Cyclic Field Extension of Local Field












2












$begingroup$


Let $K$ be a local field (therefore complete, discrete non-archimedian valuation field) with perfect residual field $kappa_K:= mathcal{O}_K/pi_K$.



Assume that $L/K$ is a field extension of $K$ of degree $n= [L:K]$ and $L$ contains all $n$-th roots and is tamely ramified.
How to show that then $L/K$ is a cyclic extension (Therefore that $Gal(L/K)$ is a cyclic group)?



It looks (taking into account the condition that it contains the $n$-th roots) that possibly I could use the Kummer theory to get the claim but I don’t see how to apply it here. Especially I’m not really familar with local fields. Could anybody help?



Btw: I know that the main result of Kummer theory provides a bijective correspondence between abelian extensions of $K$ and subgroups $W$ of multiplicative group: $(K^*)^n subset W subset K^*$. Can group this correspondence be derived a correspondence to cyclic extensions?- as in my case










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Let $K$ be a local field (therefore complete, discrete non-archimedian valuation field) with perfect residual field $kappa_K:= mathcal{O}_K/pi_K$.



    Assume that $L/K$ is a field extension of $K$ of degree $n= [L:K]$ and $L$ contains all $n$-th roots and is tamely ramified.
    How to show that then $L/K$ is a cyclic extension (Therefore that $Gal(L/K)$ is a cyclic group)?



    It looks (taking into account the condition that it contains the $n$-th roots) that possibly I could use the Kummer theory to get the claim but I don’t see how to apply it here. Especially I’m not really familar with local fields. Could anybody help?



    Btw: I know that the main result of Kummer theory provides a bijective correspondence between abelian extensions of $K$ and subgroups $W$ of multiplicative group: $(K^*)^n subset W subset K^*$. Can group this correspondence be derived a correspondence to cyclic extensions?- as in my case










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      Let $K$ be a local field (therefore complete, discrete non-archimedian valuation field) with perfect residual field $kappa_K:= mathcal{O}_K/pi_K$.



      Assume that $L/K$ is a field extension of $K$ of degree $n= [L:K]$ and $L$ contains all $n$-th roots and is tamely ramified.
      How to show that then $L/K$ is a cyclic extension (Therefore that $Gal(L/K)$ is a cyclic group)?



      It looks (taking into account the condition that it contains the $n$-th roots) that possibly I could use the Kummer theory to get the claim but I don’t see how to apply it here. Especially I’m not really familar with local fields. Could anybody help?



      Btw: I know that the main result of Kummer theory provides a bijective correspondence between abelian extensions of $K$ and subgroups $W$ of multiplicative group: $(K^*)^n subset W subset K^*$. Can group this correspondence be derived a correspondence to cyclic extensions?- as in my case










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Let $K$ be a local field (therefore complete, discrete non-archimedian valuation field) with perfect residual field $kappa_K:= mathcal{O}_K/pi_K$.



      Assume that $L/K$ is a field extension of $K$ of degree $n= [L:K]$ and $L$ contains all $n$-th roots and is tamely ramified.
      How to show that then $L/K$ is a cyclic extension (Therefore that $Gal(L/K)$ is a cyclic group)?



      It looks (taking into account the condition that it contains the $n$-th roots) that possibly I could use the Kummer theory to get the claim but I don’t see how to apply it here. Especially I’m not really familar with local fields. Could anybody help?



      Btw: I know that the main result of Kummer theory provides a bijective correspondence between abelian extensions of $K$ and subgroups $W$ of multiplicative group: $(K^*)^n subset W subset K^*$. Can group this correspondence be derived a correspondence to cyclic extensions?- as in my case







      field-theory algebraic-number-theory local-field kummer-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 16 '18 at 20:19









      KarlPeterKarlPeter

      5741315




      5741315






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          I keep your notation $L/K$ of degree $n$, and write as usual $n=ef$, where $e$ (resp. $f$) is the ramification (resp. inertia) index. The maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ (= inertia subfield) of $L/K$ is classically known to be cyclic of degree $f$.



