Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

First of all, I find it hard to formulate a good title for this question. Sorry that it is so vague.

Let's move on te the question itself. Lately I have been studying the article "Good reduction of abelian varieties" by Serre and Tate.

At a certain point (in the proof of Lemma 2) they claim that a ring is henselian, and I don't see why. I will introduce the notation, so that I can specify my question.

Let $K$ be a field, $v$ a discrete valuation of $K$, $K_{s}$ a seperable closure of $K$ and $\bar{v}$ an extension of $v$ to $K_{s}$. Let $I$ and $D$ denote the inertia group and the decomposition group of $\bar{v}$.

Let $L$ be the fixed field of the inertia group $I$, and $O_{L}$ the ring of $\bar{v}$-integers in $L$.

As far as I can see, no other assumptions are made.

Why is the ring $O_{L}$ henselian?

If I am not mistaken $L$ is the maximal unramified extension of $K$. I have searched Serre's "Local fields" for reasons why $O_{L}$ might be complete (hence henselian) but I could not find them.

Does anyone know a reference for this question? Or a direct answer? (Thanks in advance.)

share|improve this question
2  
Even if $K=\mathbf{Q}_p$, the field $L$ is not complete. When learning local fields, it is a good exercise to prove that an algebraic extension of $\mathbf{Q}_p$ is complete if and only if it is finite. –  François Brunault Jun 26 '12 at 15:50
    
Ok. I knew the if part, but not the only if. Thanks. –  jmc Jun 28 '12 at 17:28
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

$O_L$ is not complete. The completion is usually uncountable, but if $K$ is countable then $K_s$ is countable.

I think the easiest way is just to prove it. Let $f$ be an irreducible polynomial with a simple root mod $\bar{v}$. Then the derivative of $f$ is nonzero mod $\bar{v}$, so it's nonzero, so $f$ is separable, so its roots are in $K_S$. Every root that doesn't disappear mod $\bar{v}$ is a $\bar{v}$-integer. Look at the Galois action on those roots. The inertia group preserves each root's residue mod $\bar{v}$, so it fixes that root, so that root lies in $L$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. Apperently the straightforward approach was the way I should have taken. I had not expected that. But then, I don't have very much experience with henselian rings (-; –  jmc Jun 25 '12 at 19:31
    
@Will: you mean "if $K$ is countable then $K_s$ is countable"! –  Laurent Moret-Bailly Jun 26 '12 at 6:28
    
@Will: Actually I have onee question about your last sentence of the proof. I agree that the inertia group preserves residues of the roots. But how does it follow that therefore the roots are fixed? –  jmc Jun 26 '12 at 13:45
    
Since the root under consideration is a simple root modulo $\bar{v}$ by assumption. Its residue doesn't change, and it he has to remain a root of the polynomial (since the polynomial is defined over $L$) so the root itself must be fixed. –  Will Sawin Jun 26 '12 at 17:43
    
Ah. Because the polynomial is monic, the degree of the reduction does not go down. So there is a "kind of" 1-1 correspondence between the roots (if we take multiplicities into account). And thus roots reducing to simple roots are fixed by I. Got it. –  jmc Jun 28 '12 at 17:30
add comment

In fact, $O_L$ is the strict henselianization of $O_K$ (with residue field a fixed algebraic closure of the residue field of $K$). It is not complete, but it is Henselian, and it is "the minimum" of all the Henselian rings containing $O_K$ and with residue field algebraically closed.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer. I read about henselinizations and strict henselinizations. One question remains: How do you prove your claim? Probably by the same straightforward approach as above, right? (I did not try that much yet, on proving your claim, I should add.) –  jmc Jun 25 '12 at 19:33
1  
The straightforward approach should work. The idea is that if $\alpha \in O_L$ is a root of an irreducible polynomial $f$, then $\bar{v}$ restricted to $K(\alpha)$ is unramified, so $\alpha$ modulo $\bar{v}$ is a simple root of $f$ modulo $\bar{v}$ and lies in the algebraic closure of the residue field of $O_k$ mod $v$, so any strictly henselian ring containing $O_K$ has an algebraically closed residue field, so $\alpha$ mod $\bar{v}$ is a simple root of $f$, and is Henselian, so that extends to a root, so it contains $\alpha$. It contains every element of $O_L$, so it contains $L$. –  Will Sawin Jun 25 '12 at 19:55
    
Will Sawin explained exactly the proof I had in mind. Thanks! –  Xarles Jun 25 '12 at 20:32
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.