arXiv:1404.3916v1 [] 15 Apr 2014

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS
MICHIEL KOSTERS
Abstract. In this exposition we discuss the theory of algebraic extensions
of valued fields. Our approach is mostly through Galois theory. Most of the
results are well-known, but some are new. No previous knowledge on the
theory of valuations is needed.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definition of valuations
3. Main results
3.1. Properties of extensions of valuations
3.2. Normal extensions
3.3. Algebraic extensions
4. Preliminaries
4.1. Field theory
4.2. Tate’s lemma
4.3. Ordered abelian groups
5. Extending valuations
6. Normal extensions
6.1. Finite normal extensions
6.2. Normal extensions
7. Algebraic extensions
7.1. Proofs
7.2. Finding extensions explicitly
8. Defects in the discrete case
References

1
2
3
3
4
7
10
10
13
14
15
17
17
20
23
23
28
29
31

1. Introduction
General valuation theory plays an important role in many areas in mathematics.
Also in this thesis, we will quite often need valuation theory, although for our
applications the theory of discrete valuations suffices. There exist many books
on valuation theory, such as [End72], [EP05], [Kuh] and [Efr06]. They do not
treat the case of algebraic extensions of valuations theory completely. Furthermore,
Date: November 14, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13A18, 12J20, 12J10.
This article is part of my PhD thesis written under the supervision of Hendrik Lenstra. I would
like to congratulate him with his 65th birthday and as a present give him the reference he subtly
requested.
1

2

MICHIEL KOSTERS

definitions of certain concepts are not uniform. This article is written to fill this
gap in the literature and provide a useful reference, even when restricting to the
case of discrete valuations. Our definitions are motivated by our Galois theoretic
approach. No previous knowledge on the theory of valuations is needed and only
a slight proficiency in commutative algebra suffices (see for example [AM69] and
[Lan02]).
With this in mind, this article starts with definitions and the main statements.
In the second part of this article we will provide complete proofs. In the last part
of this article we give examples of extensions with a defect.
Our treatment of valuation theory starts with normal extensions of valued fields.
Later, by looking at group actions on fundamental sets, we prove statements for algebraic extensions of valued fields. The beginning of our Galois-theoretic approach
follows parts of [End72] and [EP05], although we prove that certain actions are
transtive in a different way. The upcoming book [Kuh] uses at certain points a very
similar approach.
Even though most of the statements in this article are known, there are a couple
of new contributions.
• We define when algebraic extensions of valued fields are immediate, unramified, tame, local, totally ramified or totally wild (Definition 3.2). The
definitions are motivated by practicality coming from Galois theory. We
also study maximal respectively minimal extensions with these properties
(Theorem 3.15).
• We compute several quantities, such as separable residue field degree extension, tame ramification index and more in finite algebraic extensions of
valued fields in terms of automorphism groups (Proposition 3.7). We will
give necessary and sufficient conditions for algebraic extensions of valued
fields to be immediate, unramified, . . . in terms of automorphism groups and
fundamental sets (Theorem 3.10). Current literature only seems to handle
the Galois case.
• Another notable result is Theorem 3.8: classical sequences from valuation
theory split if a specific residue field has some properties.
For a field K we denote by K an algebraic closure. For a domain R we denote
by Q(R) its field of fractions.
2. Definition of valuations
Let K be a field.
Definition 2.1. A valuation ring on K is a subring O ⊆ K such that for all x ∈ K ∗
we have x ∈ O or x−1 ∈ O.
Lemma 2.2. There is a bijection between the set of valuation rings of K and the
set of relations ≤ on K ∗ which satisfy for x, y, z ∈ K ∗
i. x ≤ y or y ≤ x;
ii. x ≤ y, y ≤ z =⇒ x ≤ z;
iii. x ≤ y =⇒ xz ≤ yz;
iv. if x + y 6= 0, then x ≤ x + y or y ≤ x + y.
This bijection maps a valuation ring O to the relation which for x, y ∈ K ∗ is defined
by: x ≤ y iff y/x ∈ O. The inverse maps ≤ to {x ∈ K ∗ : 1 ≤ x} ⊔ {0}.

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

3

Proof. Let O be a valuation ring and consider the obtained relation ≤. Then i
holds by definition. Property ii, iii hold as O is a ring. For iv, suppose that x ≤ y,
that is, y/x ∈ O. Then we have 1 + y/x = (x + y)/x ∈ O. Hence x ≤ x + y as
required.
Given ≤, we claim that O = {x ∈ K ∗ : 1 ≤ x} ⊔ {0} is a valuation ring. Let
x ∈ K ∗ . We have 1 ≤ 1 (i) and hence 1 ∈ O. Furthermore, −1 ∈ O. Indeed, by i
we have 1 ≤ −1 or −1 ≤ 1. In the first case we are done, in the second case we can
multiply by −1 to obtain 1 ≤ −1 (iii). Take x, y ∈ O \ {0}. Then if we multiply
x ≥ 1 by y we obtain xy ≥ y ≥ 1 (iii), and hence we have xy ∈ O (ii). If x + y 6= 0,
we find x + y ≥ x ≥ 1 or x + y ≥ y ≥ 1. From ii we conclude that x + y ≥ 1. Take
z ∈ K ∗ . Then we have Finally, we have 1 ≤ z or z ≤ 1 (i). In the first case, we
have z ∈ O. In the second case, we multiply by z −1 and iv gives 1 ≤ z −1 . Hence
z −1 ∈ O. This shows that O is a valuation ring.

Let O be a valuation on K. Consider the relation ≤ on K ∗ induced from O
as in the lemma above. One easily sees that O∗ = {x ∈ K ∗ : 1 ≤ x and x ≤ 1}.
Furthermore, if x, y ∈ O \ O∗ , we deduce from property iv and ii that x + y is not
a unit. Hence O is a local ring. The induced relation ≤ on K ∗ makes K ∗ /O∗ into
an ordered abelian group. An ordered abelian group is an abelian group P , written
additively, together with a relation ≤ such that for a, b, c ∈ P we have:
i. a ≤ b, b ≤ a =⇒ a = b;
ii. a ≤ b, b ≤ c =⇒ a ≤ c;
iii. a ≤ b or b ≤ a;
iv. a ≤ b =⇒ a + c ≤ b + c.
The group morphism v : K ∗ → K ∗ /O∗ is called the valuation map and it satisfies
for x, y ∈ K ∗ with x + y 6= 0: v(x + y) ≥ min(v(x), v(y)). The ordered abelian
group K ∗ /O∗ is called the value group.
To shorten notation we just write v for a valuation. We denote by Ov the
valuation ring with maximal ideal mv . The residue field is denoted by kv = Ov /mv .
The value group is denoted by ∆v = K ∗ /O∗ , for which we use additive notation.
We use the notation v : K ∗ → ∆v . We set

char(kv ) if char(kv ) 6= 0
pv =
1
if char(kv ) = 0.
A pair (K, v) as above is called a valued field . Note that a valuation v gives rise
to the valued field (Q(Ov ), v) where Q(Ov ) is the fraction field of Ov . If K ′ is a
subfield, then we denote by v|K ′ the valuation on K ′ corresponding to the valuation
ring Ov ∩ K.
3. Main results
In this section we will provide statements of the main results. Proofs of the
statements follow in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 and will occupy most of this article.
3.1. Properties of extensions of valuations. Let M ⊇ N be an extension
of field. When we say that M/N is separable we mean that it is algebraic and
separable. Similarly, normal means normal and algebraic (but not necessarily
separable). Assume that M/N is finite. We set [M : N ]s for the separability
degree of the extension and [M : N ]i for the inseparability degree. Note that
[M : N ] = [M : N ]s · [M : N ]s .

