Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Ideal class group
View on WikipediaThis article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2010) |
In mathematics, the ideal class group (or class group) of an algebraic number field is the quotient group where is the group of fractional ideals of the ring of integers of , and is its subgroup of principal ideals. The class group is a measure of the extent to which unique factorization fails in the ring of integers of . The order of the group, which is finite, is called the class number of .
The theory extends to Dedekind domains and their fields of fractions, for which the multiplicative properties are intimately tied to the structure of the class group. For example, the class group of a Dedekind domain is trivial if and only if the ring is a unique factorization domain.
History and origin of the ideal class group
[edit]Ideal class groups (or, rather, what were effectively ideal class groups) were studied some time before the idea of an ideal was formulated. These groups appeared in the theory of quadratic forms: in the case of binary integral quadratic forms, as put into something like a final form by Carl Friedrich Gauss, a composition law was defined on certain equivalence classes of forms. This gave a finite abelian group, as was recognised at the time.
Later Ernst Kummer was working towards a theory of cyclotomic fields. It had been realised (probably by several people) that failure to complete proofs in the general case of Fermat's Last Theorem by factorisation using the roots of unity was for a very good reason: a failure of unique factorization – i.e., the fundamental theorem of arithmetic – to hold in the rings generated by those roots of unity was a major obstacle. Out of Kummer's work for the first time came a study of the obstruction to the factorization. We now recognise this as part of the ideal class group: in fact Kummer had isolated the -torsion in that group for the field of -roots of unity, for any prime number , as the reason for the failure of the standard method of attack on the Fermat problem (see regular prime).
Somewhat later again Richard Dedekind formulated the concept of an ideal, Kummer having worked in a different way. At this point the existing examples could be unified. It was shown that while rings of algebraic integers do not always have unique factorization into primes (because they need not be principal ideal domains), they do have the property that every proper ideal admits a unique factorization as a product of prime ideals (that is, every ring of algebraic integers is a Dedekind domain). The size of the ideal class group can be considered as a measure for the deviation of a ring from being a principal ideal domain; a ring is a principal ideal domain if and only if it has a trivial ideal class group.
Definition
[edit]If is an integral domain, define a relation on nonzero fractional ideals of by whenever there exist nonzero elements and of such that . It is easily shown that this is an equivalence relation. The equivalence classes are called the ideal classes of . Ideal classes can be multiplied: if denotes the equivalence class of the ideal , then the multiplication is well-defined and commutative. The principal ideals form the ideal class which serves as an identity element for this multiplication. Thus a class has an inverse if and only if there is an ideal such that is a principal ideal. In general, such a may not exist and consequently the set of ideal classes of may only be a monoid.
However, if is the ring of algebraic integers in an algebraic number field, or more generally a Dedekind domain, the multiplication defined above turns the set of fractional ideal classes into an abelian group, the ideal class group of . The group property of existence of inverse elements follows easily from the fact that, in a Dedekind domain, every non-zero ideal (except ) is a product of prime ideals.
Properties
[edit]The ideal class group is trivial (i.e. has only one element) if and only if all ideals of are principal. In this sense, the ideal class group measures how far is from being a principal ideal domain, and hence from satisfying unique prime factorization (Dedekind domains are unique factorization domains if and only if they are principal ideal domains).
The number of ideal classes—the class number of —may be infinite in general. In fact, every abelian group is isomorphic to the ideal class group of some Dedekind domain.[1] But if is a ring of algebraic integers, then the class number is always finite. This is one of the main results of classical algebraic number theory.
Computation of the class group is hard, in general; it can be done by hand for the ring of integers in an algebraic number field of small discriminant, using Minkowski's bound. This result gives a bound, depending on the ring, such that every ideal class contains an ideal norm less than the bound. In general the bound is not sharp enough to make the calculation practical for fields with large discriminant, but computers are well suited to the task.
The mapping from rings of integers to their corresponding class groups is functorial, and the class group can be subsumed under the heading of algebraic K-theory, with being the functor assigning to its ideal class group; more precisely, , where is the class group. Higher -groups can also be employed and interpreted arithmetically in connection to rings of integers.
Relation with the group of units
[edit]It was remarked above that the ideal class group provides part of the answer to the question of how much ideals in a Dedekind domain behave like elements. The other part of the answer is provided by the group of units of the Dedekind domain, since passage from principal ideals to their generators requires the use of units (and this is the rest of the reason for introducing the concept of fractional ideal, as well).