          1) Let us first study $L/F$, which, by hypothesis, is tamely ramified (the residual characteristic $p$ of $K$ does not divide $e$) and contains the $n$-th (hence the $e$-th) roots of unity. Denote by $pi$ (resp. $Pi$) a uniformizer of $F$ (resp. $L$), and by $U_i , ige 0$, the subgroup of units $U_i=1+ (pi^i)$ of $F$. It is known that $U_0/U_1$ is canonically isomorphic to the residual multiplicative group ${kappa}^*$ of $F$, and for $i ge 1, U_i/ U_{i+1}$ is non canonically isomorphic to $(kappa,+)$, see e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1. By definition $Pi^e /pi =uin U_0$, and $u=u_1w$, with $u_1 in U_1$ and $w$ representing a class of $U_0/U_1$. But, because $p nmid e$, multiplication by $e$ in $U_1/U_2$ is an isomorphism, hence we can repeat the approximation process to get $u_1=u_2{w_1}^e$, with $u_2 in U_2$ and $w_1$ representing a class of $U_1/U_2$, etc. On taking the projective limit, we obtain (with a change of notations) $Pi^e=pi$. This shows that $L=F(sqrt [e]pi)$ is an Eisenstein extension, thus tamely totally ramified with ramification index $e$. Since $F$ contains a primitive $e$-th root of unity, Kummer theory tells us that $L/F$ is a cyclic Galois extension of degree $e$.



          2) We can't say much more about $L/K$ since we don't even know if it is Galois. However, even in the Galois situation, I think that your proposition (the cyclicity of $L/K$) does'nt hold in general. For example, fix an uniformizer $pi$ of $K$ and take $L=E.F$, with $E=K(sqrt [e]pi)$. For ramification reasons, $E, F$ are linearly disjoint, hence $L/K$ is an abelian extension, with Galois group $G cong Z/eZ times Z/fZ$. If $e, f$ are coprime, $G$ is cyclic. But if for instance $e=f=$ a prime $q$, $G$ is not cyclic.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer. One question: Why is the maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ of L/K cyclic?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 19 '18 at 0:09










          • $begingroup$
            This is a classical result : an unramified extension is cyclic, obtained by adding a primitive root of 1 of order not divisible by the residual characteristic. See e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1.
            $endgroup$
            – nguyen quang do
            Dec 19 '18 at 7:33



















          2












          $begingroup$


          If $kappa_K$ is contained in $overline{mathbb{F}_p}$, or if $L/K$ is totally ramified (see comments below)




          The valuation gives an absolute value $|x| = q^{-v(x)} $.





          • If $x in L, |x| < 1$ then $(1+x)^{1/n} = sum_{m=0}^infty {1/n choose k} x^k $ converges and is $in L$.



            Proof : (In characteristic $p nmid n$ then ${1/n choose k} in mathbb{Z}_p$ then reduce it modulo $p$)



            So $|{1/n choose k}| le 1$ and the series converges, and since $L$ is complete the limit is in $L$.



          • Since $L/K$ is totally ramified of degree $n$ then
            $pi_L^n = u^{-1} pi_K$ where $|u| = 1$. So there is a root of unity $zeta equiv u bmod (pi_L)$ such that $u zeta^{-1} = 1+x, |x| < 1$, so that $varpi_L = zeta^{1/n} (1+x)^{1/n} pi_L in L$ satisfies $ varpi_L^n = pi_K$.



          Whence $L = K(pi_K^{1/n})$ and $Gal(L/K) = langle sigma rangle$ with $sigma(pi_K^{1/n}) = zeta_n pi_K^{1/n}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Hi. How do you deduce that $L:K$ is totally ramified from the given condition that it is tamely ramified?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 16 '18 at 21:23












          • $begingroup$
            I’m using the definitions for totally/tamely ramification from math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter4.pdf It says especially that if we consider a finite field extension $L/K$. Denote by $k := kappa_K$ (resp l:= kappa_L) is the residual fields of $K$ (resp L) then: $L/K$ totally ramified iff e(L/K) =[L:K] (or as you used $pi_K mathcal{O}_L = pi_L ^{e(L/K)} mathcal{O}_L$. This is equivalently to $l=k$ and $L/K$ is tamely ramified iff $e(L/K)$ is prime to the characteristic of $K$ $char(K)=p$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            We know that $k$ is perfect. I don't see how do you conclude that $L/K$ totally ramified. What can we say about the resudual field $l$ of $L$. We need an argument that $l=k$...
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            @KarlPeter Let $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ then it has non-cyclic Galois extensions $kappa_L/kappa_K$ of degree $n$ so $K = kappa_K((t)),L = kappa_L((t))$ is a non-cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$. That's why your statement meant that $L/K$ is totally ramified (and doesn't have wild ramification, since all the $zeta_{n^r}$ are then in $kappa_K$).
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Dec 17 '18 at 18:35












          • $begingroup$
            Two points aren't clear to me: Firstly, why we can assume wlog that the residual field $kappa_K$ is already the perfect closure $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ Naively - since by assumption it is perfect - it is just a subfield of $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{ninfty})$ in case of characteristic zero. Or did you implicitely used an argument that allows to reduce this to the case $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 22:54











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043105%2fcyclic-field-extension-of-local-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          I keep your notation $L/K$ of degree $n$, and write as usual $n=ef$, where $e$ (resp. $f$) is the ramification (resp. inertia) index. The maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ (= inertia subfield) of $L/K$ is classically known to be cyclic of degree $f$.



