Introduction

For a regular local domain BB with fraction field FBF_B, the integral Gersten conjecture asks whether, for each n≥0n \ge0, the augmented complex of Quillen groups

0⟶Kn(B)⟶Kn(FB)⟶⨁ht⁡p=1Kn−1(κ(p))⟶⋯0 \longrightarrow K_n(B) \longrightarrow K_n(F_B) \longrightarrow\bigoplus_{\operatorname{ht} \mathfrak{p}=1} K_{n-1}(\kappa(\mathfrak{p})) \longrightarrow\cdots

is exact. Here κ(p)\kappa(\mathfrak{p}) is the residue field at a prime, and the later maps are the codimension-residue maps. In particular, exactness requires the first map Kn(B)→Kn(FB)K_n(B) \to K_n(F_B) to be injective. We construct a ring for which this requirement fails in degree three.

Fix a primitive fifth root of unity ζ\zeta, and define

L=Q5(ζ),V=OL,π=1−ζ.L = \mathbb{Q}_5(\zeta), \qquad V = \mathcal{O}_L, \qquad\pi= 1-\zeta.

Let X⊂PV2\mathcal{X} \subset\mathbb{P}^2_V be the projective hypersurface

(X−Z)5−XY4+Y5+ζZ5=0.(X-Z)^5 - XY^4 + Y^5 + \zeta Z^5 = 0.

On its special fiber take m=[0:0:1]m=[0:0:1], and set A=OX,mA=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X},m}. We use GiG_i for coherent KK-theory and Gi(−;Z/5)G_i(-;\mathbb{Z}/5) for its mod-five coefficient groups.

Theorem 1.1. The ring AA is a two-dimensional Noetherian regular local domain of mixed characteristic (0,5)(0,5), with π∈mA2\pi\in\mathfrak{m}_A^2. There is an integral class c∈K3(A)c \in K_3(A) such that

c∣Frac⁡A=0,c∣A[1/π] mod 5≠0in G3(A[1/π];Z/5).c|_{\operatorname{Frac} A}=0,\qquad c|_{A[1/\pi]} \bmod5 \ne0 \quad\text{in } G_3(A[1/\pi];\mathbb{Z}/5).

In particular, K3(A)→K3(Frac⁡A)K_3(A) \to K_3(\operatorname{Frac} A) is not injective.

Thus the unrestricted integral Gersten complex can fail already at its initial injection. The class cc is not in 5K3(A)5K_3(A): any such multiple would have zero coefficient reduction, and hence zero reduction after restriction to A[1/π]A[1/\pi]. This conclusion does not determine the order of cc or its image in K3(A)⊗QK_3(A) \otimes\mathbb{Q}.

Context and earlier results

Gersten asked, among other questions, whether the transfer from the residue field to a discrete valuation ring vanishes [5] Problem 9]. Localization connects this question to injectivity of restriction to the fraction field: the image of the residue-field transfer is its kernel. Quillen formulated the general regular-local conjecture and proved it for regular semilocalizations of finite-type algebras over a field [11] §7, Conjecture 5.10 and Theorem 5.11]. Sherman established the equicharacteristic DVR case [12] p. 498], and Panin proved the full equicharacteristic case [9] Theorem A]. These results place the remaining integral question in mixed characteristic.

In mixed characteristic, smoothness over a DVR and the choice of coefficients lead to different positive results. Gillet and Levine’s relative theory reduces the smooth-over-DVR setting to the DVR case [6]. Geisser and Levine proved finite-coefficient Gersten exactness for semilocal rings essentially smooth over a DVR, including coefficients of residue-characteristic order [4] Theorem 8.2]. Druzhinin’s preprint states exactness for essentially smooth local Henselian schemes over a DVR [1] Theorem 4.5]. A separate result of Skalit gives finite-coefficient exactness for every unramified regular local ring [13] Corollary 5.7]; in mixed characteristic (0,p)(0,p), unramified here means p∈m∖m2p \in\mathfrak{m} \setminus\mathfrak{m}^{2}. His integral result is a reduction to DVRs essentially smooth over Z\mathbb{Z} [13] Theorem 5.4]. Our ring satisfies 5∈mA25 \in\mathfrak{m}_{A}^{2}, and its special fiber over the chosen VV is singular at m\mathfrak{m}; it lies outside the unramified and smooth-over-VV settings just described.

The distinction between integral and coefficient classes governs the proof. A finite-coefficient kernel class may have a nonzero coefficient boundary and hence fail to lift integrally. Even when it lifts, its integral generic restriction may be nonzero but divisible by the coefficient prime. Feld’s mod-three degree-two example and its integral divisibility corollary illustrate this second issue [2] Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 5.1].

Feld’s construction also provides a methodological antecedent: push a Bott-type class from a divisor and detect its image after a flat cyclotomic base change and inversion of three. The symbol sketch in [2] Remark 5.3, footnote 3] gives a related use of symbols. Here we arrange the integral lift on the divisor itself, so support proves integral generic vanishing before the norm test is applied. No result from Feld’s or Druzhinin’s preprint is an input to this proof.