4

MICHIEL KOSTERS

Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L be an extension of K. An extension of v to
L is a valuation w on L satisfying Ow ∩ K = Ov , equivalently, mw ∩ K = mv . Such
extensions do exist (Proposition 5.6). We denote such an extension by (L, w) ⊇
(K, v) or w/v. Sometimes we write w|v if w extends v. The number of extensions of
v to L is denoted by gL,v , which is finite if L/K is finite (Proposition 5.6). Such an
extension (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) is called finite if L/K is finite. In a similar way we define
such an extension to be normal, separable, . . . . An extension induces inclusions
∆v → ∆w and kv → kw . The following proposition defines a lot of quantities
relating to a finite extension of valued fields and gives some properties of these
quantities (see Proposition 7.1).
Proposition 3.1. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite extension of valued fields. Then
one has:
• e(w/v) := (∆w : ∆v ) ∈ Z≥1 ( ramification index);
• et (w/v) := lcm{m ∈ Z≥1 : m| e(w/v), gcd(m, pv ) = 1} ∈ Z≥1 ( tame
ramification index);
Z
∈ pv ≥0 ( wild ramification index);
• ew (w/v) := ee(w/v)
t (w/v)
• f(w/v) := [kw : kv ] ∈ Z≥1 ( residue field degree);
• f s (w/v) := [kw : kv ]s ∈ Z≥1 ( separable residue field degree);
Z
• f i (w/v) := [kw : kv ]i ∈ pv ≥0 ( inseparable residue field degree);
• Let M/K be a finite normal extension containing L. We define the local
g
degree by n(w/v) := gM,w · [L : K] ∈ Z≥1 and this does not depend on the
M,v
choice of M ;
Z≥0
n(w/v)
• d(w/v) := e(w/v)
( defect);
f(w/v) ∈ pv
Z

• dw (w/v) := d(w/v) ew (w/v) f i (w/v) ∈ pv ≥0 ( wildness index);
The quantities e, et , ew , f, f s , f i , n, d and dw are multiplicative in towers.

Definition 3.2. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite extension of valued fields. Then
we have the following properties which (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) can satisfy:
• immediate: dw (w/v) = et (w/v) = f s (w/v) = 1, equivalently, n(w/v) = 1;
• unramified : dw (w/v) = et (w/v) = 1;
• tame: dw (w/v) = 1;
• local : gL,v = 1;
• totally ramified : f s (w/v) = gL,v = 1;
• totally wild : et (w/v) = f s (w/v) = gL,v = 1.
We say that v is totally split in L if gL,v = [L : K].
As the various degrees are multiplicative, we can extend this definition in the
following way. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be an algebraic extension of valued fields. Then
w/v is immediate (respectively unramified, tame, local, totally ramified, totally wild )
if all intermediate extensions (L′ , w′ ) of (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) where L′ /K is finite are
immediate (respectively unramified, tame, local, totally ramified, totally wild). We
say that v is totally split in L if all intermediate extensions (L′ , w′ ) of (L, w) ⊇ (K, v)
with L′ /K finite are totally split.
3.2. Normal extensions.
Definition 3.3. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a normal algebraic extension of valued
fields and let G = AutK (M ). Note that G acts on the set of valuations on M
extending v by Og(x′ ) = g(Ox′ ). Let Dx,K = {g ∈ G : gx = x} be the decomposition

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

5

group of x over K. We define the inertia group Ix,K ⊆ Dx,K of x over K to be the
kernel of the natural group morphism Dx,K → Autkv (kx ). Furthermore, there is a
natural group morphism
Ix,K → Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x )
g(c)
c
(see Lemma 6.3). We define the ramification group of x over K to be its kernel.
We denote it by Vx,K .

Let Γx,v = im Autkv (kx ) → Autk∗v (k∗x ) . Let AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) be the
subgroup of Aut(M ∗ /(1 + mx )) consisting of those automorphisms such that the
restriction to k∗x lies in Γx,v and which are the identity on K ∗ /(1 + mv ). We have
a natural map Dx,K → AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) (see the discussion after Lemma
6.3).
c 7→

We endow G with the profinite topology. This means that we view G as a
subset of M M . We endow M with the discrete topology, M M with the product
topology and G with the induced topology. Similarly we define profinite topologies
∆ /∆
on Autkv (kx ) ⊆ kkxx and Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) ⊆ (k∗x ) x v where kx and k∗x have the
discrete topology. Furthermore, let S be the set of valuations extending v to M . For
x′ ∈ S and a finite extension L of K in M we set Ux′ ,L = {x′′ ∈ S : x′′ |L = x′ |L }.
This is a basis for a topology on S. We give AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) the following
topology. We give C = M ∗ /(1+mx ) the discrete topology, C C the product topology
and AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) the induced topology.
Definition 3.4. Let L/K be a field extension. We set LK,sep for the field extension
of K consisting of the elements in L which are separable and algebraic over K.
Definition 3.5. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a normal algebraic extension of valued
Dx,K
(decomposition field , h stands for Henselization),
fields. We define Kh,x = MK,sep
V

I

x,K
x,K
(ramification field ). Note that all
(inertia field ) and Kv,x = MK,sep
Ki,x = MK,sep
these extensions are separable over K and that we have K ⊆ Kh,x ⊆ Ki,x ⊆ Kv,x ⊆
M.

Recall that for a prime p and a profinite group H a pro-p-Sylow subgroup H ′
is a maximal subgroup of H such that H ′ is a projective limit of finite groups of
p-power order.
We define the Steinitz monoid as the Q
following set. Let P ⊂ Z be the set of
primes. Steinitz numbers are of the form p∈P pnp with np ∈ Z≥0 ⊔ {∞}. This set
has an obvious monoid structure and there is an obvious way for defining gcd and
lcm for arbitrary sets of Steinitz numbers. Furthermore, there is an obvious notion
of divibility.
Let H be a profinite group. Then we define its order to be
ord(H) = lcm{[H : N ] : N open normal subgroup of H},
and we define its exponent to be
exp(H) = lcm{exp(H/N ) : N open normal subgroup of H}.
Both are Steinitz numbers. Furthermore, if H = lim Hi where the Hi are finite,
←

i∈I

then one has ord(H) = lcm(ord(Hi ) : i ∈ I) and exp(H) = lcm(exp(Hi ) : i ∈ I).

6

MICHIEL KOSTERS

The proof of the following theorem can be found on Page 21.
Theorem 3.6. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a normal algebraic extension of valued fields
and let G = AutK (M ). Then G acts continuously on the set S consisting of the
valuations of M extending K and induces an isomorphism of topological G-sets
G/ Dx,K → S

g 7→ gx.

For g ∈ G one has Dg(x),K = g Dx,K g −1 , Ig(x),K = g Ix,K g −1 and Vg(x),K =
g Vx,K g −1 . One also has Kh,g(x) = gKh,x , Ki,g(x) = gKi,x and Kv,g(x) = gKv,x.
Furthermore, we have exact sequences of profinite groups
0 → Ix,K → Dx,K → Autkv (kx ) → 0,
and

0 → Vx,K → Ix,K → Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) → 0
0 → Vx,K → Dx,K → AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) → 0.

The extension kx /kv is normal and Vx,K is the unique pro-pv -Sylow subgroup of
Ix,K . Then for any integer r ∈ Z≥1 dividing exp(Ix,K / Vx,K ) the field kx contains
a primitive r-th root of unity.
Let (L, w) be an intermediate extension of (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) and let H = AutL (M ).
Then one has:
i. Dx,L = Dx,K ∩H, Ix,L = Ix,K ∩H and Vx,L = Vx,K ∩H;
ii. Lh,x = Kh,x L, Li,x = Ki,x L and Lv,x = Kv,x L.
If in addition we assume that L/K is normal, then we have exact sequences
0 → Dx,L → Dx,K → Dw,K → 0,
and

0 → Ix,L → Ix,K → Iw,K → 0,
0 → Vx,L → Vx,K → Vw,K → 0.

Under the normality assumption we have Kh,x|L = Kh,x ∩ L, Ki,x|L = Ki,x ∩ L and
Kv,x|L = Kv,x ∩ L.

If the extension M/K is finite, the previous theorem implies the following (proof
on Page 24).
Proposition 3.7. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite normal extension of valued fields.
Then one has
[Kh,x : K] = gM,v
[Ki,x : Kh,x ] = f s (x/v) = f s (x|Ki,x /x|Kh,x )
[Kv,x : Ki,x ] = et (x/v) = et (x|Kv,x /x|Ki,x )
[M : Kv,x ] = dw (x/v) = dw (x/x|Kv,x ).

