Consider the extension $\mathbb{Q}_{p}(\zeta)/\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, where $\zeta$ is a $n$-th primitive root of unity and $(n,p)=1$.

I want to show that $\mathbb{Q}_{p}(\zeta)/\mathbb{Q}_{p}$ is an unramified extension.

My attempt of understanding proof

Let $f\in\mathbb{Q}_{p}[x]$ be the minimal polynomial of $\zeta$ over $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$.

Question $(1)$. Is $f$ a polynomial with coefficientes actually in $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$? Why?

If the above is true, then the polynomial $\overline{f}$obtained by reducing coeficients modulo $p\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ is monic and vanishes at the image $\overline{\zeta}$ of the element $\zeta$ by the canonical homomorphism $\mathcal{O}\to\mathcal{O}/\beta$, where $\mathcal{O}$ (resp. $\beta$) is the valuation ring (resp. maximal ideal) of $\mathbb{Q}_{p}(\zeta)$. By the way, no doubt that $\zeta\in\mathcal{O}$.

If we show that $\overline{f}$ is irreducible, then it is the minimal polynomial of $\overline{\zeta}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{p}$. We know that $f$ is a primitive polynomial (since it is monic) and hence we can use Hensel's Lemma as a tool for that.

Namely, if $\overline{f}$ is a product of coprime polynomials $\overline{g}$, $\overline{h}\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[x]$, each of degree $>1$, then $f$ would be a product of polynomials $g$, $h\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}[x]$, each of degree >1, a contradiction.

However, we still need to prove that $\overline{f}$ is not a product of noncoprime polynomials.

Neukirch says that since $\overline{f}$ divides the coefficient-reduced modulo $p\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ separable polynomial $x^{n}-\overline{1}\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[x]$, this case cannot happen, but I don't understand this.

Question $(2)$. Why is $x^{n}-\overline{1}\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[x]$ a separable polynomial?

Question $(3)$. If $\overline{f}$ is separable, then can't it be a product of noncoprime polynomials?

If the above is cleared, then we actually confirmed that $\overline{f}$ is the minimal polynomial of $\overline{\zeta}$.

In particular, being irreducible gives us that $\operatorname{deg}(f)=\operatorname{deg}(\overline{f})$, which means

\begin{equation} [\mathbb{Q}_{p}(\zeta)\colon\mathbb{Q}_{p}]=\operatorname{deg}(f)=\operatorname{deg}(\overline{f})=[\mathbb{F}_{p}(\overline{\zeta})\colon\mathbb{F}_{p}]. \end{equation}

On the other hand, we have that

\begin{equation} [\mathbb{Q}_{p}(\zeta)\colon\mathbb{Q}_{p}]\geq [\beta\colon\mathbb{F}_{p}] \end{equation}

Putting these two together gives $\mathbb{F}_{p}(\overline{\zeta})=\beta$ and hence the extension is unramified.

Is this correct? Thank you advance for answering my above questions

EDIT. Can someone point out where we used that (n,p)=1?


Question (1). Yes.

Recall that $\zeta$ satisfies monic cyclotomic polynomial $\Phi(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x] \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_p[x]$. This means $\zeta$ is integral in $\mathbb{Q}_p(\zeta)$ over $\mathbb{Z}_p$. So its minimal polynomial must not only have coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}_p$ but be monic as well.

We can prove that if $f$ is monic and $\overline{f}$ is separable [this assumption means $\overline{f}$ makes sense which implies $f$ has integral coefficients] then $f$ must be separable as well. Suppose not, say $$f = (x - \alpha)^2 g$$ then $\alpha$ must be integral and $g$ must also have integral coefficients. So we have factorization $$\overline{f} = (x - \overline{\alpha})^2 \overline{g}$$ which contradicts separability of $\overline{f}$. Note that this reduction only makes sense because $\alpha$ is integral and $g$ have integral coefficient.

Question (2). Use $\gcd(n,p) = 1$ to deduce that the derivative is co-prime with the polynomial.

Question (3). Obviously. If $f = g h$ with $g, h$ non co-prime then roots of $\gcd(g, h)$ will have multiplicities $\geq 2$ in $f$ so $f$ cannot be separable.


This follows from a more general result about unramified extensions: The finite extension $F/\mathbb{Q}_p$ is unramified when you can write $F=\mathbb{Q}_p(\alpha)$ so that $\alpha$ is a root of a monic polynomial $f(x) \in \mathbb{Z}_p[x]$ and $\overline{\alpha}$ is a simple root of $\overline{f}(x) \in \mathbb{F}_p[x]$.

You can find this theorem on any text about algebraic number theory. The point is that $\zeta$ satisfies $x^n-1$ and when $(n,p)=1$ the polynomial $x^n-1$ has no repeated root modulo $p$: because $n t^{n-1} \neq 0$ when $t^n=1$.

  • $\begingroup$ If $f(x)\in\mathbb{Q}_{p}[x]$, then how come $f\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[x]$? I believe you meant that this result is valid only for monic polynomials $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}[x]$, right? of course, those that satisfy what you said. Isn't irreducibility needed? If we had a polynomial $f(x)\in\mathbb{Q}_{p}[x]$ monic and irreducible, it would have coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ or not necessarily? This is my question $(1)$ above. $\endgroup$ – Shoutre Nov 6 '15 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I edited my answer. The irreducibility is not needed. $\endgroup$ – Mehdi Tavakol Nov 6 '15 at 16:12

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.