Introduction
to the English Edition of Hilbert’s Zahlbericht
Norbert Schappacher∗Franz Lemmermeyer

September 11, 2003

1

The ReportDavid Hilbert’s (1862–1943) so-called Zahlbericht of 1897,1 which appears here for the
first time in English, was the principal textbook on algebraic number theory for a periodof at least thirty years after its appearance. Emil Artin, Helmut Hasse, Erich Hecke,
Hermann Weyl and many others learned their number theory from this book. Even
beyond this immediate impact Hilbert’s Zahlbericht has served as a model for many
standard textbooks on algebraic number theory through the present day—cf. for instance
Samuel’s little book,2 or the first chapter of Neukirch’s textbook.3 As a matter of fact,
except for minor details (see Section 4 below), at least the first two parts of Hilbert’s text
can still today pass for an excellent introduction to classical algebraic number theory.
But even though Hilbert’s presentation definitely left its mark on this material, thetext does remain a Bericht, i.e., a report, commissioned as it was by the Deutsche
Mathematiker-Vereinigung (D.M.V., the German Mathematical Society), on the stateof the theory around 1895. During the first years of its existence, the commissioning ofcomprehensive reports on all parts of mathematics was an important part of the activitiesof the D.M.V. The first ten volumes of the Jahresbericht contain thirteen such reports.
David Hilbert and Hermann Minkowski were asked to write a joint report covering allof number theory. Eventually Hilbert and Minkowski decided to split the report, and it
was agreed that Minkowski’s part should cover the elementary aspects of number theory
like continued fractions, quadratic forms and the geometry of numbers. But in the end,∗

The authors would like to thank René Schoof for helpful comments during the preparation of thisintroduction.
1
D. Hilbert, Die Theorie der algebraischen Zahlkörper, Jahresbericht der Deutschen MathematikerVereinigung 4 (1897), pp. 175–546, re-edited in D. Hilbert, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, vol. 1, Berlin,
Heidelberg, etc.: Springer, 1932 (second edition 1970), pp. 63–363. — A French edition appeared in 1910
(never mind its printed date): D. Hilbert, Théorie des corps de nombres algébriques, traduit par M.A.
Lewy (professeur au lycée Voltaire), Annales de la Faculté des Sciences de l’Université de Toulouse, 1909,
3e fasc.
2
P. Samuel, Théorie algébrique des nombres, Paris: Hermann, 1967.
3
J. Neukirch, Algebraische Zahlentheorie, Heidelberg etc.: Springer, 1992.

1

only Hilbert’s part was actually written. It is interesting to compare Hilbert’s Zahlbericht
for instance to the monumental report by A. Brill and M. Noether “on the developmentof the theory of algebraic functions in former and recent times,”4 which is much more
obviously historically oriented than Hilbert’s Zahlbericht, and much less of a systematic
introduction to the field. On the applied side, there was for example a report on thedevelopment and the main tasks of the theory of simple frameworks.5
Because it is above all a report, it is not in the Zahlbericht that one finds Hilbert’s
most important, original contributions to number theory—although it does include Hilbert’s proof of the Kronecker-Weber theorem6 as well as the theory of higher ramificationgroups, i.e., Hilbert’s development from the early 1890s of Dedekind’s arithmetic theoryof Galois extensions of number fields. Indeed, Hilbert’s most impressive original contribution to number theory came after the Zahlbericht; it was his conjectural anticipation ofmost of the theorems of Class Field Theory, based on a remarkably deep analysis of thearithmetic of quadratic extensions of number fields. This work appeared in two articles,in 1899 and 1902. The reader interested in this aspect of Hilbert’s œuvre will still have toread German—see the first volume of Hilbert’s Gesammelte Abhandlungen and Hasse’s
appreciation of Hilbert’s number theoretical achievements therein.7
Coming back to the Zahlbericht, for Hilbert reporting on the state of algebraic number
theory did not mean writing an inventory of theorems amassed in the course of thenineteenth century,8 but rather the production of a conceptually coherent theory, which
would then also point the way to further research. It is because of this goal: to indicate,
and thereby influence future directions of research, that Hilbert’s undertaking is mostambitious, and most open to criticism. Such criticism is of course easy to voice today,
because we can base our judgement on another one hundred years of number theoretic
research. Still, it is neither futile, nor is it a priori unjust, to put Hilbert’s text into thisperspective, because the Zahlbericht was precisely written with the idea of steering the4

A. Brill, M. Noether, Bericht über die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen inälterer und neuerer Zeit, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 3 (1892–93), pp. 107–565.
5
L. Henneberg, Bericht über die Entwicklung und die Hauptaufgaben der Theorie der einfachen Fachwerke, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 3 (1892–93), pp. 567–599.
6
For a review of early (purported) proofs of this theorem, see O. Neumann, Two proofs of the
Kronecker-Weber theorem “according to Kronecker, and Weber”, J. Reine Angew. Math. 323 (1981),
105–126, in particular p. 125, and N. Schappacher, On the History of Hilbert’s Twelfth Problem, I: Paris
1900 – Zürich 1932: The Comedy of Errors, in: Matériaux pour l’histoire des mathématiques au XX
siècle, Actes du colloque à la mémoire de Jean Dieudonné (Nice, 1996), “Séminaires et Congrès” 3(1998), 243–273.
7
D. Hilbert, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, vol. 1, Berlin, Heidelberg, etc.: Springer, 1970. Hasse’s note:“Zu Hilberts algebraisch-zahlentheoretischen Arbeiten,” is on pp. 528–535.
8This may be what the D.M.V. had in mind, as they certainly were aware of H.J.S. Smith’s report on
the theory of numbers [Collected Mathematical Papers 1, 38–364] presented to the London MathematicalSociety, which is an invaluable document for anyone interested in the number theory of the 19th century,
but lacks the coherence of Hilbert’s Zahlbericht. — One should also mention Paul Bachmann’s workin five volumes, the fifth volume of which was already written under the influence of Hilbert’s Zahlbericht: P. Bachmann, Zahlentheorie, Versuch einer Gesammtdarstellung, Leipzig: Teubner; vol. I, Die
Elemente der Zahlentheorie (1892); vol. II, Die Analytische Zahlentheorie (1894); vol. III, Die Lehre vonder Kreistheilung (1872); vol. IV, Die Arithmetik der quadratischen Formen (part 1, 1898; part 2, 1923);
vol. V, Allgemeine Arithmetik der Zahlkörper (1905).

