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

The following is the statement from Algebraic Number Theory by Neukirch (Chapter 2 Proposition(7.7) p155)

Blockquote Suppose $K$ is Henselian field, $p=char(\kappa)$ , the character of the residue field of $K$ . A finite extension $L/K$ is tamely ramified if and only if the extension $L/T$ , ($T$ is the maximal unramified subextension of $L/K$ ) is generated by radicals $L=T(\sqrt[m_1]{a_1}\dots \sqrt[m_r]{a_r})$ , such that $(m_i,p)=1$ .

For "$\Rightarrow$" direction, the proof given in the book is correct, but it should be pointed out that "$a_i$"s come from $T$ .

The proof of "$\Leftarrow$ " direction is highly suspicious. First of all, what's the right statement? There are at least two ways:

(1) $K$ is a Heselian field, for $a_i \in K$ Let $L=K(\sqrt[m_1]{a_1}\dots \sqrt[m_r]{a_r}) \qquad (m_i,p)=1 \qquad p=char(\kappa)$ . Then $L/K$ is a tamely ramified extension.

(2) Same as (1) + $K$ is just the maximal unramified subextension of $L/K$ (i.e. $L/K$ is totally ramified ).

Does anyone know the proof of either statement? In addition, if $L/K$ happens to be a finite Galois extension (or maybe you only need simple extension), is it true $L=\sqrt[m]{a}$ form?

share|cite|improve this question
A little linguistic help, for non-experts in English. "tame ramification" and "tamely ramified". Adjective and adverb. – GEdgar Jun 7 '11 at 15:26
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The statement is just as Neukirch writes: an extension of the form $L = T(a_1^{1/m_1}, \ldots, (a_r)^{1/m_r})$, with $T/K$ unramified and the $a_i \in T$, is tamely ramified.

I don't see why you find it suspicious.

The proof is straightforward. First of all, we can enlarge $T$ by adjoining all the $m_i$th roots of $1$ (this gives an unramified extension of $T$, since the $m_i$ are prime to $p$, and since an unramified extension of an unramified extension is unramified, it also yields an unramified extension of $K$).

Now the extension $L$ is Galois (it is a compositum of Kummer extensions), so it suffices to show that if $T$ contains all the $m$th roots of $1$ (with $m$ prime to $p$), then $T(a^{1/m})$ is tamely ramified for any $a \in T$. But this is clear:

  1. Such an extension is cyclic of degree dividing $m$ (by Kummer theory), and so the inertia subgroup of the Galois group is also cyclic of order dividing $m$.

  2. Since $p \nmid m$, the inertia subgroup has order prime to $p$, and so the extension is tame, as claimed.

I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence.

By the way, this proposition is more-or-less how one thinks of tamely ramified extensions: they are what you get by making unramified extensions together with extracting prime-to-$p$ roots of arbitrary elements.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you! Your answer: "an extension of the form $L=T(\sqrt[m_1]{a_1},\dots \sqrt[m_r]{a_r} )$, with $T/K$ unramified and the $a_i \in T$, is tamely ramified." answered my question (1), but do you know in this case, whether $T$ is the maximal unramified subextension of $L/K$. – Li Zhan Jun 8 '11 at 2:54
@Li Zhan: Dear Li Zhan, It depends on the $a_i$. For example, if $a_i$ is a unit in the ring of integers of $T$, then $T(a_i^{1/m_i})$ is unramified over $T$. I suggest that you consider some concrete examples, e.g. $K = T = \mathbb Q_p$, and $L = \mathbb Q_p(a^{1/m})$ for various choices of $m$ and $a$. In this case, $L$ is totally ramified over $\mathbb Q_p$ precisely when the $p$-adic valuation of $a$ is coprime to $m$. Regards, – Matt E Jun 8 '11 at 4:21

To answer your second question, if $K$ is a local field (or more generally a complete DVR) and $L/K$ is finite and tamely ramified, then $L = T(\sqrt[e]{a})$ where $e$ is the ramification index of $L/K.$

To see this, let $\pi$ be a uniformizer in the ring of integers of $L.$ Then $L = T(\pi)$ and $irr(\pi,T)(X) = \sum_{i=0}^{i=e} a_i X^i$ is an Eisenstein polynomial over $\mathcal{O}_T.$ Let $$f(X) = X^e - \frac{a_0}{\pi^e}$$ and $$g(X) = \frac{irr(\pi,T)(\pi^eX)}{\pi^e}.$$ Then $f,g\in\mathcal{O}_L[X]$ and $f \equiv g \mod \mathcal{M}_L[X].$

It follows that $1$ is a root of the coordanatewise reduction of $f$ to $\mathcal{O}_L/\mathcal{M}_L.$ Furthermore, as $(e,p) = 1,$ we have

$$f'(1) \equiv e1^{e-1} \mod \mathcal{M_T} \not\equiv 0 \mod \mathcal{M_L}.$$

Therefore by Hansel's lemma, there exists a root $\gamma$ of $f$ in $\mathcal{O}_L.$

Considering the element $\gamma\pi,$ we observe it is a root of the Eisenstien polynomial $X^e-a_0$ over $\mathcal{O}_T$ and thus a uniformizer in $\mathcal{O}_L.$

It follows

$$L = T(\gamma\pi) = T(\sqrt[e]{a_0}).$$

share|cite|improve this answer
First, I apologize that I did not make the question clear. Here is the setup of the inverse direction: I have a field $K$, an unramified extension of $K$, which is $T$, and then one adjoints some radicals of elements from $T$, this field is denoted by $L$. The difference is that I do not know $T$ is the maximal unramified extension in priori. Second, I cannot see how you get the long expression in the sixth line: $e=[L:T]=\dots\dots$. – Li Zhan Jun 8 '11 at 3:02

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.