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

Assume that $(A,m)$ is a Noetherian normal local domain, $K = Quot(A) \subset E, F$ Galois extensions of $K$. If $B=\overline{A}^{E}$, $C=\overline{A}^F$, and $D=\overline{A}^{EF}$ and we choose primes $m_B, m_C$, and $m_D$ (in the corresponding rings) over $m$, then is it true that the separable part of residue field of $m_D$ is generated by the separable parts of the residue fields of $m_B$ and $m_C$ over the residue field of $m$?

The phrase 'separable part' is intended to describe the maximal separable extension of the residue field of $m$ contained in the residue field of $q$ where $q$ is one of $m_B, m_C, $ or $m_D$.

Thanks.

share|improve this question
1  
If $A$ is not complete or, more generally, henselian the integral closures are not necessarily local anymore. But the formulation of your questions seem to imply that you would like $B$, $C$, and $D$ to be local? –  Torsten Wedhorn Mar 15 '11 at 10:28
1  
Thanks. I've edited it to be more clear that I am not assuming that $A$ has any special properties. –  PJT Mar 15 '11 at 17:31
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Counterexample based on Hagen's remark: take $A=\mathbb{R}[[t]]$, $B=\mathbb{R}[[\sqrt{t}]]$, $C=\mathbb{R}[[\sqrt{-t}]]$. Both have residue field $\mathbb{R}$, but $D$ contains a square root of $-1$ (namely $\sqrt{-t}/\sqrt{t}$), so its residue field must be $\mathbb{C}$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

No answer, just a simple starting point: forget about the rings and look at two finite extensions $l_1/k$ and $l_2/k$. Then the separable closure of $k$ in the compositum $l_1.l_2$ indeed is the compositum of the separable closures $l_1^s$ and $l_2^s$ of $k$ in $l_1$ and $l_2$: by definition the extension $l_1/l_1^s$ is purely inseparable, hence the extension $(l_1.l_2^s)/(l_1^s.l_2^s)$ is purely inseparable too. The same holds for $(l_2.l_1^s)/(l_1^s.l_2^s)$ hence for $(l_1.l_2)/(l_1^s.l_2^s)$.

So one has to search for counterexamples in the case $k(m_D )\neq k(m_B ).k(m_C )$. For example one could start with a case in which the ring compositum $B_{m_B}\cdot C_{m_C}$ is not normal.

share|improve this answer
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.