mathematics
Article
Prime Spectrum of the Ring of Adeles of a Number Field
Álvaro Serrano Holgado






Citation: Serrano Holgado, Á. Prime
Spectrum of the Ring of Adeles of a
Number Field. Mathematics 2022, 10,
3479. https://doi.org/10.3390/
math10193479
Academic Editor: Martin
Schlichenmaier
Received: 24 August 2022
Accepted: 20 September 2022
Published: 23 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10193479
Department of Mathematics, University of Salamanca, Plaza de la Merced 1, 37008 Salamanca, Spain;
alvaro_serrano@usal.es
Abstract: Much is known about the adele ring of an algebraic number field from the perspective
of harmonic analysis and class field theory. However, its ring-theoretical aspects are often ignored.
Here, we present a description of the prime spectrum of this ring and study some of the algebraic
and topological properties of these prime ideals. We also study how they behave under separable
extensions of the base field and give an indication of how this study can be applied in adele rings not
of number fields.
Keywords: adele ring; prime spectrum; ultrafilters; topological rings
MSC: 13A15; 11R56; 13C13; 13J99
1. Introduction
Let K be an algebraic number field, i.e., a finite field extension of the rational numbers
Q, and denote by oK the ring of algebraic integers in K, namely, the algebraic closure of Z
in K.
Consider the set X of places of K, defined as the set of equivalence classes of absolute
values on K, where two absolute values are equivalent if one is a power of the other. We
may partition X into X∞ , the set of Archimedean places (those defined by absolute values
that do not satisfy the ultrametric inequality), and X f , the set of non-Archimedean or finite
places (those defined by absolute values that satisfy the ultrametric inequality). For υ ∈ X,
let Kυ be the completion of K with respect to any absolute value in the class of υ, and for
υ ∈ X f , let oυ be the valuation ring of υ, with maximal ideal mυ . We have a one-to-one
correspondence between X f and the set of nonzero (and therefore maximal) prime ideals
of oK , whereby, if the place υ corresponds to the prime ideal p, then oυ is isomorphic to the
p-adic completion of oK .
For a fixed finite subset S0 ⊆ X containing X∞ , let
Λ = {S ⊆ X | S is finite and S0 ⊆ S}.
For S ∈ Λ, consider the product ring
AK,S = ∏ Kυ × ∏ oυ .
υ∈S υ∈ X \S
If S1 ⊆ S2 with S1 , S2 ∈ Λ, there is a natural inclusion of rings AK,S1 ,→ AK,S2 and
with respect to these inclusions, the family {AK,S }S∈Λ is a direct system of rings. The adele
ring of K, which we denote by AK , may be defined as the direct limit
AK = lim AK,S .
−→
S∈Λ
This definition is equivalent to the usual definition of AK as the restricted direct
product of the fields Kυ with respect to the subrings oυ , namely the subring of ∏ Kυ
given by
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 2 of 11

AK = α = (αυ )υ∈X ∈ ∏ Kυ | αυ ∈ oυ for almost all υ ∈ X ,



and it is clear that the definition does not depend on the choice of S0 : any other choice will
differ from the given S0 in at most a finite number of places, and this does not change the
direct limit nor the restricted direct product.
A comprehensive study of the adele ring necessitates considering it as a topological
ring. Each Kυ has the complete metric topology defined by the place υ, and at finite places,
oυ has the induced non-Archimedean topology. Giving each AK,S the product topology,
AK naturally has the direct limit topology, making it a Hausdorff and locally compact
topological ring. Standard references for adeles and their applications are [1] or [2].

2. Prime Ideals in AK,S

To compute the prime spectrum of AK , we first describe Spec(AK,S ) for S ∈ Λ and
then study which of these prime ideals are compatible with the morphisms in the direct
system. Note that
AK,S = KS × oS ,
where
KS = ∏ Kυ and oS = ∏ oυ .
υ∈S ∈S
υ/

The prime ideals in a product of two rings A × B are the ideals of the form p × B,
with p ∈ Spec( A), or A × q, where q ∈ Spec( B). A prime ideal of this form is maximal
(or minimal) if and only if the corresponding factor p or q is maximal (or minimal). This
is easily generalised to finite products, such as KS , so once we describe Spec(oS ) we also
obtain Spec(AK,S ).
We note that oS is an infinite product of Prüfer domains, so we can apply the results
in [3] to describe Spec(oS ). This involves the use of ultrafilters. We will give here the
definition and basic properties of ultrafilters, which is all that is needed in this paper. For a
more detailed study, see [4].

