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

If $L/K$ is a Galois extension, then any prime $\mathfrak{p}$ of $K$ splits into a product ${\mathfrak P}_1^e\cdots {\mathfrak P}_g^e$ of primes in $L$, and the exponents on the primes are equal since the Galois group acts transitively on the primes dividing $\mathfrak{p}$.

Question: Is the converse true? Namely, if $L/K$ is an extension such that every prime of $K$ has a single associated exponent in this manner, then is $L/K$ necessarily Galois?

I believe the answer is yes but I was wondering in particular if there was an easy way to see this.

share|improve this question
You might be interested in my question here: mathoverflow.net/questions/34180, though I was requiring that the residue degrees also agreed for all primes above $\mathfrak{p}$. –  Zev Chonoles Apr 30 '12 at 23:08
Just demanding that all the exponents are equal isn't enough. Just take any non-Galois extension unramified everywhere -- e.g. take a number field $A$ whose Hilbert class field has a non-trivial Hilbert class field $B$ (these exist), and then take a non-normal subgroup of $Gal(B/A)$ giving an extension $C/A$, non-Galois but with every prime unramified. –  Kevin Buzzard Apr 30 '12 at 23:33
Zev's question is more reasonable since all but finitely many primes in $K$ are unramified in $L$, hence most $e$'s are 1 anyway. A Galois extension would have all residue field degrees over each $\mathfrak p$ equal, not just all ramification indices, so the converse is natural to ask with the residue field degrees taken into account also. –  KConrad May 1 '12 at 2:05
Jon: I changed the primes over $\mathfrak p$ in your question to ${\mathfrak P}_i$ instead of $\beta_i$: $\mathfrak P$ is a capital $P$, not anything like $B$. Don't $\mathfrak P$ and $\mathfrak B$ look completely different? :) –  KConrad May 1 '12 at 2:07

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If you throw in the residue degrees as well, then you get Zev's question. Otherwise, the converse is not true. As an example, consider a quadratic field that has an unramified everywhere $A_5$ Galois extension (see e.g. this MO thread). Since $A_5$ is simple, any proper intermediate extension will not be Galois over the quadratic. But the ramification indices will all be 1, since they are all 1 in the big extension.

share|improve this answer

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.