          1) Let us first study $L/F$, which, by hypothesis, is tamely ramified (the residual characteristic $p$ of $K$ does not divide $e$) and contains the $n$-th (hence the $e$-th) roots of unity. Denote by $pi$ (resp. $Pi$) a uniformizer of $F$ (resp. $L$), and by $U_i , ige 0$, the subgroup of units $U_i=1+ (pi^i)$ of $F$. It is known that $U_0/U_1$ is canonically isomorphic to the residual multiplicative group ${kappa}^*$ of $F$, and for $i ge 1, U_i/ U_{i+1}$ is non canonically isomorphic to $(kappa,+)$, see e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1. By definition $Pi^e /pi =uin U_0$, and $u=u_1w$, with $u_1 in U_1$ and $w$ representing a class of $U_0/U_1$. But, because $p nmid e$, multiplication by $e$ in $U_1/U_2$ is an isomorphism, hence we can repeat the approximation process to get $u_1=u_2{w_1}^e$, with $u_2 in U_2$ and $w_1$ representing a class of $U_1/U_2$, etc. On taking the projective limit, we obtain (with a change of notations) $Pi^e=pi$. This shows that $L=F(sqrt [e]pi)$ is an Eisenstein extension, thus tamely totally ramified with ramification index $e$. Since $F$ contains a primitive $e$-th root of unity, Kummer theory tells us that $L/F$ is a cyclic Galois extension of degree $e$.



          2) We can't say much more about $L/K$ since we don't even know if it is Galois. However, even in the Galois situation, I think that your proposition (the cyclicity of $L/K$) does'nt hold in general. For example, fix an uniformizer $pi$ of $K$ and take $L=E.F$, with $E=K(sqrt [e]pi)$. For ramification reasons, $E, F$ are linearly disjoint, hence $L/K$ is an abelian extension, with Galois group $G cong Z/eZ times Z/fZ$. If $e, f$ are coprime, $G$ is cyclic. But if for instance $e=f=$ a prime $q$, $G$ is not cyclic.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer. One question: Why is the maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ of L/K cyclic?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 19 '18 at 0:09










          • $begingroup$
            This is a classical result : an unramified extension is cyclic, obtained by adding a primitive root of 1 of order not divisible by the residual characteristic. See e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1.
            $endgroup$
            – nguyen quang do
            Dec 19 '18 at 7:33
















          1












          $begingroup$

          I keep your notation $L/K$ of degree $n$, and write as usual $n=ef$, where $e$ (resp. $f$) is the ramification (resp. inertia) index. The maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ (= inertia subfield) of $L/K$ is classically known to be cyclic of degree $f$.



          1) Let us first study $L/F$, which, by hypothesis, is tamely ramified (the residual characteristic $p$ of $K$ does not divide $e$) and contains the $n$-th (hence the $e$-th) roots of unity. Denote by $pi$ (resp. $Pi$) a uniformizer of $F$ (resp. $L$), and by $U_i , ige 0$, the subgroup of units $U_i=1+ (pi^i)$ of $F$. It is known that $U_0/U_1$ is canonically isomorphic to the residual multiplicative group ${kappa}^*$ of $F$, and for $i ge 1, U_i/ U_{i+1}$ is non canonically isomorphic to $(kappa,+)$, see e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1. By definition $Pi^e /pi =uin U_0$, and $u=u_1w$, with $u_1 in U_1$ and $w$ representing a class of $U_0/U_1$. But, because $p nmid e$, multiplication by $e$ in $U_1/U_2$ is an isomorphism, hence we can repeat the approximation process to get $u_1=u_2{w_1}^e$, with $u_2 in U_2$ and $w_1$ representing a class of $U_1/U_2$, etc. On taking the projective limit, we obtain (with a change of notations) $Pi^e=pi$. This shows that $L=F(sqrt [e]pi)$ is an Eisenstein extension, thus tamely totally ramified with ramification index $e$. Since $F$ contains a primitive $e$-th root of unity, Kummer theory tells us that $L/F$ is a cyclic Galois extension of degree $e$.