Definition 1. Let (B , ∧, ∨) a Boolean algebra. A nonempty subset U ⊆ B is called an ultrafilter

on B if it satisfies the following conditions:
1. 0∈ / U.
2. If A, B ∈ U then A ∧ B ∈ U .
3. If A ∈ U and A ≤ B, where ≤ is the canonical order relation on B , then B ∈ U .
4. Given A ∈ B , either A ∈ U or ¬ A ∈ U .
If Ω is a set, an ultrafilter on Ω is an ultrafilter on its power set with the usual Boolean algebra
structure (P (Ω), ∩, ∪).

An ultrafilter U on Ω is called principal if there is an ω0 ∈ Ω such that ω0 ∈ U for

every U ∈ U . In this case, it is easy to check that U consists exactly of the subsets of Ω
containing ω0 , and we say that it is the principal ultrafilter generated by ω0 . One can also
prove that an ultrafilter on Ω is principal if and only if it contains some finite subset of
Ω. Therefore, an ultrafilter is nonprincipal (or free) if and only if it contains every cofinite
subset of Ω.
We will be considering ultrafilters on the set ΩS = X \ S. By [3], for every ultrafilter U
on ΩS , the set
MS, U = {α ∈ oS | {υ ∈ ΩS | αυ ∈ mυ } ∈ U }
is a maximal ideal in oS . This gives us a one-to-one correspondence between ultrafilters
on ΩS and maximal ideals of oS . For the principal ultrafilter U = Uυ0 corresponding to the
place υ0 ∈ ΩS , we have

MS, Uυ = MS,υ0 = {α ∈ oS | αυ0 ∈ mυ0 }.

0
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 3 of 11

Minimal prime ideals in oS also correspond to ultrafilters on ΩS : given an ultrafilter

U , we assign to it the minimal prime ideal

nS, U = {α ∈ oS | {υ ∈ ΩS | αυ = 0} ∈ U }.

For the principal ultrafilter U = Uυ0 , we now have

nS, Uυ = nS,υ0 = {α ∈ oS | αυ0 = 0}.

0

For any ultrafilter U , nS, U is the only minimal prime ideal contained in the maximal
ideal MS, U , and MS, U is the only maximal ideal containing the minimal prime ideal nS, U .
Therefore, any prime ideal in oS contains exactly one minimal prime ideal and is contained
in exactly one maximal ideal.
Given an ultrafilter U on ΩS and an element β = ( β υ ) ∈ MS, U , the set

pS, U = {α ∈ oS | ∃Y ∈ U , n ∈ N s.t. υ(αnυ ) ≥ υ( β υ ) ∀υ ∈ Y }

β

is a prime ideal of oS contained in MS, U (note that this definition and notation is not the
same as that of [3], but it is easy to check that for this case, in which all the rings in the
product are discrete valuation rings, both definitions are the same). It is also the smallest
prime ideal in MS, U that contains β. Furthermore, if U = Uυ0 for some υ0 ∈ S, it follows
from the definition that
(
β MS,υ0 if β υ0 ∈ mυ0 \ {0}
pS, Uυ =
0 nS,υ0 if β υ0 ∈ o∗υ0 ∪ {0}

Now, if p is any prime ideal of oS contained in MS, U , we have that

[ β
p= pS, U
β ∈p

This shows that for υ0 ∈ ΩS , the only prime ideal strictly contained in MS,υ0 is nS,υ0 .
With these remarks, what we have proven is:

Theorem 1. The prime ideals in AK,S are the following:

