2
$\begingroup$

I was reading local Kronecker–Weber theorem implies global one in a course manual, but there's some parts I don't understand:

Assume local Kronecker–Weber theorem, that is , every finite abelian extension of $\mathbb Q_p$ lies in a cyclotomic field $\mathbb Q_p(\zeta_m).$

Now let $K/\mathbb Q$ be a finite abelian extension, for each ramified prime $p$ of $\mathbb Q$, pick a prime $\mathfrak p|p$ in $K$ and let $K_{\mathfrak p}$ be its completion. The extension $K_{\mathfrak p}/\mathbb Q_p$ is finite abelian (its galois group is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\mathrm {Gal}(K/\mathbb Q)$ by previous theorem), then by assumption $K_{\mathfrak p}\subset \mathbb Q_p(\zeta_{m_p})$ for some integer $m_p\geq 1$. Now let $e_p=v_p(m_p)$ and let $m = \prod_p p^{e_p}$.(this is finite since it ranges over ramified primes)

Let $L=K(\zeta_m)$, then $L$ is Galois and abelian.(Since its Galois group is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\mathrm{Gal(K/\mathbb Q)}\times\mathrm{Gal}(\mathbb Q(\zeta_m)/\mathbb Q)$). Let $\mathfrak q$ be a prime of $L$ lying above one of our choosen $\mathfrak p|p$, then the completion $L_\mathfrak q$ is a finite abelian extension of $\mathbb Q_p$.

Let $F$ be the maximal unramified extension of $\mathbb Q_p$ in $L_\mathfrak q$(it's the union of all $E \subset L_\mathfrak q$ with $E$ finite unramified over $\mathbb Q_p$), Then $L_\mathfrak q/F$ is totally ramified, so its Galois group is isomorphic to the inertia group $I_{\mathfrak q}$. The field $F$ contains roots of unity $\zeta_n$ for all $n|m$ not divisible by $p$ (because extensions $\mathbb Q_p(\zeta_n)$ are all unramified), so $L_\mathfrak q = F(\zeta_m) = F(\zeta_{p^{e_p}})$.

My question is, why in the last paragraph $L_\mathfrak q = F(\zeta_m)$?

We have $L_\mathfrak q = K_\mathfrak p(\zeta_m)\subset \mathbb Q_p(\zeta_{m_p}, \zeta_m)\subset F(\zeta_{m_p}, \zeta_m)= F(\zeta_{m_p}, \zeta_{p^{e_p}})= F(\zeta_{m_p})$ clearly, but this is not the result I want so I don't know how to proceed.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

"Your" notations are a bit confusing, but let us keep them, just adding $m'=m/p^{e_p}$, so that $p \nmid m'$. Then known classical results on cyclotomic extensions assert that $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_m)/\mathbf Q_p$ is the compositum of the two linearly disjoint extensions $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{m'})$ and $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{p^{e_p}})$. In the same way, $L_\mathfrak q=K_\mathfrak p(\zeta_m)$ is the compositum of $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{p^{e_p}})$ and $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{m''})$ (containing $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{m'})$), with $p\nmid m''$. Concerning ramification, the branch $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{p^{e_p}})/\mathbf Q_p$ is totally ramified, whereas the branches $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{m''})/\mathbf Q_p$ and $L_\mathfrak q/\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{p^{e_p}})$ are unramified, so that $Gal(L_\mathfrak q /\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{m''}))\cong Gal(\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_m)/\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{m'}))\cong Gal(\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{p^{e_p}})/\mathbf Q_p)$ and the corresponding extensions are totally ramified.

By the above, the inertia subfield $F$ (bad notation, there should be an index indicating that this is a local field) coincides with $\mathbf Q_p (\zeta_{m''})$, and $L_\mathfrak q=F(\zeta_m)=F(\zeta_{p^{e_p}})$ . NB: things get clearer with a Galois diagram.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

This is a general result from the general theory of local number fields. Let $K$ be a number field and let $K(\alpha)/K$ be a finite extension of degree $n$. Let $p$ be a prime in $K$ and let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a prime above $p$ in $K(\alpha)$. Write $L=K(\alpha)$. Then $$L_{\mathfrak{p}}=K_{p}(\alpha),$$ where $K_{p}$ is the completion of $K$ at the prime $p$ and $L_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is the completion of $L$ at the prime $\mathfrak{p}$. To show this note first that $K_{p}(\alpha)\subseteq L_{\mathfrak{p}}$ because $\alpha\in L\subseteq L_{\mathfrak{p}}$ and $K_{p}\subseteq L_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Conversely, any element of $a\in L_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a Cauchy-sequence of elements of $K(\alpha)$, say $(a_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ with $a_{i}\in K(\alpha)$. Then we can write $$a_{i}=\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}b_{ij}\alpha^{j},$$ where $b_{ij}\in K$. Then $(b_{ij})_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a Cauchy-sequence w.r.t. to $v_{\mathfrak{p}}$ for each $j$ and therefore also a Cauchy-sequence w.r.t. to $v_{p}$ because $C\cdot v_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is an extension of $v_{p}$ for some positive constant $C$. Hence each sequence $(b_{ij})_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges in $K_{p}$ and we conclude that the limit of $(a_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges in $K_{p}(\alpha)$, i.e. $a\in K_{p}(\alpha)$, so $L_{\mathfrak{p}}\subseteq K_{p}(\alpha)$, whence $L_{\mathfrak{p}}=K_{p}(\alpha)$.

The proof also works in the case where $L=K(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n})$ to show that $L_{\mathfrak{p}}=K_{p}(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n})$ but do note that the $\alpha_{i}$ might not be linearly independent over $K_{p}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ My question is why $F(\zeta_m)=L_{\mathfrak q}$? $\endgroup$ – CYC Sep 12 '18 at 6:13
  • $\begingroup$ @CYC Ah, sorry, I guess I was too sleepy when reading your question. $\endgroup$ – YumekuiMath Sep 13 '18 at 8:05
0
$\begingroup$

It's known that $\mathbb Q_p(\xi_{m'})$ is unramified over $\mathbb Q_p$ for $m'$ not divisible by $p$, so write $m_p =p^{e_p}m'$, we have $\mathbb Q_p (\xi_{m'})\subset F$, hence $F( \xi_{p^{e_p}})=F(\xi_{p^{e_p}},\xi_{m'})\supset \mathbb Q_p(\xi_{m_p})\supset K_p$.

Now $L_q\supset F(\xi_{p^{e_p}})=F(\xi_{p^{e_p}}, \xi_m)\supset K_p(\xi_m) = L_q$, so it's done.

$\endgroup$

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.