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

I have been trying to plough through this paper by Elia, Interlando and Rosenbaum, and there is something that I don't quite understand. In proving a structure theorem for residue rings of unramified primes, they prove that a given residue ring of a prime ideal, $\zeta(\beta^a)$ is isomorphic additively to some ring, say $A$, and then that its group of units is isomorphic to $A^{(x)}$. This apparently suffices to prove the structure theorem.

Why is this?

Looking through the stackexchange archives this doesn't to always be true in general: Does a finite ring's additive structure and the structure of its group of units determine its ring structure? What's different here?

share|cite|improve this question
I read through this and I'm a bit hung up on Thm 5 as well. In general, isomorphisms should be proven with actual maps. – John M Aug 7 '11 at 13:31

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.