2

further development of the theory.

2

Later Criticism

Probably the most outspoken criticism of tendencies expressed in the Zahlbericht thathas been published by an eminent number theorist is due to André Weil and concerns
specifically Hilbert’s treatment, in the latter parts of the work, of Kummer’s arithmetic
theory of the cyclotomic field of `-th roots of unity, for a regular prime number `. In fact,
Weil’s introduction to Kummer’s Collected Papers begins:9
The great number-theorists of the last century are a small and select group ofmen. . . . Most of them were no sooner dead than the publication of theircollected papers was undertaken and in due course brought to completion.
To this there were two notable exceptions: Kummer and Eisenstein. Did
one die too young and the other live too long? Were there other reasons forthis neglect, more personal and idiosyncratic perhaps than scientific? Hilbert
dominated German mathematics for many years after Kummer’s death [in1893]. More than half of his famous Zahlbericht (viz., parts IV and V) is little
more than an account of Kummer’s number-theoretical work, with inessential
improvements; but his lack of sympathy for his predecessor’s mathematicalstyle, and more specifically for his brilliant use of p-adic analysis, shows clearlythrough many of the somewhat grudging references to Kummer in that volume.

It seems difficult to prove—or to disprove, for that matter—Weil’s suspicion that it was
Hilbert’s influence which prevented the timely publication of Kummer’s collected papers.
Hilbert and Minkowski in their correspondence about the Zahlbericht—at a time when
Minkowski was still trying to contribute his share to a more extensive report on number
theory—deplore the fact (and blame the Berlin Academy for it) that Eisenstein’s collected
papers had not been published.10 An analogous comment by Hilbert or Minkowski about
Kummer’s collected papers is not known; instead, there is direct evidence that Hilbert
complained to Minkowski about how unpleasant he found it to have to work throughKummer’s papers.11 This is also evident in the Zahlbericht; for instance in the preface:
9

E.E. Kummer, Collected Papers, edited by André Weil, vol. 1, Heidelberg etc.: Springer, 1975, p. 1.
See H. Minkowski, Briefe an David Hilbert, mit Beiträgen und herausgegeben von L. Rüdenberg und
H. Zassenhaus, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1973, p. 72, Minkowski to Hilbert 12-4-1895:“Eisensteins Werke gesammelt herauszugeben, wäre wirklich eine Pflicht und ausgeführt ein Verdienst;
und für die Berliner Akademie wäre es eine ewige und wohlverdiente Schande, wenn jemand sonst dieses
Unternehmen angriffe.”11
See loc. cit., p. 75f, Minkowski to Hilbert 22-1-1896: “Ich bin doch etwas zu spät an das Referat
gegangen. Jetzt finde ich natürlich viele hübsche Probleme, von denen es ganz schön gewesen wäre, wennich sie erledigt hätte. Die Jordanschen Aufsätze sind eigentlich recht interessant. Aber wenn Dir schon
die Kummerschen Rechnungen unangenehm waren, so würden die Jordanschen Operationen, sein ‘pourfixer les idées’ Dir einen wahren Ekel einjagen.”103

“I have tried to avoid Kummer’s elaborate computational machinery, so that here too
Riemann’s principle may be realized and the proofs completed not by calculations but by
pure thought.”12
Readers of the first generation, echoing Hilbert’s announcement, have praised the
Zahlbericht in particular for having simplified Kummer.13 Thus Hasse in 1932 mentions
Kummer’s “complicated and less than transparent proofs”, which Hilbert replaced by new
ones.14 In 1951, however, Hasse added an afterthought describing the two rival traditionsin the history of number theory: on the one hand, there is the Gauss-Kummer tradition
which aims at explicit, constructive control of the objects studied, and which was carriedon in particular by Kronecker and Hensel. The Dedekind-Hilbert tradition, on the other
hand, aims above all at conceptual understanding. Although less critical of the Zahlbericht
than Weil, Hasse saw the need to plead for an “organic equilibrium” of both approaches
to number theory, as opposed to the “domination” of Hilbert’s approach.15
12

