Is the following proposition true? If yes, how would you prove this?

Proposition Let $k$ be an algebraic number field. Let $K$ be a finite abelian extension of $k$. Suppose every principal prime ideal of $k$ splits completely in $K$. Let $L$ be a finite extension of $k$. Let $E = KL$. Let $h'$ be the class number of $L$.

Then [$E : L$] | $h'$ and $E/L$ is unramified at every prime ideal of $L$.

Motivation I thought I could use this proposition to prove the following result.

On the class number of a cyclotomic number field of an odd prime order


Let $\mathcal{I}$ be the group of fractional ideals of $L$. Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the group of principal ideals of $L$. Let $\mathcal{H}$ = {$I \in \mathcal{I}$; $N_{L/k}(I)$ is principal}. Note that $\mathcal{H} \supset \mathcal{P}$. Then use the following two links.

Related questions

On a certain criterion for unramification of an abelian extension of an algebraic number field

Complete splitting of a prime ideal in a certain abelian extension of an algebraic number field

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the origin or background of this question? What have you done so far? Is it homework? How far have you got, and where are you stuck? $\endgroup$ – Old John Jul 26 '12 at 22:53
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, I down-voted this question as yet-another in a stream of these that strike me as not thought-through much. Only slightly facetiously, I'd wager I could write software to generate a huge number of not-trivial-to-answer questions in alg no th (akin to Gauss' disparagement of Fermat's "Last Theorem"). And, then, as a mathematician, my technical/aesthetic objection is that these questions "have no context", they are just shots-in-the-dark, disconnected. Each reasonable enough in isolation, but... consuming resources? A bit odd, actually. $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Jul 26 '12 at 23:52
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @Makato Kato, Yes, indeed, I have noted your many questions of late, and only after these observations do I comment. I am not happy saying negative things, but, if you'll pardon my advice, greater "coherence", or "sense of purpose" would make a better impression on people able to answer your questions. The parallel is not entirely clear, but in English, and several other European languages, there is a fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf": it is worth looking up, if one has not ever seen it, and there is a point, that others' interest/care can be worn down... and real issues eventually lost. $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Jul 27 '12 at 0:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @paulgarett Dear Paul Garett, The motivation for the above question is to find a relation between the class number of a cyclotomic number field and that of its subfield. Please check to see the content of the link in the Motivation section. Regards $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Jul 27 '12 at 6:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @paulgarett Dear Paul Garett, I added Motivation and Effort sections to explain my motivation and how the two links are related to the current question. Regards, $\endgroup$ – Makoto Kato Jul 27 '12 at 21:27

This is a direct application of class field theory. The assumption on $K$ implies that $K$ is contained in the Hilbert class field of $k$. Thus $E$ is contained in the Hilbert class field of $L$, and so $E$ is unramified over $L$, and $[E:L]$ divides the class number of $L$.


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.