1
$\begingroup$

Theorem: If $\nu:F\to\mathbb R\cup\{\infty\}$ is a valuation of a functional field, then the set $$\mathfrak O_{\nu}=\{x\in F: \nu(x)\geq 0\}$$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $$\mathfrak M_{\nu}=\{x\in F: \nu(x) > 0\}$$

and a quotient field $F$.

If the valuation is discrete then $\mathfrak O_{\nu}$ is a discrete valuation ring and an arbitrary parameter $t$ of $\mathfrak O_{\nu}$ generates the maximal ideal $\mathfrak M_{\nu}$.

Proof: Assume that $\mathfrak O_{\nu}$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak M_{\nu}$ and a quotient field $F$. I have no doubts.

"...If $\nu:F\to\mathbb R\cup\{\infty\}$ is a discrete valuation then $\nu[F^*]=(d\mathbb Z,+)$ for some $d\in\mathbb R^+$. Assume $t\in F^*$ is such that $\nu(t)=d$. We will show that $t$ is a local parameter of $\mathfrak O_{\nu}$..."

Then the proof goes on to show the representation $z=ut^m$ for any nonzero $z\in\mathfrak O_{\nu}$, and some $u\in\mathfrak O_{\nu}^*$.

Now "...If $xy\in\langle t\rangle$ for some $x=ut^m$, $y=vt^n\in\mathfrak O_{\nu}$ and $u,v\in\mathfrak O_{\nu}^*$ ... then $x\in\langle t\rangle$ or $y\in\langle t\rangle$. This shows that $\mathfrak O_{\nu}$ is a discrete valuation ring with local parameter $t$.

Definition: The commutative domain $R$ with a multiplicative identity is a discrete valuation ring if an indecomposable element $t\in R\setminus R^*$ exists such for any $z\in R\setminus \{0\}$, $z=ut^m$ for some $u\in R^*$ and $m\in \mathbb N$. The element $t$ we call a local parameter.

Problem: I do not understand how from $0\not=xy\in\langle t\rangle$ and $xy\not\in\mathfrak O_{\nu}^*\Rightarrow x\in\langle t\rangle$ or $y\in\langle t\rangle$ follows that $t$ is indecomposable. In more detail if $t=t_1t_2$ then $t_1\in\langle t\rangle$ or $t_2\in\langle t\rangle$, but how come then $t_1\in \mathfrak O_{\nu}^*$ or $t_2\in \mathfrak O_{\nu}^*$.

Any help would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ A functional field is any transcendental field extension. We call the base field a field of constants. $\endgroup$ – superAnnoyingUser Nov 2 '13 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Now I see that I don't. $\endgroup$ – superAnnoyingUser Nov 2 '13 at 18:54
1
$\begingroup$

Your result comes from the following:

Exercise: In a domain $R$, a principal ideal $(a)$ being prime implies $a$ is irreducible.

Proof: Suppose $(a)$ is prime. Suppose there are $b,c$ so that $a = bc$. Then without loss of generality we get $b = aa'$ for some $a' \in A$. Hence $a = aa'c$ and so $a'c = 1$ since $R$ is a domain. In other words, $a'$ is a unit and so $a = aa'c$ from which we get $a'c = 1$. In other words, $c$ is a unit and so $a$ is irreducible.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, sir. You are not by any chance Alexander Grothendieck, who learned from Laurent Schwartz himself, are you? $\endgroup$ – superAnnoyingUser Nov 2 '13 at 18:01
  • $\begingroup$ No I'm not Grothendieck. I just admire him. $\endgroup$ – user38268 Nov 3 '13 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ Actually we have more: In a domain $R$, a principal ideal $(a)$ being prime implies $a$ is prime. $\endgroup$ – user89712 Nov 3 '13 at 8:24

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.