Define a map from to the set of all nonzero fractional ideals of by sending every element to the principal (fractional) ideal it generates. This is a group homomorphism; its kernel is the group of units of , and its cokernel is the ideal class group of . The failure of these groups to be trivial is a measure of the failure of the map to be an isomorphism: that is the failure of ideals to act like ring elements, that is to say, like numbers.
Examples of ideal class groups
[edit]- The rings , and , respectively the integers, Gaussian integers, and Eisenstein integers, are all principal ideal domains (and in fact are all Euclidean domains), and so have class number 1: i.e., they have trivial ideal class groups.
- If is a field, then the polynomial ring is an integral domain. It has a countably infinite set of ideal classes.
Class numbers of quadratic fields
[edit]If is a square-free integer (a product of distinct primes) other than 1, then is a quadratic extension of . If , then the class number of the ring of algebraic integers of is equal to 1 for precisely the following values of : . This result was first conjectured by Gauss and proven by Kurt Heegner, although Heegner's proof was not believed until Harold Stark gave a later proof in 1967 (see Stark–Heegner theorem). This is a special case of the famous class number problem.
If, on the other hand, , then it is unknown whether there are infinitely many fields with class number 1. Computational results indicate that there are a great many such fields. However, it is not even known if there are infinitely many number fields with class number 1.[2]
For , the ideal class group of is isomorphic to the class group of integral binary quadratic forms of discriminant equal to the discriminant of . For , the ideal class group may be half the size since the class group of integral binary quadratic forms is isomorphic to the narrow class group of .[3]
For real quadratic integer rings, the class number is given in OEIS A003649; for the imaginary case, they are given in OEIS A000924.
Example of a non-trivial class group
[edit]The quadratic integer ring is the ring of integers of . It does not possess unique factorization; in fact the class group of is cyclic of order 2. Indeed, the ideal
is not principal, which can be proved by contradiction as follows: has a multiplicative norm function defined by , which satisfies if and only if is a unit in .
Firstly, , because the quotient ring of modulo the ideal is isomorphic to , so that the quotient ring of modulo is isomorphic to . Now if were principal (that is, generated by an element of ), then would divide both and . Then the norm would divide both and , so would divide 2. If then is a unit and so , a contradiction. But cannot be 2 either, because has no elements of norm 2, because the Diophantine equation has no solutions in integers, as it has no solutions modulo 5.
One also computes that , which is principal, so the class of in the ideal class group has order two. Showing that there aren't any other ideal classes requires more effort.
The fact that this is not principal is also related to the fact that the element has two distinct factorisations into irreducibles:
- .
Connections to class field theory
[edit]Class field theory is a branch of algebraic number theory which seeks to classify all the abelian extensions of a given algebraic number field, meaning Galois extensions with abelian Galois group. A particularly beautiful example is found in the Hilbert class field of a number field, which can be defined as the maximal unramified abelian extension of such a field. The Hilbert class field L of a number field K is unique and has the following properties:
- Every ideal of the ring of integers of K becomes principal in L, i.e., if I is an integral ideal of K then the image of I is a principal ideal in L.
- L is a Galois extension of K with Galois group isomorphic to the ideal class group of K.
Neither property is particularly easy to prove.
See also
[edit]- Class number formula
- Class number problem
- Brauer–Siegel theorem—an asymptotic formula for the class number
- List of number fields with class number one
- Principal ideal domain
- Algebraic K-theory
- Galois theory
- Fermat's Last Theorem
- Narrow class group
- Picard group—a generalisation of the class group appearing in algebraic geometry
- Arakelov class group
Notes
[edit]- ^ Claborn 1966
- ^ Neukirch 1999
- ^ Fröhlich & Taylor 1993, Theorem 58
References
[edit]- Claborn, Luther (1966), "Every abelian group is a class group", Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 18 (2): 219–222, doi:10.2140/pjm.1966.18.219
- Fröhlich, Albrecht; Taylor, Martin (1993), Algebraic number theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 27, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-43834-6, MR 1215934
- Neukirch, Jürgen (1999). Algebraische Zahlentheorie. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Vol. 322. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-540-65399-8. MR 1697859. Zbl 0956.11021.