D. Hilbert, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, vol. 1, Berlin, Heidelberg, etc.: Springer, 1970, p. 67 (cf. p.
VIII of the translation below): “Ich habe versucht, den großen rechnerischen Apparat von Kummer zu
vermeiden, damit auch hier der Grundsatz von Riemann verwirklicht würde, demzufolge man die Beweise
nicht durch Rechnungen, sondern lediglich durch Gedanken zwingen soll.” The picture of Riemann that
Hilbert alludes to here was central in Felix Klein’s campaign to elevate Riemann beyond comparison.
For instance, Klein confronted Riemann with Eisenstein, whom he called a Formelmensch, a man offormulas. A nice tit for tat is to be found in Carl Ludwig Siegel’s article Über Riemanns Nachlaß zur
analytischen Zahlentheorie from 1932—see C.L. Siegel, Werke, edited by Chandrasekharan and Maaß,
New York, Berlin, etc.: Springer, vol. I, p. 276, where Siegel, after having gone through Riemann’s
formidable handwritten notes on the zeta function, remarks: “The legend according to which Riemannfound the results of his mathematical work via ‘big general’ ideas, without using the formal tools ofanalysis, does not seem to be as widespread any more as in Klein’s time.”
13
Hilbert’s proofreader and friend Minkowski, however, was less enthusiastic when he read Hilbert’s
treatment of Kummer’s theory for the first time: He found the calculations still rather “involved,” andHilbert’s proof of the reciprocity law “not easy to read.” — see H. Minkowski, Briefe an D. Hilbert,
mit Beiträgen und herausgegeben von L. Rüdenberg und H. Zassenhaus, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York:
Springer, 1973, p. 86: Minkowski to Hilbert 17-11-1896: “. . . 20 Seiten habe ich bereits durchgesehen,bis zu der Stelle [around §126?], wo die langen Rechnungen anfangen. Sie sind doch noch ziemlich
verwickelt.” and p. 92, Minkowski to Hilbert 31-1-1897: “Dein Beweis des Reziprozitätsgesetzes ist nicht
leicht zu lesen.” Minkowski’s subsequent sentence indicates that this refers to the proof given in §§155–161
of the Zahlbericht. At this point, Minkowski may not have known yet that Hilbert was going to give analternative proof in §§166–171 of the Zahlbericht.
14
D. Hilbert, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, vol. 1, Berlin, Heidelberg, etc.: Springer, 1970, p. 529:
“Hilbert gibt hier neue, von den umständlichen und wenig durchsichtigen Rechnungen Kummers freie
Beweise.”15
See H. Hasse, Über die Klassenzahl abelscher Zahlkörper, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1952; Reprint
Berlin etc.: Springer, 1985, p. VII – VIII: “Der Sinn dafür, daß die explizite Beherrschung des Gegenstandes bis in alle Einzelheiten mit der allgemeinen Fortentwicklung der Theorie Schritt halten sollte,
war bei Gauss und später vor allem noch bei Kummer in ganz ausgeprägter Weise vorhanden. . . . Unterdem beherrschenden Einfluß, den Hilbert auf die weitere Entwicklung der algebraischen Zahlentheorie
ausgeübt hat, ist jedoch dieser Sinn mehr und mehr verlorengegangen. Es ist typisch für Hilberts ganz
auf das Allgemeine und Begriffliche, auf Existenz und Struktur gerichteten Einstellung, daß er in seinem
Zahlbericht alle mit der expliziten Beherrschung des Gegenstandes sich befassenden Untersuchungen und
Ergebnisse von Kummer und anderen durch kurze Hinweise oder Andeutungen abtut, ohne sich mit ihnen im einzelnen zu beschäftigen, wie er ja auch die mehr rechnerischen, konstruktiven und daher der
expliziten Durchführung leicht zugänglichen Beweismethoden Kummers systematisch und folgerichtig
durch mehr begriffliche, numerisch schwerer zugängliche und kaum kontrollierbare Schlußweisen ersetzt

4

Emil Artin, in an address for a general audience given on the occasion of Hilbert’s
100th birthday in 1962, acknowledged the “great simplification” that Hilbert achievedin presenting Kummer’s results.16 According to Olga Taussky’s recollections, however,“it was only . . . at Bryn Mawr, that Emmy [Noether] burst out against the Zahlbericht,
quoting also Artin as having said that it delayed the development of algebraic number
theory by decades.”17 We have no way of knowing what Emmy Noether might have
had in mind when she made the remark remembered by Taussky, and we do not wantto speculate on this. Let us look instead a bit more closely at Hilbert’s treatment ofKummer’s theory.

