I have a question about this thread on MO, in which it is written in the answer:

Here is a simple example: take $K_1=\mathbb{Q}(i)$ and $K_2=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$. Then both $K_1/\mathbb{Q}$ and $K_2/\mathbb{Q}$ are (totally) ramified at $p=2$ and $K_1\cap K_2=\mathbb{Q}$, but $F=K_1K_2$ is not totally ramified at $2$. […]

[We have] $I_1=D_1=G_1$ and $I_2=D_2=G_2$ (in your notation) but […] the inertia in the compositum has order $2$ […].

I don't understand why the inertia in the compositum has order $2$. According to Ribenboim, Classical Theory of Algebraic Numbers, chapter 14, proposition E, p. 263, we have :

Let $K \subset F,F' \subset L=FF'$ be number fields such that $F/K$ and $F'/K$ are Galois. If $F \cap F' = K$ then $$I_P(L/K) \cong I_{P \cap F}(F/K) \times I_{P \cap F'}(F'/K)$$ and $$D_P(L/K) \cong D_{P \cap F}(F/K) \times D_{P \cap F'}(F'/K)$$

where $P$ is a prime of $L$ above a prime $\mathfrak p$ of $K$, $I(\cdot)$ is the inertia group, and $D(\cdot)$ the decomposition group.

Maybe the answer on MO was focused on $K_1K_2/K_2$, because when he is writing "the inertia in the compositum has order $2$", it can't be talking about $I_P(K_1K_2/\Bbb Q)$ which has order $4$ by Ribenboim's theorem. Or am I wrong somewhere?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think "this is wrong in general" is a reference to the fact that the Galois group of a compositum is not a product in general (i.e. the trivial intersection property is needed here). "Trivial" here means they intersect in the base field under consideration, not necessarily $\Bbb Q$. $\endgroup$ – Adam Hughes Jan 5 '17 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ @AdamHughes : yes maybe. But how do you understand "in the first case the inertia in the compositum has order 2" in the answer? $\endgroup$ – Watson Jan 5 '17 at 15:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The counterexample is definitely correct - $\mathbb Q(i, \sqrt{-5})$ is not totally ramified over $\mathbb Q$ since it is unramified over $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{-5})$, and hence the inertia group must have order $2$. Are you sure you have written the theorem correctly? $\endgroup$ – Mathmo123 Jan 5 '17 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Mathmo123, thank you for your comment. You can read here the original version in Ribenboim's book. This is really confusing... I don't know what I've made wrong, this is probably silly…! $\endgroup$ – Watson Jan 5 '17 at 18:38
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think something is wrong in Ribenboim. Ramification degree (as well as inertia degree) is multiplicative in a tower of extensions, but not in a compositum. Also, $D_P(L/K)/I_P(L/K)$ is always cyclic because it is isomorphic to the Galois group of the extension of residue class fields (cyclic of order $f$). However, the boxed claims seem to indicate otherwise. Hope you get this sorted out! I am not fully conversant with decomposition/inertia groups in the first place. It is easy to misinterpret something about them. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 5 '17 at 23:13

I think there is the following weakness in Ribenboim's argument.

The context is that $L/K$ is the compositum of two trivially intersecting Galois extensions $F/K$ and $F'/K$. Then we know that $$Gal(L/K)\simeq Gal(F/K)\times Gal(F'/K),$$ where the isomorphism maps an automorphism $\sigma\in Gal(L/K)$ to its restrictions $(\sigma\vert_F,\sigma\vert_{F'})$.

On the first lines of page 264 he explains how the restriction homomorphism maps $D_P(L/K)$ onto $D_{P\cap F}(F/K)$ as well as onto $D_{P\cap F'}(F'/K)$. I think this is all well and correct. However, this does NOT imply that we would have $$ D_P(L/K)\simeq D_{P\cap F}(F/K)\times D_{P\cap F'}(F'/K). $$

He then simply states that the argument with inertia groups is done similarly.

Essentially Ribenboim seems to be arguing as if the following "Lemma" would hold.

False claim: Let $G=G_1\times G_2$ be a direct product of groups. Let $p_i:G\to G_i$ be the canonical projection, $i=1,2$. Then for all subgroups $H\le G$ we have $H=p_1(H)\times p_2(H)$.

Counterexample: Let $G_1=G_2=C_2$. Let $H$ be the diagonal subgroup. Then $H$ is also cyclic of order two as are the homomorphic images $p_1(H)$ and $p_2(H)$.

The given counterexample about inertia groups of the rational prime $p=2$ in the case $K=\Bbb{Q}$, $F=\Bbb{Q}(i)$, $F'=\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$, $L=\Bbb{Q}(i,\sqrt5)$ then parallels this counterexample precisely. In this case the inertia subgroup of the unique prime ideal above $(2)$ of $L$ is the diagonal subgroup of $Gal(F/K)\times Gal(F'/K)$ under the above identifcations.

I don't have a copy of that book, so I cannot say whether this has dire consequences for the rest of the material. It may well be that a corrected version of the above False Claim saves the day on some occasions. We always have the inclusions $$ (H\cap G_1)\times (H\cap G_2)\le H\le p_1(H)\times p_2(H), $$ and it may sometimes be possible to work with the intersections $H\cap G_i$ or combinations like $p_1(H)\times (H\cap G_2)$ instead. I am not sure.

  • $\begingroup$ I am fairly sure that this and related fallacies about subgroups of a direct product have been discussed on our site earlier. A moment's search gave me this, where the answer describes the correct version of the false claim. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 8 '17 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your answer! Do you know what to do in such situations, in order to possibly correct this false claim in a new edition of the book (the copy I have is already the 2nd edition…)? Is it possible (and a good idea) to contact Springer (or someone else) about that, for instance? Apparently, this flaw has no consequences for the rest of the material. $\endgroup$ – Watson Jan 8 '17 at 9:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know what is best. I am considering asking my own teachers (Tauno Metsänkylä in particular) for consultation and/or verification. Ribenboim himself is approaching 90, so contacting him may not be prudent. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 8 '17 at 10:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Watson: Prof. Metsänkylä told me that he is regularly in touch with one of Ribenboim's students. He will bring this up in his next e-mail. We may hear if an errata has been published somewhere, or whether a new edition/printing is being planned. I will keep you posted. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 11 '17 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for this information! I'm looking forward for any news. $\endgroup$ – Watson Jan 11 '17 at 13:41

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.