0
$\begingroup$

Let $p$ be a prime, $x \in \mathbb{Z}_p$. I say that if $x \in \mathbb{Z}_p$ then $\text{val}_p(x) \ge 0$ as follows:

Let $x = a_0 + a_1 p + a_2 p^2 + \dots$. Then, $\text{val}_p(x) \ge \text{min}(\text{val}_p(a_0), \text{val}_p(a_1), \dots ) \ge 0 $.

Now, I think that $\text{val}_p(x) \ge 0 \implies x \in \mathbb{Z}_p$ but could not prove it. I start by assuming $\text{val}_p(x) \ge 0 $ and $x\notin \mathbb{Z}_p$. Since $x\in \mathbb{Q}_p $, say $$x= \dots + a_{-k} \cfrac{1}{p^k} + \dots$$ for some $a_{-k} \in \{1,\dots,p-1\} $. Then, we can write

$$x = \cfrac{1}{p^k}(\dots + a_0 + \dots)$$ and we have $\text{val}_p(x) = \text{val}_p(\cfrac{1}{p^k}) \text{val}_p(\dots + a_0 + \dots) = -k + \text{val}_p(\dots + a_0 + \dots) \ge 0$.

However, I stuck here. So, can we say

$\text{val}_p(x) \ge 0 \implies x \in \mathbb{Z}_p$

or not?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What’s your definition of $\Bbb Z_p$ ? $\endgroup$ – Lubin Jun 29 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ Series of the form $\displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} a_k p^k $ where $0 \le a_k < p$. $\endgroup$ – Ninja Jun 30 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ What is your definition of the valuation then? Because the way I define it you do not have to prove anything. $\endgroup$ – ThorWittich Jun 30 at 0:08
  • $\begingroup$ Given $x \in \mathbb{Q}$, one can write $x = p^k \frac{a}{b}$ where $k$ is an integer, $p,a,b$ are relatively prime integers. Then, $val_p(x) = k$. $\endgroup$ – Ninja Jun 30 at 0:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Don’t try for a proof by contradiction. If $v_p(z)\ge0$, is not $z$ of form $\sum_0^\infty a_kp^p$? $\endgroup$ – Lubin Jun 30 at 0:11
1
$\begingroup$

Let $x \in \mathbb{Q}_p$. That means we can write $$x = \sum_{k \geq -m} a_kp^k,$$ where $\text{val}_p(x) = -m$. Now assume that $\text{val}_p(x) \geq 0$. That means $x$ has to be of the form $$x = \sum_{k \geq 0} a_kp^k,$$ which just means it is an element of $\mathbb{Z}_p$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why does it have to be in that form? $\endgroup$ – Ninja Jun 30 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ Because of the valuation. The valuation is the smallest index such that the coefficient corresponding to the index is non-zero. $\endgroup$ – ThorWittich Jun 30 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ The valuation of $x$ - the valuation of the sum - is greater than or equal to $0$. So it must be greater than something negative, then how can we say your argument then? $\endgroup$ – Ninja Jun 30 at 1:28
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure if understand your comment. If the valuation is bigger or equal to zero we know that the smallest index having s non-zero coefficient is $0$. Therefore we can start the series there and these elements are exactly the elements of the $p$-adic integers. $\endgroup$ – ThorWittich Jun 30 at 13:09

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.