MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose {$K_i/\mathbb{Q}$} is a finite set of finite galois extensions of $\mathbb{Q}$ with Galois groups $G_i$.

Suppose we know the ramifications of $K_i$ quite well (e.g., their decomposition groups, inertia groups at some primes),

  1. What can we say about the ramifications of the compositum field of $K_i$ (e.g., the ramification index, inertia degree of some primes)? Any References?

  2. Particularly, when $K_1\cap K_2=\mathbb{Q}$, we know that $K_1K_2$ has Galois group $G_1\times G_2$. Is the corresponding decomposition group (resp. inertia group) of the form $D_1\times D_2$ (resp. $I_1\times I_2$)? (This is wrong in general, see Álvaro Lozano-Robledo's answer for a counterexample)

  3. How about the case if we remove the requirement that $K_i/\mathbb{Q}$ are Galois?

share|cite|improve this question
@Alex: however the ramification degree is NOT multiplicative while taking the compositum. You can observe what is going on locally over $\mathbb{Q}_p$, any two distinct totally ramified Galois extensions of degree $p$ generate the maximal abelian elementary $p$-extension, which contains an unramified part. – Maurizio Monge Jul 27 '11 at 7:40
Maurizio's point is illustrated in the following answer:… – Chandan Singh Dalawat Jul 27 '11 at 10:37

For (2), the answer is no, not in general. Here is a simple example: take $K_1=\mathbb{Q}(i)$ and $K_2=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$. Then both $K_1/\mathbb{Q}$ and $K_2/\mathbb{Q}$ are (totally) ramified at $p=2$ and $K_1\cap K_2=\mathbb{Q}$, but $F=K_1K_2$ is not totally ramified at $2$. In other words, the extension $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5},i)/\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$ is unramified at $2$ (in fact, $F$ is the Hilbert class field of $K_2$, so it is unramified everywhere).

On the other hand, if you take $K_1=\mathbb{Q}(i)$ and $K_2=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$, then $F=K_1K_2$ is totally ramified at $2$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. (Here $F=\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_8)$.)

In both cases, $I_1=D_1=G_1$ and $I_2=D_2=G_2$ (in your notation) but in the first case the inertia in the compositum has order $2$ and in the second case it has order $4$. This shows that one needs to know more than the decomposition and inertia subgroups at a prime in each $K_i$ to understand the ramification index in the compositum.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is a purely local phenomenon at the prime $2$. In other words, although the quadratic extensions ${\mathbf Q}_2(\sqrt{-1})$ and ${\mathbf Q}_2(\sqrt{3})$ are both (totally) ramified over ${\mathbf Q}_2$, their compositum ${\mathbf Q}_2(\sqrt{-1},\sqrt3)$ is not totally ramified, for it contains the unramified quadratic extension ${\mathbf Q}_2(\sqrt{5})$. For more examples, see {\it Example} 51 in – Chandan Singh Dalawat Jul 28 '11 at 4:45

Your Answer


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.