2
$\begingroup$

I've been dealing with the following situation:

Let $R\subseteq S$ be an extension of Dedekind rings, where $Quot(R)=:L \subseteq E:=Quot(S)$ is a $G$-Galois extension. Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a prime of $R$, and $\mathfrak{q}$ a primes of $S$ above $\mathfrak{p}$. Let $D_{\mathfrak{q}}$ denote the decomposition group, and $I_{\mathfrak{q}}$ the inertia group, of $\mathfrak{q}$ over $\mathfrak{p}$.

However, unlike in the classic case, I allow the residue fields of $\mathfrak{p}$ to be infinite, with positive characteristic. So the extension of residue fields may be inseparable.

It seems that the paper I'm reading implicitly assumes:

$|I_{\mathfrak{q}}|=e[\kappa(\mathfrak{q}):\kappa(\mathfrak{p})]_ i $ (the ramification index times the inseparability degree of the residue extension)

$|D_{\mathfrak{q}}|=e[\kappa(\mathfrak{q}):\kappa(\mathfrak{p})]$

$|G|=re[\kappa(\mathfrak{q}):\kappa(\mathfrak{p})]$ (where $r$ is the number of primes above $\mathfrak{p}$)

Is that right? I keep hitting walls when I try to prove it.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I believe that's right, at least when $S$ is finitely generated over $R$. See Serre's Local Fields page 21-22 (in the English translation); he states his assumptions on page 13.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Serre proves that the module-finiteness condition for integral closure holds when the extension of fraction fields is separable, so in the context of the question $S$ is automatically module-finite over $R$. These matters can also be considered from the viewpoint of valuation theory, allowing for the possibility of non-archimedean valuations which are not discretely-valued. See 3.6/5,6 in "Non-archimedean analysis" by Bosch, Guntzer, Remmert. $\endgroup$ – BCnrd Mar 31 '10 at 0:18

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.