Ideal class group
View on GrokipediaFundamentals
Definition
In a Dedekind domain, such as the ring of integers of a number field , every nonzero ideal factors uniquely into a product of prime ideals.[5] This unique factorization property for ideals addresses the failure of unique element factorization in certain rings of integers, such as .[1] The ideal class group is defined as the quotient of the multiplicative group of fractional ideals by the subgroup of principal fractional ideals. A fractional ideal of is a finitely generated nonzero -submodule of the field of fractions such that there exists a nonzero with . The set of all such fractional ideals forms an abelian group under multiplication, where the product of two fractional ideals and is the -submodule generated by all products of elements from and , and the identity element is itself.[5][1] Two fractional ideals and are equivalent, denoted , if there exists a nonzero such that . The principal fractional ideals are those of the form for , which form a subgroup of the multiplicative group of fractional ideals. The ideal class group, denoted or , consists of the equivalence classes under this relation, with group operation induced by multiplication of representatives: . The identity element is the class of all principal fractional ideals.[1][6][7]Fractional and Principal Ideals
In the context of algebraic number theory, consider a number field with ring of integers . A fractional ideal of is a nonzero -submodule of that is finitely generated and satisfies the condition that there exists a nonzero such that .[8][9] This definition generalizes the notion of ideals beyond the integers themselves, allowing elements of while maintaining a module structure over . In Dedekind domains, such as , every nonzero fractional ideal is invertible under multiplication.[10] Integral ideals are the special case of fractional ideals where , corresponding to the condition with .[8] Fractional ideals extend this by incorporating "denominators," enabling the study of inverses and factorization in a broader setting. The set of all fractional ideals forms an abelian group under multiplication, defined for two fractional ideals and as the -submodule generated by all finite sums where and .[9][10] This operation is associative and commutative, with serving as the multiplicative identity.[8] A principal fractional ideal is one of the form for some , the nonzero elements of .[8][9] These ideals play a central role in defining equivalence among fractional ideals: two fractional ideals and are equivalent if there exists a principal fractional ideal such that .[10] This relation captures the extent to which ideals differ by "rational" scaling, highlighting the failure of unique factorization in elements while enabling it in ideals. For illustration, consider the rational numbers with . The set is a fractional ideal, as , but it is not an integral ideal since it contains non-integers like .[8] Principal fractional ideals in this case include forms like for integers with . In Dedekind domains like , the unique factorization of nonzero ideals into prime ideals underpins this theory.[10]Historical Context
Origins in Number Theory
The concept of the ideal class group emerged from efforts in 19th-century number theory to address the failure of unique factorization in rings of algebraic integers beyond the rational integers. Ernst Kummer, motivated by attempts to prove Fermat's Last Theorem through infinite descent in cyclotomic fields, observed that unique factorization into elements breaks down in the rings of integers of certain cyclotomic fields, particularly for irregular primes that divide the class number.[11] To restore a form of unique factorization, Kummer introduced the notion of "ideal numbers" in 1844, abstract entities that could be multiplied and factored uniquely even when ordinary algebraic integers could not.[11] These ideal numbers allowed Kummer to develop a theory that partially succeeded in proving Fermat's Last Theorem for regular primes, highlighting the need for a multiplicative structure beyond elements.[11] Building on Kummer's ideas, Richard Dedekind formalized the theory of ideals in 1871 through supplements to Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet's Vorlesungen über Zahlentheorie, providing a concrete framework to achieve unique factorization of ideals in the rings of integers of arbitrary algebraic number fields.[12] Dedekind's ideals were defined as specific subsets of the ring—additive subgroups closed under multiplication by elements of the ring—replacing Kummer's more abstract ideal numbers with rigorous algebraic objects that ensured every nonzero ideal factors uniquely into prime ideals.[13] This transition marked a pivotal shift, embedding the restorative mechanism directly within the ring structure rather than adjoining external entities. Independently, Leopold Kronecker developed related concepts of ideal divisors around 1882, linking them to the theory of binary quadratic forms and emphasizing the class number's role in arithmetic progressions and the Jugendtraum.