5 deleted 2 characters in body

Hmm... I can see offhand how to deal with it if L/K is Galois, but I'd have to think about it otherwise... In the Galois case, above p you have r many prime ideals, each with ramification index e, and residue degree f. The rough sketch is to view this as a problem about discrete valuations, rather than prime ideals.

N(P) (according to your second definition) = < N(a)| a in P >. We know this is an ideal in O_K, and it only remains to describe its decomposition into primes. Since the ramification index of p in (each) P above it is e, the minimal p-adic valuation of an element in N(P) is f. So if t is a parametrizing element of the p-adic valuation (choose it in O_K), then u*tf*rf generates N(P)p where u is in O_K - P (check that N(P) isn't divisible by other prime ideals, with similar methods).

Hope that helps a bit with the intuition.

After reading Adam's solution, I noticed a few things were wrong in my argument. They were corrected in the body.

4 deleted 35 characters in body

Hmm... I can see offhand how to deal with it if L/K is Galois, but I'd have to think about it otherwise... In the Galois case, above p you have r many prime ideals, each with ramification index e, and residue degree f. The rough sketch is to view this as a problem about discrete valuations, rather than prime ideals.

N(P) (according to your second definition) = the product of the primes above p with multiplicity ef each (check). < N(a)| a in P >. We know this is an ideal in O_K, and it only remains to describe its decomposition into primes. Since the ramification index of p in each (each) P above it is e, the minimal p-adic valuation of an element in N(P) is f*rf. So if t is a parametrizing element of the p-adic valuation (choose it in O_K), then u*tf*r generates N(P)p where u is in O_K - P (check that N(P) isn't divisible by other prime ideals, with similar methods).

So in general, N(P)=pf*r. Only if r=1 (if P is the only prime ideal over p), would the two definition jibe.

Hope that helps a bit with the intuition.

After reading Adam's solution, I noticed a few things were wrong in my argument. They were corrected in the body.

3 added 108 characters in body

Hmm... I can see offhand why how to deal with it would be true if L/K is Galois, but I'd have to think about it otherwise... In the Galois case, above p you have r many prime ideals, each with ramification index e, and residue degree f. The rough sketch is to view this as a problem about discrete valuations, rather than prime ideals.

N(P) (according to your second definition) = the product of the primes above p with multiplicity ef each (check). We know this is an ideal in O_K, and it only remains to describe its decomposition into primes. Since the ramification index of p in each P above it is e, the minimal p-adic valuation of an element in N(P) is ff*r. So if t is a parametrizing element of the p-adic valuation (choose it in O_K), then u*tff*r generates N(P)p where u is in O_K - P (check that N(P) isn't divisible by other prime ideals, with similar methods).And we are done

So in general, N(P)=pf*r. Only if r=1 (if P is the only prime ideal over p), would the two definition jibe.

Hope that helps a bit with the intuition.

2 added 12 characters in body
1