The companion paper An integral counterexample to Gersten’s conjecture [8] Theorem 1.1] gives an integral degree-five counterexample at A5=(V0[x,y]/(5+x4+y4))(5,x,y)A_{5} = (V_{0}[x,y]/(5+x^{4}+y^{4}))_{(5,x,y)}, where V0V_{0} is the ring of integers of the unramified degree-eight extension of Q5\mathbb{Q}_{5}. Its integral cyclotomic lift and Picard-valued specialization test form a different proof route. Here the quintic model supports a Steinberg lift and a norm valuation test, proved entirely within this paper. The two results concern different rings and do not determine the smallest degree in which integral Gersten injectivity can fail.

The route through the proof

Write C=XLC = \mathcal{X}_{L} for the projective generic curve. On the chart Z≠0Z \ne0 let x=X/Zx = X/Z and y=Y/Zy = Y/Z. The divisor y=0y = 0 in Spec⁡A\operatorname{Spec} A has ring S=A/yAS = A/yA. Section 2 proves that SS is a DVR with uniformizer t=x mod yt = x \bmod y, and that its fraction field DD is a totally ramified degree-five extension of LL satisfying

ND/L(t)=π,(1−t)5=ζ.N_{D/L}(t) = \pi,\qquad(1-t)^{5} = \zeta.

For a finite extension E/LE/L, write kEk_{E} for the residue field of its valuation ring; its residue degree is [kE:F5][k_{E} : \mathbb{F}_{5}]. The corresponding closed point q0∈Cq_{0} \in C has field κ(q0)=D\kappa(q_{0}) = D and specializes to m\mathfrak{m}, with [D:L]=5[D:L]=5 but [kD:F5]=1[k_D:\mathbb{F}_5]=1. Every closed point qq specializing elsewhere satisfies 5∣[kκ(q):F5]5\mid[k_{\kappa(q)}:\mathbb{F}_5]. This difference in residue degrees supplies the nonvanishing test.

Write [u][u] for the integral K1K_1 class of a nonzero field element. Section 3 chooses a class β∈K2(L;Z/5)\beta\in K_2(L;\mathbb{Z}/5) whose coefficient boundary in K1(L)K_1(L) is [ζ][\zeta] and constructs an integral lift of aD=βD⋅[t]a_D=\beta_D\cdot[t] in two steps, where βD\beta_D is the restriction of β\beta to DD. The identity (1−t)5=ζ(1-t)^5=\zeta turns the coefficient boundary of aDa_D into a multiple of the Steinberg symbol {1−t,t}=0\{1-t,t\}=0 in K2(D)K_2(D) [7]. Hence aDa_D lifts to an integral class in K3(D)K_3(D). Quillen’s finite-field calculation gives K2(F5)=0K_2(\mathbb{F}_5)=0 [10], so localization then lifts this integral class to K3(S)K_3(S). Pushforward from SS produces c∈K3(A)c\in K_3(A), and restriction to Frac⁡A\operatorname{Frac} A kills it because its support is the divisor y=0y=0.

To detect this candidate, Section 4 proves that for every finite extension E/LE/L, multiplication by the restriction βE\beta_E identifies E×/E×5E^\times/E^{\times5} with K3(E;Z/5)K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5). This calculation combines the multiplicative motivic-to-KK spectral sequence of Friedlander and Suslin, Suslin’s product-preserving comparison, and the norm-residue comparison [3, 14, 15]. The projection formula identifies field transfer with norm. Normalized valuation modulo five consequently kills every transferred coefficient class from a field of residue degree divisible by five, whereas aDa_D has transferred valuation one because ND/L(t)=πN_{D/L}(t)=\pi.

Section 5 proves that this integral class is nonzero. The scheme T=Spec⁡A[1/π]T=\operatorname{Spec} A[1/\pi] is an inverse limit of affine opens of CC with flat transition maps. These opens contain every closed point specializing to mm, so their omitted points have residue degree divisible by five. If the coefficient reduction of c∣Tc|_T vanished, continuity of coherent KK-theory would make it vanish on one such open. Localization would then express the supported coefficient class (q0)∗(βD⋅[t])(q_0)_*(\beta_D\cdot[t]) as a sum of classes supported at omitted points. Proper pushforward to LL and the norm valuation give zero for every term on that side and one for q0q_0, a contradiction. We work in coherent GG-theory on CC, which need not be smooth.

The model and its distinguished divisor

We verify the local ring in Theorem 1.1 and construct the divisor on which the integral class will be lifted. The special fiber forces a factor of five in residue degrees away from mm, while the divisor through mm has residue degree one and a uniformizer of norm π\pi. These properties will distinguish its class from classes whose supporting points specialize away from mm. For a finite extension E/LE/L, write OE\mathcal{O}_E for its valuation ring and kEk_E for its residue field.

Lemma 2.1. The generic fiber C=XLC=\mathcal{X}_L is an integral projective curve. The ring A=OX,mA=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X},m} is a two-dimensional Noetherian regular local domain of mixed characteristic (0,5)(0,5) with π∈mA2\pi\in\mathfrak{m}_A^2. For every closed point q∈Cq\in C with residue field E=κ(q)E=\kappa(q), the EE-point extends to Spec⁡OE→X\operatorname{Spec}\mathcal{O}_E\to\mathcal{X}. If its closed image is not mm, then 5∣[kE:F5]5\mid[k_E:\mathbb{F}_5].