          2) We can't say much more about $L/K$ since we don't even know if it is Galois. However, even in the Galois situation, I think that your proposition (the cyclicity of $L/K$) does'nt hold in general. For example, fix an uniformizer $pi$ of $K$ and take $L=E.F$, with $E=K(sqrt [e]pi)$. For ramification reasons, $E, F$ are linearly disjoint, hence $L/K$ is an abelian extension, with Galois group $G cong Z/eZ times Z/fZ$. If $e, f$ are coprime, $G$ is cyclic. But if for instance $e=f=$ a prime $q$, $G$ is not cyclic.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer. One question: Why is the maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ of L/K cyclic?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 19 '18 at 0:09










          • $begingroup$
            This is a classical result : an unramified extension is cyclic, obtained by adding a primitive root of 1 of order not divisible by the residual characteristic. See e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1.
            $endgroup$
            – nguyen quang do
            Dec 19 '18 at 7:33














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          I keep your notation $L/K$ of degree $n$, and write as usual $n=ef$, where $e$ (resp. $f$) is the ramification (resp. inertia) index. The maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ (= inertia subfield) of $L/K$ is classically known to be cyclic of degree $f$.



          1) Let us first study $L/F$, which, by hypothesis, is tamely ramified (the residual characteristic $p$ of $K$ does not divide $e$) and contains the $n$-th (hence the $e$-th) roots of unity. Denote by $pi$ (resp. $Pi$) a uniformizer of $F$ (resp. $L$), and by $U_i , ige 0$, the subgroup of units $U_i=1+ (pi^i)$ of $F$. It is known that $U_0/U_1$ is canonically isomorphic to the residual multiplicative group ${kappa}^*$ of $F$, and for $i ge 1, U_i/ U_{i+1}$ is non canonically isomorphic to $(kappa,+)$, see e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1. By definition $Pi^e /pi =uin U_0$, and $u=u_1w$, with $u_1 in U_1$ and $w$ representing a class of $U_0/U_1$. But, because $p nmid e$, multiplication by $e$ in $U_1/U_2$ is an isomorphism, hence we can repeat the approximation process to get $u_1=u_2{w_1}^e$, with $u_2 in U_2$ and $w_1$ representing a class of $U_1/U_2$, etc. On taking the projective limit, we obtain (with a change of notations) $Pi^e=pi$. This shows that $L=F(sqrt [e]pi)$ is an Eisenstein extension, thus tamely totally ramified with ramification index $e$. Since $F$ contains a primitive $e$-th root of unity, Kummer theory tells us that $L/F$ is a cyclic Galois extension of degree $e$.



          2) We can't say much more about $L/K$ since we don't even know if it is Galois. However, even in the Galois situation, I think that your proposition (the cyclicity of $L/K$) does'nt hold in general. For example, fix an uniformizer $pi$ of $K$ and take $L=E.F$, with $E=K(sqrt [e]pi)$. For ramification reasons, $E, F$ are linearly disjoint, hence $L/K$ is an abelian extension, with Galois group $G cong Z/eZ times Z/fZ$. If $e, f$ are coprime, $G$ is cyclic. But if for instance $e=f=$ a prime $q$, $G$ is not cyclic.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          I keep your notation $L/K$ of degree $n$, and write as usual $n=ef$, where $e$ (resp. $f$) is the ramification (resp. inertia) index. The maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ (= inertia subfield) of $L/K$ is classically known to be cyclic of degree $f$.



          1) Let us first study $L/F$, which, by hypothesis, is tamely ramified (the residual characteristic $p$ of $K$ does not divide $e$) and contains the $n$-th (hence the $e$-th) roots of unity. Denote by $pi$ (resp. $Pi$) a uniformizer of $F$ (resp. $L$), and by $U_i , ige 0$, the subgroup of units $U_i=1+ (pi^i)$ of $F$. It is known that $U_0/U_1$ is canonically isomorphic to the residual multiplicative group ${kappa}^*$ of $F$, and for $i ge 1, U_i/ U_{i+1}$ is non canonically isomorphic to $(kappa,+)$, see e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1. By definition $Pi^e /pi =uin U_0$, and $u=u_1w$, with $u_1 in U_1$ and $w$ representing a class of $U_0/U_1$. But, because $p nmid e$, multiplication by $e$ in $U_1/U_2$ is an isomorphism, hence we can repeat the approximation process to get $u_1=u_2{w_1}^e$, with $u_2 in U_2$ and $w_1$ representing a class of $U_1/U_2$, etc. On taking the projective limit, we obtain (with a change of notations) $Pi^e=pi$. This shows that $L=F(sqrt [e]pi)$ is an Eisenstein extension, thus tamely totally ramified with ramification index $e$. Since $F$ contains a primitive $e$-th root of unity, Kummer theory tells us that $L/F$ is a cyclic Galois extension of degree $e$.



