Let $R$ be a valuation ring containing a field $k$, with residue field $F$ and quotient field $K$. Assume $F/k$ is separable. Is $K/k$ separable?

I have convinced myself that (for a positive answer) it is enough to treat the case of a rank one valuation ("height one" in Bourbaki's terminology), with $F=k$ and $K/k$ finitely generated. (Instaed of the latter condition, we may assume $K$ complete).

The answer is yes for a discrete valuation, because then (if $F=k$) the completion of $R$ is isomorphic to $k[[t]]$.


2 Answers 2


What about this: we have to prove that $K$ and every purely inseparable extension $l/k$ are linearly disjoint over $k$.

Let $x_1,\ldots ,x_r\in l$ be $k$-linearly independent elements and assume $0=a_1x_1+\ldots +a_rx_r$ for some elements $a_i\in K$. We can divide by the coefficient $a_j$ with the least value and thus assume $a_1,\ldots ,a_r\in R$ with at least one coefficient being a unit of $R$.

There is a unique valuation ring $S$ of $K.l$ dominating $R$. Taking residues modulo the maximal ideal of $S$ yields a linear combination $0=\overline{a_1}x_1+\ldots +\overline{a_r}x_r$ in the field $F.l$. The separability of $F/k$ yields $\overline{a_i}=0$ for all $i$, a contradiction.


Assume that $F=k$ and let $p=char k$.

If $K/k$ is inseparable then there exists $\alpha\in K$ such that min. poly of $\alpha$ over $k$ is equal $g(X^{p^n})$ with $g$ irreducible separable. Since $R$ is a valuation ring, either $\alpha$ or $\alpha^{-1}$ is in $R$. We may assume that $\alpha\in R$ by symmetry. Let $\bar{\alpha}$ be the image of $\alpha$ in $k$. Then $\bar{\alpha}^{p^n}$ is a root of $g$ in $k$, hence $g(X)=X-\bar{\alpha}^{p^n}$, which implies $(\alpha-\bar{\alpha})^{p^n}=0$ in $R$. Since $R$ is a domain $\alpha=\bar{\alpha}\in k$.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ There are inseparable extensions containing no inseparable algebraic elements, e.g. the extension $E/k(x,y)$ where $E$ is the fraction field of $k(x,y)[t,u]/(t^p-xu^p-y)$. $\endgroup$ Feb 22, 2011 at 15:19
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. I thought both "$L/K$ is separable" and "$L/K$ is inseparable" implicitly assume that the field extension is algebraic? Otherwise how can we talk about whether the statement "for any $a\in L$, the minimal polynomial of $a$ over $K$ is separable" is true? $\endgroup$ Feb 22, 2011 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ The notion of 'separable extension' has been generalized to transcendental extensions: An arbitrary extension $F/K$ is called separable if $F$ is linearly disjoint from the maximal purely inseparable extension of $K$, over $K$. $\endgroup$ Feb 22, 2011 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Zev, have a look at chapter II.15 of Zariski-Samuel Commutative Algebra. $\endgroup$
    – vytas
    Feb 23, 2011 at 9:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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