Definition Let $G_K$ be the absolute Galois group of a local field $K$. We will call a group homomorphism $\chi: G_K \to \mathbb{C}^*$ with finite image a character on $K$.

Since every finite subgroup of $\mathbb{C}^*$ is cyclic, it is generated by a primitive root of unity. So in our case, every character $\chi$ corresponds to a unique cyclic Galois extension $F/K$ of degree $n$, the cardinality of the image of $\chi$, and an isomorphism $$\bar{\chi}: \operatorname{Gal}(F/K) \xrightarrow{\sim} \langle \xi_n \rangle \subseteq \mathbb{C}^*$$ where $\xi_n$ is a primitive $n$-th root of unity.

Let $\chi$ be a character which is induced by a cyclic Galois extension $F/K$ with prime power degree. Furthermore, let $\operatorname{Frob}_K$ be a Frobenius element in $G_K$, i.e. an element whose image is $x \mapsto x^{|\kappa(K)|}$ under the restriction homomorphism $G_K \to G_{\kappa(K)}$ where $\kappa(K)$ is the residue field of $K$. By $F^{nr}$, we denote the maximal unramified subextension of $F/K$.

I want to show that the following statements are equivalent:

  1. $F/K$ is totally ramified,
  2. $F^{nr} = K$,
  3. the image of $\operatorname{Frob}_K$ in $\operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$ is the identity element,
  4. $\chi(\operatorname{Frob}_K)=1$.

I think I was able to show the equivalences 1. $\Leftrightarrow$ 2. and 3. $\Leftrightarrow$ 4., so I am interested in the characterization from 1./2. to 3./4 and vice versa.


  • $\bar{\chi}$ is injective on $\operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$.
  • The image of $\operatorname{Frob}_K$ under $G_K \to \operatorname{Gal}(F/K) \simeq G_K/\operatorname{Gal}(\bar{K}/F)$ is the Frobenius element in $\operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$ (Usually, a Frobenius element is unique up to conjugacy. But since $F/K$ is cyclic, it is unique indeed.). It should be the generator of $\operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$.
  • The inertia subgroup $I_{F/K}$ of $\operatorname{Gal}(F/K)$ is the unique cyclic subgroup of order $e$, the ramification index of $F/K$.
  • We can identify $\operatorname{Gal}(F/K)/I_{F/K}$ with $\operatorname{Gal}(F^{nr}/K)$. A generator of this group is the image of $\operatorname{Frob}_K$, I think.

Could you please help me to establish the remaining connections? Thank you!

Edit: I found a crucial mistake! $F/K$ must have prime power degree, otherwise the equivalences won't work!

  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb C^*$ isn't cyclic, it is true that its finite subgroups are (as it's a field), but there are a huge number of completely independent elements. $\endgroup$ – Alex J Best Oct 28 '18 at 1:08
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexJBest: Thanks, I fixed that! I'm still not able to find a good way to show that $\mathbb{C}^\times$ is not cyclic though. $\endgroup$ – Diglett Oct 28 '18 at 6:52
  • $\begingroup$ @reuns: Let $\varphi: G_K \to G_{\kappa(K)}$ be the restriction homomorphism where $\kappa(K)$ is the residue field of $K$. A Frobenius element is any element $\operatorname{Frob}_K$ in $G_K$ such that $\varphi(\operatorname{Frob}_K): x \mapsto x^{|\kappa(K)|}$. I think I mentioned it in the post, maybe I have not emphasized enough that it is arbitrarily chosen. Let me see how I can improve my post. Could you let me know which part was not exact enough? $\endgroup$ – Diglett Oct 28 '18 at 7:29
  • $\begingroup$ The unramified extensions are obtained by adjoining the primitive roots of $x^{q^m}-x$. With that unique Frobenius it seems you are thinking that $O_F = \{ \sum_{j \ge 0} \zeta^{n_j}\, \pi^j\}$ with $\zeta$ a primitive root of $x^{q^m}-x$ and $Frob_K$ restricted to $F$ being $\phi(\sum_{j \ge 0} \zeta^{n_j} \pi^j) = \sum_{j \ge 0} \zeta^{qn_j} \pi^j$. If it is the case, you should try constructing such a $\pi$ and see what you get (what is $\phi$'s fixed field ?) $\endgroup$ – reuns Oct 28 '18 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ @reuns: Where does $O_F$ all of the sudden come from? And what does the set have to do with all of this? $\endgroup$ – Diglett Oct 29 '18 at 17:11

Your notation $F^{nr}$ = maximal unramified subextension of $F/K$ is awful. I even suspect it's at the origin of your trouble (see below). I'll not use it and introduce instead $K_{nr}$ = maximal unramified extension of $K$, so that your $F^{nr}$ is $K_{nr} \cap F$. Then :

Equivalence 1./2. For any finite extension $F/K$, practically by definition, $F/(K_{nr} \cap F)$ is totally ramified, so $K=(K_{nr} \cap F)$ iff $F/K$ is totally ramified.

Equivalence 3./4. The absolute Galois group $G_K$ is a profinite group, and its quotient $Gal(K_{nr}/K)$ is procyclic, topologically generated by $Frob_K$ (hence isomorphic to the profinite completion $\hat {\mathbf Z}$ of $\mathbf Z$, see Serre's "Local Fields", chap. XII, but we'll not use this fact). Whereas, in your notations, the natural projection from $G_K$ onto $Gal(F/K)$ has kernel $Ker \chi$, which is a closed subgroup of $G_K$. Consequently, your statement 4., as written, makes no sense. Perhaps you were thinking of the projection of $Gal(K_{nr}/K)$ onto $Gal(F/(K_{nr} \cap F))$, which sends $Frob_K$ to the relative Frobenius automorphism $\phi$ of $Gal((K_{nr} \cap F)/K)$. But even in this case, 3. doesn't make sense, because $\phi$ doesn't live in $Gal(F/K)$. The only natural way out is to replace the projection of $G_K$ onto $Gal(F/K)$ by that of $Gal(K_{nr}/K)$ onto $Gal((K_{nr} \cap F)/K)$, but then the desired equivalence becomes trivial.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your response, I will check my notations/statements. But as I said before, I am rather interested in the equivalences from 1. (or 2.) to 3. (or 4.) and vice versa. I changed my post a bit, hopefully it is clearer now. $\endgroup$ – Diglett Oct 31 '18 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I can't see any real change. By definition, the Frobenius automorphism (absolute or relative) is defined only for an unramified extension, hence lives in a relevant quotient Galois group. Consequently, as stated, the assertions 3. and 4., where Frobenius lives in *subgroups", don't make sense. The point lies in your definition of $Frob_K$, which you view as "an element whose image is $x↦x^{|κ(K)|}$ under the restriction homomorphism $G_K→G_{κ(K)}$ where κ(K) is the residue field of K". $\endgroup$ – nguyen quang do Oct 31 '18 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ ...This "restriction", necessarily from $G_K$ to a subgroup, doesn't exist, because it requires a "lift" $G_{κ(K)} \to G_K$ wich doesn't exist. More precisely, given a finite Galois extension of local fields $F/K$, there is a canonical isomorphism between $Gal((K_{nr} \cap F)/K)$ and the Galois group of the residual field extension (which is generated by a Frob in the sense of finite fields), so your "lift" exists iff $F/K$ is unramified. $\endgroup$ – nguyen quang do Oct 31 '18 at 13:11

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.