On the chart Z≠0Z\ne0, set x=X/Zx=X/Z, y=Y/Zy=Y/Z, and let tt be the image of xx in S=A/yAS=A/yA. Then

S≅V[t]/((t−1)5+ζ)(1)S\cong V[t]/\bigl((t-1)^5+\zeta\bigr) \tag*{(1)}

is a DVR with uniformizer tt. Its fraction field DD is totally ramified of degree five over LL, and

ND/L(t)=π,η=1−t,η5=ζ.(2)N_{D/L}(t)=\pi,\qquad\eta=1-t,\qquad\eta^5=\zeta. \tag*{(2)}

The equation Y=0Y=0 cuts out a single closed point q0∈Cq_0\in C with residue field DD.

Proof. The polynomial

Φ5(1−T)=T4−5T3+10T2−10T+5\Phi_5(1-T)=T^4-5T^3+10T^2-10T+5

is Eisenstein at five. Therefore π=1−ζ\pi= 1-\zeta is a uniformizer of VV, its residue field is F5\mathbb{F}_5, and 5=uπ45 = u\pi^4 for some u∈V×u \in V^{\times}. The homogeneous equation PP defining X\mathcal{X} reduces to

P‾=X5−XY4+Y5.\overline{P}=X^5-XY^4+Y^5.

If α\alpha is a root of s5−s+1s^5-s+1, then Frobenius sends α\alpha to α−1\alpha-1. Its orbit has length exactly five: the rrth iterate is α−r\alpha-r, which first returns at r=5r=5. Thus s5−s+1s^5-s+1 is irreducible over F5\mathbb{F}_5, and so is its homogenization P‾\overline{P}. This remains irreducible on adjoining the independent variable ZZ. A factorization of the primitive homogeneous polynomial PP over LL would, by Gauss’ lemma, give primitive positive-degree homogeneous factors over VV and hence a factorization of P‾\overline{P}. Consequently CC is integral. It is a projective plane curve, so it has dimension one.

Put

F=(x−1)5−xy4+y5+ζ,R=V[x,y]/(F),m=(π,x,y)⊂R.F=(x-1)^5-xy^4+y^5+\zeta,\qquad R=V[x,y]/(F),\qquad\mathfrak{m}=(\pi,x,y)\subset R.

In the regular local ring V[x,y](π,x,y)V[x,y]_{(\pi,x,y)} of dimension three, F≡−πF\equiv-\pi modulo the square of the maximal ideal. Thus quotienting by FF gives the regular local ring A=RmA=R_{\mathfrak{m}} of dimension two. A regular local ring is a domain. Since FF is monic in xx, the ring RR is free over V[y]V[y] and hence flat over VV. Its localization AA is also VV-flat, so VV embeds into AA. Together with A/mA=F5A/\mathfrak{m}A=\mathbb{F}_5, this proves mixed characteristic (0,5)(0,5). Expanding F=0F=0 gives

π=x5−5x4+10x3−10x2+5x−xy4+y5.\pi=x^5-5x^4+10x^3-10x^2+5x-xy^4+y^5.

In particular, π∈(x,y)A\pi\in(x,y)A and mA=(x,y)A\mathfrak{m}A=(x,y)A. Since 55 is divisible by π\pi, the term 5x5x is in (x,y)2A(x,y)^2A, as are all remaining terms on the right. Hence π∈mA2\pi\in\mathfrak{m}_A^2. Since 5=uπ45=u\pi^4, also 5∈mA25\in\mathfrak{m}_A^2, so AA is ramified in the usual mixed-characteristic sense. The reduction of the equation has no linear term at m\mathfrak{m}, so the one-dimensional special fiber is singular there; AA is not smooth over VV.

Modulo yy, the equation becomes

f(t)=(t−1)5+ζ=t5−5t4+10t3−10t2+5t−π.f(t)=(t-1)^5+\zeta=t^5-5t^4+10t^3-10t^2+5t-\pi.

This is Eisenstein at π\pi. The finite free VV-algebra B=V[t]/(f)B=V[t]/(f) is a domain. Every maximal ideal lies over the maximal ideal of VV, and B/πB=F5[t]/(t5)B/\pi B=\mathbb{F}_5[t]/(t^5), so BB is local. Since f(t)=0f(t)=0 implies π∈(t)B\pi\in(t)B, its maximal ideal is (t)(t). Its dimension is one, making it a DVR. The localization defining A/yAA/yA leaves this local ring unchanged, proving (1). Its fraction field has degree five over LL and residue degree one, hence total ramification. The constant term gives

ND/L(t)=(−1)5f(0)=π.N_{D/L}(t)=(-1)^5f(0)=\pi.

The relation (1−t)5=ζ(1-t)^5=\zeta also follows from f(t)=0f(t)=0. As S[1/π]=DS[1/\pi]=D, the equation y=0y=0 on the generic affine chart gives a single closed point. There is no additional point with Y=Z=0Y=Z=0 on CC, since substitution in PP would force X=0X=0. This proves the assertion about q0q_0 on all of CC.