3

Kummer’s Theory

The results of Kummer’s theory which both Hilbert and Weil, in rare unison, refer to as
the highest peak of Kummer’s number theoretic work18 were the general reciprocity law
for `-th power residues, in the case of a regular odd prime number `, together with thetheory of genera in a Kummer extension of Q(ζ` ) which had to be developed along the way.
Hilbert refers to both as the arithmetic theory of Kummer fields. The general reciprocity
law is first dealt with in the Zahlbericht in §§154–165, based on Eisenstein’s reciprocity
law which relates a rational to an arbitrary cyclotomic integer. The reciprocity law and its
Ergänzungssätze (complementary theorems) are stated as Satz 161. Hilbert’s presentation
hat. Auch Dedekind mit seiner stark begrifflichen, schon tief ins Axiomatische vorstoßenden Methodik
hat an dieser Entwicklung entscheidenden Anteil, während auf der andern Seite die mehr konstruktiven
Methoden von Kronecker und Hensel die Kummersche Tradition weiterführen, sich aber gegenüber dem
beherrschenden Einfluß Hilberts nur schwer durchsetzen, bis dann allerdings in letzter Zeit entscheidende
Erfolge gerade dieser Methodik den Boden für die Rückkehr zu einem organischen Gleichgewicht beider
Richtungen bereitet haben.”Zassenhaus shares Hasse’s point of view in his note Zur Vorgeschichte des Zahlberichts, in: H.
Minkowski, Briefe an D. Hilbert, mit Beiträgen und herausgegeben von L. Rüdenberg und H. Zassenhaus, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1973, p. 17–21): “Andererseits hat D. Hilbert mit
charakteristischer Energie, aber auch, historisch gesehen, mit einer gewissen Einseitigkeit praktisch die
Disziplin der algebraischen Zahlkörpertheorie aus dem historisch gegebenen Material herausmodelliert.”
16
E. Artin, Collected Papers, New York, Berlin, etc.: Springer, 1965, p. 549: Hilbert “machte durch
große Vereinfachung die Ergebnisse Kummers einem größeren Leserkreis zugänglich.”
17
See Emmy Noether, a tribute to her life and work, edited by Brewer and Smith, M. Dekker 1981,
p. 82, cf. p. 90. — Olga Taussky was one of the young mathematicians who helped with the editingof the first volume of Hilbert’s Gesammelte Abhandlungen. She claims loc. cit. that Hilbert’s original
publications were full of errors of all kinds. But the only changes made by the editors of the collected
works that we are aware of is the unfortunate replacement, in Hilbert’s article Über den Dirichlet’schenbiquadratischen Zahlkörper [Math. Ann. 45 (1894), 309–340], of the somewhat unusual abbreviation“bzglf.” for “bezüglichenfalls” in Hilbert’s original text, meaning “respectively,” by the word “bezüglich,”which means “with respect to”.
18
D. Hilbert, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, vol. 1, Berlin, Heidelberg, etc.: Springer, 1970, p. 66 (p. VIIIof the following translation): “Es ist die Theorie dieses Kummerschen Körpers offenbar auf der Höhe desheutigen arithmetischen Wissens die äußerste erreichte Spitze . . . ” — E.E. Kummer, Collected Papers,
edited by André Weil, vol. 1, Heidelberg etc.: Springer, 1975, p. 9: “This is the peak he [Kummer] sighted
for the first time in January 1848, and whose summit he reached ten years later.”5makes sytematic use of the power residue symbol (see in particular the momentous andoriginal Satz 150 of the Zahlbericht), as well as the local Hilbert symbols. At the bad places
the latter are given explicitly by Kummer’s logarithmic derivatives—see §131. Today wewould call this an “explicit reciprocity law,” in the sense of the research development given
new impetus in the late 1920s by Artin and Hasse and which continues to the present
day.19 The product formula for the local Hilbert symbols, i.e., “Hilbert’s reciprocity law,”
appears in this treatment almost negligently as an auxiliary result, Satz 163 in §162.
However, once Hilbert has established all of Kummer’s theory, he sets out afresh, in§§166–171, to reprove all of it, but avoiding this time Kummer’s explicit formulæ forthe symbols at the bad places, and controlling them instead via the product theorem,by information gathered at the primes not dividing `. It may have been especially thissecond presentation of Kummer’s theory that struck readers as a simplification, or atleast as a way to get rid of Kummer’s computational approach. Weil’s wholesale claim
quoted above, to the effect that Hilbert had only “inessential improvements” to offer on
Kummer’s theory, does not seem to do justice to Hilbert’s double attempt to come togrips with this theory, even though, of course, whether or not his presentation is seen as
an improvement over Kummer may be in the mind of the beholder.
Working up towards his general reciprocity law, Kummer’s central achievement was tobuild up genus theory for Kummer extensions of Q(ζ` ). Accordingly, genus theory plays
a very important role in the Zahlbericht. This is quite different from what we are used to
nowadays: for instance, the books by Samuel or Neukirch cited above never even mention
genus theory. One reason for its disappearance in our time was Chevalley’s introductionof idèles, which made it possible to develop class field theory without going through thenotorious index calculus of the ideal-theoretic approach via genus theory.20 Let us take acloser look at how genus theory is treated in Hilbert’s Zahlbericht.
19

P. Furtwängler, Die Reziprozitätsgesetze für Potenzreste mit Primzahlexponenten in algebraischen
Zahlkörpern I, II, III, Math. Ann. 67 (1909), 1–31; 72 (1912), 346–386; 74 (1913), 413–429; T. Takagi,
Über das Reziprozitätsgesetz in einem beliebigen algebraischen Zahlkörper, J. of the College of Science
Tokyo 4 (1922); Coll. Papers, 179–216; E. Artin & H. Hasse, Die beiden Ergänzungssätze zum Reziprozitätsgesetz der ln -ten Potenzreste im Körper der ln -ten Einheitswurzeln, Abh. Math. Sem. Hamburg 6(1928), 146–142; Coll. Papers Artin (1965), 142–158; H. Hasse, Über das Reziprozitätsgesetz der m-ten
Potenzreste, J. Reine Angew. Math. 158 (1927), 228–259; Math. Abh. I, 294–325; K. Iwasawa, On
explicit formulas for the norm residue symbol, J. Math. Soc. Japan 20 (1968), 151–165; I. Shafarevich,
A general reciprocity law, Am. Math. Soc. Transl. 4 (1956), 73–106; J. Coates, A. Wiles, Explicit reciprocity laws, Journées arithm. Caen 1976, Astérisque 41/42 (1977), 7–17; A. Wiles, Higher reciprocity
laws, Ann. Math. 107 (1978), 235–254; A. Brückner, Explizites Reziprozitätsgesetz und Anwendungen,Vorlesungen aus dem Fachbereich Mathematik der Universität Essen, 1979; G. Henniart, Sur les lois de réciprocité explicites, J. Reine Angew. Math. 329 (1981), 177–203; B. Perrin-Riou, Théorie d’Iwasawa desreprésentations p-adiques sur un corps local, Inventiones Math. 115 (1994), 81–149; K. Kato, General
explicit reciprocity laws; to appear in the forthcoming first volume of the Korean journal: Advanced
Studies in Mathematics; as well as recent unpublished work by P. Colmez as well as by F. Cherbonnier& P. Colmez [to appear in Journal AMS]. — With these last papers, history has come around full circle
in that the “explicit” laws have themselves been absorbed into a new general abstract theory.
20
See for instance Hasse’s Zahlbericht, I §6, p. 23–24; Ia, §10, §§12–16. — Helmut Hasse’s follow-up
to Hilbert’s Zahlbericht, also called “Hasse’s Zahlbericht,” appeared in three parts [Part I, Jahresbericht
D.M.V. 35 (1926), 1–55; part Ia, ibid. 36 (1927), 233–311; part II, Ergänzungsband 6 (1930), 1–201]. It
contains a presentation of Takagi’s class field theory including Artin’s reciprocity law and Furtwängler’s
principal ideal theorem, which appeared just in time for inclusion.

6

Genus theory has changed dramatically since it was created by Gauss (who himself
followed in the footsteps of Euler and Lagrange).21 Given an extension K/k of number
fields, we can define the genus class group of K as the factor group of the ideal classgroup of K corresponding by class field theory to the extension F K/K, where F is the
maximal abelian extension of k such that F K/K is unramified. Genus theory in Hilbert’s
Zahlbericht is the special case where K/k is a Kummer extension of prime degree `, withk = Q(ζ` ) a regular cyclotomic field.
Whereas Kummer, in the tradition of Gauss and Dirichlet, used the power residue
symbol to define genera,22 Hilbert built his theory on the norm residue symbol. Using
the concept of factor groups (which Hilbert is so successful in avoiding as a theoretical
notion—see below), his definition 23 boils down to the following: Let ` be an odd prime,
k a number field containing the group µ` of `-th roots of unity, assume that the class√number h of k is not divisible by `, and let K = k( ` µ ) be a Kummer extension of k;assume moreover that the class number h of k is not divisible by ` and let h∗ be an integer
such that hh∗ ≡ 1 mod `. Let p1 , . . . , pt denote the primes of k that ramify in K/k, anddefine a homomorphism X : k × −→ µt` by the rule α 7−→ { α,p1µ , · · · , α,ptµ }. Let X(E)denote the image of the unit group E of k × under X, and define the homomorphism χfrom the group of invertible ideals of K to µt` /X(E) by putting χ(A) = X(α) · X(E),∗where α is a generator of the principal ideal NK/k Ahh . This is clearly well defined, andideals of K having the same image under χ are said to belong to the same genus. The
kernel of χ is called the principal genus. The fact that norms are norm residues implies
that each genus is a collection of ideal classes.
This definition is also valid for ` = 2 and equivalence in the usual sense if one iswilling to use infinite primes; these were, however, introduced by Hilbert only after his
Zahlbericht was written.24
The main problem of genus theory was to find a formula for the number of genera.
Traditionally, this is accomplished by proving a lower and an upper bound which arecalled the first and the second inequality, respectively (these are special cases of thecorresponding inequalities of class field theory).
To see the connection of genus theory with the general reciprocity law, recall Gauss’s
second proof of the quadratic reciprocity law: Let t denote the number of distinct primes
dividing the discriminant of k. Then the first inequality of genus theory says that there
are at most 2t−1 genera, i.e., that # Cl + (k)/Cl + (k)2 ≤ 2t−1 . Using this information, a
special case of the quadratic reciprocity law can be proved as follows. Let p ≡ 1 mod 4√
and q be odd primes and assume that (p/q) = +1. Then q splits in k = Q( p ), and by21

See e.g. G. Frei, On the development of the genus group in number fields, Ann. Sci. Math. Quebec 3(1979), 5–62. For modern presentations of genus theory see the books of D. Zagier [Zetafunktionen undquadratische Körper. Eine Einführung in die höhere Zahlentheorie, Berlin, Heidelberg, etc.: Springer,
1981] for the quadratic and A. Fröhlich [Central extensions, Galois groups, and ideal class groups ofnumber fields, AMS 1983.] for the general case.
22
E.E. Kummer, Über die allgemeinen Reciprocitätsgesetze der Potenzreste, Collected Papers I, 673–
687, in particular p. 678
23
See Zahlbericht, §66 and §84 for quadratic fields and equivalence in the usual and strict sense, respectively, and §150 for Kummer fields.
24
D. Hilbert, Über die Theorie der relativ-Abelschen Zahlkörper, Gesammelte Abhandlungen I, 483–509,
in particular §6.

7

the first inequality k has odd class number h. Thus ±q h is the norm of an integer from k,
and considering this equation as a congruence modulo p yields (±q h /p) = +1; but since(−1/p) = +1 and h is odd, this implies (q/p) = +1.
Kummer’s line of attack was similar (the basic idea in both proofs is the observationthat norms are norm residues modulo ramified primes), but he soon found25 that the firstinequality would not suffice for a proof. In fact, Kummer’s as well as Hilbert’s first proof(see §160 of the Zahlbericht) both use that the number of genera in certain extensions isexactly `. The three main differences of the proofs are:
1. Kummer’s proof uses the first supplementary law, which he had derived earlier using
cyclotomy,26 whereas Hilbert can do without it.
2. Kummer works in a certain subring of the ring of integers OK of the Kummer
extensions K; Hilbert transfers the whole theory to OK .
3. Although Kummer occasionally derived necessary conditions for an integer in k to
be a norm from K, the theory of the norm residue symbol is a genuine achievementof Hilbert, and it is here that he goes beyond Kummer: see e.g. Satz 167, which isa special case of Hasse’s norm theorem.

