstruction of function fields, Geom. Funct. Anal. 18 (2008), no. 2, 400–462. arXiv:math/0303075.
  3. [3]F. Bogomolov and Y. Tschinkel, Milnor K₂ and field homomorphisms, in Surveys in Differential Geometry, Vol. XIII, International Press, Somerville, MA, 2009, pp. 223–244. arXiv:0902.4875.
  4. [4]F. Bogomolov and Y. Tschinkel, Reconstruction of higher-dimensional function fields, Mosc. Math. J. 11 (2011), no. 2, 185–204. doi:10.17323/1609-4514-2011-11-2-185-204.DOI
  5. [5]A. Cadoret and A. Pirutka, Reconstructing function fields from Milnor K-theory, Algebra Number Theory 15 (2021), no. 9, 2261–2288. doi:10.2140/ant.2021.15.2261.DOI
  6. [6]OpenAI, The Bogomolov–Pop reconstruction theorem, OpenAI Math Release preprint, OAI:The-Bogomolov-Pop-reconstruction-theorem-September-23-2026, 2026, Sections 4–6.
  7. [7]F. Pop, On the birational anabelian program initiated by Bogomolov I, Invent. Math. 187 (2012), no. 3, 511–533. doi:10.1007/s00222-011-0331-x.DOI
  8. [8]F. Pop, On the minimized decomposition theory of valuations, Bull. Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roumanie 58(106) (2015), no. 3, 331–357, with the appendix On the nature of base fields by A. Topaz. https://ssmr.ro/bulletin/pdf/58-3/articol_10.pdf.
  9. [9]F. Pop, Reconstruction of function fields from their pro-ℓ abelian divisorial inertia, preprint, 2018. arXiv:1810.04768.arxiv.org/abs/1810.04768
  10. [10]H. Tanaka, Boundedness of regular del Pezzo surfaces over imperfect fields, Manuscripta Math. 174 (2024), no. 1–2, 355–379. doi:10.1007/s00229-023-01517-z.DOI
  11. [11]The Stacks Project Authors, The Stacks Project, 2026. https://stacks.math.columbia.edu. Specific tags are cited in the text.
  12. [12]A. Topaz, Reconstructing function fields from rational quotients of mod-ℓ Galois groups, Math. Ann. 366 (2016), no. 1–2, 337–385. doi:10.1007/s00208-015-1327-4.DOI
  13. [13]A. Topaz, Recovering function fields from their integral ℓ-adic cohomology with the Galois action, preprint, 2019, version 1. arXiv:1910.03563v1.arxiv.org/abs/1910.03563
  14. [14]A. Topaz, A Torelli theorem for higher-dimensional function fields, preprint, 2021, version 3. arXiv:1705.01084v3.
  15. [15]A. Topaz, Algebraic dependence and Milnor K-theory, preprint, 2022. arXiv:2211.14665.arxiv.org/abs/2211.14665

Paper details

Contents