Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

I want to complete the proof of the following theorem. Here is what I have got so far:

Theorem Every non-euclidean valuation $v$ on a number field $K$ is equivalent to $v_{\mathfrak p}$ for some prime ideal $\mathfrak p$ of $\mathbb O_K.$

proof: Let $R_v$ be the valuation ring of $K$ w.r.t $v$ is integrally closed (by lemma 1) so it contains $\mathbb O_K$. The maximal idea $m_v$ is prime so $\mathfrak p = m \cap \mathbb O_K$ is a prime ideal of $\mathbb O_K$ by lemma 2. To show $v$ equal to $v_{\mathfrak p}$ we will show that $R_{v_{\mathfrak p}} \subseteq R_v$ which gives the equivalence by lemma 3. (But here I get stuck.. please tell me if you know how to finish or another way to prove this)

  • $\mathbb O_K$ is the ring of integers of $K$, those elements of $K$ which satisfy a monic irreducible polynomial with integer coefficients.
  • valuation ring: $R_v = \{ x \in K | v(x) \ge 0 \}$
  • maximal ideal: $m_v = \{ x \in K | v(x) > 0 \}$

Definition For a prime ideal $\mathfrak p$ of the ring of integers of a number field $K$ we define the valuation $v_{\mathfrak p}(x) =$ the exponent of $\mathfrak{p}$ in the factorization of the fractional ideal $x \mathbb O_K$ this is well defined by unique factorization of ideals.

Lemma (1) If $R$ is a valuation ring of $K$ then $R$ is integrally closed in $K$. (proof here)

Lemma (2) If $R$ is a subring of $R'$ and $m$ an ideal of $R'$ then $m \cap R$ is an ideal of $R$. Furthermore if $m$ is prime in $R'$ then $m \cap R$ is prime in $R$. (This is not hard if you just write out the definition of ideal and prove each property)

Lemma (3) if $R_u \subseteq R_v$ are valuation rings of $u,v$ then $u \equiv v$ (equivalence of valuations is defined here, I omitted the proof but I can add it if people ask).

I think the idea of the proof is to relate the valuations by relating the rings via their ideals. I was trying to do this by starting with $x \in \mathbb O_K$ we have $v(x) = 0$ implies $x \not \in m_v$ so $x \not \in \mathfrak p$ so $v_{\mathfrak p}(x) = 0$, but I need to prove something like this for all $v(\frac{x}{y})$.

Thanks for any hints or advice how to complete this proof.

share|cite|improve this question
What is exactly the question ? Proof of Lemma 3 or the inclusion $R_{v_p}\subseteq R_v$ ? – user18119 Nov 2 '12 at 22:09
@QiL, I have a proof lemma 3 and will post it if anyone wants. It's finishing the proof of the theorem that I cannot do. $R_{v_{\mathfrak p}} \subseteq R_v$ is just my idea so it might not work. (I couldn't make it work). – sperners lemma Nov 2 '12 at 22:11
Thanks for asking because other people might have skipped my question because of that confusion. – sperners lemma Nov 2 '12 at 22:11
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Note that $R_{v_{\mathfrak p}}$ is just the localization of $O_K$ at the maximal ideal $\mathfrak p$. So each of its element $x$ can be writen as $$x=a/s, \quad a\in O_K, s\in O_K\setminus \mathfrak p.$$ We have $v(s)\le 0$ because otherwise $s\in m_v\cap O_K=\mathfrak p$. So $v(x)\ge 0$ (because $a\in O_K\subseteq R_v$) and $x\in R_v$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much but how you know $v(x) = v(a/s) = v(a) - v(s) \ge 0$? Do we somehow know that $v(a) \ge 0$? (how?) – sperners lemma Nov 2 '12 at 22:27
@spernerslemma: see the edited answer. – user18119 Nov 2 '12 at 22:29
thank you again!! – sperners lemma Nov 2 '12 at 22:29
could we also say that $v(s) = 0$? – sperners lemma Nov 2 '12 at 22:32
@spernerslemma: yes, absolutely. – user18119 Nov 2 '12 at 22:37

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.