4

A few Noteworthy Details

Let us now look more closely at a few places where Hilbert’s treatment in the Zahlbericht
differs from what one is used to today. The first such instance occurs when Hilbert proves
the unique factorization of ideals into prime ideals in the ring of integers of an algebraic
number field via Leopold Kronecker’s theory of forms and Dedekind’s so-called “Prague
Theorem”—see §§5–6.27 Hilbert does, however, also point out alternative proofs of thiskey result, at the end of §6.
Since we are today looking back on the Zahlbericht from a distance of 100 years,
a few proofs there strike us as somewhat roundabout. For instance, in the proof thatprecisely the prime divisors of the discriminant are ramified as well as in his discussionof the splitting of primes, in particular of those dividing the discriminant of a generating
polynomial (see §§10–13 of the Zahlbericht), Hilbert switches again from Dedekind’s idealtheoretic language to Kronecker’s theory of forms. Modern proofs built upon Hensel’s
p-adic theory may be more appealing.
25“Wegen dieses Umstandes reicht auch der gefundene Satz, daß die Anzahl der wirklichen Genera
nicht größer ist, als der λte Teil der möglichen, nicht aus, sondern es ist nöthig, daß die Anzahl derwirklichen Genera genau gefunden werde, wozu andere Prinzipien erforderlich sind, als welche Gauß zur
Ergründung dieser wichtigen Frage für die quadratischen Formen angewendet hat.” [Über die allgemeinen
Reciprocitätsgesetze der Potenzreste, Collected Papers I, 673–687, in particular p. 682].
26“und zwar unter einem erheblichen Aufwande von Rechnung”, as Hilbert remarks in §161.
27
For the background of this argument, see H.M. Edwards, The Genesis of Ideal Theory, Archive Hist.
Exact Sciences 23 (1980), 321–378; here in particular: section 13, pp. 364–368.

8

A special feature of Hilbert’s Zahlbericht which the unsuspecting reader may not be
prepared for is the very uneven usage of notions from abstract algebra. Thus, while thenotion of fields and their arithmetic is at the very heart of Hilbert’s concept of algebraic
number theory, and even though Hilbert uses the word “(Zahl)ring” for orders in algebraic
number fields, this must not be taken as evidence that Hilbert employs here parts of ourcurrent algebraic terminology the way we would do it; rather than referring to a general
algebraic structure,28 the word “ring” is used for sets of algebraic integers which forma ring in our modern sense of the word. Similarly, but much more obviously for themodern reader, Hilbert does not have at his disposal general abstract notions from grouptheory that could unify the discussions of situations that we immediately recognize as
analogous.29 Most striking is the absence from the Zahlbericht of the notion of quotientgroups.30 Thus, when we would say that “G/H is cyclic of order h,” Hilbert has to write
elaborate prose: “the members of G are each obtained precisely once when we multiply
the members of H by 1, g, . . . , g h−1 where g is a suitably chosen member of G”(see e.g.
Zahlbericht, Sätze 69, 71 and 75).
Contrary to these points, which, from our vantage point, may be considered as shortcomings, but which the Zahlbericht shares with most other texts on the subject before
Hecke’s book from 1923, some other unusual features of the text have to be counted
among its pearls. In fact, theorems 89–94 may be regarded as the first highlight of the
Zahlbericht. Here Hilbert did “point the way to further research.”
Hilbert’s Satz 89 says that the ideal class group is generated by the classes of prime
ideals of degree 1. In the special case of cyclotomic fields, this result is due to Kummer.31
It is a very special case of the density theorems of class field theory, such as Chebotarev’s,
but it is accessible without analytic methods. Already Max Deuring32 remarked that28