We have constructed the distinguished point with residue degree one. It remains to establish the residue-degree constraint on points that specialize away from m\mathfrak{m}. A closed point of CC has residue field finite over LL. Properness of X/V\mathcal{X}/V extends its EE-point to Spec⁡OE\operatorname{Spec}\mathcal{O}_E. On the special fiber Y=0Y=0 forces X=0X=0, so m\mathfrak{m} is the only point with Y=0Y=0. If the closed image is elsewhere, X/YX/Y in kEk_E is a root of s5−s+1s^5-s+1. Thus kEk_E contains F5\mathbb{F}_5, and 5∣[kE:F5]5\mid[k_E:\mathbb{F}_5]. ∩ევნ

Lifting on the divisor

The divisor Spec⁡S⊂Spec⁡A\operatorname{Spec} S \subset\operatorname{Spec} A now supplies an integral class with zero generic restriction. We first lift a coefficient class to K3(D)K_3(D) and then extend that lift across the closed point of SS. Its coefficient image will be tested for nonvanishing only after this construction.

Let M5M_5 be the mod-five Moore spectrum. We use Ki(B;Z/5)=πi(K(B)∧M5)K_i(B;\mathbb{Z}/5)=\pi_i(K(B)\wedge M_5), and the same convention for GG-theory. The coefficient sequence is

Ki(B)→5Ki(B)→ρBKi(B;Z/5)→∂coef⁡Ki−1(B)→5Ki−1(B).(3)K_i(B) \xrightarrow{5} K_i(B) \xrightarrow{\rho_B} K_i(B;\mathbb{Z}/5) \xrightarrow{\partial_{\operatorname{coef}}} K_{i-1}(B) \xrightarrow{5} K_{i-1}(B). \tag*{(3)}

Here ρB\rho_B denotes coefficient reduction, and ∂coef⁡\partial_{\operatorname{coef}} denotes the connecting map. Multiplication of a coefficient class by an integral class uses the natural K(B)K(B)-module structure on K(B)∧M5K(B)\wedge M_5.

For an element uu of a field’s multiplicative group, write [u][u] for its integral K1K_1 class. Since [ζ]∈K1(L)=L×[\zeta]\in K_1(L)=L^\times has order five, exactness permits us to fix

β∈K2(L;Z/5),∂coef⁡β=[ζ].\beta\in K_2(L;\mathbb{Z}/5), \qquad\partial_{\operatorname{coef}}\beta=[\zeta].

For every finite extension E/LE/L, write βE\beta_E for its restriction. The class to be lifted is

aD=βD⋅[t]∈K3(D;Z/5).a_D=\beta_D\cdot[t]\in K_3(D;\mathbb{Z}/5).

Resolution identifies KK-theory with coherent GG-theory for the regular rings SS and AA; closed-immersion pushforward is taken in GG-theory [11].

Proposition 3.1. There exists b∈K3(S)b\in K_3(S) whose restriction to DD, followed by coefficient reduction, is aDa_D. If j:Spec⁡S↪Spec⁡Aj:\operatorname{Spec} S\hookrightarrow\operatorname{Spec} A and c=j∗b∈G3(A)=K3(A)c=j_*b\in G_3(A)=K_3(A), then c∣Frac⁡A=0c|_{\operatorname{Frac} A}=0. Moreover, for T=Spec⁡A[1/π]T=\operatorname{Spec} A[1/\pi] and i:Spec⁡D↪Ti:\operatorname{Spec} D\hookrightarrow T,

c∣T mod 5=i∗aDin G3(T;Z/5).c|_T \bmod5=i_*a_D\quad\text{in }G_3(T;\mathbb{Z}/5).

Proof. The coefficient cofiber sequence is a sequence of K(D)K(D)-modules. Its connecting map is therefore compatible with multiplication by an integral K(D)K(D) class, up to the suspension sign. By (2), ζ=η5\zeta=\eta^5 and t=1−ηt=1-\eta. Both η\eta and 1−η1-\eta are nonzero: the first has fifth power ζ≠0\zeta\ne0, and the second is the uniformizer tt of SS. Matsumoto’s Steinberg relation [7], with the identification of symbols and products in Quillen K2(D)K_2(D) [16], gives

∂coef⁡aD=±[ζ]⋅[t]=±5{η,1−η}=0.(4)\partial_{\operatorname{coef}}a_D=\pm[\zeta]\cdot[t]=\pm5\{\eta,1-\eta\}=0. \tag*{(4)}

The sign does not affect the vanishing. Exactness of (3) yields an integral lift a~D∈K3(D)\widetilde{a}_D\in K_3(D) of aDa_D. The boundary [ζ]∈K1(D)[5][\zeta]\in K_1(D)[5] of βD\beta_D itself is still nonzero, even though ζ=η5\zeta=\eta^5. Being a fifth power makes the class of ζ\zeta vanish in D×/D×5D^\times/D^{\times5}, not in the integral group K1(D)=D×K_1(D)=D^\times. The Steinberg relation is what kills the boundary of the product aDa_D.

Localization and dévissage for the DVR SS give [11]

K3(S)⟶K3(D)⟶K2(F5).K_3(S)\longrightarrow K_3(D)\longrightarrow K_2(\mathbb{F}_5).

The last group is zero by Quillen’s finite-field computation [10]. We may therefore choose b∈K3(S)b\in K_3(S) restricting to a~D\widetilde{a}_D. This is a second lift, distinct from the coefficient lift to K3(D)K_3(D).

Let c=j∗b∈G3(A)=K3(A)c=j_*b\in G_3(A)=K_3(A). Its restriction to Spec⁡A[1/y]\operatorname{Spec} A[1/y] is zero because the closed immersion jj has empty pullback there. The element yy is nonzero in the domain AA: its quotient SS has dimension one, whereas AA has dimension two. Hence yy becomes invertible in Frac⁡A\operatorname{Frac} A, and c∣Frac⁡A=0c|_{\operatorname{Frac} A}=0 integrally.

