Is this example of 1-dimensional geometric class field theory correct?

104 Views Asked by At

I'm trying to understand the main theorem of geometric class field theory. Could someone tell me if this example is correct?

Main theorem. Let $K$ be a function field of a curve over a finite field. There is a bijection between unramified $\ell$-adic Galois representations of $G_K := \operatorname{Gal}(K^{sep}/K)$ and $\ell$-adic characters of $K^{\times}\backslash\mathbf{A}_K^{\times}/\mathcal{O}_K^{\times}.$ (Here I mean the ideles modulo the diagonal on the left, and on the right quotiented by the subgroup of ideles which have non-negative valuation at every place.)

I was trying to understand what this means when $K = \mathbb{F}_p(T),$ say. In that case, I think unramified Galois representations are the same as representations of $\operatorname{Gal}(K^{un}/K) = \operatorname{Gal}(\overline{\mathbf{F}_p}(T)/\mathbf{F}_p(T))= \hat{\mathbf{Z}}.$

--

On the other side, I believe that I can simplify that double quotient as follows. The places of $K$ are described as follows: there is one place with uniformizer $1/T,$ and then for every monic irreducible polynomial $f(T) \in \mathbb{F}_p[T],$ there is a place with uniformizer $f.$ These are distinct places, and every place is of one of these two forms.

There is a surjective map $\mathbf{A}_K^{\times}\to \bigoplus_{v\in P} \mathbf{Z},$ for $P$ the set of places of $K,$ sending an idele to its valuation at each place. The kernel is precisely $\mathcal{O}_K^{\times},$ and so $$\mathbf{A}_K^{\times}/\mathcal{O}_K^{\times} \cong \bigoplus_{v\in P} \mathbf{Z}.$$

The diagonal embedding of $K^{\times}$ then corresponds to the subgroup of $\bigoplus_{v\in P}\mathbf{Z}$ consisting of elements whose sum is $0.$ In particular, the quotient by the diagonal subgroup leaves us with just $\mathbf{Z}.$

As a sanity check, $\operatorname{Pic}(\mathbb{P}^1) = \mathbf{Z},$ as found in any book on algebraic geometry, and I believe part of the proof of geometric class field goes by identifying the double quotient with the Picard group, so it makes sense we got $\mathbf{Z}$ here.

--

So, I think that in this case, it is telling me that continuous homomorphisms $\rho : \hat{\mathbf{Z}} \to \overline{\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}}^{\times}$ are in bijection with continuous homomorphisms $\mathbf{Z}\to \overline{\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}}^{\times}.$

But this surely is incorrect -- the image of a map out of the profinite integers must be compact, but the image out of $\mathbf{Z}$ is not.

So, where have I made a mistake?