[14] Dedekind's work was particularly illuminated by examples in quadratic fields, where he demonstrated the existence of non-principal ideals, revealing that not all ideals are generated by a single element and thus motivating the quotient structure that would become the ideal class group.[13] For instance, in fields like , certain prime ideals above rational primes remain non-principal, underscoring the limitations of principal ideals alone and necessitating a group to classify equivalence classes under principal multiplication.[12] These observations arose amid broader 19th-century pursuits, including Fermat's Last Theorem, where the absence of unique element factorization had long impeded progress. Later refinements by David Hilbert in the 1890s, particularly in his 1897 Zahlbericht, further synthesized and advanced these foundational ideas on ideals and their groupings.[15]Key Developments
In the late 19th century, building on the foundational ideal theory developed by Dedekind to resolve failures of unique factorization in algebraic number fields, subsequent advancements focused on deeper analytic and structural connections. David Hilbert's seminal 1897 report, known as the Zahlbericht, provided a comprehensive summary and extension of Dedekind's ideal theory, systematizing concepts such as fractional ideals, prime ideal factorization, and the ideal class group as the quotient of fractional ideals by principal ideals. In this work, Hilbert established key results on the finiteness of the class group and presented the analytic class number formula, expressing the class number of a number field in terms of the residue of the Dedekind zeta function at , the regulator, and other arithmetic invariants: where and are the numbers of real and complex embeddings, is the regulator, the discriminant, and the number of roots of unity. This formula bridged algebraic and analytic aspects of class groups, influencing subsequent developments in number theory. In the 1920s, Emil Artin advanced the theory by introducing Artin L-functions associated to irreducible representations of the Galois group of a Galois extension, providing a non-abelian generalization of Dirichlet and Hecke L-functions that encode information about ideal class groups through their special values and analytic properties. These functions facilitated the emergence of more refined analytic class number formulas, particularly in the context of class field theory, where the special values at relate to regulators and class numbers in abelian extensions.[16] Teiji Takagi's work in the early 1920s culminated in the first complete proof of class field theory, demonstrating that for a number field , the Galois group of its maximal abelian extension is isomorphic to the idele class group, with the ideal class group specifically corresponding to the Galois group of the maximal unramified abelian extension (the Hilbert class field). Published in a series of papers from 1920 to 1922, Takagi's theory resolved longstanding conjectures by Hilbert and others, establishing a precise reciprocity map between ideals and abelian extensions.[17] By the 1980s, computational aspects of ideal class groups gained prominence with the development of subexponential-time algorithms, notably the rigorous method introduced by James L. Hafner and Kevin S. McCurley in 1989, which computes the class group of quadratic fields by generating relations among ideals using a probabilistic approach based on the geometry of numbers and the distribution of reduced ideals. This algorithm achieves expected running time for some constant , where denotes the subexponential function, marking a significant improvement over earlier exponential methods and enabling practical computations for large discriminants.[18]Structural Properties
Group Operations and Isomorphism Class
The ideal class group of a number field , denoted , is formed by the quotient of the multiplicative group of fractional ideals by the subgroup of principal fractional ideals, with the group operation induced by ideal multiplication: for ideal classes and , the product is , where denotes the set of all finite sums with and .[19] This operation is well-defined on classes because multiplying by a principal ideal does not change the class, and it is associative and distributive over addition in the ring of integers due to the underlying ring structure.[1] The identity element is the class of the ring of integers, and every element has an inverse , where is the inverse fractional ideal, satisfying .[19] In the special case of quadratic fields, the inverse class can be expressed using the conjugate ideal: , where is obtained by conjugating the generators of under the non-trivial Galois automorphism.[1] The group is abelian because ideal multiplication is commutative in Dedekind domains: .[19] Minkowski's geometry-of-numbers theorem implies that is finitely generated, as every ideal class contains an integral ideal of norm at most the Minkowski bound , where , is the number of complex places, and is the discriminant; thus, the classes of the finitely many prime ideals of norm at most generate the group.[19] In fact, is a finite abelian group, and by the fundamental theorem of finite abelian groups, it decomposes uniquely (up to isomorphism) as a direct sum of cyclic groups of prime-power order: .[1] For real quadratic fields with , a variant known as the narrow ideal class group is defined as the quotient , where is the group of fractional ideals and is the subgroup of principal ideals generated by totally positive elements (positive under both embeddings).[20] It inherits the same multiplication operation and inverses as , and is also a finite abelian group of the same form as a direct sum of cyclics; moreover, is the quotient of by a subgroup of index 1 or 2, depending on whether the unit group contains an element of norm .[20]Finiteness and Class Number