Base change of jj along T→Spec⁡AT\to\operatorname{Spec} A is i:Spec⁡D↪Ti:\operatorname{Spec} D\hookrightarrow T, since S[1/π]=DS[1/\pi]=D. Flat base change for coherent pushforward [16] here is the natural isomorphism

A[1/π]⊗AM≅D⊗SMA[1/\pi]\otimes_A M\cong D\otimes_S M

for a finite SS-module MM, with both sides viewed as A[1/π]A[1/\pi]-modules. Thus restriction of scalars commutes with localization. Naturality of coefficient reduction gives the commutative diagram

K3(S)→j∗G3(A)↓↓K3(D;Z/5)→i∗G3(T;Z/5)\begin{array}{ccc} K_3(S) & \xrightarrow{j_*} & G_3(A) \\ \downarrow& & \downarrow\\ K_3(D;\mathbb{Z}/5) & \xrightarrow{i_*} & G_3(T;\mathbb{Z}/5) \end{array}

Both vertical arrows mean restriction followed by coefficient reduction. The left arrow sends bb to aDa_D, which proves the stated identity.

The field comparison and norm detector

Proposition 3.1 constructs an integral class cc with zero generic restriction. To prove it nonzero, we will test its coefficient image by proper pushforward to LL and a valuation. Localization on the projective curve will introduce arbitrary classes in K3(E;Z/5)K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5), for finite extensions E/LE/L arising as closed-point fields. We therefore need a description of all these groups that identifies field transfer with norm.

Keep the class β\beta and its restrictions βE\beta_E fixed as in Section 3. For every finite extension E/LE/L, let kEk_E be its residue field, and normalize vEv_E so that a uniformizer has valuation one.

Lemma 4.1 (Multiplicative field comparison). For L=Q5(ζ)L=\mathbb{Q}_5(\zeta) and the fixed β\beta above, every finite extension E/LE/L has an isomorphism

θE:E×/E×5→∼K3(E;Z/5),umod⁡E×5⟼βE⋅[u].(5)\theta_E:E^\times/E^{\times5}\xrightarrow{\sim}K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5),\qquad u\mathbin{\operatorname{mod}}E^{\times5}\longmapsto\beta_E\cdot[u]. \tag*{(5)}

The degree-three motivic edge identifies the target with Het1(E,μ5⊗2)H^1_{\mathrm{et}}(E,\mu_5^{\otimes2}). Under this edge, the displayed map is Kummer reduction followed by cup product with the nonzero weight-one edge image αE∈H0(E,μ5)\alpha_E\in H^0(E,\mu_5) of βE\beta_E.

Proof. We first identify the degree-three group, then locate the image of βE\beta_E in degree two, and finally compute multiplication by βE\beta_E on integral K1K_1. The strongly convergent motivic-to-KK spectral sequence for a characteristic-zero field is

E2a,b=Ha−b(E,Z/5(−b))⟹K−a−b(E;Z/5).(6)E_2^{a,b}=H^{a-b}(E,\mathbb{Z}/5(-b))\Longrightarrow K_{-a-b}(E;\mathbb{Z}/5). \tag*{(6)}

It has a pairing with the integral spectral sequence that induces the integral/coefficient KK-module product on the abutment [3]. The comparison with motivic complexes preserves products [14]. Write s=a−bs=a-b and j=−bj=-b, so a term Hs(E,Z/5(j))H^s(E,\mathbb{Z}/5(j)) has total KK-degree 2j−s2j-s. Negative weights vanish. For j≥0j\geq0, the field motivic groups vanish for s>js > j, and the norm-residue and motivic–étale comparison theorems identify them, for every s≤js \le j, with

Hets(E,μ5⊗j);H_{\mathrm{et}}^{s}(E,\mu_{5}^{\otimes j});

see [15] and [16]. In particular, the groups vanish for s<0s < 0. These comparisons apply because 5 is invertible in EE.

The 5-cohomological dimension of a finite extension of Q5\mathbb{Q}_5 is two [16]. Thus the only potentially nonzero terms satisfy 0≤s≤min⁡(j,2)0 \le s \le\min(j,2). For r≥2r \ge2 a differential changes (s,j)(s,j) to (s+2r−1,j+r−1)(s+2r-1,j+r-1), so none can join two nonzero terms. Total degree three has the single term (s,j)=(1,2)(s,j)=(1,2), yielding the natural identification

K3(E;Z/5)≃Het1(E,μ5⊗2).(7)K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5) \simeq H_{\mathrm{et}}^1(E,\mu_5^{\otimes2}). \tag*{(7)}

In particular, this KK-group is killed by five. In total degree two the weight-one quotient of the filtration is H0(E,μ5)H^0(E,\mu_5); the only other possible piece is H2(E,μ5⊗2)H^2(E,\mu_5^{\otimes2}) in weight two.