Let (L, w) be an intermediate extension of (M, x) ⊇ (K, v). Then one has
[Lh,x : Kh,x ] = dw (w/v) et (w/v) f s (w/v)
[Li,x : Ki,x ] = dw (w/v) et (w/v)
[Lv,x : Kv,x ] = dw (w/v).

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

7

The proof of the following theorem can be found on Page 23.
Theorem 3.8. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a normal extension of valued fields. Then
the following hold.
i. Assume that kx has no cyclic extensions of prime order dividing the order
of Ix,K / Vx,K . Then the exact sequence
0 → Ix,K / Vx,K → Dx,K / Vx,K → Dx,K / Ix,K → 0

is right split.
ii. Assume that kx has no cyclic extensions of prime order dividing pv or that
pv ∤ ord(Ix,K ). Then the exact sequence
0 → Vx,K → Dx,K → Dx,K / Vx,K → 0

is right split.
iii. Assume that kx has no cyclic extensions of prime order dividing ord(Ix,K ).
Then the exact sequence
is right split.

0 → Ix,K → Dx,K → Dx,K / Ix,K → 0

3.3. Algebraic extensions. A well-known result in the following (proof on Page
24).
Theorem 3.9 (Fundamental equality). Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L/K be
a finite field extension. Then we have
X
X
d(w/v) e(w/v) f(w/v)
n(w/v) =
[L : K] =
w|v on L

≥

X

w|v on L

e(w/v) f(w/v).

w|v on L

Two algebraic field extensions L, L′ of a field K are called linearly disjoint over
K if L ⊗K L′ is a field.
If L, L′ are subfields of a field Ω, then we set the compositum LL′ = im(L⊗Z L′ →
Ω). This is the smallest ring containing both L and L′ in Ω. This is a field if the
elements of L are algebraic over L′ or if the elements of L′ are algebraic over L.
The following proposition studies extensions of valuations using fundamental
sets (Proof on 25). If L ⊇ K and M ⊇ K are extensions of fields, we denote by
HomK (L, M ) the set of field homomorphisms from L to M which are the identity
on K.
Theorem 3.10. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L/K be an algebraic extension.
Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a normal extension with group G = AutK (M ) such that the
G-set X = HomK (L, M ) is not empty. Then the natural map
π : X → {w on L extending v}

σ 7→ w s.t. Ow = σ −1 (Ox ∩ σ(L))

is surjective. Let σ ∈ X and set w = π(σ) and let Gσ be the stabilizer in G of σ.
Then we have:
i. w/v is immediate ⇐⇒ σ(L) ⊆ Kh,x ⇐⇒ Dx,K ⊆ Gσ ;
ii. w/v is unramified ⇐⇒ σ(L) ⊆ Ki,x ⇐⇒ Ix,K ⊆ Gσ ;
iii. w/v is tame ⇐⇒ σ(L) ⊆ Kv,x ⇐⇒ Vx,K ⊆ Gσ ;

8

MICHIEL KOSTERS

iv. w/v is local ⇐⇒ σ(L) and Kh,x are linearly disjoint over K ⇐⇒
Dx,K σ = X;
v. w/v is totally ramified ⇐⇒ σ(L) and Ki,x are linearly disjoint over K
⇐⇒ Ix,K σ = X;
vi. w/v is totally wild ⇐⇒ σ(L) and Kv,x are linearly disjoint over K ⇐⇒
Vx,K σ = X.
Furthermore we have:
vii. x/w is immediate ⇐⇒ M = σ(L)Kh,x ⇐⇒ M/σ(L) is separable and
Gσ ∩ Dx,K = 0;
viii. x/w is unramified ⇐⇒ M = σ(L)Ki,x ⇐⇒ M/σ(L) is separable and
Gσ ∩ Ix,K = 0;
ix. x/w is tame ⇐⇒ M = σ(L)Kv,x ⇐⇒ M/σ(L) is separable and Gσ ∩
Vx,K = 0;
x. x/w is local ⇐⇒ σ(L) ⊇ Kh,x ⇐⇒ Gσ ⊆ Dx,K ;
xi. x/w is totally ramified ⇐⇒ σ(L) ⊇ Ki,x ⇐⇒ Gσ ⊆ Ix,K ;
xii. x/w is totally wild ⇐⇒ σ(L) ⊇ Kv,x ⇐⇒ Gσ ⊆ Vx,K .

Finally we have:

xiii. v is totally split in L ⇐⇒ for all σ ∈ X we have σ(L) ⊆ Kh,x ⇐⇒ Dx,K
acts trivially on X;
xiv. w is totally split in M ⇐⇒ M/σ(L) is separable and only the trivial
element of Gσ is conjugate to an element of Dx,K .
The above proposition has a lot of corollaries. The proof of the first corollary
can be found on Page 25.
Corollary 3.11. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L and L′ be two algebraic
extensions of K in some algebraic closure of K. Let x be a valuation on LL′
extending v and let w = x|L and w′ = x|L′ . Then the following statements hold:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

if
if
if
if

w/v is immediate, then x/w′ is immediate;
w/v is unramified, then x/w′ is unramified;
w/v is tame, then x/w′ is tame;
v is totally split in L, then w′ is totally split in LL′ .

The proof of the following corollary can be found on Page 26.
Corollary 3.12. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be an algebraic extension of valued fields and
let (K ′ , w′ ) be an intermediate extension. Then w/v is immediate (respectively unramified, tame, local, totally ramified, totally wild) iff w/w′ and w′ /v are immediate
(respectively unramified, tame, local, totally ramified, totally wild).
The proof of the following proposition can be found on Page 11.
Proposition 3.13. Let Ω be a field and let L, L′ ⊆ Ω be subfields. Then there is a
subfield M of L such that for all subfields F of L the natural map L⊗F (L′ F ) → LL′
is an isomorphism iff M ⊆ F . Furthermore, M can be described in the following
two ways, where F is the prime of field of Ω.
′
′
′
i. Let
P B ⊆ L be a basis of LL over L. For b ∈ B and x ∈ L write x =
b∈B cx,b b with cx,b ∈ L almost all zero. Then one has M = F(cx,b : x ∈
L′ , b ∈ B).

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

9

ii. Set
S = {c ∈ L : ∃I ⊆ L′ finite, ind. over L and (ci )i∈I ∈ LI
X
s.t. ∃i ∈ I s.t. ci = c and
ci i ∈ L′ }.
i∈I

Then one has M = F(S).
Definition 3.14. The field M in the above theorem is called the field of definition
of L′ over L and is denoted by L |\ L′ .
The proof of the following theorem can be found on Page 26.
Theorem 3.15. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be an algebraic extension of valued fields.
Then then following statements hold:
i. There is a unique maximal subextension L1 of L/K such that w|L1 /v is
immediate (respectively L2 for unramified and L3 for tame).
ii. There is a unique minimal subextension L4 of L/K such that w/w|L4 is
local (respectively L5 for totally ramified and L6 for totally wild).
We have the following diagram of inclusions:
L
②②
L6 ❈
❈
④
L5 ❈
L3
④
④④
L2
L4 ❈
❈
④
L1
②②
K
For any (M, x) ⊇ (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) extension of valued fields where M/K is
normal, we have L1 = Kh,x ∩L, L2 = Ki,x ∩L and L3 = Kv,x ∩L, L4 = LK,sep |\Kh,x ,
L5 = LK,sep |\ Ki,x and L6 = LK,sep |\ Kv,x .
If there is a normal extension M/K containing L such that gM,w = 1, then
L1 = L4 , L2 = L5 and L3 = L6 .
The proof of the following corollary can be found on Page 27.
Corollary 3.16. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L and L′ be two algebraic
extensions contained in an algebraic extension L′′ of K. Let x be a valuation on
L′′ extending v and let w = x|L and w′ = x|L′ . Assume that K = L ∩ L′ and
there exists a normal extension M/K containing LL′ such that gM,w = 1. Then
the following statements hold:
i. if x/w′ is local, then w/v is local;
ii. if x/w′ is totally ramified, then w/v is totally ramified;
iii. if x/w′ is totally wild, then w/v is totally wild.
The proof of the following proposition can be found on Page 28.
Proposition 3.17. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L be a finite separable
algebraic extension of K. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite normal extension of

