Benutzer:Nuerk/Ramification theory

aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie

Ramification theory in Dedekind domains

Let be a Dedekind domain with quotient field , let be a finite extension of and let be the integral closure of in . Then is again a Dedekind domain and finitely generated as an -module.[1]

For each prime ideal of the ideal of is a product of prime ideals , and this decomposition is unique up to a reordering of the factors.[2]

What is more, the prime ideals are precisely the prime ideals of that lie over , i.e. satisfy .[3] In this case, we call a prime divisor of , denoted by .

The exponent is called the ramification index of over and the degree of the residue class field extension is called inertia degree of over .

The prime ideal is said to split completely (or to be totally split) in , if in the decomposition

.

If , then is called nonsplit.

The prime ideal is called unramified over (or over ) if and if the residue class field extension is separable. Otherwise it is called ramified, and totally ramified if furthermore .

The prime ideal is called unramified if all are unramified, else it is called ramified. The extension itself is called unramified if all prime ideals are unramified in .

Separable field extensions

If the extension is furthermore separable then the fundamental identity

holds.[4]

Let be an integral, primitive element of the separable extension , i.e. , and let be the minimal polynomial of . The conductor of is defined by . This is the largest ideal of that is contained in . It is always .[5]

Let be a prime ideal of that is coprime to the conductor of . Then the prime ideals of that lie over can be explicitly constructed.[6]

For this, let be the decomposition of the polynomial in irreducible factors , with monic, over the residue field . Then the prime ideals of that lie over are given by

.

The inertia degree of is equal to the degree of the polynomial and it is

.

It can be shown that, in the case where is separable, only finitely many prime ideals of ramify in .[7] The ramified ideals are described by the discriminant of . This is the ideal of generated by the discriminants of all bases of that are contained in . The prime divisors of are precisely the prime ideals of that ramify in .[8]

Hilbert's ramification theory

Let in the following be a Galois extension with Galois group . Then acts on , for whenever and .

Let . If is a prime ideal lying over , then so is , since

.

The , , are called the prime ideals conjugate to .

The Galois group acts transitively on the prime ideals of that lie over , and so all these prime ideals are conjugate to each other.[9]

Let be a prime ideal of . The stabilizer

is called the decomposition group of over . The fixed field

is called the decomposition field of over .

The number of different prime ideals over equals . To see this, let be such a prime ideal and let run through a transversal, i.e. a complete system of coset representatives, of in . Then runs through the different prime ideals over exactly once, and so their number is indeed equal to . From this, we also have the following equivalences:

splits completely,
is nonsplit.

The decomposition group of a prime ideal conjugated to is the conjugated subgroup

.[10]

Furthermore, it follows from the transitivity of the Galois action that the inertia degrees and the ramification indices in the prime decomposition

are independent of the index,[11]

, ,

which simplifies the fundamental identity to

.

The ramification index and the inertia degree admit a group-theoretic interpretation. Each induces, due to and , an automorphism

of the residue field .[12] If we set and , then the extension is normal and there exists a surjective homomorphism

.[13]

The kernel of this homomorphism is called the inertia group of over . Its fixed field

is called the inertia field of over .

We have the following chain of inclusions[14]

and the exact sequence[15]

.

The extension is normal and we have[16]

, as well as
.

If the residue field extension is separable, then

, and
.[17]

Ramification theory in henselian fields

Let be a henselian field with respect to a non-Archimedean valuation . If is a field extension, then there exists a unique extension of to a valuation of . In the case that , this extension is given by , where is the field norm.[18]

Let (resp. ) be the valuation ring, (resp. ) its maximal ideal and let (resp. ) be the residual field of (resp. ). Then is the integral closure of in [19] and we have the inclusions

and .[20]

The index is called the ramification index of the extension and the degree its inertia degree.

It is always the case that . If, furthermore, is discrete, and the extension is separable, then we have equality, .[21]

A finite extension is called unramified if the residue field extension is separable and if

.

An arbitrary algebraic extension is called unramified if it can be written as the union of finite unramified subextensions.

Every subextension of an unramified extension is itself unramified.[22] Likewise, the composite of two unramified extensions of is again unramified.[23]

If is an algebraic extension, then the composite of all unramified subextensions of is called the maximal unramified subextension of .

The residue field of is the separable hull of in the residue field extension of , while the value group of is equal to that of .[24]

The maximal unramified extension per se (nr = non ramifée) is the composite of all unramified extensions of in its algebraic closure . The residue field of is the separable closure of .[25]

Let in the following the residue field characteristic be positive.

An algebraic extension is called tamely ramified if the residue field extension is separable and if , which in the case where the extension is infinite is to mean that the degree of every finite subextension of is coprime to .

