Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My question refers to the proof of Proposition 2.4, p. 341 in Lang's Algebra. Here is the context:

Let $A$ be an integral domain, integrally closed in its field of quotients $K$ and let $L$ be a finite Galois extension of $K$ with group $G$. Let $p$ be a maximal ideal of $A$ and let $\beta$ be a maximal ideal of $B$ that lies above $p$, i.e. $A \cap \beta=p$. Let $G_{\beta}$ be the subgroup of $G$ consisting of those automorphisms $\sigma$ such that $\sigma \beta = \beta$. Let $L^{dec}$ be the fixed field of $G_{\beta}$ in $L$ and let $B^{dec}$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $L^{dec}$. We know that $\beta$ is the only prime ideal of $B$ lying over $Q=\beta \cap B^{dec}$ in $B^{dec}$.

In the proof of Proposition 2.4, it is argued that for any $\sigma$ not inside $G_{\beta}$ we have that $Q_{\sigma} = \sigma^{-1} \beta \cap B^{dec} \neq Q$. This is true because if that was not the case, $\sigma^{-1} \beta$ would also lie above $Q$ and this is a contradiction because it would imply that $\beta = \sigma \beta$. Then the chinese remainder theorem is invoked to show the existence of a $y \in B^{dec}$ so that given $x \in B^{dec}$ we have that $y = x (mod Q)$ and $y = 1 (mod Q_{\sigma})$ for all $\sigma$ not inside $G_{\beta}$. To use the chinese remainder theorem, we need at least the ideals to be distinct. In particular we want $Q_{\sigma} \neq Q_{\tau}$ for any $\sigma, \tau$ not inside $G_{\beta}$. Why is that true?

My concern: consider $\sigma, \tau$ be distinct elements of $G$, not inside $G_{\beta}$ but inside the same coset of $G_{\beta}$ in $G$. Then $\sigma \beta = \tau \beta$ and consequently $Q_{\sigma} = Q_{\tau}$.


This is how his proof continues. There exists such a $y$ as above and so $y=x (mod \, \beta), y=1 (mod \, \sigma^{-1} \beta)$ for each $\sigma$ not in $G_{\beta}$. The second congruence gives $\sigma y=1 (mod \, \beta)$ for all $\sigma$ not in $G_{\beta}$. Taking the norm of $y$ from $L^{dec}$ to $K$ gives $N^{L^{dec}}_K=x (mod \, \beta)$. This later congruence is also true $mod \, B^{dec}$ and so $mod \, Q$, from which he concludes that $A/p = B^{dec} / Q$ (what we want to prove), since the norm is in $A$.

Any insights? Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
Your last point seems to hold-what you've shared so far doesn't obviously require the full strength of the claim in the last sentence of your last long paragraph, but only that $Q \neq Q_\sigma$ for $\sigma$ not in $G_\beta$. Then we'd be golden. But he explicitly wants to apply the crt to all the $Q_\tau$, not just these two? – Kevin Carlson Aug 2 '12 at 18:04
I think he wants to apply the CRT to all of the $Q_{\sigma}$, because he then takes the norm of $y$ which is the product of the $\sigma y$. – Manos Aug 2 '12 at 18:07
Well, I won't claim I've gotten the proof completely down, but in taking the norm of $y$ in $L^{dec}$ over $K$ he should only be taking the product of $\sigma y$ for $\sigma$ in $G/G_\beta$ the Galois group of $L$ over $K$. More specifically, we can get the condition on $y$'s congruences just from considering the conjugates of $Q$-since the congruences are certainly constant on conjugacy classes of $\sigma$. – Kevin Carlson Aug 2 '12 at 18:33
Can you explain this a little bit better, i am not following. By definition, the norm is the product of the $\sigma y$ for those $\sigma$ that are distinct embeddings of $L^{dec}$ over $K$. Maybe you are in the right path... – Manos Aug 2 '12 at 18:38
Ok, i see it now, the distinct embeddings of $L^{dec}$ over $K$ are precisely coset representatives of $G_{\beta}$, elements of $G/G_{\beta}$ as you say. So the question then boils down to the following: let $\sigma, \tau$ be distinct coset representatives of $G_{\beta}$. Why is it true that $Q_{\sigma} \neq Q_{\tau}$? If $Q_{\sigma}=Q_{\tau}$ then $\sigma \beta, \tau \beta$ must be conjugates by some element of $G_{\beta}$, say $\sigma \beta = \phi \tau \beta, \phi \in G_{\beta}$. Then... – Manos Aug 2 '12 at 18:46
up vote 2 down vote accepted

If $\tau ^{-1} \sigma \in G_\beta$ then we certainly have that $Q_\sigma = Q_\tau$ and it may be that $\tau, \sigma \notin G_\beta$. This is irrelevant to the proof, however. Say $Q_\sigma = Q_\tau$ and $y \equiv 1 \pmod{Q_\sigma}$. You don't need to use Chinese remainder theorem to say that $y \equiv 1 \pmod{Q_\tau}$. This is in fact, the same statement as the previous one.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.