10

MICHIEL KOSTERS

valued fields with group G = AutK (M ) such that the G-set X = HomK (L, M ) is
not empty. Then the map
ϕ : Dx,K \X → {w of L extending v}

Dx,K s 7→ w s.t. Ow = σ −1 (Ox ∩ σ(L))

is a bijection of sets. If ϕ(Dx,K s) = w we have:
i. # Dx,K s = dw (w/v) et (w/v) f s (w/v) = n(w/v);
ii. the number of orbits under Ix,K of Dx,K s is equal to f s (w/v) and each orbit
has length dw (w/v) et (w/v);
iii. the number of orbits under Vx,K of Dx,K s is equal to et (w/v) f s (w/v) and
each orbit has length dw (w/v).
The proof of the following corollary can be found on Page 28
Corollary 3.18. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L be a finite algebraic extension
of K. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite normal extension of valued fields with group
G = AutK (M ) such that the G-set X = HomK (L, M ) is not empty. Then the
cardinality of the set of valuations w on L extending v such that f s (w/v) = 1 is
D
/I
equal to # (Ix,K \X) x,K x,K .
4. Preliminaries
4.1. Field theory.
4.1.1. Linearly disjoint extensions. Let Ω be a field and let L, L′ ⊆ Ω. We set
LL′ = im (L ⊗Z L′ → Ω), that is, the smallest ring containing both L and L′ . This
is a field if the elements of L are algebraic over L′ or if the elements of L′ are
algebraic over L.
Two algebraic field extensions L, L′ of a field K are called linearly disjoint over
K if L ⊗K L′ is a field. This holds if and only if all pairs of finite subextensions of
L/K respectively L′ /K are linearly disjoint over K.
Let M/K is a normal field extension with group G = AutK (M ). Then the latter
group is a topological group with the topology coming from viewing G ⊂ M M
where M has the discrete topology and M M the product topology.
Lemma 4.1. Let M/K be a normal extension of fields with group G = AutK (M )
and let L, L′ be two intermediate extensions. Put H = AutL (M ) and H ′ =
AutL′ (M ). Then one has: hH, H ′ i = G iff L ∩ L′ over K is purely inseparable.
Proof. Set p = char(K) if char(K) is positive and 1 otherwise. It is very easy
to see that ML,ins ∩ ML′ ,ins = ML∩L′ ,ins . Note that H = AutML,ins (M ), H ′ =
AutML′ ,ins (M ) and G = AutMK,ins (M ) and that M is Galois over MK,ins , ML,ins and
ML′ ,ins (Proposition 4.9). From Galois theory it follows that hH, H ′ i corresponds
to ML,ins ∩ ML′ ,ins = ML∩L′ ,ins and that G corresponds to MK,ins . Hence one has:
hH, H ′ i = G iff ML∩L′ ,ins = MK,ins iff L ∩ L′ /K is purely inseparable.

For a field K we denote by Ksep its separable closure.
Proposition 4.2. Let M/K be a normal extension of fields with group G =
AutK (M ) and let L, L′ be two intermediate extensions. Put H = AutL (M ) and
H ′ = AutL′ (M ). Assume that L/K is separable. Then the following statements
are equivalent:

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

11

i. L and L′ are linearly disjoint over K;
ii. L ⊗K L′ is a domain;
iii. the natural map L ⊗K L′ → LL′ is an isomorphism;
iv. G = H · H ′ ;
v. H ′ acts transitively on G/H;
vi. the natural map HomL′ (LL′ , Ksep ) → HomK (L, Ksep ) is a bijection.
If L/K or L′ /K is normal, then the above statements are equivalent to L ∩ L′ = K.

Proof. i ⇐⇒ ii: One implication is obvious. Suppose that L ⊗K L′ is a domain.
To show that every element has an inverse, we may reduce to the case where both
L/K and L′ /K are finite. The result follows since a domain which is finite over a
field is a field.
i ⇐⇒ iii: Obvious.
iv ⇐⇒ v: Obvious.
v ⇐⇒ vi: The map in vi is the natural injective map H ′ /(H ∩ H ′ ) → G/H. It
is surjective iff H ′ acts transitively on G/H.
i =⇒ vi: The natural map HomL′ (LL′ , Ksep ) → HomK (L, Ksep ) is injective.
Let ϕ ∈ HomK (L, Ks ) be given. Let L′′ be a finite extension of K contained
in L. Since L and L′ are disjoint over K, we find [LL′ : L′ ] = [L : K]. This
shows, since L/K is separable, that the natural injective map HomL′ (L′′ L′ , Ksep ) →
HomK (L′′ , Ksep ) is a bijection. Hence there is a unique morphism of fields in
HomL′ (L′′ L′ , Ks ) mapping to ϕ|L′′ . By uniqueness we can glue these morphisms
to a unique morphism mapping to ϕ.
iv =⇒ i: If G = H · H ′ , then for any finite subextension of L/K the same holds.
Hence all finite extensions of L/K are linearly disjoint from L′ . But then it easily
follows that L and L′ are linearly disjoint over K.
We will now prove the last part. If L ⊗K L′ is a field, then obviously we have
L ∩ L′ = K. For the other implication, assume first that L/K is normal. This
means that H = ker(AutK (M ) → AutK (L)) is a normal subgroup of G. But
then one easily sees that H · H ′ = hH, H ′ i. A similar statement holds if L′ /K is
normal. Furthermore, as H and H ′ are compact groups, one sees that H · H ′ is
closed. Hence hH, H ′ i = H · H ′ . From 4.1, as L/K is separable, it follows that

H · H ′ = hH, H ′ i = G. The result follows.
Proof of Proposition 3.13. Let L be the set of subfields F of L such that the natural
map L ⊗F L′ F → LL′ is an isomorphism. Consider the notation from i. Directly
from the definitions it follows that for a subfield F of L we have F ∈ L iff B spans
L′ F as F -vector space. But L′ F is generated as anPF -vector space by L′ and each
x ∈ L′ can be written in a unique way as x =
b∈B cx,b b where cx,b ∈ L and
almost all cx,b are 0. Let F be the primefield of L. Hence we conclude that F ∈ L
iff for all x ∈ L and b ∈ B we have cx,b ∈ F iff F contains M = F(cx,b : x ∈
L, b ∈ B). Description ii follows directly from description one since we can extend
an independent set to a basis.

Definition 4.3. The field M in the above theorem is called the field of definition
of L′ over L and is denoted by L |\ L′ .
We deduce some properties of L |\ L′ .

Lemma 4.4. Let Ω be a field and let L, L′ ⊆ Ω be subfields. Then the following
hold:

12

MICHIEL KOSTERS

i. L ∩ L′ ⊆ L |\ L′ ;
ii. L ∩ L′ = L |\ L′ iff L ∩ L′ = L′ |\ L iff L |\ L′ = L′ |\ L.
Proof. i: Suppose x ∈ L ∩ L′ \ L |\ L′ . Then the nonzero element x ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ x maps
to zero under L ⊗L|\L′ (L |\ L′ )L′ → LL′ , contradiction.
ii: By symmetry, it suffices to show that the first and last statement are equivalent. Suppose that L ∩ L′ = L |\ L′ . Then one has an isomorphism L ⊗L∩L′ (L ∩
L′ )L′ → LL′ and from i one deduces that L′ |\ L = L′ ∩ L = L |\ L′ . Suppose
L |\ L′ = L′ |\ L. Then one has L |\ L′ ⊆ L ∩ L′ and the result follows from i.

Lemma 4.5. Let G be a group and let H, H ′ ⊆ G be subgroups. Let J ′ be a
subgroup of HH ′ containing H. Then H acts transitively on J ′ /J ′ ∩ H ′ if and only
if J ′ is contained in the group {g ∈ G : gHH ′ = HH ′ }.

