Let $K$ be a henselian valuation field with residue field $k$, then the decomposition group surjects onto Galois group of the residue field, with kernel the inertia subgroup, namely we have short exact sequence:$$0\to I\to\mathrm{Gal}_K\to\mathrm{Gal}_k\to 0$$

When $K$ is a local field, we can split the sequence by lifting the Frobenius; when $K=k((t))$, we can split the sequence by lifting the Galois action (with trivial action on $t$). But in general, do we know if the sequence always split?

(The splitting of the sequence is mentioned as a well-known fact in Proposition A5 in "Exposant et indice d'algèbres simples centrales non ramifiées", but I couldn't find a reference.. Splitting of the sequence would imply that the restriction morphism $H^i_{et}(\mathrm{Spec}(V),M)\to H^i_{et}(\mathrm{Spec}(K),M)$ is injective for any locally constant sheave $M$ on the valuation ring $V$.)


Good question! Let me try to guess what Gabber had in mind there. (Note that he only says "known" (to him), not "well-known"...)

The claim is that the extension splits. Note that to prove this, we are free to replace $K$ by any (algebraic) extension $K'$ whose residue field $k'$ is purely inseparable over $k$. By Zorn's lemma, we can choose $K$ so that it admits no further such extensions. In particular, $K$ is perfect and the value group is divisible. Let $p$ be the characteristic of $k$. Then it follows that $I$ must be pro-$p$, as the maximal unramified extension $K^{\mathrm{ur}}$ of $K$ will still have divisible value group, and so have no nontrivial tame extensions.

Now, if $I$ was nonzero, there is a map $I\to \overline{I}$ where $\overline{I}$ is a nonzero $\mathbb F_p$-vector space (the quotient by the Frattini subgroup). By maximality of $K$, the induced sequence $$0\to \overline{I}\to \overline{G}\to \mathrm{Gal}_k\to 0$$ is nonsplit, so gives a nonzero class in $H^2(\mathrm{Gal}_k,\overline{I})$. But Galois groups in characteristic $p$ have $p$-cohomological dimension $\leq 1$ by Artin-Schreier theory.

  • $\begingroup$ Is the only reason to enlarge K to ensure that I is pro-p? That's a really interesting technique! $\endgroup$ – Asvin Mar 11 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ One thing I am a bit confused about: given that $K^{ur}$ has a divisible value group, how do we know that its tame extensions are trivial? Would you explain a bit more? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Qixiao Mar 11 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ The book of Gabber-Ramero on Almost ring theory has a nice Section 6.2 on ramification theory. See in particular 6.2.17 (and 6.2.12 for the assertion that the non-tame part is pro-$p$). $\endgroup$ – Peter Scholze Mar 11 at 21:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Asvin I think enlarging $K$ is also essential for the last part of the argument. If $K$ is not maximal but only have divisible value group then the last exact sequence could spilt $\endgroup$ – ali Mar 14 at 20:19

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.