1. For υ0 ∈ X, the set
(0)
MS,υ0 = {α ∈ AK,S | αυ0 = 0},
which is both a maximal and minimal prime ideal if υ0 ∈ S and only a minimal prime ideal if
υ0 ∈ ΩS . It is a principal ideal generated by α = (αυ ) where αυ ∈ o∗υ if υ 6= υ0 and αυ0 = 0.
2. If υ0 ∈ ΩS , the set
m
MS,υ 0
= {α ∈ AK,S | αυ0 ∈ mυ0 },
which is a maximal prime ideal generated by α = (αυ ) where αυ ∈ o∗υ if υ 6= υ0 and αυ0 is a
generator of mυ0 .
3. If U is a nonprincipal ultrafilter in ΩS , we have the maximal prime ideal

U = { α ∈ AK,S | { υ ∈ ΩS | αυ ∈ mυ } ∈ U }
m
MS,

and the minimal prime ideal

(0)
MS, U = {α ∈ AK,S | {υ ∈ ΩS | αυ = 0} ∈ U }

Neither of these are principal ideals.

Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 4 of 11

4. If p is any other prime ideal of AK,S , there is exactly one nonprincipal ultrafilter U in ΩS such
that p ⊆ MS, m , and
U
[ β
p= pS, U ,
β ∈p

β
whith pS, U defined as before. These are also not principal ideals.

3. Prime Ideals in a Direct Limit

Let { Ri , ϕij }i,j∈ I be a direct system of rings and R its direct limit, with ϕi : Ri → R the
canonical morphisms.

Definition 2. A direct system of ideals in { Ri , ϕij } is a family {ai }i∈ I such that ai is an ideal
of Ri for every i ∈ I and ϕij−1 (a j ) = ai whenever i ≤ j.

The direct systems of ideals of { Ri , ϕij } are in one-to-one correspondence with the
ideals of R: for an ideal a ⊆ R, we have the direct system {ai = ϕi−1 (a)}, and for a direct
system {ai }, the direct limit
a = lim ai
−→
i∈ I

is an ideal of R giving rise to this direct system.

It follows immediately that a is a prime ideal in R, if an only if every ai is a prime ideal
of Ri . That is:

Proposition 1. If { Ri , ϕij } is a direct system of commutative rings and R its direct limit (with
morphisms ϕi : Ri → R), {Spec( Ri ), ϕij∗ } is an inverse system of topological spaces, and its inverse
limit is Spec( R), with morphisms ϕi∗ : Spec( R) → Spec( Ri ).

Definition 3. A direct system of prime ideals {pi } in { Ri , ϕij } is upper-maximal if for every
i ∈ I there is some j ≥ i such that p j is a maximal prime ideal in R j . It is upper-minimal if for
every i ∈ I there is some j ≥ i such that p j is a minimal prime ideal in R j .

Proposition 2. If {pi } is an upper-maximal (respectively, upper-minimal) direct system of prime

ideals in { Ri , ϕij }, its limit p ⊆ R is a maximal (respectively, minimal) prime ideal.

Proof. We prove the maximal case. Let m be a maximal ideal in R containing p and take
qi = ϕi−1 (m) for every i ∈ I, which obviously contains pi . For every i ∈ I, there is some
j ≥ i for which p j is maximal in R j , therefore p j = q j . It follows that pi = qi for every i ∈ I,
and therefore p = m.

4. Prime Ideals in the Adele Ring

We now know that Spec(AK ) is the inverse limit of the inverse system of topological
spaces {Spec(AK,S )}. Since we have already computed Spec(AK,S ) for each S ∈ Λ, we only
have to see which of those ideals form direct systems of prime ideals.

Lemma 1. Let Ω be a set, F ⊆ Ω a finite subset and Ω F = Ω \ F. There is a one-to-one correspon-

dence between the ultrafilters on Ω F and the ultrafilters on Ω not generated by a point in F.

Proof. If Ũ is an ultrafilter on Ω F , then

U = {Y ⊆ Ω | Y ∩ Ω F ∈ Ũ }

is an ultrafilter on Ω which is principal or nonprincipal if the same holds true for Ũ . If they
are principal, they have the same generator, so U is not generated by a point in F.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 5 of 11

If U is now an ultrafilter on Ω not generated by a point in F, then

U F = {Y ∩ Ω F | Y ∈ U }

is an ultrafilter on Ω F . These mappings give us the desired correspondence.