          2) We can't say much more about $L/K$ since we don't even know if it is Galois. However, even in the Galois situation, I think that your proposition (the cyclicity of $L/K$) does'nt hold in general. For example, fix an uniformizer $pi$ of $K$ and take $L=E.F$, with $E=K(sqrt [e]pi)$. For ramification reasons, $E, F$ are linearly disjoint, hence $L/K$ is an abelian extension, with Galois group $G cong Z/eZ times Z/fZ$. If $e, f$ are coprime, $G$ is cyclic. But if for instance $e=f=$ a prime $q$, $G$ is not cyclic.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 18 '18 at 14:47

























          answered Dec 18 '18 at 13:48









          nguyen quang donguyen quang do

          8,4891723




          8,4891723












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer. One question: Why is the maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ of L/K cyclic?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 19 '18 at 0:09










          • $begingroup$
            This is a classical result : an unramified extension is cyclic, obtained by adding a primitive root of 1 of order not divisible by the residual characteristic. See e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1.
            $endgroup$
            – nguyen quang do
            Dec 19 '18 at 7:33


















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer. One question: Why is the maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ of L/K cyclic?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 19 '18 at 0:09










          • $begingroup$
            This is a classical result : an unramified extension is cyclic, obtained by adding a primitive root of 1 of order not divisible by the residual characteristic. See e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1.
            $endgroup$
            – nguyen quang do
            Dec 19 '18 at 7:33
















          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer. One question: Why is the maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ of L/K cyclic?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 19 '18 at 0:09




          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer. One question: Why is the maximal unramified subextension $F/K$ of L/K cyclic?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 19 '18 at 0:09












          $begingroup$
          This is a classical result : an unramified extension is cyclic, obtained by adding a primitive root of 1 of order not divisible by the residual characteristic. See e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1.
          $endgroup$
          – nguyen quang do
          Dec 19 '18 at 7:33




          $begingroup$
          This is a classical result : an unramified extension is cyclic, obtained by adding a primitive root of 1 of order not divisible by the residual characteristic. See e.g. Cassels-Fröhlich, chap. 1.
          $endgroup$
          – nguyen quang do
          Dec 19 '18 at 7:33











          2












          $begingroup$


          If $kappa_K$ is contained in $overline{mathbb{F}_p}$, or if $L/K$ is totally ramified (see comments below)




          The valuation gives an absolute value $|x| = q^{-v(x)} $.





          • If $x in L, |x| < 1$ then $(1+x)^{1/n} = sum_{m=0}^infty {1/n choose k} x^k $ converges and is $in L$.



            Proof : (In characteristic $p nmid n$ then ${1/n choose k} in mathbb{Z}_p$ then reduce it modulo $p$)



            So $|{1/n choose k}| le 1$ and the series converges, and since $L$ is complete the limit is in $L$.



          • Since $L/K$ is totally ramified of degree $n$ then
            $pi_L^n = u^{-1} pi_K$ where $|u| = 1$. So there is a root of unity $zeta equiv u bmod (pi_L)$ such that $u zeta^{-1} = 1+x, |x| < 1$, so that $varpi_L = zeta^{1/n} (1+x)^{1/n} pi_L in L$ satisfies $ varpi_L^n = pi_K$.



          Whence $L = K(pi_K^{1/n})$ and $Gal(L/K) = langle sigma rangle$ with $sigma(pi_K^{1/n}) = zeta_n pi_K^{1/n}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Hi. How do you deduce that $L:K$ is totally ramified from the given condition that it is tamely ramified?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 16 '18 at 21:23












          • $begingroup$
            I’m using the definitions for totally/tamely ramification from math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter4.pdf It says especially that if we consider a finite field extension $L/K$. Denote by $k := kappa_K$ (resp l:= kappa_L) is the residual fields of $K$ (resp L) then: $L/K$ totally ramified iff e(L/K) =[L:K] (or as you used $pi_K mathcal{O}_L = pi_L ^{e(L/K)} mathcal{O}_L$. This is equivalently to $l=k$ and $L/K$ is tamely ramified iff $e(L/K)$ is prime to the characteristic of $K$ $char(K)=p$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            We know that $k$ is perfect. I don't see how do you conclude that $L/K$ totally ramified. What can we say about the resudual field $l$ of $L$. We need an argument that $l=k$...
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            @KarlPeter Let $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ then it has non-cyclic Galois extensions $kappa_L/kappa_K$ of degree $n$ so $K = kappa_K((t)),L = kappa_L((t))$ is a non-cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$. That's why your statement meant that $L/K$ is totally ramified (and doesn't have wild ramification, since all the $zeta_{n^r}$ are then in $kappa_K$).
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Dec 17 '18 at 18:35