∼ J ′ (H ′ /H ′ ) ⊆ G/H ′ (as J ′ -sets). Put x = H ′ /H ′ .
Proof. First notice J ′ /J ′ ∩ H ′ =
Hence we need to find the largest J ′ such that H acts transitively on J ′ x, that is
Hx = J ′ x. Notice that J = {g ∈ G : gHH ′ = HH ′ } = {g ∈ G : gHx = Hx}. If H
acts transitively on J ′ x, we have for j ′ ∈ J ′ :
j ′ Hx = j ′ J ′ x = J ′ x = Hx,

hence j ′ ∈ J. Conversely, J is a subgroup containing H with the property that
Jx = JHx = Hx.

Proposition 4.6. Let L, L′ be subfields of a field Ω. Assume that L/L ∩ L′ is
separable. Let M be a normal extension of L ∩ L′ containing LL′ with groups
G = AutL∩L′ (M ), H = AutL (M ) and H ′ = AutL′ (M ). Let J = {g ∈ G : gHH ′ =
HH ′ }. Then one has:
L |\ L′ = (LL′ )J ∩ L.

Proof. Proposition 4.2 shows that we need to find a maximal subgroup J ′ ⊆ HH ′
containing H such that H acts transitively on J ′ /J ′ ∩ H ′ . The unique maximal
subgroup with this property is J (Lemma 4.5). It remains to show that J is a
closed subgroup. Notice that H and H ′ are compact, and hence that HH ′ is
compact (because it is the image of H × H ′ under the map G × G → G) and since
we are in a Hausdorff space, it is closed. Similarly, H ′ H is compact and hence
closed. Note that the translation maps are continous. One then has
\

J=
τ H ′ H ∩ HH ′ τ −1 .
τ ∈HH ′

Hence J is an intersection of closed subgroups, and hence closed.



4.1.2. Separably disjoint extensions. Let L/K be an algebraic extension of fields
and let p be the characteristic of K if this is nonzero, and 1 otherwise. Then we
put
j

LK,ins = {x ∈ L : ∃j ∈ Z≥0 : xp ∈ K},
the maximal purely inseparable field extension of K in L. Notice that LK,ins ∩
LK,sep = K.
Definition 4.7. An algebraic field extension L/K is called separably disjoint if
L = LK,sep LK,ins .

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

13

Lemma 4.8. Let L/K be an algebraic extension of valued fields. Then L/K is
separably disjoint if and only if L/LK,ins is separable.
Proof. =⇒ : Follows directly from the definitions.
⇐=: Note that L/LK,sep is purely inseparable and hence L/LK,sep LK,ins is purely
inseparable and separable. It follows that L = LK,sep LK,ins .

Proposition 4.9. Let L/K be a normal extension of fields. Then L/K is separably
disjoint.
Proof. See [Lan02, Chapter V, Proposition 6.11].
Here is a similar proof. Take x ∈ L \ LK,ins . As x is not purely inseparable over
LK,ins and as L/K is normal, there is an element of AutK (L) which does not fix
x (use Zorn to find such a morphism). Hence LAutK (L) = LK,ins and from Galois
theory it follows that L/LK,ins is separable. Apply Lemma 4.8.

Notice that any algebraic field extension L/K has a unique maximal separably
disjoint subextension, namely LK,sep LK,ins .
Proposition 4.10. Let L/K be an algebraic extension of fields. Then
ϕ : {E : K ⊆ E ⊆ L} → {(D, F ) : K ⊆ D ⊆ LK,sep ⊆ F ⊆ L, F/D sep. disj.}
E 7→ (EK,sep , ELK,sep )

is a bijection with inverse

(D, F ) 7→ FD,ins .
Proof. First we show that ϕ is well-defined. Notice that E/EK,sep is purely inseparable and that LK,sep /EK,sep is separable. Hence we find that ELK,sep /EK,sep is
separably disjoint.
Let ψ be the proposed inverse as above. We have ψ(ϕ(E)) = (ELK,sep )EK,sep ,ins ,
and this is equal to E since it obviously contains E and ELK,sep /E is separable.
Conversely we have ϕ(ψ((D, F ))) = ((FD,ins )K,sep , FD,ins LK,sep ). One directly finds
(FD,ins )K,sep = D. As F/D is separably disjoint, we find FD,ins LK,sep ) = F . This
shows that both maps are inverse to each other.

4.2. Tate’s lemma. Let G be a compact topological group which acts continuously
on a commutative ring A which is endowed with the discrete topology. This means
that the map G × A → A is continuous. For a ∈ A the map G × {a} → A is
continuous and the image is compact and hence finite. This shows that all orbits
are finite.
Proposition 4.11 (Tate). Let (G, A) be as above. Let R be a domain and let
σ, τ : A → R be ring morphisms. Suppose that σ|AG = τ |AG . Then there exists
g ∈ G such that τ = σ ◦ g.
Proof. Let E ⊆ A be a finite set. Let fE ∈ A[Y ] be a polynomial such that all
elements of E occur as coefficients of fE . Extend the action of G to A[Y ][X] by
letting G act on the coefficients. We extend σ, Q
τ : A[Y ][X] → R[Y ][X] by X 7→ X,
Y 7→ Y . Then consider the polynomial hE = h′ ∈GfE (X − h′ ) ∈ AG [Y ][X]. We
have
Y
Y
(X − τ (h′ )).
(X − σ(h′ )) = σ(hE ) = τ (hE ) =
h′ ∈GfE

h′ ∈GfE

14

MICHIEL KOSTERS

As R[Y ] is a domain, we can compare the roots and conclude that there is g ∈ G
such that τ (hE ) = σ(g(hE )) ∈ R[Y ][X]. Hence for this g we have τ |E = σ ◦Tg|E .
For any E ⊆ A put GE = {g ∈ G : τ |E = σ ◦ g|E }. Notice that GSi Ei = i GEi
for any collection of subsets Ei ⊆ A. For finite E we have shown GE 6= ∅. We claim
that for finite E the set GE is closed in G. One easily shows that for e ∈ E the map
ψe : G → R given T
by ψe (g) = σ(e) − τ (g(e)) is continuous. Hence ψe−1 (0) = G{e} is
closed. As GE = e∈E G{e} , the set GE is
T closed.
By compactness of G we have GA = E⊆A, E finite GE 6= ∅. This means that
there is g ∈ G such that τ = σ ◦ g.

Corollary 4.12. Suppose that (G, A) is as above. Let p ⊂ AG be prime. Then G
acts transitively on the set of primes of A lying above p.

Proof. Let q, q′ ⊂ A be primes lying above p. We will now construct two maps from
A to Q(AG /p), the algebraic closure of Q(AG /p). Since the orbits of the actions are
finite, the extension Q(A/q) ⊇ Q(AG /p) is algebraic. Hence there is a morphism
σ : A → A/q → Q(A/q) → Q(AG /p) which is the identity on AG /p. Similarly one
defines another map τ : A → A/q′ → Q(A/q′ ) → Q(AG /p). Both maps agree on
AG . Proposition 4.11 says that there is g ∈ G such that τ = σg. Taking kernels
gives q′ = ker τ = ker(σg) = g −1 (ker σ) = g −1 q. We get gq′ = q and this finishes
the proof.

Corollary 4.13. Let (G, A) be as above. Let q ⊂ A be a prime lying above a prime
p ⊂ AG . Let Gq/p = {g ∈ G : g(q) = q}. Let l = Q(A/q) and let k = Q(AG /p).
Then the natural map Gq/p → Autk (l) is surjective and l/k is normal algebraic.
Proof. It is easy to see that l/k is algebraic. Let k be an algebraic closure of k
containing l. We have a natural map Gq/p → Autk (l) ⊆ Homk (l, k). Let ϕ ∈
Homk (l, k). Consider the natural map σ : A → Q(A/q) = l ⊆ k, which restricts to
the natural map AG → Q(AG /p) = k. Let τ = ϕσ. Apply Proposition 4.11 to see
that there is g ∈ G with ϕσ = σg. But then for a ∈ A we have
g ◦ (σ(a)) = σ(g(a)) = ϕσ(a).

This means that g maps to σ. It follows that Autk (l) = Homk (l, k) and hence l/k
is normal.

4.3. Ordered abelian groups.
Lemma 4.14. Let (P, ≤) be an ordered abelian group. Let n ∈ Z≥1 and x, y ∈ P .
If nx = ny, then one has x = y. The group P has no non-trivial torsion and
P ⊗Z Q is an ordered abelian group where we put x ≤ y if for all n ∈ Z≥1 such that
nx, ny ∈ P we have nx ≤ ny.