The finiteness of the ideal class group for a number field of degree follows from Minkowski's theorem in the geometry of numbers. This theorem implies that every ideal class contains an integral ideal with norm bounded by the Minkowski constant , where is the discriminant of and is the number of pairs of complex embeddings.[21] Since there are only finitely many integral ideals of norm at most , the class group must be finite.[22] The order of the ideal class group is called the class number . A number field has class number one if and only if its ring of integers is a principal ideal domain.[21] The Minkowski bound provides an explicit (though sometimes large) finite set of ideals to check when computing the class group, ensuring the process terminates.[23] An analytic expression for the class number arises from the residue of the Dedekind zeta function at : , where is the number of real embeddings, is the regulator of the unit group, and is the number of roots of unity in .[24] This formula connects the algebraic invariant to analytic data, with the residue computable via the Euler product decomposition of . For special cases like imaginary quadratic fields, it simplifies to , where is the quadratic Dirichlet character associated to and is the corresponding L-function.[25] While the classical Minkowski bound is ineffective for large discriminants due to the lack of explicit constants in some analytic estimates, effective upper bounds on can be derived under the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH), building on 1970s developments such as Goldfeld's methods linking class numbers to L-functions and elliptic curves.[26]Relations to Other Algebraic Structures
Connection to Units
The unit group of the ring of integers in a number field of degree , where is the number of real embeddings and the number of pairs of complex embeddings, is finitely generated by Dirichlet's unit theorem. Specifically, , where is the finite torsion subgroup consisting of the roots of unity in .[27][28] This structure provides a logarithmic embedding of the free part into , where the regulator is defined as the covolume of the image lattice, computed as the absolute value of the determinant of the matrix whose columns are the images of a basis of fundamental units under the map .[27][29] The ideal class group connects to the unit group through the analytic class number formula, which relates the order of the class group to the regulator and other arithmetic invariants of . The formula states that the residue at of the Dedekind zeta function is , where is the number of roots of unity and the discriminant of .[29] This intertwines the algebraic structure of ideals with the analytic properties of units, as the regulator encodes the "density" of units in the embedding space, influencing bounds and computations of the class number.[27] Units act on fractional ideals by multiplication, preserving the ideal class group structure since multiplying an ideal by a unit yields , where is principal, so in . This trivial action highlights that units do not distinguish ordinary ideal classes but play a role in the distinction between the ordinary class group and the narrow class group , which quotients ideals by principal ideals generated by elements with positive norm at all real places. The index divides 2 and equals 1 if the unit group contains units of all possible sign combinations at real embeddings (e.g., when a fundamental unit has norm in real quadratic fields); otherwise, it reflects limitations in the unit group's sign signatures.[30] In imaginary quadratic fields, where and , the unit group is with rank 0, so the connection to the class number is trivial beyond the factor in the class number formula, and .[27][29]Relation to the Picard Group
