1
$\begingroup$

I'm working through Washington's "Cyclotomic Fields" and having a problem with the proof of Proposition 3.8, which states: Given an abelian group G, there is an everywhere-unramified extension of number fields $L/K$ such that $\text{Gal}(L/K)\cong G$.

The proof proceeds (roughly) as follows: Write $G=C_{n_1}\times\cdots\times C_{n_r}$ (a product of cyclic groups). Choose distinct primes $p_i\equiv 1\pmod{2n_i}$.

We may choose Dirichlet characters $\psi_i$ with conductor $p_i$ and order $p_i-1$, and define $\chi_i=\psi_i^{(p_i-1)/n_i}$. Since $(p_i-1)/n_i$ is even, we also have $\chi_i(-1)=1$. Additionally, we pick another odd prime $p_{r+1}$ and an odd Dirichlet character $\chi_{r+1}$ of conductor $p_{r+1}$. We now define a character: $$\chi=\chi_1\cdots\chi_{r+1},$$ and a group of characters $$X=\langle \chi_1,...,\chi_{r+1}\rangle$$ (as I understand, a subgroup of characters mod $p_1\cdots p_{r+1}$). Now $\chi$ has an associated field which we call $K$, and $X$ has a corresponding field $L$ containing $K$. The main observations are:

  1. $\chi(-1)=-1$, and it follows that $K$ has no real embeddings. Thus the archimedean primes of $K$ do not ramify in $L$.
  2. By a prior theorem, $L$ and $K$ have the same ramification indices at all primes $p \in \mathbf{Z}$. Thus $L/K$ is everywhere unramified.

I agree with the proof up to this point, but I don't understand why $\text{Gal}(L/K) \cong G$. According to Washington: $X$ is generated by $\{\chi_1,...,\chi_r,\chi\}$, so $$\text{Gal}(L/K) \cong X/\langle \chi\rangle \cong \langle \chi_1,...,\chi_r\rangle$$ which is then isomorphic to $G$. However, the last isomorphism doesn't make sense to me: if the $\chi_i$ have coprime orders, then $\chi$ generates $X$, which makes the quotient trivial.

Here's a specific example I'm working with: take $G$ cyclic of order 3, $p_1=7$, and pick $p_2=3$. We can easily obtain an even character $\chi_1$ mod 7 of order 3, and we only have one choice for $\chi_2$. Then $\chi$ clearly has order 6 and generates $X=\langle \chi_1,\chi_2 \rangle$. Thus we have $L=K$.

I'm sure there's a flaw in my understanding somewhere...could someone point me in the right direction?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Washington pg. 27 line 2: "We assume that the order $n_{r+1}$ of $\chi_{r+1}$ is divisible by $n_1, \dots, n_r$." $\endgroup$ – John M Jun 10 '16 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnM got it, thank you! This appears to be missing from my edition $\endgroup$ – user346992 Jun 10 '16 at 20:31
1
$\begingroup$

The 2nd edition of Washington states on pg. 27, line 2, "We assume that the order $n_{r+1}$ of $\chi_{r+1}$ is divisible by $n_1, \dots, n_r$." This is missing from the 1st edition.

$\endgroup$

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.