We can apply Lemma 1 to the situation ΩS2 ⊆ ΩS1 , where S1 , S2 ∈ Λ and S1 ⊆ S2 .

However, it only helps us in the case of ideals given by nonprincipal ultrafilters, since for
any υ0 ∈ X and any S ∈ Λ, there is always S ⊆ S0 with υ0 ∈ S0 (any S0 ∈ Λ containing
S ∪ {υ0 }).
Let us now look for direct systems of prime ideals among the principal prime ideals.
(0)
For any υ0 , the ideals { MS,υ0 }S∈Λ form a direct system of prime ideals which is both
upper-maximal and upper-minimal. Its direct limit is the ideal of AK

M υ0 = { α ∈ A K | α υ0 = 0 } ,

which is both a maximal and minimal prime ideal, principal and generated by α = (αυ ),
where αυ ∈ o∗υ if υ 6= υ0 and αυ0 = 0.
If S ∈ Λ and υ0 ∈ ΩS , the ideal MS,υ m of A
0 K,S cannot be part of a direct system of
0 m in A
ideals, since for S = S ∪ {υ0 }, there is no prime ideal in AK,S0 that restricts to MS,υ 0 K,S .
Let us now consider a nonprincipal ultrafilter US0 in ΩS0 , and for any S ∈ Λ, US the
unique ultrafilter in ΩS corresponding to US0 via the equivalence given in Lemma 1. We
(0)
have the direct systems of prime ideals { MUmS ,S }S∈Λ and { MU ,S }S∈Λ , which are upper-
S
maximal and upper-minimal, respectively. They give us the following maximal and mini-
mal prime ideals of AK :

M U S = { α = ( α υ ) ∈ A K | { υ ∈ Ω S0 | α υ ∈ m υ } ∈ U S0 }
0

and
m U S = { α = ( α υ ) ∈ A K | { υ ∈ Ω S0 | α υ = 0 } ∈ U S0 } .
0

It follows that any other prime ideal in AK will be between mU and MU for some
nonprincipal ultrafilter U in ΩS0 . This proves as well that we have already found all
maximal and minimal prime ideals in AK .

Proposition 3. Take S ∈ Λ, U an ultrafilter on ΩS0 , US the corresponding ultrafilter on ΩS ,

m
p̃ a prime ideal in AK,S inside MS, US and p = p̃ ∩ AK,S0 . Then, p̃ is completely determined by p
as follows:
[ β
p̃ = pS, U
S
β ∈p

Proof. Since p ⊆ p̃ and

[ β
p̃ = pS, U ,
S
β∈p̃

it is clear that [ β
pS, U ⊆ p̃.
S
β ∈p

Now take β̃ ∈ p̃ and Ỹ = {υ ∈ ΩS | β̃ υ ∈ mυ } ∈ US ⊆ U . We have that pS, U ⊆ p̃,

β̃
S

AK,S defined by β υ = β̃ υ if υ ∈ ΩS and

β̃
and by the definition of pS, U , the element β ∈
S
β̃ β
β υ = 0 if υ ∈
/ S is also in pS, U . Furthermore, β̃ ∈ pS, U by the same reasoning. Therefore,
S S

β̃ β
pS, U = pS, U ,
S S
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 6 of 11

and since β ∈ AK,S0 , we have that β ∈ p, which concludes the proof.

As a consequence of Proposition 3, we have that any direct system of prime ideals that
gives an ideal in AK contained in MU is uniquely determined by the ideal in AK,S0 in said
system, and the prime ideal p ⊆ MU is
[ β [ β
p= pU = pU .
β ∈p β∈p∩AK,S0

In summary, we have:

Theorem 2. Let K be a number field and S0 a finite subset of XK containing XK,∞ . Let ΩS0 =
XK \ S0 . The prime ideals of AK are completely described as follows:
(1) The maximal ideals are of two kinds:
a. If υ0 ∈ XK, f ,
M υ0 = { α ∈ A K | α υ0 = 0 } ,
which is also a minimal prime ideal.
b. If U is a nonprincipal ultrafilter in ΩS0 ,