A finite extension is tamely ramified if and only if is a radical extension, i.e. if there exist and , , such that

.[26]

In this setting the fundamental identity

always holds.[27]

It is every subextension of a tamely ramified extension again tamely ramified.[28] Also, the composite of tamely ramified extensions is again tamely ramified.[29]

If is an algebraic extension, then the composite of all tamely ramified subextensions of is called the maximal tamely ramified subextension of .

If is finite and , then the extension is called purely ramified. It is called wildly ramified if it is not tamely ramified, i.e. if .

Ramification theory in general valued fields

Let be a field with valuation .

Let be non-Archimedean and let be a finite extension. We denote an extension of to by . Analogously to the henselian case, the ramification index of an extension is defined by

,

and its inertia degree by

,

where (resp. ) denotes the residue field of (resp. ).

If is discrete and is separable, then the fundamental identity of valuation theory holds:[30]

.

Let in the following be a Galois extension with Galois group . Let be a valuation of . Then acts on the set of extensions of to , since, given such an extension of and a , also extends . This action is transitive, i.e. any two extensions are conjugate.[31]

The decomposition group of an extension to is defined by

.

If is a non-Archimedean valuation, then the decomposition group contains two more canonical subgroups, ,[32] defined as follows. Let be the valuation ring of and its maximal ideal. Then the inertia group of is defined by

and the ramification group of by

.

The fixed field of ,

,

is called the decomposition field of over . The fixed field of ,

,

is called the inertia field of over . And the fixed field of ,

,

is called the ramification field of over .

It is the maximal unramified subextension of ,[33] and is the maximal tamely ramified subextension of .[34]

Higher ramification groups

Let be a finite Galois extension with Galois group . Let be a discrete normalized valuation of with positive residue field characteristic , such that there is a unique extension of to . Let denote the corresponding normalized valuation of , and its valuation ring.

Then for every real number the -th ramification group of is defined by

.

It follows that , is the inertia group , and is the ramification group .[35]

The ramification groups form a chain

of normal subgroups of .[36]

One can prove the following theorem for the factor groups .[37] Let be a prime element of . Then for every integer the mapping

is an injective homomorphism. This homomorphism is independent of the choice of the prime element . Here, denotes the -th higher unit group of , i.e. and for .

References

  • Cassels, J.W.S., Fröhlich, A.: Algebraic Number Theory. Thompson, Washington, D.C. 1967
  • Goldstein, Larry Joel: Analytic Number Theory. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey 1971
  • Lang, Serge: Algebraic Number Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1986, ISBN 3-540-96375-8
  • Neukirch, Jürgen: Algebraic Number Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1999, ISBN 3-540-65399-6
  • Ribenboim, Paulo: The Theory of Classical Valuations. Springer-Verlag, New York Berlin Heidelberg 1999, ISBN 0-387-98525-5

Citations

  1. Neukirch 1999, (I.8.1) p. 45.
  2. Neukirch 1999, (I.8) p. 45.
  3. Neukirch 1999, (I.8) p. 45.
  4. Neukirch 1999, (I.8.2) p. 46.
  5. Neukirch 1999, (I.8) p. 47.
  6. Neukirch 1999, (I.8.3) p. 47.
  7. Neukirch 1999, (I.8.4) p. 49.
  8. Neukirch 1999, (III.2.12) p. 202.
  9. Neukirch 1999, (I.9.1) p. 54.
  10. Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 54.
  11. Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 55.
  12. Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 56.
  13. Neukirch 1999, (I.9.4) p. 56.
  14. Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 57.
  15. Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 57.
  16. Neukirch 1999, (I.9.6) p. 57.
  17. Neukirch 1999, (I.9.6) p. 57.
  18. Neukirch 1999, (II.6.2) p. 144.
  19. Neukirch 1999, (II.6.2) p. 144.
  20. Neukirch 1999, (II.6) p. 150.
  21. Neukirch 1999, (II.6.8) p. 150.
  22. Neukirch 1999, (II.7.2) p. 153.
  23. Neukirch 1999, (II.7.3) p. 153.
  24. Neukirch 1999, (II.7.5) p. 154.
  25. Neukirch 1999, (II.7) p. 154.
  26. Neukirch 1999, (II.7.7) p. 155.
  27. Neukirch 1999, (II.7.7) p. 155.
  28. Neukirch 1999, (II.7.8) p. 156.
  29. Neukirch 1999, (II.7.9) p. 157.
  30. Neukirch 1999, (II.8.5) p. 165.
  31. Neukirch 1999, (II.9.1) p. 167.
  32. Neukirch 1999, (II.9) p. 168.
  33. Neukirch 1999, (II.9.11) p. 173.
  34. Neukirch 1999, (II.9.14) p. 175.
  35. Neukirch 1999, (II.10) p. 177.
  36. Neukirch 1999, (II.10) p. 177.
  37. Neukirch 1999, (II.10.2) p. 177.