Proof. Suppose that x < y. Then x + x < x + y < y + y, and in a similar fashion,
nx < ny, which is a contradiction.
If x is torsion, apply the first part to x and 0 to obtain the second result.
The last part is an easy calculation which is left to the reader.

Let (P, ≤) and (Q, ≤) be ordered abelian groups. A morphism ϕ : P → Q is a
group homomorphism respecting the ordering. One easily sees that respecting the
order is equivalent to p ≥ 0 =⇒ ϕ(p) ≥ 0. Indeed, let p, p′ ∈ P with p ≥ p′ .
Then we have p − p′ ≥ 0, which gives ϕ(p) − ϕ(p′ ) = ϕ(p − p′ ) ≥ 0. This gives
ϕ(p) ≥ ϕ(p′ ).

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

15

Lemma 4.15. Let (P, ≤) be an ordered abelian group and let ϕ ∈ Aut(P ) such
that all orbits are finite. Then ϕ is the identity.
Proof. Let p ∈ P and assume that ϕn (p) = p. Then one has p = ϕn (p) ≥ . . . ≥
ϕ(p) ≥ p. Hence we obtain ϕ(p) = p.

5. Extending valuations
Lemma 5.1. Let (K, v) be a valued field. Then Ov is integrally closed.
Proof. Suppose x ∈ Ov nonzero is integral over Ov . Then there is a relation
xn + an−1 xn−1 + . . . + a0 = 0 with ai ∈ Ov and this shows that x ∈ Ov [x] ∩ Ov [x−1 ].
By the definition of a valuation ring we have Ov [x] ∩ Ov [x−1 ] = Ov and the result
follows.

Proposition 5.2. Let K be a field. Let R ⊆ K be a subring and let p ∈ Spec(R).
Let S = {(A, I) : R ⊆ A ⊆ K, A ring, I ⊆ A ideal, I ∩ R = p}, ordered by
(A, I) ≤ (B, J) if A ⊆ B and I ⊆ J. Then a pair (O, m) is maximal if and only if
O is a valuation ring of K and m is its maximal ideal.
Proof. Let (O, m) be a maximal element of S. Notice that mp ⊂ Op satisfies
mp ∩ Rp = pRp and mp ∩ R = p. Hence by maximality we have O = Op and
m = mp . A maximal ideal of O containing m still lies above the maximal ideal of
Rp . We conclude that m is maximal.
We claim that O is a valuation ring. Suppose that there is x ∈ K ∗ with
x, x−1 6∈ O. From the maximality and the fact that m lies above pRp one
P obtains
mO[x]P= O[x] and mO[x−1 ] = O[x−1 ]. Take n, m minimal such that 1 = ni=0 ai xi ,
m
−i
1 =
with ai , bi ∈ m. Without loss of generality, assume m ≤ n.
i=0 bi x
Multiply the
second
equation by xn , and notice that 1 − b0 ∈ O∗ , to obtain
Pm
1
n−i
n
x = 1−b0 i=1 bi x . Use this relation together with the first relation to see
that n is not minimal, contradiction.
Conversely, suppose that O is a valuation ring of K with maximal ideal m,
containing R and satisfying m ∩ R = p. Suppose that (O, m) ≤ (A, n). Let x ∈ A
nonzero. Then xx−1 = 1 6∈ n and hence x−1 6∈ m. As O is a valuation ring, we
obtain x ∈ O. Hence (O, m) is maximal.

Since we assume the Axiom of Choice, maximal elements as in Proposition 5.2
exist.
Corollary 5.3. Let R ⊆ L be a subring where L is a field. Then the intersection
of all valuation rings of L containing R in L is the integral closure of R in L.
Proof. As a valuation ring is integrally closed (Lemma 5.1), the right hand side is
contained in the left hand side. Suppose x ∈ L is not integral over R. Consider
the ring R[x−1 ], which does not contain x as x is not integral. Hence x−1 is
contained in a maximal ideal m ⊂ R[x−1 ]. Proposition 5.2 gives us a valuation v
with x−1 ∈ mv ∩ R[x−1 ] = m. This is equivalent to x 6∈ Ov .

Proposition 5.4. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L/K be an algebraic extension
of fields. Let R be the integral closure of Ov in L. Then there is a bijection between
the set of maximal ideals of R and the set of valuations extending v to L, given by
m 7→ Rm . The inverse maps a valuation O with maximal ideal m to m ∩ R.

16

MICHIEL KOSTERS

Proof. Let p ∈ MaxSpec(R). Then by Proposition 5.2 there exists a valuation ring
Ow of L with Ow ⊇ Rp and mw ∩ R = p. We will show Rp = Ow .
PnLet a i∈ Ow nonzero. As L/K is algebraic, there exists is a polynomial f =
i=0 ai x ∈ Ov [x] with f (a) = 0 and a coefficient which is not in the maximal
ideal. Let k minimal such that ak+1 , . . . , an ∈ mv . Put f0 = a0 + . . . + ak−1 xk−1
∗
and −f1 = ak + . . . + an xn−k . Note that f1 (a) ∈ Ow
. Then from 0 = f (a) =
k
−k+1
−1
f0 (a) − a f1 (a) we obtain for b = f0 (a)a
∈ Ov [a ], c = f1 (a) ∈ Ov [a] \ {0}
that a = bc . We claim: b, c ∈ R. It is enough to show that b and c are contained in
any valuation ring extending R (Corollary 5.3). Let O be such a valuation ring. If
a ∈ O, then one has c ∈ O and hence b = ac ∈ O. If a 6∈ O, then one has a−1 ∈ O.
Hence b ∈ O and c = ba−1 ∈ O. This finishes the proof of the claim. Furthermore,
by construction we have c 6∈ mw . Hence c 6∈ mw ∩ R = p. We see that a = cb ∈ Rp .
This gives Rp = Ow and this shows that the proposed map is well-defined.
Suppose w extends v to L. We want to show that mw ∩ R is a maximal ideal of
R. But mw ∩ Ov is maximal, and Ov → R is integral. Hence by [AM69, Corollary
5.8] mw ∩ R is a maximal ideal of R. This shows that the proposed inverse is
well-defined.
Note that for p ∈ MaxSpec(R) we have p = pRp ∩ R. Furthermore, we have
already seen Rmw ∩R = Ow . This shows that both maps are inverse to each other.

We will now prove a weak approximation theorem.
Corollary 5.5. Let (K, v) be a field and let L/K be an algebraic field
Qn extension.
Let w1 , . . . , wn be different extensions of v to L. Let (ai )ni=1 ∈ i=1 Owi and
r1 , . . . , rn ∈ Z≥1 be given. Then there exists a ∈ L with a−ai ∈ mrwii for i = 1, . . . , n.
Proof. Let R be the integral closure of Ov in L. Proposition 5.4 gives us maximal
ideals mi ∈ MaxSpec(R) with Rmi =QOwi . Using theQChinese remainder theorem,
n
n
one obtains a surjective map R → i=1 R/mri i = i=1 Owi /mrwii and the result
follows.

Proposition 5.6. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L/K be a field extension.
Then one has 1 ≤ gL,v and gL,v = 1 if L/K is purely inseparable. If (L, x) a finite
extension of (K, v), then one has e(x/v) f(x/v) ≤ [L : K] and gL,v is finite. If the
extension is normal with group G = AutK (L), then G acts transitively on the set
of valuations extending v to L, and e(x/v) and f(x/v) do not depend on the choice
of x.
Proof. The fact that gL,v ≥ 1 follows from Proposition 5.2.
Assume that L/K is purely inseparable. Let x be an extension of v to L. Then
i
one directly sees mx = {r ∈ L : ∃i : rpv ∈ mv }. A valuation is determined by its
maximal ideal.
Assume that L/K is finite. Take a preimage S ⊆ L of a basis of kx /kv and take
T ⊆ L∗ elements which map bijectively to ∆x /∆v . The one easily sees that ST of
cardinality e(x/v) f(x/v) is linearly independent over K and e(x/v) f(x/v) ≤ [L : K]
follows.
Assume that L/K is normal. The transitivity follows from Corollary 4.12 and
Proposition 5.4, and the statements about e(x/v) and f(x/v) are obvious. In particular, if L/K is finite normal, the quantity gL,v is finite. It follows from Proposition
5.2 that gL,v is finite when L/K is finite.


THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

17

Lemma 5.7. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L be a finite normal extension of
K of degree n. Assume that x is the unique extension of v to L. Then for all a ∈ L
one has x(a) = n1 v(NL/K (a)). Furthermore, we have n∆x ⊆ ∆v .
Proof. Let G = Aut(L/K). Then it is well-known that for a ∈ L one has NL/K (a) =
Q
[L:K]i
. We have, keeping in mind Lemma 4.14,
g∈G g(a)
x(a) =

[L : K]i X
1
1
x(g(a)) = x(NL/K (a)) = v(NL/K (a)).
n
n
n
g∈G

The last result follows directly.



Lemma 5.8. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite purely inseparable extension of valued
fields. Then kw /kv is purely inseparable and we have e(w/v) = ew (w/v).
Proof. It is obvious that kw /kv is purely inseparable. Proposition 5.6 together with
Lemma 5.7 imply e(w/v) = ew (w/v).

6. Normal extensions
We will first consider finite extensions of valued fields, and then take a limit.
6.1. Finite normal extensions. In this subsection we let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a
finite normal extension of valued fields with G = AutK (M ). For simplicity, we put
xi = x|Ki,x , xh = x|Kh,x , xv = x|Kv,x and xs = x|MK,sep .
Proposition 6.1. One has [Kh,x : K] = gM,v . Furthermore x is the unique extension of xh to M and one has e(xh /v) = f(xh /v) = 1.
Proof. Since the action of G on the set of valuations of M extending v is transitive
(Proposition 5.6), we have [Kh,x : K] = gM,v . The second statement also follows
from the transitivity of the action.
We will show f(xh /v) = 1. Let a ∈ Oxh , and pick αa ∈ Kh,x satisfying αa −
a ∈ mxh and αa in the maximal ideal of any other valuation extending v to Kh,x
(Corollary 5.5). This means that for g ∈ G/ Dx,K with g 6= Dx,K we have g(α) ∈
mxh . Then, by looking in M , one obtains
X
trKh,x /K (αa ) =
g(α) ∈ a + mxh .
g∈G/ Dx,K

Notice that trKh,x /K (αa ) ∈ K ∩ Oxh = Ov . Hence the natural map kv → kxh is
surjective. This gives f(xh /v) = 1.
∗
Next we will prove e(xh /v) = 1. Let b ∈ Kh,x
. Take m ∈ Z such that for all
m
m
g ∈ G \ Dx,K , we have xh (α1 b) 6= xh (g(α1 b)). To do this, one needs to make sure
that for all g ∈ G \ Dx,K one has m(x(α1 ) − x(g(α1 ))) 6= x(g(b)) − x(b), which can
easily be achieved since x(α1 ) 6=
is torsion-free and G is
Q x(g(α1 )), the group ∆xP
n
i
b
and
f
=
finite. Put β = αm
(X
−
g(β))
=
1
g∈G/ Dx,K
i=0 ai X ∈ K[X] with
an = 1. Let S = {g(β) : g ∈QG/ Dx,K s.t. xh (g(β)) < xh (β)}
Q and set r = #S.
Then one sees xh (an−r ) = xh ( c∈S c) and xh (an−r−1 ) = xh (β c∈S c). This gives
xh (b) = xh (β) = xh (an−r−1 /an−r ) ∈ ∆v and we are done.


18

MICHIEL KOSTERS

Proposition 6.2. We have a short exact sequence
0 → Ix,K → Dx,K → Autkv (kx ) → 0
and kx is normal over kv . Furthermore we have [Ki,x : Kh,x] = f(xi /xh ) =
f s (xi /xh ) = f s (x/v) and e(xi /xh ) = 1.
Proof. The exactness of the sequence and the normality of kx over kv follow from
Corollary 4.13 and Proposition 5.4. We will now prove the last two statements.
Look at the normal extension M/Ki,x with group Ix,K . From the exact sequence
for the extension M/Ki,x just obtained we see that the zero map Ix,K → Autkxi (kx )
is surjective. We find Autkxi (kx ) = 0. As kx /kxi is normal, this gives that
kx /kxi is purely inseparable. Consider the Galois extension Ki,x /Kh,x with group
Dx,K / Ix,K . We obtain an exact sequence
Dx,K / Ix,K → Autkxh (kxi ) = Autkv (kx ) → 0
(note that kv = kxh by Proposition 6.1). The first map is injective and hence we
have an isomorphism. Using Proposition 5.6 we obtain:
e(xi /xh ) · f(xi /xh ) ≤ [Ki,x : Kh,x ] = # Autkxh (kxi )

= # Autkv (kx ) ≤ [kxi : kxh ] = f(xi /xh ).

Hence we find [Ki,x : Kh,x ] = f(xi /xh ) = f s (xi /xh ) = f s (x/v) and e(xi /xh ) = 1. 
f

Lemma 6.3. Let 0 → A → B → C → 0 be an exact sequence of abelian groups.
Let H be the group of automorphisms of this sequence consisting of automorphisms
which are the identity on C. Let H ′ ⊆ H ⊆ Aut(B) the set of automorphisms which
are the identity on A. Then the map
ϕ : H → Hom(C, A) ⋊ Aut(A)

h 7→ (f (b) 7→ h(b) − b, h|A )

is an injective morphism of groups. One has:
i. ϕ|H ′ : H ′ → Hom(C, A) is an isomorphism;
ii. if 0 → A → B → C → 0 is split, then ϕ is an isomorphism.
Proof. One easily shows that ϕ is well-defined and that it is a morphism of groups.
i: Consider the following map:
ψ : Hom(C, A) → H ′

σ 7→ (b ∈ B 7→ b + σ(f (b)))

One then easily checks that this is the inverse of ϕ|H ′ . This also shows that ϕ is
injective.
ii: Consider the exact sequence 0 → A → A ⊕ C → C → 0. Consider the map
χ : Hom(C, A) ⋊ Aut(A) → H

(σ, τ ) 7→ ((a, c) 7→ (σ(c) + τ (a), c)) .

One easily checks that both maps are inverse to each other.



We have an exact sequence 1 → Ox∗ /(1 + mx ) ∼
= k∗x → M ∗ /(1 + mx ) → ∆x → 1.
Note that Dx,K acts on such sequences and it acts on this sequence trivially on ∆x
∗
(Lemma 4.15), it fixes K ∗ /(1+mv ) and the action
 on kx comes from a∗field automor∗
phism. Set Γx,v = im Autkv (kx ) → Autk∗v (kx ) . Let AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M /(1 + mx )) be

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

19

the group of automorphisms of the sequence, seen as subgroup of Aut(M ∗ /(1+mx )),
which are the identity on K ∗ /(1 + mx ) and which induce an element of Γx,v on k∗x
(note that the two conditions already imply that they act as the identity on ∆x ).
We get a morphism Dx,K → AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )).
Note that the group Ix,K acts trivially on k∗x and K ∗ /(1 + mv ) and ∆x . The
automorphisms of the exact sequence with these properties correspond by Lemma
6.3 to Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) and this gives a morphism
Ix,K → Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x )


g 7→ c 7→ g(c)/c .

By definition Vx,K is the kernel of the last morphism.
Lemma 6.4. Let (L′ , u′ ) ⊇ (L, u) be a finite normal extension of valued fields with
group H. Assume that for all a ∈ L′∗ and h ∈ H we have
h(a)
∈ 1 + mu′ .
a

Then H is a pu -group.
Proof. We can directly reduce to the case where L′ /L is Galois and [L′ : L] > 1.
Let a ∈ L′∗ satisfy trL′ /L (a) = 0, which exists by looking at dimensions. Then we
have
trL′ /L (a)
0=
∈ [L′ : L] + mu′ .
a
This shows #H = [L′ : L] = 0 ∈ ku and hence H is a pu -group.

