I was reading the proof of the following fact from Silverman's Advanced Topics in the Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves (p. 122).
The Hilbert class field of a quadratic imaginary field $K$ with ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_K$ is $K(j(E))$ for any elliptic curve $E$ with complex multiplication by $\mathcal{O}_K$.
I'll briefly describe his proof to get to the point where I don't follow his argument. He shows that there is a homomorphism $F : \mathrm{Gal}(\bar{K}/K) \to Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)$ defined by $E^{\sigma} = F(\sigma) \cdot E$. The kernel of this homomorphism is the subgroup $\mathrm{Gal}(\bar{K}/K(j(E)))$. So $F$ factors as an injective map $F : \mathrm{Gal}(K(j(E))) \to Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)$. Henceforth I'll write $L$ for $K(j(E))$. We assume that the conductor of $L/K$ is $\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}$. Silverman wants to show that the conductor is $(1)$. So that will prove that $L$ is a subfield of the Hilbert class field, after which some further work will give the reverse inclusion and we'll be done. In order to show that $\mathfrak{c}_{L/K} = (1)$, Silverman goes as follows. The composition of the Artin symbol with $F$, $${I}_{\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}} \xrightarrow{(\cdot , L/K)} \mathrm{Gal}(L/K) \xrightarrow{F} Cl(\mathcal{O}_K)$$ is simply the projection. In particular, since $F$ is injective, $((\alpha), L/K) = 1$ for any $\alpha \in K^{\times}$, $\alpha$ coprime to $\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}$. From here (quoting Silverman),
But the conductor of $L/K$ is the smallest integral ideal $\mathfrak{c}$ with the property that $$\alpha \equiv 1 \ (\textrm{mod }\mathfrak{c}) \implies ((\alpha), L/K) = 1.$$ It follows that $\mathfrak{c}_{L/K} = (1)$.
It is here that I can't follow his argument. Firstly, I think he means "largest integral ideal". But that's a minor issue. To be precise, I don't understand why having all principal ideals coprime to $\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}$ in the kernel of the Artin symbol should imply that $\mathfrak{c}_{L/K} = (1)$. I know that in general the kernel of the Artin symbol is $(N_{L/K}I_L \cdot {P}_{\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}}) \cap {I}_{\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}}$ where $I_L$ is the group of fractional ideals of $L$ and ${P}_{\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}}$ is the group of ideals $(\alpha), \alpha \in K^{\times}$ such that $\alpha \equiv 1 \textrm{ mod }\mathfrak{c}_{L/K}$.
Let me clarify that I don't have any background in class field theory. I only know the main statements of CFT as outlined for example in $\textrm{Ch. II}, \S 3$ of Silverman's ATAEC, or this handout by Bjorn Poonen. For me the definition of Hilbert class field is that it is the maximal unramified abelian extension or equivalently the ray class field modulo $(1)$.
As an aside, I got to know from this answer of Franz Lemmermeyer that there are at least 3 equivalent definitions of Hilbert class field. One of them is:
Let $H/K$ be a field extension. It is called a Weber-Hilbert class field if the prime ideals of $K$ that split completely in $H$ are precisely the principal prime ideals.
So, in order that an abelian extension $L$ of $K$ be a subfield of the Hilbert class field of $K$ it is necessary that all principal primes split completely in $L$. In our situation we only know that the principal prime ideals which are coprime to the supposed conductor $\mathrm{c}_{L/K}$ split completely in $L$. So our observations do not discard the possibility that there might be principal primes in $K$ which are ramified in $L$.
I would very much appreciate if someone could spell out in more details Silverman's argument. Thanks in advance!