If K is a finite extension of $\mathbb Q_p$ for some prime number $p$, (possibly need $p \neq 2$), $L_1$ and $L_2$ totally ramified abelian extension of $K$, $ \pi_1, \pi_2$ are respectively the uniformizer that generates each field. Is it true that $ L_1 L_2$ is totally ramified iff $Nm_{L_1 / K}(\pi_1)$, $Nm_{L_2 / K}(\pi_2)$ differs by an element in the intersection of the two norm groups.

Is there a proof of this result (or the correct version of the result) without employing big tools?

Add at 6:49 pm 18th Feb: From Class Field Theory we know that there are one maximal totally ramified abelian extension of a local number field $K$ corresponding to each uniformizer, so I would expect that some version of the above statement is true. At least when $Nm_{L_1 / K}(\pi_1)=Nm_{L_2 / K}(\pi_2)=x$, $ L_1 L_2$ is totally ramified, because both are contained in $K^{ram}_x$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Take the base field Q_2 and consider the quadratic extensions generated by square roots of -1 and 2, with uniformizers 1+i and sqrt(2). Their norms 2 and -2 differ by -1, which is a norm from the second, but nor the first extension; yet the compositum is totally ramified. Is there something I don't see? $\endgroup$ – Franz Lemmermeyer Feb 18 '10 at 10:18
  • $\begingroup$ I think I need to revise it. I am still very unclear about the behavior of the norm map. $\endgroup$ – abcdxyz Feb 18 '10 at 11:00

Let me give an elementary answer in the case of abelian exponent-$p$ extensions of $K$, where $K$ is a finite extension of $\mathbb{Q}_p$ containing a primitive $p$-th root $\zeta$ of $1$. This is the basic case, and Kummer theory suffices.

Such extensions correspond to sub-$\mathbb{F}_p$-spaces in $\overline{K^\times} = K^\times/K^{\times p}$ (thought of a vector space over $\mathbb{F}_p$; not to be confused with the multiplicative group of an algebraic closure of $K$).

It can be shown fairly easily that the unramified degree-$p$ extension of $K$ corresponds to the $\mathbb{F}_p$-line $\bar U_{pe_1}$, where $e_1$ is the ramification index of $K|\mathbb{Q}_p(\zeta)$ and $\bar U_{pe_1}$ is the image in $\bar K^\times$ of the group of units congruent to $1$ modulo the maximal ideal to the exponent $pe_1$. This is the "deepest line" in the filtration on $\bar K^\times$. See for example prop. 16 of arXiv:0711.3878.

An abelian extension $L|K$ of exponent $p$ is totally ramified if and only if the subspace $D$ which gives rise to $L$ (in the sense that $L=K(\root p\of D)$) does not contain the line $\bar U_{pe_1}$.

Now, if $L_1$ and $L_2$ are given by the sub-$\mathbb{F}_p$-spaces $D_1$ and $D_2$, then the compositum $L_1L_2$ is given by the subspace $D_1D_2$ (the subspace generated by the union of $D_1$ and $D_2$). Thus the compositum $L_1L_2$ is totally ramified if and only if $D_1D_2$ does not contain the deepest line $\bar U_{pe_1}$.

Addendum. A similar remark can be made when the base field $K$ is a finite extension of $\mathbb{F}_p((\pi))$. Abelian extensions $L|K$ of exponent $p$ correspond to sub-$\mathbb{F}_p$-spaces of $\overline{K^+}=K/\wp(K^+)$ (not to be confused with an algebraic closure of $K$), by Artin-Schreier theory. The unramified degree-$p$ extension corresponds to the image of $\mathfrak{o}$ in $\bar K$, which is an $\mathbb{F}_p$-line $\bar{\mathfrak o}$ (say).

Thus, the compositum of two totally ramified abelian extensions $L_i|K$ of exponent $p$ is totally ramified precisely when the subspace $D_1+D_2$ does not contain the line $\bar{\mathfrak o}$, where $D_i$ is the subspace giving rise to $L_i$ in the sense that $L_i=K(\wp^{-1}(D_i))$. See Parts 5 and 6 of arXiv:0909.2541.


This does not answer your question, but rather goes in the opposite direction. Abhyankar's lemma states that if, say, $L_1$ is tamely ramified, then $L_1L_2/L_2$ will be unramified. I doubt that you can exclude this possibility simply by looking at the norms of the uniformizers, but I might be wrong.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Abhyankar's lemma asserts that if $K|\mathbb{Q}_p$, $L_1|K$, $L_2|K$ are finite extensions with $L_1|K$ tame of ramification index dividing the degree of $L_2|K$, then the extension $L_1L_2|L_2$ is unramified, Cf. Narkiewicz (p.~236). $\endgroup$ – Chandan Singh Dalawat Feb 18 '10 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ That makes more sense to me. $\endgroup$ – abcdxyz Feb 18 '10 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ oops - I was thinking about the simplest case where both L_1 and L_2 are cyclic of prime degree. Sorry $\endgroup$ – Franz Lemmermeyer Feb 18 '10 at 13:48
  • $\begingroup$ There is a wikipedia entry of Abhyankar's lemma, with a reference pointing to SGA 1. And they have different statements! Also different from Chandan's! Wikipedia requires the ramification degree of L_1 devides the ramification degree of L_2. And SGA 1 requires both L_1 and L_2 to be tamely ramified. I can't find the reference of Narkiewicz (p.~236), what book is it? Thank you! $\endgroup$ – natura Feb 18 '10 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhyankar%27s_lemma $\endgroup$ – natura Feb 18 '10 at 17:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.