Skip to main content
added 139 characters in body
Source Link
Mahesh Kakde
  • 399
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8

If I am not mistaken, it proves that mu invariant of the Z_p times Z_p extension is 0 and this was Schneps's thesis. It is unfortunately not enough to show the conjecture of Iwasawa in this case even using the vanishing of anticyclotomic mu invariant proven by Hida.

Edit: In fact, what Schneps proves is that the mu invariant of the Z_p extension in which only one of the primes above p is ramified.

If I am not mistaken, it proves that mu invariant of the Z_p times Z_p extension is 0 and this was Schneps's thesis. It is unfortunately not enough to show the conjecture of Iwasawa in this case even using the vanishing of anticyclotomic mu invariant proven by Hida

If I am not mistaken, it proves that mu invariant of the Z_p times Z_p extension is 0 and this was Schneps's thesis. It is unfortunately not enough to show the conjecture of Iwasawa in this case even using the vanishing of anticyclotomic mu invariant proven by Hida.

Edit: In fact, what Schneps proves is that the mu invariant of the Z_p extension in which only one of the primes above p is ramified.

Source Link
Mahesh Kakde
  • 399
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8

If I am not mistaken, it proves that mu invariant of the Z_p times Z_p extension is 0 and this was Schneps's thesis. It is unfortunately not enough to show the conjecture of Iwasawa in this case even using the vanishing of anticyclotomic mu invariant proven by Hida