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
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.8.1) p. 45.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.8) p. 45.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.8) p. 45.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.8.2) p. 46.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.8) p. 47.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.8.3) p. 47.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.8.4) p. 49.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (III.2.12) p. 202.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9.1) p. 54.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 54.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 55.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 56.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9.4) p. 56.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 57.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9) p. 57.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9.6) p. 57.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (I.9.6) p. 57.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.6.2) p. 144.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.6.2) p. 144.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.6) p. 150.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.6.8) p. 150.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7.2) p. 153.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7.3) p. 153.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7.5) p. 154.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7) p. 154.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7.7) p. 155.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7.7) p. 155.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7.8) p. 156.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.7.9) p. 157.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.8.5) p. 165.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.9.1) p. 167.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.9) p. 168.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.9.11) p. 173.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.9.14) p. 175.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.10) p. 177.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.10) p. 177.
- ↑ Neukirch 1999, (II.10.2) p. 177.