          • $begingroup$
            Two points aren't clear to me: Firstly, why we can assume wlog that the residual field $kappa_K$ is already the perfect closure $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ Naively - since by assumption it is perfect - it is just a subfield of $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{ninfty})$ in case of characteristic zero. Or did you implicitely used an argument that allows to reduce this to the case $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 22:54
















          2












          $begingroup$


          If $kappa_K$ is contained in $overline{mathbb{F}_p}$, or if $L/K$ is totally ramified (see comments below)




          The valuation gives an absolute value $|x| = q^{-v(x)} $.





          • If $x in L, |x| < 1$ then $(1+x)^{1/n} = sum_{m=0}^infty {1/n choose k} x^k $ converges and is $in L$.



            Proof : (In characteristic $p nmid n$ then ${1/n choose k} in mathbb{Z}_p$ then reduce it modulo $p$)



            So $|{1/n choose k}| le 1$ and the series converges, and since $L$ is complete the limit is in $L$.



          • Since $L/K$ is totally ramified of degree $n$ then
            $pi_L^n = u^{-1} pi_K$ where $|u| = 1$. So there is a root of unity $zeta equiv u bmod (pi_L)$ such that $u zeta^{-1} = 1+x, |x| < 1$, so that $varpi_L = zeta^{1/n} (1+x)^{1/n} pi_L in L$ satisfies $ varpi_L^n = pi_K$.



          Whence $L = K(pi_K^{1/n})$ and $Gal(L/K) = langle sigma rangle$ with $sigma(pi_K^{1/n}) = zeta_n pi_K^{1/n}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Hi. How do you deduce that $L:K$ is totally ramified from the given condition that it is tamely ramified?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 16 '18 at 21:23












          • $begingroup$
            I’m using the definitions for totally/tamely ramification from math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter4.pdf It says especially that if we consider a finite field extension $L/K$. Denote by $k := kappa_K$ (resp l:= kappa_L) is the residual fields of $K$ (resp L) then: $L/K$ totally ramified iff e(L/K) =[L:K] (or as you used $pi_K mathcal{O}_L = pi_L ^{e(L/K)} mathcal{O}_L$. This is equivalently to $l=k$ and $L/K$ is tamely ramified iff $e(L/K)$ is prime to the characteristic of $K$ $char(K)=p$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            We know that $k$ is perfect. I don't see how do you conclude that $L/K$ totally ramified. What can we say about the resudual field $l$ of $L$. We need an argument that $l=k$...
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            @KarlPeter Let $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ then it has non-cyclic Galois extensions $kappa_L/kappa_K$ of degree $n$ so $K = kappa_K((t)),L = kappa_L((t))$ is a non-cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$. That's why your statement meant that $L/K$ is totally ramified (and doesn't have wild ramification, since all the $zeta_{n^r}$ are then in $kappa_K$).
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Dec 17 '18 at 18:35












          • $begingroup$
            Two points aren't clear to me: Firstly, why we can assume wlog that the residual field $kappa_K$ is already the perfect closure $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ Naively - since by assumption it is perfect - it is just a subfield of $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{ninfty})$ in case of characteristic zero. Or did you implicitely used an argument that allows to reduce this to the case $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 22:54














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$


          If $kappa_K$ is contained in $overline{mathbb{F}_p}$, or if $L/K$ is totally ramified (see comments below)




          The valuation gives an absolute value $|x| = q^{-v(x)} $.





          • If $x in L, |x| < 1$ then $(1+x)^{1/n} = sum_{m=0}^infty {1/n choose k} x^k $ converges and is $in L$.



            Proof : (In characteristic $p nmid n$ then ${1/n choose k} in mathbb{Z}_p$ then reduce it modulo $p$)



            So $|{1/n choose k}| le 1$ and the series converges, and since $L$ is complete the limit is in $L$.



