Timeline for Ramified primes in the Chebotarev Density Theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2010 at 14:08 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | Ack! My brain was clearly not having a good night! | |
| Apr 14, 2010 at 14:08 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Apr 14, 2010 at 10:54 | comment | added | David E Speyer | My comment was to a previous version of Ben's answer. | |
| Apr 14, 2010 at 4:13 | comment | added | Craig Westerland | This is not the Conrad you are looking for. | |
| Apr 14, 2010 at 4:08 | history | undeleted | Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Apr 14, 2010 at 4:08 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 266 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2010 at 22:33 | history | deleted | Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Apr 13, 2010 at 22:28 | comment | added | David E Speyer | In the previous comment, "is a subring of O_K" should read "is a full rank subring of O_K". | |
| Apr 13, 2010 at 22:25 | comment | added | David E Speyer | This is a bit subtle. The definition of unramified is that there are no repeated prime ideals in the factorization of (p). If the ring of integers of K is of the form Z[a]/f(a), then this is equivalent to saying that f(x) has no repeated factors mod p. If Z[a]/f(a) is a subring of O_K, then f(x) having no repeated factors mod p implies that p is unrammified, but not vice versa. Fortunately, the direction Adam needs is the true one. | |
| Apr 13, 2010 at 22:09 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2010 at 21:59 | history | answered | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |