How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
The odd-prime Hilbert symbol formula
Statement
Let be odd, and write , with and . Then
for a -adic unit , write for the Legendre symbol of any integer representative of its nonzero residue class modulo . With this convention,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An odd prime , elements and in , and unit parts .
The Hilbert symbol is equivalent to solvability of and to the norm condition from (Equivalent formulations of the Hilbert symbol).
The Hilbert symbol depends only on square classes (The Hilbert symbol depends only on square classes).
The Legendre symbol of an integer detects whether its nonzero residue class is a square modulo (The Legendre symbol, including its zero value, Euler's criterion: ); hence the notation above is well defined for .
The square criterion in for odd is parity of valuation plus a square residue unit (Square criterion in Q_p for odd p).
A simple root modulo lifts to a -adic root (Simple roots lift uniquely in Z_p).
Proof
By [L2], only the parities of and the unit square classes of matter, so it is enough to treat . We also use three consequences of [L1]. First, the defining equation is symmetric in and , so . Second, if is a square then . Third, if then the norm subgroup from is multiplicative, so ; by symmetry the same cancellation rule holds in the first argument.
If , both arguments are units. Consider the sets Each has elements, so they intersect. Hence there exist with . At least one of is nonzero, so one partial derivative of is nonzero at modulo ; [L5] lifts this solution to . Therefore , agreeing with the displayed formula when .
Suppose and . Step 2.1 gives , so the cancellation rule from step 1.1 yields . If is a square unit, then [L4] and step 1.1 give . If is a nonsquare unit and , then [L1] gives a primitive solution of over . The congruence forces to be divisible by , for otherwise [L4] would make a square in . Then , so primitivity forces to be a unit and therefore , impossible. Hence in the nonsquare case. By [L3] and [L4], this is exactly , so
By symmetry, the case gives
When , step 1.1 gives , so Now apply step 3.1 with in place of : where the last identity is Euler's criterion from [L3]. This matches the displayed formula for .
Steps 2.1 through 4.2 settle all four parity cases, so the claimed formula holds for all and .
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
19 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Andrew V. Sutherland, 18.782 Lecture 10, Theorem 10.7 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Sam Raskin, Introduction to the Arithmetic Theory of Quadratic Forms, section 4.3 (standard reference, not scraped)