Skip to main content
broken link fixed, cf. https://meta.mathoverflow.net/q/5301/70594
Source Link
Glorfindel
  • 2.8k
  • 6
  • 28
  • 38

Here is a reference that may be relevant (you may know it already): Auslander-Rim has a paperpaper called "Ramification index and multiplicity" . Even though they mostly discussed normal rings, their definition of tame ramification used only Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity, so it can be adapted to non-normal situations.

Here is a reference that may be relevant (you may know it already): Auslander-Rim has a paper called "Ramification index and multiplicity" . Even though they mostly discussed normal rings, their definition of tame ramification used only Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity, so it can be adapted to non-normal situations.

Here is a reference that may be relevant (you may know it already): Auslander-Rim has a paper called "Ramification index and multiplicity" . Even though they mostly discussed normal rings, their definition of tame ramification used only Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity, so it can be adapted to non-normal situations.

Source Link
Hailong Dao
  • 30.6k
  • 5
  • 102
  • 188

Here is a reference that may be relevant (you may know it already): Auslander-Rim has a paper called "Ramification index and multiplicity" . Even though they mostly discussed normal rings, their definition of tame ramification used only Hilbert-Samuel multiplicity, so it can be adapted to non-normal situations.