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

Proposition Let $K$ be an algebraic number field. Let $L/K$ be a finite Galois extension. Let $A$ and $B$ be the rings of algebraic integers in $K$ and $L$ respectively. Let $G$ be the Galois group of $L/K$. Let $C$ be a subring of $B$ such that $A \subset C \subset B$. Suppose $\sigma(C) = C$ for every $\sigma \in G$. Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a prime ideal of $A$. By the lying-over theorem, there exists a prime ideal $\mathfrak{P}$ of $C$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}$. Let $H$ = {$\sigma \in G$; $\sigma(x) \equiv x$ (mod $\mathfrak{P}$) for all $x \in C$}. Suppose $H = 1$. Then $\mathfrak{p}$ is unramified in $L$.

Motivation Let $K, A, L, B$ be as above. Let $n = [L : K]$. Let $f(X)$ be a monic polynomial of degree $n$ in $A[X]$. Suppose that $f(X)$ has no multiple roots. Suppose $L/K$ is the splitting field of $f(X)$. Let $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$ be the roots of $f(X)$. Let $C = A[\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n]$. Then $C$ satisfies the conditions of the above proposition. Sometimes it's easy to verify $H = 1$. Hence we can conclude that $\mathfrak{p}$ is unramified in $L$.

Application Let $f(X)$ be a monic polynomial of degree $n$ in $\mathbb{Z}[X]$. Let $d$ be the discriminant of $f(X)$. Suppose $d \neq 0$. Let $L$ be the splitting field of $f(X)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. Let $G$ be the Galois group of $L/\mathbb{Q}$. Let $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$ be the roots of $f(X)$ in $L$. Let $C = \mathbb{Z}[\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n]$. Let $p$ be a prime number not dividing $d$. Let $P$ be a prime ideal of $C$ lying over $p$. Let $H$ = {$\sigma \in G$; $\sigma(x) \equiv x$ (mod $P$) for all $x \in C$}. Let $\sigma \in G -$ {1}. There exists $i$ such that $\sigma(\alpha_i) \neq \alpha_i$. Since the discriminant of $f(X)$ is not divisible by $P$, $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$ are distinct mod $P$. Hence $\sigma$ does not belong to $H$. Hence $H = 1$. Hence $p$ is unramified in $L$ by the above proposition.

Example Let $f(X) = X^3 + 2X + 1 \in \mathbb{Z}[X]$. Let $L$ be the splitting field of $f(X)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. The discriminant of $f(X)$ is -59, where 59 is a prime number. Hence if $p \neq 59$ is a prime number, $p$ is unramified in $L$ by the above result.

Let $K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-59})$. The class number of $K$ is 3. $L/K$ is an abelian extension of degree 3. By the above result, the only prime number which can be ramified in $L$ is 59. It can be proved by another method that a prime of $K$ lying over 59 is unramified in $L$. Hence $L$ is the Hilbert class field of $K$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl and others, I opened a meta on this. Let us discuss there. Here is the link: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/4936/… $\endgroup$ Aug 17, 2012 at 22:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PualGarret Dear Paul Garrett, There is always a prime of $C$ lying over a prime of $A$ by the lying-over theorem. Regards, $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2012 at 0:01
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ As a graduate student who works in algebraic number theory, I really don't see how this is any more "localized" than any number of other questions on this site, including many questions I've asked. I personally do not know the answer to the question, and have not thought about it, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable question for this site. $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2012 at 3:00
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl Please keep in mind that the charter of MSE is to welcome mathematical questions at all levels. This includes questions that may be of interest to a minority of our members. Please don't vote to close these questions for reasons of topicality. $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2012 at 3:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @All Please refrain from discussing meta-level matters on the main site. There is now a meta thread on this topic. Please continue any non-mathematical discussion there. $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2012 at 3:23

2 Answers 2


Not an answer, but too long to fit into a comment. Clearly the assumption, $H=1$, implies that the field of fractions $F$ of the intermediate ring $C$ is all of $L$, for otherwise $Gal(L/F)$ would be a non-trivial subgroup of $H$.