The Picard group of a commutative ring , denoted , is defined as the group of isomorphism classes of invertible -modules under the tensor product operation, where an invertible module is a finitely generated projective module of rank one.[31] This generalizes the ideal class group, as invertible modules correspond to projective ideals that are locally free of rank one.[32] For a Dedekind domain with field of fractions , the Picard group is canonically isomorphic to the ideal class group of fractional ideals of , where the isomorphism arises from the fact that every invertible ideal in a Dedekind domain is projective and the class group operation matches tensor product up to isomorphism.[31] In the specific case where is the ring of integers of a number field , this yields , providing a uniform framework that embeds the number-theoretic class group into commutative algebra. This relation extends beyond principal ideal domains to more general settings, such as non-maximal orders in number fields or arbitrary one-dimensional Noetherian domains, where the Picard group captures the structure of invertible modules while the classical ideal class group may not form a group or coincide with it.[33] For instance, in non-Dedekind domains, can be non-trivial even if the ring lacks unique factorization, highlighting differences from the fractional ideal classes. The Picard group thus serves as a broader invariant measuring deviations from principality. In algebraic geometry and function fields, the Picard group finds an analogy in the divisor class group of curves or function fields over a field , where for a curve is the group of divisor classes modulo principal divisors, mirroring how quotients fractional ideals by principals.[34] This correspondence underscores the analogy between number fields and function fields, with both structures classifying "line bundles" up to isomorphism: for where is a Dedekind domain, precisely classifies line bundles on the spectrum.[32] Moreover, in Dedekind domains, the Picard group being trivial (i.e., class number ) implies that is a principal ideal domain, as every invertible ideal is then principal.[31]Examples
Quadratic Fields
In quadratic number fields , where is a square-free integer not equal to 1, the ideal class group is closely related to the group of equivalence classes of binary quadratic forms of discriminant if , or otherwise. This connection arises from the bijection between proper equivalence classes of primitive binary quadratic forms of discriminant and the ideal classes in the ring of integers of . The group structure on these form classes is provided by Gauss's composition law, which defines a binary operation on pairs of forms yielding another form of the same discriminant, associative up to equivalence and forming an abelian group isomorphic to . The class number , the order of , equals the number of reduced binary quadratic forms of discriminant , where a form is reduced if and . Computational determination of for quadratic fields often relies on enumerating reduced forms or equivalent ideal reduction procedures. For real quadratic fields (), ideals are reduced using continued fraction expansions of , where the class group elements correspond to cycles in the continued fraction period, allowing explicit computation of the structure. For the 2-primary part in imaginary quadratic fields (), Gauss's genus theory classifies the 2-rank of in terms of the number of prime factors of the discriminant, providing a partial structure without full enumeration. The following tables summarize class numbers for selected quadratic fields with small square-free , using fundamental discriminants. For imaginary quadratic fields, only nine have , all listed; others show small values up to . For real quadratic fields, exceptions to begin at with ; the table covers selected square-free .[35][36]Imaginary Quadratic Fields (, )
| Discriminant | ||
|---|---|---|
| -1 | -4 | 1 |
| -2 | -8 | 1 |
| -3 | -3 | 1 |
| -7 | -7 | 1 |
| -11 | -11 | 1 |
| -19 | -19 | 1 |
| -43 | -43 | 1 |
| -67 | -67 | 1 |
| -163 | -163 | 1 |
| -5 | -20 | 2 |
| -6 | -24 | 2 |
| -10 | -40 | 2 |
| -13 | -52 | 2 |
| -14 | -56 | 4 |
| -15 | -15 | 2 |
| -21 | -84 | 4 |
| -22 | -88 | 2 |
| -23 | -23 | 3 |
| -29 | -116 | 6 |
| -31 | -31 | 3 |
| -34 | -136 | 4 |
| -35 | -35 | 2 |
| -37 | -148 | 2 |
| -38 | -152 | 6 |
| -39 | -39 | 4 |
| -46 | -184 | 4 |
| -47 | -47 | 5 |
| -51 | -51 | 2 |
| -53 | -212 | 6 |
| -55 | -55 | 4 |
| -58 | -232 | 2 |
| -59 | -59 | 3 |
| -61 | -244 | 6 |
| -62 | -248 | 8 |
| -65 | -260 | 8 |
| -69 | -276 | 8 |
| -70 | -280 | 4 |
| -71 | -71 | 7 |
| -73 | -292 | 4 |
| -74 | -296 | 10 |
| -77 | -308 | 8 |
| -78 | -312 | 4 |
| -79 | -79 | 5 |
| -82 | -328 | 4 |
| -83 | -83 | 3 |
| -85 | -340 | 4 |
| -87 | -348 | 6 |
| -89 | -356 | 12 |
| -91 | -91 | 2 |
| -93 | -372 | 4 |
| -94 | -376 | 8 |
| -95 | -95 | 8 |
| -97 | -388 | 4 |
Real Quadratic Fields (, )
| Discriminant | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 8 | 1 |
| 3 | 12 | 1 |
| 5 | 5 | 1 |
| 6 | 24 | 1 |
| 7 | 28 | 1 |
| 10 | 40 | 2 |
| 11 | 44 | 1 |
| 13 | 13 | 1 |
| 14 | 56 | 1 |
| 15 | 60 | 2 |
| 17 | 68 | 1 |
| 19 | 76 | 1 |
| 21 | 21 | 1 |
| 22 | 88 | 1 |
| 26 | 104 | 2 |
| 29 | 116 | 1 |
| 30 | 120 | 2 |
| 33 | 33 | 1 |
| 34 | 136 | 2 |
| 35 | 140 | 2 |
| 37 | 148 | 1 |
| 38 | 152 | 1 |
| 39 | 156 | 2 |
| 41 | 41 | 1 |
| 46 | 184 | 1 |
| 51 | 204 | 2 |
| 53 | 212 | 1 |
| 55 | 220 | 2 |
| 57 | 228 | 1 |
| 58 | 232 | 2 |
| 61 | 61 | 1 |
| 62 | 248 | 1 |
| 65 | 260 | 2 |
| 69 | 276 | 1 |
| 70 | 280 | 2 |
| 73 | 292 | 1 |
| 74 | 296 | 2 |
| 77 | 308 | 1 |
| 78 | 312 | 2 |
| 82 | 328 | 2 |
| 85 | 340 | 2 |
| 87 | 348 | 2 |
| 89 | 356 | 1 |
| 93 | 372 | 1 |
| 94 | 376 | 2 |
| 95 | 380 | 2 |
| 97 | 388 | 1 |
