2
$\begingroup$

Let $ \mathbb Q \subset K=\mathbb Q (\sqrt{-n}) \subset L $, where $K/ \mathbb Q $ is a finite extension (i.e. $K$ is a number field) and $L/K$ is a maximal uramified abelian extension. If $p \mathbb Z$ is a prime rational integer then :

Q $1$: What does it mean $p$ ramifies, splits, split completely in $K$ ?

Q $2$: What does it mean $p$ ramifies, splits, split completely in $L$

Basically, the question I have is: when we refer to $p$ we mean the ideal $(p):= p \mathbb Z $ ?

What I understand is that:

A $1$. We consider the ideal $p \mathfrak O_K$ of the ring of integers $\mathfrak O_K$ , and the behavior of $p$ refers to the behavior of this ideal.

A $2$.Similar we consider the ideal $p \mathfrak O_L$ of $\mathfrak O_L$.

Q 3: Why we don't write $ p \mathbb Z \mathfrak O_K $ ( and similar for $L$ )and we write just $ p \mathfrak O_K$ ?

I suppose that the fact that $L$ is maximal unramified abelian extension, doesn't play any role. I just put it like this, because it is how I find it in the context.

I would really appreciate if someone can verify that what I understanding is correct or not.

Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

One reason that one does not write $p \mathbb{Z} \mathfrak{O}_K$ is that it is somewhat redundant, since $\mathbb{Z} \mathfrak{O}_K = \mathfrak{O}_K$, so $p\mathbb{Z} \mathfrak{O}_K = p\mathfrak{O}_K$ anyway.

However, you have a point that it can be more systematic to talk consistently about ideals and not to indentifiy elements with the principal elements they generate.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your reply? So, what understand in Q.1 and Q.2 is correct right ? One last thing abour Q.2 : why we don't write $ p \mathfrak O_K \mathfrak O_L $ for the ideal in $ \mathfrak O_L$ ? It is the same thing that you wrote for $ \mathbb Z $ and $ \mathfrak O_K$ right ? $\endgroup$ – passenger May 6 '15 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ Yes you understand correctly. Yes, the reason is the same. More generally for any domains $R \subset S$ you have $RS = S$ so that $aRS = aS$. That is whether you consider the principlal ideal generated by $a$ in $S$ or the idea generated in $S$ by the principla ideal generated by $a$ in $R$ it is the same thing. Yet, some results you might have seen will fit better with the situation when you indeed think about the principla ideal generated by $p$ rather than the elemenet $p$. $\endgroup$ – quid May 6 '15 at 13:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your time ! $\endgroup$ – passenger May 6 '15 at 13:45
2
$\begingroup$

When referring to an element of a ring, such as $p\in \mathbb{Z}$, one simply writes the name of the element: $p$. When referring to the ideal generated by $p$, one can write either $(p)$ or $p\mathbb{Z}$, as you point out. Since the integers are a PID, it is fairly common to see the two notations conflated, although you must always be clear in your mind as to what you mean.

If $R$ is a ring and $x\in R$, then the principal ideal generated by $x$ is defined as $(x) = xR$; that is, $\{xr\,\mid\, r\in R\}$. In your case, where $R = \mathcal{O}_K$, we also have $p\in R$ since $\mathbb{Z}\subseteq \mathcal{O}_K$, so that $p\mathcal{O}_K$ is the principal ideal of $\mathcal{O}_K$ generated by $p$. Simply writing $(p)$ for this ideal is potentially (probably) confusing, so $p\mathcal{O}_K$ is much clearer.

And by the way, $p\mathbb{Z}\mathcal{O}_K = p\mathcal{O}_K$ (write out what each of these means in terms of element products if you don't see this), so what you write is correct but not normally done.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your reply and your time! $\endgroup$ – passenger May 6 '15 at 13:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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