Assume that $\mathfrak{P}=\mathfrak{P}_B\cap C$ for some prime ideal $\mathfrak{P}_B$ (necessarily lying over $\mathfrak{p}$). Let $G_T=G_T(\mathfrak{P}_B\vert\mathfrak{p})$ be the corresponding inertia group: $$ G_T=\{\sigma\in G\mid \sigma(\mathfrak{P}_B)=\mathfrak{P}_B,\ \forall\,x\in B: \sigma(x)\equiv x\pmod{\mathfrak{P}_B}\}. $$

Assume that $\sigma\in G_T$. Let $x\in C$ be arbitrary. Then $\sigma(x)-x\in C$ and $\sigma(x)-x\in\mathfrak{P}_B$, so $\sigma(x)-x\in C\cap\mathfrak{P}_B=\mathfrak{P}$. Therefore $\sigma\in H$.

As we work under the assumption that $H$ is trivial, we can conclude that $G_T=1.$ Therefore $$ e(\mathfrak{P}_B\vert \mathfrak{p})=|G_T|=1. $$ So $\mathfrak{P}_B\vert \mathfrak{p}$ is unramified, and the claim follows (by Galois theory of number fields the ramification indices over all the primes extending $\mathfrak{p}$ are equal).

So the question is reduced to asking whether all the primes of $C$ lying over $\mathfrak{p}$ are gotten by restricting a prime of $B$. The mapping from the primes of $B$ to those of $C$ is not necessarily injective, but the question is about its surjectivity. Edit: Makoto Kato points out that as $B$ is the integral closure of $C$, the surjectivity follows from general theory.

As an example of the case, where this mapping is not injective I proffer $K=\mathbb{Q}$, $L=K[\sqrt3]$, $\mathfrak{p}=13$, $C=\mathbb{Z}[13\sqrt3]$. The prime $13$ splits in $L$ as $$ 13=(4+\sqrt3)(4-\sqrt3), $$ but both prime ideals, $\langle4+\sqrt3\rangle$ and $\langle4-\sqrt3\rangle$ of $B$ intersect $C$ in $$ \mathfrak{P}=\{a+b\cdot13\sqrt3\mid a,b\in\mathbb{Z},\ a\equiv0\pmod{13}\}. $$

Anyway, my (possibly confused) thinking here is that $G_T$ would always inject into $H$. For an automorphism to be in $G_T$ we are to some extent asking more (in comparison to $H$), so if we can ascertain a trivial inertia group at the level of $C$, we should expect a trivial inertia group at the level of $B$ as well.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Since $B$ is integral over $C$, there exists a prime ideal $\mathfrak{P}_B$ of $B$ lying over $\mathfrak{P}$. So I think your answer solved the question. $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2012 at 8:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oops :-) ${}{}{}$ $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2012 at 8:52

If, as is apparently the case, the goal is a criterion for non-ramification in the actual ring of integers of a field extension $K/k$, perhaps Galois, the intermediate object $\mathfrak o_k[\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n]$ need not be a ring, and we need not address questions of ideal theory there. Namely, to my mind, the convenient point is that ramified primes divide the different, whose norm is the discriminant. A discriminant is defined for any $\mathfrak o_k$-submodule, not only subring, of $\mathfrak o_K$, and is divisible by the true discriminant.

Thus, in many examples of interest, one computes the discriminant of an obvious $\mathfrak o_k$-sublattice of $\mathfrak o_K$, finds that a prime $\mathfrak p$ of $\mathfrak o_k$ already does not divide that discriminant, so can't divide the true discriminant, so no prime lying over it can divide the different.

The discriminants themselves, being determinants, have useful short-cuts for their computation, depending on the specifics of the situation.

Edit: an easy example... in $\mathbb Q({\root 3 \of 10})$, letting $\alpha$ be a cube root of $10$, the obvious subring $\mathbb Z[\alpha]$ happens not to be the integral closure. Nevertheless, the discriminant of this lattice, $\det\pmatrix{1 & \alpha & \alpha^2\cr 1 & \omega\alpha & \omega^2\alpha^2 \cr 1 & \omega^2\alpha & \omega\alpha^2}=\alpha^3\cdot (\omega-1)(\omega^2-1)$. Thus, the only possible ramification is at $3$ and $10=2\cdot 5$.

Even better known is the discussion of quadratic extensions over $\mathbb Q$, where $2$ is certainly not always ramified, and, indeed, is unramified when the ring of integers is index-two larger than one might have naively though, e.g., includes ${1+\sqrt{d}\over 2}$.

I'm certainly not claiming that every discriminant is this easily evaluated!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand how your method proves the fact described in the application above. Regards, $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2012 at 21:14

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.