According to I. Kleiner, From numbers to rings: the early history of ring theory, Elem. Math. 53(1998), 18–35, the modern axiomatic definition of a field is due to Steinitz (1910), that of a ring to
Fraenkel (1914) and Sono (1917).
29
This omission seems to be deliberate: in his letter from 21-7-1896 (loc. cit.), Minkowski suggested
that the inclusion of a few lemmas on Abelian groups in §100 would allow the reader to enjoy Hilbert’s proof of the theorem of Kronecker-Weber without distractions [“Damit der Leser zu einem völlig
ungestörten Genusse desselben komme, möchte ich empfehlen, die gebrauchten Hilfssätze über Abelsche
Gruppen mit Andeutungen ihrer Beweise vorweg in §100 zu absolviren.”]
30
Factor groups were first defined by O. Hölder, Zurückführung einer algebraischen Gleichung auf
eine Kette von Gleichungen, Math. Ann. 34 (1889), 26–56; they are discussed in Weber’s Algebra 2,
Braunschweig 1896, but authors ranging all the way from Heinrich Weber himself (Ueber Zahlengruppen
in algebraischen Körpern, Math. Ann. 48 (1897), 433–473) to Erich Hecke (Vorlesungen über die Theorie
der algebraischen Zahlen, Leipzig 1923, where Chapters II and III are devoted to Abelian groups) found it
necessary to explain to their readers the concept of groups in general, and of factor groups in particular.
— See L. Corry, Modern algebra and the rise of mathematical structures; Science Networks, vol 17, Basel,
Boston (Birkhäuser) 1996, in particular Chapter III, for an extensive discussion of Hilbert’s position in
the development of modern abstract algebra.
31
E.E. Kummer, Über die Zerlegung der aus Wurzeln der Einheit gebildeten complexen Zahlen in ihre
Primfaktoren, Collected Papers I, 211–251, in particular pp. 241–243.
32
In M. Deuring, Neuer Beweis des Bauerschen Satzes, J. Reine Angew. Math. 173 (1935), 1–4, one
reads in reference to Satz 89: “. . . ist eine naturgemäße Verallgemeinerung eines wenig beachteten Satzes
in Hilbert’s Zahlbericht.”9this theorem has been somewhat neglected. This is also demonstrated by the fact that
Hilbert’s proof of this theorem has not been simplified in 100 years. Even worse: it was
only in 1987 that Lawrence Washington33 noticed a gap in it — which is, however, easy
to fix.
Hilbert’s Satz 90. Again it was Kummer34 who discovered (in the special case of Kummer
extensions of Q(ζp )) what is probably the most famous theorem from the Zahlbericht. It
is hardly necessary today to recall that E. Noether generalized Satz 90 considerably;in cohomological formulation, her result reads H 1 (G, K × ) = 1, where K/k is a normalb −1 (G, K × ) = 1
extension of number fields with Galois group G. Satz 90 is the statement H
b 1 (G, K × ) = 1 using the periodicity of Tate’s cohomology
for cyclic G which follows from H
groups for cyclic G.
Hilbert’s Satz 91 on the existence of relative units was to be the first in a series of generalizations of Dirichlet’s unit theorem.35 A similar result had been proved by Kummer36 ina slightly different form. The theorem is contained implicitly in the index computationsin Hasse’s Zahlbericht (Ia, §12; Fußnote 25).
Hilbert’s Satz 92. Once more, this is a result which was inspired by work of Kummer.37 In
cohomological form, the statement reads H −1 (G, EK ) 6= 1 (here K/k is a cyclic extensionof prime order p and Galois group G). Today this is part of the standard theorems in classfield theory known as the “Herbrand index of the unit group”, which says that in factb −1 (G, EK ) = p · (Ek : N EK ) for cyclic extensions of number fields that are unramified#H
everywhere.
Hilbert’s Satz 94. This is a forerunner of the principal ideal theorem of class field theory.
It does not, however, contain Satz 94 as a special case. In contrast to Theorems 89–92,
Satz 94 cannot be traced back to Kummer. In fact, it is very likely that Kummer did
not even think about the possibility of ideal classes becoming principal in extensions: hisinvalid proof 38 that the class number of cyclotomic fields is divisible by the class number
33
L.C. Washington, Stickelberger’s theorem for cyclotomic fields, in the spirit of Kummer and Thaine,Théorie des nombres, Quebec, Canada 1987, 990–993 (1989)
34
E.E. Kummer, Über eine besondere Art, aus complexen Einheiten gebildeter Ausdrücke, Collected
Papers I, 552–572; in particular p. 553, and Über die allgemeinen Reciprocitätsgesetze unter den Resten
und Nichtresten der Potenzen, deren Grad eine Primzahl ist, Collected Papers I, 699–839; in particular
p. 75435
See for instance J. Herbrand, Sur les unités d’un corps algébrique, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 192 (1931),
24–27; and E. Artin, Über Einheiten relativ galoisscher Zahlkörper, J. Reine Angew. Math. 167 (1932),
153–156.
36
E.E. Kummer, Über die allgemeinen Reciprocitätsgesetze unter den Resten und Nichtresten der Potenzen, deren Grad eine Primzahl ist, Collected Papers I, 699–839; in particular pp. 785–792
37
E.E. Kummer, Zwei neue Beweise der allgemeinen Reciprocitätsgesetze unter den Resten undNichtresten der Potenzen, deren Grad eine Primzahl ist, Collected Papers I, 842–882.
38
E.E. Kummer, Bestimmung der Anzahl nichtäquivalenter Klassen für die aus λten Wurzeln derEinheit gebildeten complexen Zahlen und die idealen Factoren derselben, Collected Papers I, 299–322; inparticular, p. 320–322. Weil remarks in this connection (ibid, p. 955): “In other contexts, of course, he

