1
$\begingroup$

Let $E=\mathbb{F}_p(\!(u)\!)$, the Laurent series field over $\mathbb{F}_p$. Let $K/E$ be a finite normal separable extension. Consider the field $L=K(x \mid x^p-x-a=0 \text{ for some } a \in K)$. Let $\hat{L}$ be the $u$-adic completion of $L$. We write $G_E=\mathrm{Gal}(E^s/E)$ for the absolute Galois group of $E$. By continuity $G_E$ acts on $\hat{L}$. What is $(\hat{L})^{G_E}$?

In particular, is $(\hat{L})^{G_E}= E$? One has $\hat{L} \subseteq \widehat{E^s}$ and following the answer to one of my last questions one also has $(\widehat{E^s})^{G_E}=\widehat{E^{\mathrm{perf}}}$. Therefore, we are left with the question if $\hat{L} \cap \widehat{E^{\mathrm{perf}}}=E$?

Edit: and what if we consider for some $m \in \mathbb{Z}$ the field $\hat{L}_m$ where $L_m= K(x \mid x^p-x-a=0 \text{ for some } a \in K \text{ with } \nu(a) \geq m)$? What in the special case where $m=0$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You mean $L=K(x \mid x^p-x-a=0)$ for some $a \in K$, right? $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Sep 16 '16 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ No, such $L$ would be finite over $E$, hence already $u$-adically complete. I would like to adjoin all zeroes of Artin-Schreyer Polynomials to $K$. $\endgroup$ – Louis Sep 16 '16 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ If $K/E$ isn't Galois, then $G_E$ doesn't act on $K$. Why does it act on the completion of $L$? $\endgroup$ – znt Sep 16 '16 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ Aren't the $L_m$ finite over $K$? $\endgroup$ – Felipe Voloch Sep 17 '16 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, I got my signs confused. $L_1 = K$ because if $\nu(a)>0$, then $z=-\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a^{p^n}$ converges and $z^p-z=a$. My earlier argument shows that $L_{m}$ is finite over $L_{m+1}$ and by induction $L_m$ is finite for all $m\le 0$ (and $=K$ for $m>0$). $\endgroup$ – Felipe Voloch Sep 18 '16 at 2:48
4
$\begingroup$

The right way to do this would be to give a short, efficient, abstract argument. I, however, will give a fairly messy example to show that $u^{1/p}\in\hat L$.

I’ll use $K=E=\Bbb F_p((u))$, and set $a_n=u^{1-pn}$ for $n>0$, and set $f_n(x)=x^p-x-a_n$, an irreducible and separable polynomial over $E$. Its roots are of valuation $-n+1/p$, and I’ll multiply these all by $u^n$ to form the polynomial $g_n(x)=x^{pn}f(X/u^n)=x^p-u^{(p-1)n}x-u$. This is Eisenstein, so a root $\alpha_n$ of $g_n$ will be a generator of a field $K_n$, which by its construction is one of the fields whose compositum defines $L$.

Now I claim that $\lim_n\alpha_n=u^{1/p}$. For this, I need $v(\alpha_n-u^{1/p})$, where $v$ is the $u$-adic valuation normalized so that $v(u)=1$, and I’ll exhibit this as $\frac1{p^2}v\bigl(\mathbf N^{K_n(t^{1/p})}_E(\alpha_n-t^{1/p})\bigr)$.

Since $\mathrm{Irr}(\alpha_n,E)=g_n(x)=x^p-u^{(p-1)n}x-u$, this is also $\mathrm{Irr}\bigl(\alpha_n,E(u^{1/p})\bigr)$, and so $\mathrm{Irr}\bigl(\alpha_n-u^{1/p},E(u^{1/p})\bigr)=g(x+u^{1/p})=x^p-u^{(p-1)n}x-u^{(p-1)n+1/p}$. To get the minimal polynomial for $\alpha_n-u^{1/p}$ over $E$, just raise to the $p$-power. We get: $$\mathrm{Irr}(\alpha_n-u^{1/p},E\,) = x^{p^2}-u^{p(p-1)n}x^p-u^{p(p-1)n+1}\,. $$ Thus $v(\alpha_n-u^{1/p})=\frac1{p^2}\bigl(p(p-1)n+1\bigr)>n/2$, which establishes the claim.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer! I indeed like this explicit argument. However, the explicit construction gives me (moral) hope, that in the case of the $L_m$ (especially $L_0$) one might obtain a positive answer. $\endgroup$ – Louis Sep 17 '16 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ Even for $L_0$, I don’t doubt that at all. $\endgroup$ – Lubin Sep 18 '16 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I'm not sure of what to make from this comment. Do you believe that $(L_0)^{G_E}=E$ or tend to $(L_0)^{G_E} \neq E$? Double negative and the stress words (even/at all) with unclear reference make it a bit confusing to me. $\endgroup$ – Louis Sep 18 '16 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I am interested in the completed $\hat{L}_m$ of course (too late to edit my previous comment) $\endgroup$ – Louis Sep 18 '16 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ (You can always delete the previous comment and rewrite.) Sorry for the unclarity, but I think your hopes are true for $L_0$: that $\widehat{L_0}\cap E^{\text{perf}}=E$ $\endgroup$ – Lubin Sep 18 '16 at 1:56

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.