M U = { α ∈ A K | { υ ∈ Ω S0 | α υ ∈ m υ } ∈ U }

(2) The minimal prime ideals are of two kinds:

a. If υ0 ∈ XK, f ,
M υ0 = { α ∈ A K | α υ = 0 } ,
which is also a maximal prime ideal.
b. If U is a nonprincipal ultrafilter in ΩS0 ,

m U = { α ∈ A K | { υ ∈ Ω S0 | α υ = 0 } ∈ U } ,

which is the only minimal prime ideal contained in MU and is only contained in the
maximal ideal MU .
(3) If p ∈ AK is any prime ideal that is not maximal or minimal, there is exactly one nonprincipal
ultrafilter U in ΩS0 such that
m U ⊂ p ⊂ MU ,
and [ β
p= pU ,
β∈p∩AK,S0

where
pU = {α ∈ AK | ∃Y ∈ U , n ∈ N s.t. υ(αnυ ) ≥ υ( β υ ) ∀υ ∈ Y }
β

Observe that our description of Spec(AK ) depends on choosing an arbitrary S0 ⊆ XK

at the beginning, and the ultrafilters in our final results are ultrafilters on ΩS0 = XK \ S0 .
However, by Lemma 1, since any other choice of S0 differs from the first in at most a finite
number of points, this will not make a difference in the description of ultrafilters on ΩS0 .
Hence, the results given do not depend on the choice of S0 .

5. Closed Prime Ideals

We can recover the completed fields Kυ from the adele ring by taking its quotients by
the principal prime ideals: it is very easy to check that, if υ0 ∈ XK , AK /Mυ0 ' Kυ0 , since

α − β ∈ Mυ0 ⇐⇒ (α − β)υ0 = 0 ⇐⇒ αυ0 = β υ0 .

Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 7 of 11

There is a reason that these ideals work better than the ones given by nonprincipal
ultrafilters, and it is a topological reason. In [5], Connes proves the following result (stated
as Proposition 7.2 in the cited paper):

Proposition 4. There is a one to one correspondence between subsets Z ⊆ XK and closed ideals of
AK given by
Z 7−→ I Z = {α ∈ AK | αυ = 0 ∀υ ∈ Z }.

Given our description of the prime ideals of AK , this implies that the only closed prime
ideals in AK are the maximal prime ideals Mυ0 , for υ0 ∈ XK (since I Z ⊆ Mυ for any υ ∈ Z).
Connes stops their exploration of Spec(AK ) there. However, our previous exhaustive
description of Spec(AK ) allows us to prove the following:

Proposition 5. If U is a nonprincipal ultrafilter in ΩS0 = XK \ S0 , the minimal prime ideal mU

defined by U is dense in AK . Consequently, every prime ideal of AK not of the form Mυ0 for υ0 ∈ XK
is dense in AK , because its closure is an ideal that contains 1.

Proof. Take the net {αV }V ∈U , where

(
0 if υ ∈ V
αV
υ =
1 if υ ∈
/V

and αV1 ≥ αV2 ⇔ V1 ⊆ V2 . It is clear from the definition of mU that αV ∈ mU for every
V ∈ U.
Let N be an open neighbourhood of 1 ∈ AK . We can assume, without loss of generality,
that it is a basic open set, which is of the form N = ∏ Nυ , where each Nυ is an open
neighbourhood of 1 ∈ Kυ and Nυ = oυ for almost every υ. If we take V0 = {υ ∈ ΩS0 | Nυ =
oυ }, we have:
1. V0 ∈ U , because U contains every cofinite subset of ΩS0 .
2. If αV ≥ αV0 (that is, V ⊆ V0 ) for some V ∈ U , then αV ∈ N.
This means that the net {αV }V ∈U has limit 1 ∈ AK , and therefore mU is dense in AK .
Now, since every prime ideal not of the form Mυ0 contains mU for some nonprincipal
ultrafilter U in ΩS0 , it must also be dense in AK .