Let αE\alpha_E be the weight-one image of βE\beta_E. To see that it is nonzero, restrict to an algebraic closure E‾\overline{E}. The same comparison there has only s=0s=0 terms, so its total degree-two group has just the weight-one piece H0(E‾,μ5)H^0(\overline{E},\mu_5). Matsumoto’s presentation of field K2K_2 ([7]; see also [16]) gives K2(E‾)/5=0K_2(\overline{E})/5=0: every symbol {u,v}\{u,v\} equals 5{r,v}5\{r,v\} after choosing r5=ur^5=u. The coefficient sequence therefore identifies K2(E‾;Z/5)K_2(\overline{E};\mathbb{Z}/5) with K1(E‾)[5]K_1(\overline{E})[5] through ∂coef\partial_{\mathrm{coef}}. The restriction of βE\beta_E is nonzero, since its boundary is the primitive root [ζ][\zeta]. Naturality of the filtration shows that αE\alpha_E has nonzero image in H0(E‾,μ5)H^0(\overline{E},\mu_5). It is consequently a generator of H0(E‾,μ5)H^0(\overline{E},\mu_5); only this nonvanishing is needed.

It remains to determine the actual product from these filtration pieces. Integral K1(E)=E×K_1(E)=E^\times has only the weight-one piece H1(E,Z(1))H^1(E,\mathbb{Z}(1)): on the diagonal 2j−s=12j-s=1, weights j≥2j\ge2 give s>js>j and vanish, weight zero gives H−1(E,Z(0))=0H^{-1}(E,\mathbb{Z}(0))=0, and negative weights vanish. The identification Z(1)≃Gm[−1]\mathbb{Z}(1)\simeq\mathbb{G}_m[-1] identifies reduction of [u][u] with its Kummer class in H1(E,μ5)=E×/E×5H^1(E,\mu_5)=E^\times/E^{\times5}.

Write FjF^j for the decreasing weight filtration. The preceding calculations give

F1K1(E)=K1(E),F2K1(E)=0,F2K3(E;Z/5)=K3(E;Z/5),F3K3(E;Z/5)=0.F^1K_1(E)=K_1(E),\qquad F^2K_1(E)=0,\qquad F^2K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5)=K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5),\qquad F^3K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5)=0.

The class βE\beta_E lies in F1K2(E;Z/5)F^1K_2(E;\mathbb{Z}/5) and has image αE\alpha_E in its quotient by F2F^2. The mixed filtered pairing satisfies

F2K2(E;Z/5)⋅F1K1(E)⊆F3K3(E;Z/5)=0.F^2K_2(E;\mathbb{Z}/5)\cdot F^1K_1(E)\subseteq F^3K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5)=0.

Thus the possible weight-two part of βE\beta_E contributes nothing: the product βE⋅[u]\beta_E\cdot[u] is determined by αE\alpha_E and the weight-one class of [u][u]. Product compatibility identifies it, under (7), with αE∪[u]\alpha_E\cup[u]. Since αE\alpha_E generates the constant one-dimensional F5\mathbb{F}_5-module μ5\mu_5, this cup product is an isomorphism. The product factors through fifth powers because its target is killed by five and [u5]=5[u][u^5]=5[u]. This proves (5) with its asserted multiplicative identification.

In particular, the coefficient class already constructed on the divisor is αD=θD(t)\alpha_D=\theta_D(t). We now relate the comparison maps for different extensions of LL.

Lemma 4.2 (Norm detector). For every finite extension E/LE/L and every u∈E×u\in E^\times,

Tr⁡E/LθE(u)=θL(NE/Lu).(8)\operatorname{Tr}_{E/L}\theta_E(u)=\theta_L(N_{E/L}u). \tag*{(8)}

Consequently

λL=(vL mod 5)∘θL−1:K3(L;Z/5)⟶Z/5\lambda_L=(v_L\bmod5)\circ\theta_L^{-1}:K_3(L;\mathbb{Z}/5)\longrightarrow\mathbb{Z}/5

satisfies

λL(Tr⁡E/L(a))=0for every a∈K3(E;Z/5) if 5∣[kE:kL].\lambda_L(\operatorname{Tr}_{E/L}(a))=0\quad\text{for every }a\in K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5)\text{ if }5\mid[k_E:k_L].

Proof. Restriction of scalars obeys the tensor projection formula at the level of KK-theory spectra [16]. Smashing its base-field factor with M5M_5 gives the mixed pairing identity

Tr⁡E/L(βE⋅[u])=β⋅Tr⁡E/L[u]=β⋅[NE/Lu].\operatorname{Tr}_{E/L}(\beta_E \cdot[u]) = \beta\cdot\operatorname{Tr}_{E/L}[u] = \beta\cdot[N_{E/L}u].

The second equality uses the norm description of field K1K_1 transfer [16] and the following paragraph. This proves (8).

For normalized valuations, the norm of the prime ideal of EE is the [kE:kL][k_E:k_L]th power of the prime ideal of LL. Hence

vL(NE/Lu)=[kE:kL]vE(u).v_L(N_{E/L}u) = [k_E:k_L]v_E(u).

Every a∈K3(E;Z/5)a \in K_3(E;\mathbb{Z}/5) has the form θE(u)\theta_E(u) by Lemma 4.1. Applying the formula to that uu proves the assertion for all aa. The factor is the residue degree, not the total degree [E:L][E:L].

Detection on the projective curve

Proposition 3.1 has constructed an integral class cc with c∣Frac⁡A=0c|_{\operatorname{Frac} A}=0 and coefficient image i∗aDi^*a_D on

T=Spec⁡A[1/π].T = \operatorname{Spec} A[1/\pi].

