Let $K$ be a cubic extension of the rational numbers of discriminant $D$ and $\{ 1, \omega_2, \omega_3 \}$ be an integral basis for the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_K$ of $K$. Let $\alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K$ be primitive so that no rational prime divides $\alpha$, let the norm of $\alpha$ be equal to $a^3$, with $a \in \mathbb{Z}$, and assume that $a$ is prime to $D$.

Question: Do there always exist rational integers $\beta_2$, $\beta_3$ such that $$\{ a, \beta_2 + \omega_2, \beta_3 + \omega_3 \}$$ is an integral basis for the ideal $(a, \alpha )$ ? Even when $\gcd (disc.(\alpha ), a ) \not= 1$ ?

  • $\begingroup$ By $\text{disc} (\alpha )$ I mean the discriminant of the minimum polynomial of $\alpha$. $\endgroup$ – Samuel Hambleton Feb 4 '12 at 9:38

If I understand this correctly, then the answer is no. If an ideal $I$ has a basis of the desired form, then clearly any element of the ring of integers is congruent to a rational integer modulo $I$. But this implies that $I$ is a product of ideals of inertia degree $1$.

Thus if $\alpha$ is the cube of an ideal of degree $2$, such a basis cannot exist.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah-ha! Thank you very much Dr. Lemmermeyer. I think that the rational prime $p \mid \gcd (\text{disc}(\alpha ), a)$ if and only if there is an ideal $(p, \pi )$ of inertia degree $2$ dividing $I$. Thus an ideal $I$ may have such a basis while it conjugate might not! $\endgroup$ – Samuel Hambleton Feb 6 '12 at 2:54
  • $\begingroup$ If the extension is not normal, the "conjugate" ideal is not in the same field; in normal cubic extensions there are no ideals of degree 2. If you're interested in class groups, a theorem of Kummer (generalized by Hilbert) states that every ideal class is generated by an ideal divisible only by prime ideals of degree 1. $\endgroup$ – Franz Lemmermeyer Feb 6 '12 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ I meant to say that the rational prime $p$ might split as $(p) = \mathfrak{p}_1 \mathfrak{p}_2$, where $\mathfrak{p}_1$ has degree $1$ and $\mathfrak{p}_2$ has degree $2$, in which case $\mathfrak{p}_1$ would have such a basis while $\mathfrak{p}_2$ does not. Your remarks are interesting anyway. I'll keep the theorem in mind. It looks like it could be handy. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Samuel Hambleton Feb 8 '12 at 7:53

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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