          • Since $L/K$ is totally ramified of degree $n$ then
            $pi_L^n = u^{-1} pi_K$ where $|u| = 1$. So there is a root of unity $zeta equiv u bmod (pi_L)$ such that $u zeta^{-1} = 1+x, |x| < 1$, so that $varpi_L = zeta^{1/n} (1+x)^{1/n} pi_L in L$ satisfies $ varpi_L^n = pi_K$.



          Whence $L = K(pi_K^{1/n})$ and $Gal(L/K) = langle sigma rangle$ with $sigma(pi_K^{1/n}) = zeta_n pi_K^{1/n}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




          If $kappa_K$ is contained in $overline{mathbb{F}_p}$, or if $L/K$ is totally ramified (see comments below)




          The valuation gives an absolute value $|x| = q^{-v(x)} $.





          • If $x in L, |x| < 1$ then $(1+x)^{1/n} = sum_{m=0}^infty {1/n choose k} x^k $ converges and is $in L$.



            Proof : (In characteristic $p nmid n$ then ${1/n choose k} in mathbb{Z}_p$ then reduce it modulo $p$)



            So $|{1/n choose k}| le 1$ and the series converges, and since $L$ is complete the limit is in $L$.



          • Since $L/K$ is totally ramified of degree $n$ then
            $pi_L^n = u^{-1} pi_K$ where $|u| = 1$. So there is a root of unity $zeta equiv u bmod (pi_L)$ such that $u zeta^{-1} = 1+x, |x| < 1$, so that $varpi_L = zeta^{1/n} (1+x)^{1/n} pi_L in L$ satisfies $ varpi_L^n = pi_K$.



          Whence $L = K(pi_K^{1/n})$ and $Gal(L/K) = langle sigma rangle$ with $sigma(pi_K^{1/n}) = zeta_n pi_K^{1/n}$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 17 '18 at 18:35

























          answered Dec 16 '18 at 21:06









          reunsreuns

          19.8k21147




          19.8k21147












          • $begingroup$
            Hi. How do you deduce that $L:K$ is totally ramified from the given condition that it is tamely ramified?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 16 '18 at 21:23












          • $begingroup$
            I’m using the definitions for totally/tamely ramification from math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter4.pdf It says especially that if we consider a finite field extension $L/K$. Denote by $k := kappa_K$ (resp l:= kappa_L) is the residual fields of $K$ (resp L) then: $L/K$ totally ramified iff e(L/K) =[L:K] (or as you used $pi_K mathcal{O}_L = pi_L ^{e(L/K)} mathcal{O}_L$. This is equivalently to $l=k$ and $L/K$ is tamely ramified iff $e(L/K)$ is prime to the characteristic of $K$ $char(K)=p$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            We know that $k$ is perfect. I don't see how do you conclude that $L/K$ totally ramified. What can we say about the resudual field $l$ of $L$. We need an argument that $l=k$...
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            @KarlPeter Let $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ then it has non-cyclic Galois extensions $kappa_L/kappa_K$ of degree $n$ so $K = kappa_K((t)),L = kappa_L((t))$ is a non-cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$. That's why your statement meant that $L/K$ is totally ramified (and doesn't have wild ramification, since all the $zeta_{n^r}$ are then in $kappa_K$).
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Dec 17 '18 at 18:35












          • $begingroup$
            Two points aren't clear to me: Firstly, why we can assume wlog that the residual field $kappa_K$ is already the perfect closure $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ Naively - since by assumption it is perfect - it is just a subfield of $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{ninfty})$ in case of characteristic zero. Or did you implicitely used an argument that allows to reduce this to the case $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 22:54


















          • $begingroup$
            Hi. How do you deduce that $L:K$ is totally ramified from the given condition that it is tamely ramified?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 16 '18 at 21:23












          • $begingroup$
            I’m using the definitions for totally/tamely ramification from math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter4.pdf It says especially that if we consider a finite field extension $L/K$. Denote by $k := kappa_K$ (resp l:= kappa_L) is the residual fields of $K$ (resp L) then: $L/K$ totally ramified iff e(L/K) =[L:K] (or as you used $pi_K mathcal{O}_L = pi_L ^{e(L/K)} mathcal{O}_L$. This is equivalently to $l=k$ and $L/K$ is tamely ramified iff $e(L/K)$ is prime to the characteristic of $K$ $char(K)=p$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            We know that $k$ is perfect. I don't see how do you conclude that $L/K$ totally ramified. What can we say about the resudual field $l$ of $L$. We need an argument that $l=k$...
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 1:53