By Lemma 4.1, aD=βD⋅[t]=θD(t)a_D = \beta_D \cdot[t] = \theta_D(t). To prove its pushforward i∗aDi_*a_D nonzero, we extend the supported class to the projective curve CC, where proper pushforward permits the norm test. The scheme TT is an inverse limit of affine opens of CC with flat transition maps, and need not itself be an open subset. The following lemma makes that passage explicit.

Lemma 5.1. Let Σ=R∖m\Sigma= R \setminus\mathfrak{m}, where R=V[x,y]/(F)R = V[x,y]/(F) and m=(π,x,y)\mathfrak{m} = (\pi,x,y). For h∈Σh \in\Sigma put

Uh=Spec⁡R[1/π,1/h]⊂C.U_h = \operatorname{Spec} R[1/\pi,1/h] \subset C.

Then the refinement maps Uhk→UhU_{hk} \to U_h are affine and flat, and

T=lim⁡h∈ΣUh,lim⁡h∈ΣG3(Uh;Z/5)→∼G3(T;Z/5).(9)T = \lim_{h\in\Sigma} U_h,\qquad\lim_{h\in\Sigma} G_3(U_h;\mathbb{Z}/5) \xrightarrow{\sim} G_3(T;\mathbb{Z}/5). \tag*{(9)}

Every UhU_h contains q0q_0. Its complement in CC is a finite set of closed points qq, and their residue fields Eq=κ(q)E_q = \kappa(q) satisfy 5∣[kEq:F5]5 \mid[k_{E_q}:\mathbb{F}_5].

Proof. The multiplicative set Σ\Sigma is directed by taking products: hkhk gives a common refinement of hh and kk. Transitivity of localization gives

lim⁡h∈ΣR[1/π,1/h]=Rm[1/π]=A[1/π].\lim_{h\in\Sigma} R[1/\pi,1/h] = R_{\mathfrak{m}}[1/\pi] = A[1/\pi].

Each refinement is a principal localization, so the corresponding scheme map is affine and flat. The stages and their limit are affine Noetherian schemes, hence separated. Quillen’s continuity theorem, in its coherent K′K' conclusion [11], therefore applies to their integral GG-groups.

To pass to coefficients, use the natural short exact sequence

0⟶G3(Y)/5G3(Y)⟶G3(Y;Z/5)⟶G2(Y)[5]⟶00 \longrightarrow G_3(Y)/5G_3(Y) \longrightarrow G_3(Y;\mathbb{Z}/5) \longrightarrow G_2(Y)[5] \longrightarrow0

for each stage Y=UhY = U_h and for Y=TY = T. Filtered colimits of abelian groups are exact, and thus commute with the quotient by five and the kernel of multiplication by five. Integral continuity in degrees three and two identifies the outer terms in the resulting comparison of short exact sequences. It consequently identifies the middle terms, proving the coefficient assertion in (9).

Since h∉mh \notin\mathfrak{m}, its image in the local divisor ring SS is a unit. Thus q0=Spec⁡Dq_0 = \operatorname{Spec} D belongs to UhU_h. More generally, consider a closed point q∈Cq \in C with residue field EE whose extension Spec⁡OE→X\operatorname{Spec} \mathcal{O}_E \to X specializes to m\mathfrak{m}. The inverse image of the chart Z≠0Z \ne0 contains the closed point of Spec⁡OE\operatorname{Spec} \mathcal{O}_E, and hence is all of Spec⁡OE\operatorname{Spec} \mathcal{O}_E. On that chart the reduction of hh at m\mathfrak{m} is nonzero. Its pullback to OE\mathcal{O}_E is therefore a unit, so qq lies in UhU_h. It follows that each point omitted from UhU_h specializes away from m\mathfrak{m}. Lemma 2.1 then gives 5∣[kE:F5]5 \mid[k_E : \mathbb{F}_5]. Finally, CC is an integral projective curve and UhU_h is nonempty, so its closed complement consists of finitely many closed points.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Take the integral class c∈K3(A)c \in K_3(A) constructed in Proposition 3.1, and put

w=(q0)∗θD(t)∈G3(C;Z/5).w = (q_0)_*\theta_D(t) \in G_3(C;\mathbb{Z}/5).

Coherent GG-theory provides proper pushforward even when CC is singular. The point immersion is finite, and the structural map p:C→Spec⁡Lp : C \to\operatorname{Spec} L is proper with CC carrying the ample line bundle OC(1)\mathcal{O}_C(1). Coherent pushforward and its composition law therefore apply to both maps [11], paragraph 2.7 and the discussion following (2.8)].

Flat base change for the point immersion on each UhU_h [16], followed by (9), identifies w∣Tw|_T with the pushforward of θD(t)\theta_D(t) along Spec⁡D↪T\operatorname{Spec} D \hookrightarrow T. By Proposition 3.1, this is precisely the coefficient reduction of c∣Tc|_T.

