The following is quoted from the Mathematical Reviews.

MR0544896 (80j:12002) Reviewed
Bhaskaran, M. Construction of genus field and some applications. J. Number Theory 11 (1979), no. 4, 488–497.
12A35 (12A65)

Let $k$ be a finite algebraic number field and $K$ its Hilbert class field, i.e., $K/k$ is maximally abelian such that every finite prime divisor of $k$ is unramified in $K$. Let ${\bf Q}$ be the rational number field and $A$ its maximal abelian extension. The author calls the intersection $\tilde{K} = K \cap Ak$ the narrow genus field of $k$, and proves that $\tilde{K}$ is obtained as a compositum field of $k$ and $\Omega^{(p)}$'s, i.e., $\tilde{K}=k\prod_{p} \Omega^{(p)}$, where $p$ runs over every positive rational integer and each $\Omega^{(p)}$ is a cyclic extension of ${\bf Q}$ that has a power of the ideal $(p)$ as its conductor.

{Reviewer's remarks: This seems rather odd, for the following reason. Let $g(x)$ be a polynomial of degree 4 with rational integer coefficients such that $g(x) \equiv x^4 +1 \mod 2^m$, where $m$ is a sufficiently large integer; let $\alpha$ be a root of the equation $g(x)=0$ and set $k={\bf Q}(\alpha)$. If we can take $\alpha$ such that $g(x)$ is irreducible over ${\bf Q}$ and the Galois closure $L$ of $k/{\bf Q}$ has Galois group isomorphic with the symmetric group $S_4$, then clearly $k$ cannot have any quadratic subfield and so $k \cap A = {\bf Q}$, and $[k(\sqrt{i})\colon k] = 4$. Clearly, as $m$ is large, the prime ideal $(2)$ of ${\bf Q}$ is completely ramified in $k$ and $k(\sqrt{i})\subset\tilde{K}$. Since $\mathrm{Gal}(k(\sqrt{i})/k) \cong \mathrm{Gal}({\bf Q}(\sqrt{i})/{\bf Q})$ is a Klein four-group, we can easily obtain a contradiction from the author's theorem stated above. Thus, if it is valid, we must have the conclusion that $\mathrm{Gal}(L/{\bf Q})$ is not isomorphic with $S_4$ for every irreducible $g(x)$ as stated above. This is odd.}

Reviewed by K. Masuda

Question: Could anyone explain why $k(\sqrt{i})\subset\tilde{K}$, i.e. why the dyadic prime ideal of $k$ is unramified at the extension $k(\sqrt{i})/k$? Here $i=\sqrt{-1}$.


The setup ensures that the compositum $k(\sqrt{i})$ will be (isomorphic to) $k\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{i})$.

When $g$ is $2$-adically close to $x^4+1$ -- it turns out that mod $8$ (i.e., $m=3$) is good enough -- then the field $F=\mathbb{Q}_2(\sqrt{i}) = \mathbb{Q}_2(i,\sqrt{2},\sqrt{-2})$ contains four approximate simple roots of $g$ (namely the four eighth roots of unity) and, by Hensel, even four exact roots of $g$. Therefore the $2$-adic completion of $k$ will be (isomorphic to) the local field $F$, with its single fully ramified prime ideal above $2$, and completing $k(\sqrt{i})$ above $2$, which amounts to taking $k(\sqrt{i})\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}} \mathbb{Q}_2$, will produce $F\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_2}F$, a sum of four copies of $F$. In other words, the dyadic prime decomposes fully from $k$ to $k(\sqrt{i})$. Since $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{i})|\mathbb{Q}$ is unramified at all odd finite primes, so is $k(\sqrt{i})|k$; therefore it is unramified at all finite primes, and thus (up to isomorphism) contained in $\tilde{K}$.

Behind all this is the fact that there are only a small handful of ways in which $2$ can ramify in a quadratic extension of $\mathbb{Q}_2$. The argument not only establishes that $2$ is fully ramified in $k|\mathbb{Q}$, but that it is fully ramified in precisely the right way, the same way as in $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{i})|\mathbb{Q}$ and $F|\mathbb{Q}_2$.

Examples are easy to come by. E.g., $g(x)=x^4-8x-15$ or $g(x)=x^4-8x+25$ both have Galois group $S_4$, and in both cases we get such an unramified $V_4$ extension $k(\sqrt{i})|k$.

I see no contradiction arising. Of course, since the Klein group $V_4$ isn't a cyclic group, we need at least two nontrivial factors $\Omega^{(p)}$ here, say $\mathbb{Q}(i)$ as $\Omega^{(4)}$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ as $\Omega^{(2)}$, aside from whatever might come from other unramified extensions of $k$ contained in $Ak$.

  • $\begingroup$ Dear CNiklasch, Thank you very much for your explanation. I think i understand your explanation. Let $\zeta$ be a primitive $8$-th root of unit. Then, the $2$-adic valuation $|\zeta^i-\zeta^j|_2=2^{-1}$ ($i,j\in\{1,3,5,7\}$ and $i\neq j$). Let $f(x)=x^4+1$, then $\prod(\alpha-\zeta^i)=f(\alpha)=f(\alpha)-g(\alpha)$, $\alpha$ is a root of $g(x)$. And $\prod|\alpha-\zeta^i|_2=|f(\alpha)-g(\alpha)|_2\leq\|f-g\|$, where $\|f-g\|$ is the Gauss norm (the $2$-adic valuation $|\alpha|_2=1$).Hence, at least for one such $i$, $|\alpha-\zeta^i|_2\leq\|f-g\|^{1/4}$. $\endgroup$ – HGF Apr 2 '14 at 1:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thus, if $\|f-g\|\leq 2^{-3}$, then $|\alpha-\zeta^i|_2\leq2^{-\frac{3}{4}}<2^{-1}=\min|\zeta^i-\zeta^j|_2$. Then, according to your explanation, by Hensel or Krasner's lemma, we can deduce that $\mathbb{Q}_2(\zeta)\subset\mathbb{Q}_2(\alpha)$ and thus $\mathbb{Q}_2(\zeta)=\mathbb{Q}_2(\alpha)$. Thank you again! $\endgroup$ – HGF Apr 2 '14 at 1:56
  • $\begingroup$ Correction : $|\zeta^i-\zeta^j|_2=2^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $|\alpha-\zeta^i|_2\leq2^{-\frac{3}{4}}<2^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\min|\zeta^i-\zeta^j|_2$. $\endgroup$ – HGF Apr 2 '14 at 2:17

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.