10

of any subfield is based on the implicit assumption that ideals do not capitulate.
It seems that the phenomenon of capitulation was discovered by Kronecker in connec√
tion with his investigations of his Jugendtraum: Kronecker39 noticed that k = Q( −31 )admitted an unramified cyclic cubic extension K in which every ideal is principal andremarked, referring to the splitting behaviour of prime ideals of k in this extension, that“it is exactly this fact which contains a clear hint at the future development in the theoryof power residues, in particular for the cases excluded in Kummer’s investigations.”40
Hilbert’s remarks after the proof of Satz 94 are quite mysterious: we do not knowwhat to make of his claim that the results of Satz 94 can easily be extended to relatively
abelian extensions with relative different 1 whose degree is not necessarily a prime. It iseasy to make his proof work for cyclic extensions of prime power degree, and an elementaryargument shows that Satz 94 then holds for cyclic extensions of arbitrary degree. But
there are problems even with extensions K/k of type (p, p): of course the statement that
there is a nonprincipal ideal in k that becomes principal in K continues to hold, but theclaim that the class number of k is divisible by p2 does not follow easily.41 In fact, thecorrect generalization of Satz 94, namely the claim that in unramified abelian extensions
K/k there are at least (K : k) ideal classes that become principal, was only proved in1991 by reduction to a group theoretic problem via Artin’s reciprocity law.42 Incidentally,
Kronecker in his earlier writings used the word ‘Abelian’ for what is called ‘cyclic’ today.
Stickelberger’s Theorem (Satz 138) gives the prime ideal decomposition of Gauss sums;
its treatment in Hilbert’s Zahlbericht is remarkable in two ways: first, Hilbert does notstate (let alone prove) Stickelberger’s theorem at all, but is content with the special case43
already known to Jacobi and Kummer. In fact, he does not even mention Stickelberger’s
article in this connection although he lists it in his references. The reasons for thisomission are not clear; one may speculate that Hilbert had read Stickelberger’s article
only superficially.
had many examples of non-principal ideals in a given field which become principal in some bigger field.”
What Weil has in mind here is probably Kummer’s observation on p. 209 of the article Zur Theorie
der komplexen Zahlen,
pCollected Papers I, 203–210: “Ich bemerke nur noch, daß sie [die idealen Zahlen]. . . immer die Form h (Φ(α)) annehmen, wo Φ(α) eine wirkliche complexe Zahl ist, und h eine ganze√
Zahl.” Of course this can be read as “every ideal a of k becomes principal in the extension k( h µ ), whereha = (µ),” but one may want to be careful about assuming that this was Kummer’s way of seeing things.
39
L. Kronecker, Ueber die Potenzreste gewisser complexer Zahlen, Monatsber. Berlin (1880), 404–407;
Werke II, 95–101.
40
loc. cit., p. 101: “Es ist genau dieser Umstand, welcher einen deutlichen Hinweis auf die Weiterentwicklung der Theorie der Potenzreste namentlich auch für die in den Kummerschen Untersuchungenausgeschlossenen Fälle enthält.”
41
P. Furtwängler could prove Satz 94 for unramified extensions of type (p, p) in Über das Verhalten der
Ideale des Grundkörpers im Klassenkörper, Monatsh. Math. Phys. 27 (1916), 1–15, and a cohomological
proof for the more general case (pn , p) can be found e.g. in R. Bond, Unramified abelian extensions of
number fields, J. Number Theory 30 (1988), 1–10.
42
See H. Suzuki, A generalization of Hilbert’s theorem 94, Nagoya Math. J. 121 (1991), 161–169; formore on capitulation, see K. Miyake, Algebraic investigations of Hilbert’s Theorem 94, the principal ideal
theorem, and the capitulation problem, Expos. Math. 7 (1989), 289–346.
43This is actually the only place in the Zahlbericht that we are aware of where Hilbert does not go to
the borders of what was known.

11In 1933, while working on their paper on the congruence zeta function, in particularof Fermat curves, Hasse and Davenport proved a general version of the result due to
Jacobi and Kummer. In February 1934, Davenport then discovered this generalizationin Stickelberger’s paper, and Hasse44 promptly blamed Hilbert for not including it in the
Zahlbericht. This episode indicates how much the generation of number theorists after
Hilbert relied on the Zahlbericht as a comprehensive reference for the subject.
The second observation concerning Hilbert’s approach to Stickelberger’s theorem isthat he ties it in with his study of normal integral bases (simply called ‘normal bases’
by Hilbert). A normal basis of a normal extension k/Q is an integral basis of the form{tν : t ∈ Gal(K/Q)} for some integral ν ∈ k (see §105). For fields k of prime degree `Hilbert associates to each such normal basis a “root number” Ω = ν +ζ ·tν +. . . ζ l−1 ·tl−1 ν,
where ζ is a primitive `th root of unity (see §106). Satz 133 and Satz 134 characterizeroot numbers by four properties,45 and Satz 135 gives the prime ideal factorization ofroot numbers up to conjugacy. In the special case where the normal basis is generated
by Gaussian periods, the root number is a Gauss sum (“Lagrangian root number” inHilbert’s terminology).46
None of these results related to Stickelberger’s theorem made it into the list of theorems
that Hilbert considered to be “departure points for further advances” (see the Preface tothe Zahlbericht), and at first history seemed to agree with Hilbert. In fact, after thecontributions of Andreas Speiser and Emmy Noether,47 the topic of normal integral bases
lay dormant for 40 years. Then, however, things changed dramatically; for a description of
the activities during the 1970s, the reader may consult Section I §1 in Albrecht Fröhlich’s
book.48 Research in this area is continuing vigorously at the moment.
We hope that the special features of Hilbert’s Zahlbericht justify this first english
edition of it, and will enable it to hold its own as a classical text that readers will behappy to consult along with the many excellent textbooks on algebraic number theory
which are available today, 100 years after the Zahlbericht was written.

44

Hasse to Davenport, 22-2-1934: “Moreover the old proof and the whole matter seems to have slippedfrom the minds of our generation, presumably owing to Hilbert’s inconceivable not giving it in his
Zahlbericht.” We thank Peter Roquette for this information. The letters from Hasse to Davenport
are kept in Trinity College, Cambridge, UK.
45
The fourth property, namely that ω is not an `th power in k, should be added to Satz 133; it follows
at once from ζ · tΩ = Ω.
46
Cf. A. Weil’s ironical remarks in La cyclotomie jadis et naguère, Sém. Bourbaki 1973/74, no. 452(juin 1974), Springer Lecture Notes Math. 431, or Œuvres scientifiques 3 (1980), 311–328.
47
A. Speiser, Gruppendeterminante und Körperdiskriminante, Math. Annalen 77 (1916), 546–562; E.
Noether, Normalbasis bei Körpern ohne höhere Verzweigung, J. Reine Angew. Math. 167 (1932), 147–152.
48
A. Fröhlich, Galois module structure of algebraic integers, Berlin, Heidelberg, etc.: Springer, 1983.

12