Timeline for When is a local subring of a number field a valuation ring?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2014 at 19:41 | vote | accept | abcdxyz | ||
| Aug 20, 2014 at 19:41 | comment | added | abcdxyz | Yes, the ring I am concerning about is an order. Thanks for the answer. | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 16:51 | comment | added | paul garrett | How is your non-Dedekind ring described, then? Is it an "order" of a ring of algebraic integers, for example? If so, then localizing at any prime not dividing the "conductor" will make the localization be the same as the localization of the full ring of algebraic integers... Or what context do you have? | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 16:32 | comment | added | abcdxyz | Thanks for answering but this is not what I need. My problem essentially involved proving the localization of a non Dedekind ring is a valuation ring. I managed to prove it but the proof is too long, so i wonder if there is some easy usable result somewhere. | |
| Aug 20, 2014 at 16:04 | history | answered | paul garrett | CC BY-SA 3.0 |