6. Restriction of Ultrafilters under Surjective Maps with Uniformly Bounded Fibres

In the next sections, we examine how, for a finite extension of number fields L/K,
the prime ideals of the AK -algebra A L behave relative to those of AK . Before that, we need
to develop some results about the behaviour of ultrafilters under extension.
Let X and Y be two sets and π : Y → X a map between them. Extend π to a map
from P (Y ) to P ( X ) via direct images, π (W ) = {π (y) | y ∈ W }. Then, we can define, for an
ultrafilter Ũ on Y,

π Ũ = π (W ) W ∈ Ũ .
It is not true, in general, that π (Ũ ) is an ultrafilter on X, and it may not even be a filter.
This changes if π is surjective.

Proposition 6. Let X, Y be two sets and π : Y → X a surjective map. For every ultrafilter Ũ
on Y, π (Ũ ) is an ultrafilter on X. Furthermore, for every ultrafilter U on X there is at least one
ultrafilter Ũ on Y such that U = π (Ũ ).
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 8 of 11

Proof. It is easy to check that π (Ũ ) is an ultrafilter on X if Ũ is an ultrafilter on Y. Now,

let U be an ultrafilter on X. For every x ∈ X, we fix x (1) ∈ π −1 ( x ). For V ⊆ X, define
V (1) = { x (1) | x ∈ V } ⊆ Y and

U (1) = {W ⊆ Y | ∃V ∈ U with V (1) ⊆ W }.

Clearly π (U (1) ) = U as subsets of P ( X ), so we only have to prove that U (1) is an

ultrafilter on Y. It is immediate to check that ∅ ∈ / U (1) and that U (1) is closed under
(1) (1)
upward inclusions. Given V1 , V2 ⊆ X, V1 ∩ V2 = (V1 ∩ V2 )(1) , so U (1) is also closed
under finite intersection. Now take W ⊆ Y and V = { x ∈ X | x (1) ∈ W }. Then, V (1) ⊆ W
and ( X \ V )(1) ⊆ Y \ W, and since either V or X \ V is in U , then either W or Y \ W is in
U (1) .

Lemma 2. Let X be a set and P1 , ..., PN ∈ P ( X ) \ {∅} a finite partition of X, that is, X =
P1 ∪ ... ∪ PN and Pi ∩ Pj = ∅ if i 6= j. If U is an ultrafilter in X, U contains exactly one of the sets
P1 , ..., PN .

Proof. If there were more than one, their intersection would be empty. If there were none,
their set complements would be in U , and their intersection would be empty.

Proposition 7. Let π : Y → X be a surjective map between two sets such that there is an n ∈ N
with #π −1 ( x ) = n for every x ∈ X. For every ultrafilter U in X, there are exactly n ultrafilters in
Y that restrict to U via π.

Proof. For every x ∈ X, let π −1 ( x ) = { x (1) , ..., x (n) }. Given an ultrafilter U on X, let
U (1) , ..., U (n) be the ultrafilters in Y defined as in the proof of Proposition 6. These are n
distinct ultrafilters in Y (because V (i) ∩ V ( j) = ∅ if i 6= j) and π (U (i) ) = U for i = 1, ..., n.
Let us prove that there are no others.
Let Ũ be an ultrafilter in Y such that π (Ũ ) = U . Let Ṽ ∈ Ũ . By Lemma 2, there is
exactly one i = 1, ..., n such that X (i) ∈ Ũ . Since

π (Ṽ )(i) ⊆ Ṽ ∩ X (i) ⊆ Ṽ

and π (Ṽ )(i) ∈ Ũ (i) , we have Ṽ ∈ U (i) , so Ũ ⊆ U (i) and, by the maximality of ultrafilters,
Ũ = U (i) .

Proposition 8. Let π : Y → X be a surjective map between two sets such that its fibres are
uniformly bounded by n ∈ N (that is, for every x ∈ X we have #π −1 ( x ) ≤ n). For every ultrafilter
U on X there are at most n ultrafilters on Y that restrict to U via π.

