David Hilbert: The theory of algebraic number fields. Jahresber. Deutsche Math. Ver. 4 (1897), 175--546 (Q680847)

This appreciation of \textit{D. Hilbert}'s Zahlbericht [ibid. 4, 175--546 (1897; JFM 28.0157.05)] is more complete than [\textit{F. Lemmermeyer} and \textit{N. Schappacher}, in: The theory of algebraic number fields. Berlin: Springer, xxiii--xxxvi (1998; Zbl 0984.11001)] and [\textit{N. Schappacher}, in: Landmark writings in Western mathematics 1640--1940. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 700--709 (2005; Zbl 1090.01002)]. It describes its historical framework and its reception, and emphasises its rôle as a key to Kummer's work. It introduces Hilbert's symbol for norm residues on the basis of Gauss' genus theory, and shows how it is instrumental for a smooth reading of Kummer's reciprocity law. On the way, logarithmic derivatives are used for comparing Kummer's and Hilbert's approach. Weil's remarks in this respect and other alleged criticisms are discussed, put into context, and mitigated. A thread in the reception is not being addressed by the author, namely, the one emphasising the non-algorithmic stance of the Zahlbericht and its impact on algebra. \textit{H. M. Edwards} [Bull.\ Lond.\ Math.\ Soc.~15, 8--17 (1983; Zbl 0504.01009)] writes: ``The extent to which objections to the completed infinite were forgotten is astounding. Hilbert's proof of the existence of an integral basis in the \textit{Zahlbericht} (1897) begins `We imagine all the integers of the field in a list'. He then proceeds to pick out of his imaginary list an entry in which a particular term has the smallest possible positive value! I have no way of proving it, but I believe even Dedekind would have balked at such a sweeping use of the completed infinite, especially to prove a theorem which can so easily be proved constructively, as Dedekind always did.'' A precise analysis of the involved non-algorithmic knowledge is given in [\textit{H. M. Edwards}, Math.\ Intell.~31, No.~2, 11--14 (2009; Zbl 1165.01300)].