# Discrete valuation ring associated with a prime ideal of a Dedekind domain

Let $A$ be a Dedekind domain. Let $K$ be the field of fractions of $A$. Let $P$ be a non-zero prime ideal of $A$. Let $v_P$ be the valuation of $K$ with respect to $P$. Then the localization $A_P$ of $A$ at $P$ is the valuation ring of $v_P$. How would you prove this?

• What's the reason for the downvote? Unless you make it clear, I cannot improve my question. Aug 17, 2012 at 6:07
• There are some people who don't like the OP answering the question. I beg those people to consider the following points. (1) A good question is a valuable asset of this site, not a liability. This is true regardless whether the OP knows the answer or not. The audience can learn reading a question and its answers. (2) There are almost always several different answers to a question. So even if the OP posts a correct answer, this does not necessarily mean that the thread is over. Aug 17, 2012 at 10:18
• (3) The OP's answer may not be perfect, may be wrong. (4) Answering one's own question is not only perfectly legitimate, but also encouraged in ths site. Aug 17, 2012 at 10:19
• I noticed that someone serially upvoted for my questions. While I appreciate them, I would like to point out that serial upvotes are automatically reversed by the system. Nov 27, 2013 at 7:05

The ring $A_P$ is a discrete valuation ring because it is a local Dedekind domain, and one can show that, in general, a Dedekind domain with finitely many primes is a principal ideal domain (the argument uses the CRT). It follows that any element $x\in K^\times$ can be uniquely written as $\pi^nu$ where $\pi\in A_P$ is a uniformizer and $u\in A_P^\times$. By definition, $v_P(x)=n$, so $v_P(x)\geq 0$ if and only if $n\geq 0$, if and only if $x\in A_P$.

Alternatively, the valuation ring of $v_P$ is clearly a local extension of $A_P$, and since $A_P$ is a discrete valuation ring itself, the two must coincide, since a valuation ring is maximal for the relation of domination on local subrings of $K$ with fraction field $K$.

• Could you explain why $v_P(x) = n$? Regards, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:43
• Let $\pi\in A$ be any element with $P$ exactly dividing $(\pi)$, i.e. $\pi\in P\setminus P^2$. Then $\pi$ will be a uniformizer in $A_P$, and $u$ is of the form $a/s$ with $a,s\in A\setminus P$. So $x=\pi^na/s$, and the definition of $v_P$ then gives $v_P(x)=nv_P(\pi)+v_P(a)-v_P(s)=n$. Aug 17, 2012 at 3:52
• I'm sorry but I need to ask you again. Could you explain why $\pi$ is a uniformizer in $A_P$? Regards, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:20
• Because we can write $(\pi)=PI$ where $I$ is an ideal prime to $P$. Then $\pi A_P=(PA_P)(IA_P)=(PA_P)A_P=PA_P$ is the maximal ideal of $A_P$. The reason $IA_P=A_P$ is that there is some $r\in I$ with $r\notin P$, and thus $r\in A_P^\times$, so $A_P=rA_P\subseteq IA_P$. Aug 17, 2012 at 4:23

Let $\pi \in P - P^2$. Let $a \in A -$ {$0$}. Suppose $v_P(a) = n$. We claim that there exist $t, s \in A$ such that $a = \pi^n t/s$ and both $t$ and $s$ are not divisible by $P$.

$aA = P^n I$, where $I$ is not divisible by $P$. $\pi^n A = P^n J$, where $J$ is not divisible by $P$.

By Chinese remainder theorem, there exists $s \in A$ such that

$s \equiv 0$ (mod $J$)

$s \equiv 1$ (mod $P$)

Then $sA = JM$, where $M$ is not divisible by $P$.

Since $(a/\pi^n)A = I/J$, $(sa/\pi^n)A = sI/J = JMI/J = MI$. Hence $saA = \pi^n MI$. Hence $sa = \pi^n t$, where $t \in A$ is not divisible by $P$. Then $a = \pi^n t/s$.

Let $\alpha \in K -$ {$0$}, $\alpha = a/b$ where $a, b \in A$. Suppose $v_P(\alpha) = n$. By the above result, $\alpha = \pi^n t/s$, where $t$ and $s$ are not divisible by $P$. Hence $v_P(\alpha) \geq 0$ if and only if $\alpha \in A_P$. This completes the proof.