Proof. For x ∈ X, set m x = #π −1 ( x ) and fix an ordering of the fibre of x, π −1 ( x ) =

{ x (1) , ..., x (mx ) }. For every x ∈ X we complete π −1 ( x ) to an n-element set

Wx = { x (1) , ..., x (mx ) , x (mx +1) , ..., x (n) },

by adding arbitrary elements x (mx +1) , ..., x (n) (for example, copies of x (1) ). Now, consider
the disjoint union G
Ỹ = Wx
x∈X

and define p : Ỹ → Y as
1. p( x (i) ) = x (i) if i ≤ m x .
2. p( x (i) ) = x (1) if i > m x .
Let π̃ = π ◦ p : Ỹ → X so that π̃ −1 ( x ) = Wx . We can apply Proposition 7 to π̃ and
Proposition 6 to p, so that, given an ultrafilter U in X, the ultrafilters in Y that restrict to U
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 9 of 11

via π are the restriction to Y via p of the ultrafilters in Ỹ that restrict to U via π̃, of which
there are n.

In the case of a finite extension of number fields L/K, this last result helps us get an
upper bound for the number of prime ideals in A L above a given prime ideal in AK . We
need one more result, which is a consequence of Lemma 2:

Lemma 3. Let π : Y → X as in Proposition 8 and Ũ an ultrafilter on Y. For every W̃ ∈ Ũ there

is some W ∈ Ũ with W ⊆ W̃ and such that W contains at most one point from every fibre of π.

Proof. Since Ũ is closed under finite intersections, the assertion is equivalent to the exis-
tence of a set W ∈ Ũ such that W contains at most one point from every fibre of π, and we
can take the set X (i) , with i = 1, ..., n the only index such that X (i) ∈ Ũ , by Lemma 2.

7. Extension of Prime Ideals in Finite Extensions

If L/K is a finite extension of number fields of degree n, it is well known (see [6]) that
A L is a free AK -algebra of rank n, and in fact A L ' AK ⊗K L. The AK -algebra monomor-
phism AK ,→ A L induces a morphism

Spec(A L ) −→ Spec(AK )
B 7−→ B ∩ AK .

We now study the fibres of this morphism using the description of Spec(AK ) given in
Section 4. For simplicity, we assume that our base field is Q and consider a finite extension
K/Q of degree n ∈ N. Let XQ = {∞} ∪ { p ∈ ¶} be the set of places in Q, with starting set
S0 = {∞} and Ω = XQ \ S0 . Let XK be the set of places in K, and S̃0 the set of Archimedean
places, with Ω̃ = XK \ S̃0 . We have a restriction map r = rK/Q : XK → XQ for which
S̃0 = r −1 (S0 ). The basic theory of valuations (see [1,6]) tells us that r is a map with finite
fibres, with #S̃0 = s1 + s2 (where s1 is the number of real embeddings of K and s is the
number of pairs of conjugate complex embeddings) and #r −1 ( p) = g p (where g p is the
number of prime ideals in the decomposition of the ideal ( p) ⊆ oK ). The map r : Ω̃ → Ω
gives us, according to Proposition 8, a surjective map between the ultrafilters on Ω̃ and the
ultrafilters on Ω with finite fibres uniformly bounded by n.

Proposition 9. For the maximal and minimal ideals of AK , we have:

1. Given υ ∈ XK , Mυ ∩ AQ = Mr(υ) .
2. If Ũ is a nonprincipal ultrafilter in Ω̃, MŨ ∩ AQ = Mr(Ũ ) , and mŨ ∩ AQ = mr(Ũ ) .
Therefore, every maximal (respectively minimal) prime ideal of AQ has some and at most n
maximal (respectively minimal) prime ideals in AK lying above it.

Proof. The first part is easy to prove. For the second, using Lemma 3, we can characterise
the elements in MŨ and mŨ using sets of Ũ that have at most one point in each fibre of r.
This gives us Mr(Ũ ) ⊆ MŨ ∩ AQ , and the same for the corresponding minimal prime ideal.
The opposite inclusion is trivial, and we have completed our proof.

