2
$\begingroup$

At the momement, I'm trying to understand ramification in the context of Galois extensions and wanted to draw a connection between the different results I've found. However, somehow there must be some mistake/misconception in the following argument but I'm not able to find it.

Let $A$ be a Dedekind domain, $K$ its quotient field, $L/K$ a finite Galois extension and $\mathcal{O}_L$ the integral closure of $A$ in $L$. Moreover let $T_p$ be the inertia field of some non-zero prime ideal $p$ in $\mathcal{O}_L$ and $\mathcal{O}_T$ the integral closure of $T_p$ in $L$ and $p_T$ a non zero prime ideal in $\mathcal{O}_T$ such that $p_T=p \cap \mathcal{O}_T$. We then have that $p$ is the only prime lying above $p_T$.

From this I wanted to conclude: As $p$ is the only prime lying above $p_T$, we have $p_T\mathcal{O}_L=p$ as the decomposition of $p_T$ in $\mathcal{O}_L$, which would imply that $p_T$ is inert in $\mathcal{O}_L$ which again implies that the inertia degree $f(p/p_T)$ is $1$. This gives $1= f(p/p_T)=[\mathcal{K}(p) : \mathcal{K}(p_T)]$.

On the other hand, I have that $[\mathcal{K}(p) : \mathcal{K}(p_T)]= [L:T_p]=|I_p|$ with $I_p$ being the inertia group.

I'm sure that there must be some mistake as $|I_p|$ is for sure not always $1$.

Thank you very much for your help!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

When you say "As $p$ is the only prime lying above $p_T$, we have $p_T\mathcal{O}_L=p$", this is not correct.

Actually, we have $p_T\mathcal{O}_L=p^{e(p / p \cap K)}$. In other words, $p_T$ is totally ramified in $\mathcal O_L$.

Then $[K(p) : K(p_T)] = \sum_{i=1}^r e_i f_i = e(P/p) \cdot f(p/p_T) = e(P/p)$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here is what happens in general for abelian extensions: $p \cap K = p \cap O_K$ is totally split in the decomposition field, into primes which remain inert in the inertia field, and all these primes finally are totally ramified in $L$. $\endgroup$ – Watson Feb 7 '17 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I somehow forgot about the ramification degree. Just one more question to the definition of totally ramified: $p_T$ is totally ramified because I know that $f(p/p_T)$ is one and that $e(p/p_T)=e(p/p_0)$ for $p_0$ the prime ideal in K st $p \cap \mathcal{O}_K = p_0$? So the case that $e(p/p_T)$ respectively $e(p/p \cap K)$ is one could not happen? $\endgroup$ – SallyOwens Feb 8 '17 at 7:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SallyOwens : If $L/K$ is an extension of number fields, then a prime $p$ of $\mathcal O_K$ is totally ramified in $\mathcal O_K$ if $p\mathcal O_L = P^e$ where $P$ is a prime of $\mathcal O_L$ and $e = [L:K]$. Here we have $[L : T_p] = e(p/p_T)$ (totally ramified) and also $e(p/p_T) = e(p/p \cap \mathcal O_K)$ (this is another result). If $e(p/p \cap \mathcal O_K)=1$, then $L=T_p$ and $I_p$ is trivial, which is equivalent to saying that $p \cap K$ is not ramified in $L$. $\endgroup$ – Watson Feb 8 '17 at 9:19
  • $\begingroup$ @ Watson: Thank you! Just one more thing: In your first sentence, shouldn't it be "$p$ of $\mathcal{O}_K$ is totally ramified in $\mathcal{O}_L$" or am I missing something? $\endgroup$ – SallyOwens Feb 8 '17 at 11:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SallyOwens : I'm not sure what could be wrong in my first sentence. Are you talking about the second one? Anyway, here $p \subset O_L$, and $p_T \subset O_{T_p}$ and the claim is that $p_T$ is totally ramified in $O_L$. But $p \cap O_K \subset O_K$ doesn't have to be totally ramified in $O_L$ ! $\endgroup$ – Watson Feb 8 '17 at 12:19

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.