          • $begingroup$
            @KarlPeter Let $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ then it has non-cyclic Galois extensions $kappa_L/kappa_K$ of degree $n$ so $K = kappa_K((t)),L = kappa_L((t))$ is a non-cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$. That's why your statement meant that $L/K$ is totally ramified (and doesn't have wild ramification, since all the $zeta_{n^r}$ are then in $kappa_K$).
            $endgroup$
            – reuns
            Dec 17 '18 at 18:35












          • $begingroup$
            Two points aren't clear to me: Firstly, why we can assume wlog that the residual field $kappa_K$ is already the perfect closure $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ Naively - since by assumption it is perfect - it is just a subfield of $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{ninfty})$ in case of characteristic zero. Or did you implicitely used an argument that allows to reduce this to the case $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 17 '18 at 22:54
















          $begingroup$
          Hi. How do you deduce that $L:K$ is totally ramified from the given condition that it is tamely ramified?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 16 '18 at 21:23






          $begingroup$
          Hi. How do you deduce that $L:K$ is totally ramified from the given condition that it is tamely ramified?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 16 '18 at 21:23














          $begingroup$
          I’m using the definitions for totally/tamely ramification from math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter4.pdf It says especially that if we consider a finite field extension $L/K$. Denote by $k := kappa_K$ (resp l:= kappa_L) is the residual fields of $K$ (resp L) then: $L/K$ totally ramified iff e(L/K) =[L:K] (or as you used $pi_K mathcal{O}_L = pi_L ^{e(L/K)} mathcal{O}_L$. This is equivalently to $l=k$ and $L/K$ is tamely ramified iff $e(L/K)$ is prime to the characteristic of $K$ $char(K)=p$.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 17 '18 at 1:53




          $begingroup$
          I’m using the definitions for totally/tamely ramification from math.uga.edu/~pete/8410Chapter4.pdf It says especially that if we consider a finite field extension $L/K$. Denote by $k := kappa_K$ (resp l:= kappa_L) is the residual fields of $K$ (resp L) then: $L/K$ totally ramified iff e(L/K) =[L:K] (or as you used $pi_K mathcal{O}_L = pi_L ^{e(L/K)} mathcal{O}_L$. This is equivalently to $l=k$ and $L/K$ is tamely ramified iff $e(L/K)$ is prime to the characteristic of $K$ $char(K)=p$.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 17 '18 at 1:53












          $begingroup$
          We know that $k$ is perfect. I don't see how do you conclude that $L/K$ totally ramified. What can we say about the resudual field $l$ of $L$. We need an argument that $l=k$...
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 17 '18 at 1:53




          $begingroup$
          We know that $k$ is perfect. I don't see how do you conclude that $L/K$ totally ramified. What can we say about the resudual field $l$ of $L$. We need an argument that $l=k$...
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 17 '18 at 1:53












          $begingroup$
          @KarlPeter Let $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ then it has non-cyclic Galois extensions $kappa_L/kappa_K$ of degree $n$ so $K = kappa_K((t)),L = kappa_L((t))$ is a non-cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$. That's why your statement meant that $L/K$ is totally ramified (and doesn't have wild ramification, since all the $zeta_{n^r}$ are then in $kappa_K$).
          $endgroup$
          – reuns
          Dec 17 '18 at 18:35






          $begingroup$
          @KarlPeter Let $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ then it has non-cyclic Galois extensions $kappa_L/kappa_K$ of degree $n$ so $K = kappa_K((t)),L = kappa_L((t))$ is a non-cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$. That's why your statement meant that $L/K$ is totally ramified (and doesn't have wild ramification, since all the $zeta_{n^r}$ are then in $kappa_K$).
          $endgroup$
          – reuns
          Dec 17 '18 at 18:35














          $begingroup$
          Two points aren't clear to me: Firstly, why we can assume wlog that the residual field $kappa_K$ is already the perfect closure $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ Naively - since by assumption it is perfect - it is just a subfield of $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{ninfty})$ in case of characteristic zero. Or did you implicitely used an argument that allows to reduce this to the case $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 17 '18 at 22:54




          $begingroup$
          Two points aren't clear to me: Firstly, why we can assume wlog that the residual field $kappa_K$ is already the perfect closure $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$ Naively - since by assumption it is perfect - it is just a subfield of $mathbb{Q}(zeta_{ninfty})$ in case of characteristic zero. Or did you implicitely used an argument that allows to reduce this to the case $kappa_K = mathbb{Q}(zeta_{n^infty})$?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 17 '18 at 22:54


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043105%2fcyclic-field-extension-of-local-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bressuire

          Cabo Verde

          Gyllenstierna