Suppose that w∣T=0w|_T = 0. The element w∣U1w|_{U_1} represents this class in the filtered colimit (9). A zero element in that colimit becomes zero at a finite stage, so w∣Uh=0w|_{U_h} = 0 for some h∈Σh \in\Sigma. Give Zh=C∖UhZ_h = C \setminus U_h its reduced closed structure. Apply Moore coefficients to coherent localization and dévissage at these closed points [11]. The resulting exact segment is

⨁q∈ZhK3(Eq;Z/5)⟶G3(C;Z/5)⟶G3(Uh;Z/5).\bigoplus_{q \in Z_h} K_3(E_q;\mathbb{Z}/5) \longrightarrow G_3(C;\mathbb{Z}/5) \longrightarrow G_3(U_h;\mathbb{Z}/5).

Consequently there are classes aq∈K3(Eq;Z/5)a_q \in K_3(E_q;\mathbb{Z}/5) such that

w=∑q∈Zhq∗aq.(10)w = \sum_{q \in Z_h} q_*a_q. \tag*{(10)}

These are arbitrary coefficient classes supplied by localization. Lemma 4.1 applies to every finite extension Eq/LE_q/L, so its surjectivity writes each of them as aq=θEq(uq)a_q = \theta_{E_q}(u_q) for some uq∈Eq×u_q \in E_q^\times.

Apply the proper pushforward p∗:G3(C;Z/5)→K3(L;Z/5)p_* : G_3(C;\mathbb{Z}/5) \to K_3(L;\mathbb{Z}/5) to (10). For every closed point, the composite p∗q∗p_*q_* is the field transfer. Lemma 5.1 gives 5∣[kEq:F5]5 \mid[k_{E_q} : \mathbb{F}_5], and Lemma 4.2 therefore gives

λL(p∗q∗aq)=vL(NEq/L(uq)) mod 5=[kEq:F5]vEq(uq) mod 5=0.\lambda_L(p_*q_*a_q) = v_L(N_{E_q/L}(u_q)) \bmod5 = [k_{E_q} : \mathbb{F}_5]v_{E_q}(u_q) \bmod5 = 0.

Thus (10) forces λL(p∗w)=0\lambda_L(p_*w) = 0. On the other hand, the distinguished point has residue field DD, and its parameter satisfies ND/L(t)=πN_{D/L}(t) = \pi. The same transfer formula yields

λL(p∗w)=λL(Tr⁡D/LθD(t))=vL(ND/L(t)) mod 5=vL(π) mod 5=1.\lambda_L(p_*w) = \lambda_L(\operatorname{Tr}_{D/L}\theta_D(t)) = v_L(N_{D/L}(t)) \bmod5 = v_L(\pi) \bmod5 = 1.

This contradiction proves w∣T≠0w|_T \ne0. Hence the coefficient reduction of c∣Tc|_T is nonzero, so the integral class c∈K3(A)c \in K_3(A) is itself nonzero. Its image at the fraction field is zero by Proposition 3.1; together with the properties of AA in Lemma 2.1, this proves the theorem.

References

  1. [1]Andrei E. Druzhinin. Gersten conjecture for K-theory on Henselian schemes and φ-motivic localisation, 2025. arXiv:2512.01923v1.arxiv.org/abs/2512.01923
  2. [2]Niels Feld. Finite-coefficient Gersten injectivity fails in ramified mixed characteristic, 2026. arXiv:2608.05005v2, September 24, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2608.05005
  3. [3]Eric M. Friedlander and Andrei Suslin. The spectral sequence relating algebraic K-theory to motivic cohomology. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 35:773–875, 2002.DOI
  4. [4]Thomas Geisser and Marc Levine. The K-theory of fields in characteristic p. Invent. Math., 139:459–493, 2000.DOI
  5. [5]S. M. Gersten. Problems about higher K-functors. In Algebraic K-theory, I: Higher K-theories, volume 341 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 43–56. Springer, 1973.DOI
  6. [6]Henri Gillet and Marc Levine. The relative form of Gersten’s conjecture over a discrete valuation ring: The smooth case. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 46:59–71, 1987.DOI
  7. [7]Hideya Matsumoto. Sur les sous-groupes arithmétiques des groupes semi-simples déployés. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 2:1–62, 1969.DOI
  8. [8]OpenAI. An integral counterexample to Gersten’s conjecture. OpenAI Math Release preprint OAI:An-Integral-Counterexample-to-Gerstens-Conjecture-September-25-2026, 2026.
  9. [9]I. A. Panin. The equicharacteristic case of the Gersten conjecture. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklova, 241:169–178, 2003.
  10. [10]Daniel Quillen. On the cohomology and K-theory of the general linear groups over a finite field. Ann. of Math. (2), 96:552–586, 1972.DOI
  11. [11]Daniel Quillen. Higher algebraic K-theory: I. In Algebraic K-theory, I: Higher K-theories, volume 341 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 85–147. Springer, 1973.DOI
  12. [12]C. C. Sherman. The K-theory of an equicharacteristic discrete valuation ring injects into the K-theory of its field of quotients. Pacific J. Math., 74(2):497–499, 1978.DOI
  13. [13]C. Skalit. Regular morphisms and Gersten’s conjecture, 2017. arXiv:1710.00303v1, October 1, 2017.arxiv.org/abs/1710.00303
  14. [14]A. A. Suslin. On the Grayson spectral sequence. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklova, 241:218–253, 2003.
  15. [15]Vladimir Voevodsky. On motivic cohomology with Z/l-coefficients. Ann. of Math. (2), 174:401–438, 2011.
  16. [16]Charles A. Weibel. The K-book: An introduction to algebraic K-theory, volume 145 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 2013.

Paper details

Contents