I guess everybody knows this, I am just mentioning it: in Atiyah-MacDonald's Commutative Algebra, the proof for the extension of valuation is done by using maps $f$ from the original ring A (in our case $\mathbb{Z}_p$, corrected to ℤ(p)) to an algebraic closure (say $\mathbb{C}$ or as Laurent Berger mentioned $\overline{\mathbb{Q}_p}$), \overline{\mathbb{Q}_p}$, or $\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}$ in our case), and then for any $a\not\in A$, there is a way to decide whether we can extend the valution to $A[a]$ or $A[a^{-1}]$, using the maps previously defined. To me, this method seems a little bit more explicit, which is actually not.
|
3 | added 42 characters in body | ||
|
|
||||
|
|
2 | added 40 characters in body | ||
|
I guess everybody knows this, I am just mentioning it: in Atiyah-MacDonald's Commutative Algebra, the proof for the extension of valuation is done by using maps $f$ from the original ring A (in our case $\mathbb{Z}_p$) \mathbb{Z}_p$, corrected to ℤ(p)) to an algebraic closure (say $\mathbb{C}$ or as Laurent Berger mentioned $\overline{\mathbb{Q}_p}$), and then for any $a\not\in A$, there is a way to decide whether we can extend the valution to $A[a]$ or $A[a^{-1}]$, using the maps previously defined. To me, this method seems a little bit more explicit, which is actually not. |
||||
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
I guess everybody knows this, I am just mentioning it: in Atiyah-MacDonald's Commutative Algebra, the proof for the extension of valuation is done by using maps $f$ from the original ring A (in our case $\mathbb{Z}_p$) to an algebraic closure (say $\mathbb{C}$ or as Laurent Berger mentioned $\overline{\mathbb{Q}_p}$), and then for any $a\not\in A$, there is a way to decide whether we can extend the valution to $A[a]$ or $A[a^{-1}]$, using the maps previously defined. To me, this method seems a little bit more explicit, which is actually not. |
||||