Proposition 10. If p is a prime ideal of AQ inside the maximal ideal MU for a nonprincipal
ultrafilter U of Ω, and Ũ is an ultrafilter on Ω̃ such that r (Ũ ) = U , there is exactly one prime ideal
p̃ in MŨ with p̃ ∩ AQ = p, and p̃ is given by
[ β
p̃ = pŨ .
β ∈p
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 10 of 11

Proof. It is clear that the prime ideal p̃ defined as above restricts to p. We only need to
prove uniqueness, and for that we prove that, given a prime ideal B in AK inside the
maximal ideal MŨ for a nonprincipal ultrafilter Ũ in Ω̃ and b = B ∩ AQ ,
[ β
B= pŨ .
β ∈b

The inclusion ⊇ is easy, since b ⊆ B. Take U = r (Ũ ) and β̃ ∈ B. The set W̃ = {υ ∈

Ω̃ | β̃ υ ∈ mυ } is in Ũ, and by Lemma 3 there is a set W in Ũ inside W̃ having at most one
point in each fibre of r. Take V = r (W ) and β ∈ AQ defined by
1. β u = β̃ υ if u ∈ V and υ is the point in W above u.
2. β u = 0 if u ∈ / V.
β̃ β
It is straightforward to check that β ∈ b and pŨ = pŨ (because β and β̃ have the same
components in a set of Ũ ), so we have the equality we wanted.

Corollary 1. If Q ,→ K is a finite extension of degree n ∈ N, the morphism Spec(AK ) →

Spec(AQ ) is surjective and has finite fibres, uniformly bounded by n.

As we stated at the beginning of the section, the base field need not be Q, and the
same results, with the same proofs, are valid for any finite extension of number fields L/K.

8. Generalisations
Throughout this paper, we worked in the adele ring of an algebraic number ring. How-
ever, the techniques we used and the results obtained can be used in more general settings.
Take K to be the function field of an algebraic curve over a finite field, that is, a finite
extension of an extension of transcendence degree 1 of a finite field Fq . These fields, together
with algebraic number fields, are called global fields, and are studied together because they
share many similar properties: primarily, they are the only two kinds of fields with finite
residue fields at the non-Archimedean places (see [7]). The adele ring AK of these function
fields K can be defined in the exact same way as that of a number field, and its study is also
mostly the same (see [1,2,6]). This means that Spec(AK ) can be computed just as in the case
of a number field, and we obtain similar results.
We can also consider the adele ring of function fields of curves that are not necessarily
over finite fields (see [8]), for example). If k is a perfect field and X a smooth, complete
and connected curve over k, we can define the adele ring AX of X as the adele ring of its
function field Σ X . If k is not a finite field, this adele ring AX differs slightly but significantly
from the global field case: the most important difference is that, topologically, AX is no
longer locally compact. However, the similarities are enough for our treatment of the prime
ideals to apply here as well, so we can effectively describe Spec(AX ), and the results about
extensions and topology are still true, because they do not require local compactness.

Funding: This research was funded by MICINN (Spain), grant number PGC2018-099599-B-I00.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 3479 11 of 11

References
1. Ramakrishnan, D.; Valenza, J.L. Fourier Analysis on Number Fields; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [CrossRef]
2. Tate, J.T. Fourier analysis in number fields, and Hecke’s zeta-functions. In Algebraic Number Theory, Proceedings of an Instructional
Conference, Brighton, UK, 1–17 September 1965 ; Cassels, J.W.S., Frölich, A., Eds.; Thompson: Washington, DC, USA, 1965;
pp. 305–347.
3. Finocchiaro, C.; Frisch, S.; Windisch, D. Prime Ideals in Infinite Products of Commutative Rings. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2009.03069.
4. Cohn, P.M. Universal Algebra; D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1981. [CrossRef]
5. Connes, A.; Consani, C. The hyperring of adèle classes. J. Number Theory 2011, 131, 159–194. [CrossRef]
6. Cassels, J.W.S. Global Fields. In Algebraic Number Theory, Proceedings of an Instructional Conference, Brighton, UK, 1–17 September
1965 ; Cassels, J.W.S., Frölich, A., Eds.; Thompson: Washington, DC, USA, 1965; pp. 42–84.
7. Artin, E.; Whaples, G. Axiomatic characterization of fields by the product formula for valuations. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1945, 51,
469–492. [CrossRef]
8. Muñoz Porras, J.; Navas Vicente, L.; Pablos Romo, F.; Plaza Martín, F. An idelic quotient related to Weil reciprocity and the Picard
group. Collect. Math. 2020, 71, 151–171. [CrossRef]