Proposition 6.5. The subgroup Vx,K is the unique pv -Sylow subgroup of Ix,K .
The sequences
0 → Vx,K → Ix,K → Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) → 0
and
0 → Vx,K → Dx,K → AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) → 0
are exact. One has [Kv,x : Ki,x ] = e(xv /xi ) = et (xv /xi ) and f(xv /xi ) = 1. We also
Z
have [M : Kv,x ] ∈ pv ≥0 and e(x/xv ) = ew (x/xv ). Set s = ord(Ix,K / Vx,K ). Then
kx has an s-th primitive root of unity.
Proof. Let ϕ : Ix,K → Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) be the morphism with kernel Vx,K . Since
k∗x has no non-trivial elements of pv -power order, all elements of order a power of
pv of Ix,K are in Vx,K . Consider the normal extension M/Kv,x with automorphism
group Vx,K . One obtains that Vx,K is a pv -group by Lemma 6.4. Hence Vx,K is
the unique pv -Sylow subgroup of Ix,K .
Consider the Galois extension Kv,x/Ki,x with group Ix,K / Vx,K . As the order
of Ix,K / Vx,K is coprime with pv , we have an exact sequence 0 → Ix,K / Vx,K →
Hom(∆xv /∆xi , k∗xv ). Using Proposition 5.6 we obtain
f(xv /xi ) · e(xv /xi ) ≤ [Kv,x : Ki,x ] ≤ # Hom(∆xv /∆xi , k∗xv ) ≤ et (xv /xi ) ≤ e(xv /xi ).
We obtain f(xv /xi ) = 1 and [Kv,x : Ki,x ] = e(xv /xi ) = et (xv /xi ). We also obtain
# Hom(∆xv /∆xi , k∗xv ) = # (Ix,K / Vx,K ). Finally we obtain that kxv has an s-th
primitive root of unity.

20

MICHIEL KOSTERS
Z

One easily obtains [M : Kv,x] ∈ pv ≥0 . Furthermore, e(x/xv ) = ew (x/xv ) follows
from Lemma 5.7.
The extension kx /kxv is purely inseparable (Proposition 6.2). This shows that
the torsion of k∗x is equal to the torsion of k∗xv . Note that ∆v = ∆xi by Proposition 6.1 and Proposition 6.2. Hence we have a natural map Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) →
Hom(∆xv /∆xi , k∗xv ). Because ∆x /∆xv is a pv -group, this map is injective. We find
# (Ix,K / Vx,K ) ≤ # Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) ≤ # Hom(∆xv /∆xi , k∗xv ) = # (Ix,K / Vx,K ) .

This shows that the sequence 0 → Vx,K → Ix,K → Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) → 0 is exact.
We will show that the second sequence is exact. Recall that this sequence comes
from the action of Dx,K on 0 → k∗x → M ∗ /(1 + mx ) → ∆x → 0. If σ ∈ Dx,K acts
trivially on the exact sequence, then it acts trivially on kx and hence lies in Ix,K and
hence in Vx,K . We will count AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )). Note that the restriction
map to AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) → Γx,v , a group of cardinality # Dx,K /# Ix,K ,
is surjective (Proposition 6.2). Let h ∈ Γx,v . The set of automorphisms inducing
h is in bijection with Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) (Lemma 6.3), and this set is of cardinality
# Ix,K /# Vx,K . We find:
# AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) = # Dx,K /# Ix,K ·# Ix,K /# Vx,K = # Dx,K /# Vx,K .
Hence the last sequence is exact.



We later use the following lemma, which summarizes part of the situation. In
Proposition 3.7 we will give a more readable form.
Lemma 6.6. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite normal extension of valued fields.
Then the following statements hold:
i. [Kh,x : K] = gM,v , e(xh /v) = f(xh /v) = 1;
ii. [Ki,x : Kh,x ] = f s (xi /xh ) = f(xi /xh ) = f s (x/v), e(xi /xh ) = 1;
iii. [Kv,x : Ki,x ] = et (xv /xi ) = e(xv /xi ) = et (x/v), f(xv /xi ) = 1;
Z
iv. [M : Kv,x ] ∈ pv ≥0 , e(x/xv ) = ew (x/xv ) = ew (x/v), f(x/xv ) = f i (x/xv ) =
f i (x/v).
Proof. This follows from combining Proposition 6.1, Proposition 6.2, Proposition
6.5 and Proposition 5.6.

6.2. Normal extensions.
Remark 6.7. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a normal extension of valued fields and let
G = AutK (M ). Let T be the set of finite normal extensions of K in M . By
definition one has
Dx,K = lim Dx|M ′ ,K ;
←−

M ′ ∈T

Ix,K = lim Ix|M ′ ,K ;
←−

M ′ ∈T

Vx,K = lim Vx|M ′ ,K .
←−

M ′ ∈T

All maps in the projective limits come from the natural restriction maps.
Lemma 6.8. Let K ⊆ L ⊆ M be algebraic extensions of fields. Then we have
ML,sep = MK,sep L.

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

21

Proof. Assume p = char(K) 6= 0. One obviously has ML,sep ⊇ MK,sep L. For
i
x ∈ M \ MK,sep L there is i ∈ Z≥0 such that xp ∈ MK,sep , and hence M/MK,sep L
is purely inseparable and we are done.

We need the following technical lemma.
Lemma 6.9. Let M ⊇ L ⊇ K be algebraic extensions of fields where M/K is
normal. Let G = AutK (M ) and H = AutL (M ) ⊆ G. Let G′ ⊆ G be a subgroup.
G′ ∩H
G′
Then one has (ML,sep)
= (MK,sep ) L.
Proof. By Proposition 4.10 it is enough to show that both fields have the same
compositum and intersection with MK,sep . We start with the intersection, where
′
′
we use Galois theory (for the first equality, note that (MK,sep )G L/ (MK,sep )G (L ∩
MK,sep ) is purely inseparable):


G′
G′
(MK,sep ) L ∩ MK,sep = (MK,sep ) (L ∩ MK,sep )
′

′

= (MK,sep )G (MK,sep )H = (MK,sep )G ∩H
′

= (ML,sep)G ∩H ∩ MK,sep .
For the compositum, we have:


G′
(MK,sep ) L MK,sep = MK,sep L

and by Lemma 6.8 we have

H∩G′

LMK,sep ⊆ (ML,sep)
The result follows.

MK,sep ⊆ ML,sepMK,sep = LMK,sep .


Proof of Theorem 3.6. We will first prove that the map G × S → S is continuous.
Take x′ ∈ S, L a finite extension of K and suppose that g · x′′ ∈ Ux′ ,L . Let N/K
be a finite normal extension containing L in M . Then one has {g ′ ∈ G : g|N =
g ′ |N } · Ux′′ ,N ⊆ Ux′ ,L . This shows that the action is continuous. By definition the
stabilizer of x is Dx,K and this gives us the isomorphism G/ Dx,K → S.
One easily obtains for g ∈ G the equalities Dg(x),K = g Dx,K g −1 and Kh,g(x) =
gKh,x. The other cases are similar.
We want to show that the sequences are exact. The idea is that the result is a
limit of the statements for finite normal extensions. This is the reason why the maps
are morphisms of profinite groups. Let 0 → Ai → Bi → Ci → 0 (i is some indexed
set) be exact sequences of groups such that we can take a projective limit. Then the
remaining sequence is left-exact. It is exact if all the maps Ai → Aj in the system
are surjective (in this case, the so-called Mittag-Leffler condition is satisfied). See
for example [AM69, Proposition 10.2] for a statement which is sufficient. Hence we
take the limit of the sequences from Proposition 6.2 and Proposition 6.5.
Let M ′ , M ′′ be finite normal over K with K ⊆ M ′ ⊆ M ′′ ⊆ M . We claim that
the natural maps Ix|M ′′ ,K → Ix|M ′ ,K and Vx|M ′′ ,K → Vx|M ′ ,K are surjective. Take
g ∈ Ix|M ′ ,K with lift g ′ ∈ AutK (M ′′ ). We have an exact sequence 0 → Ix|M ′′ ,M ′ →
Dx|M ′′ ,M ′ → Autkx| ′ (kx|M ′′ ) → 0 from Proposition 6.2. This shows that there is a
M

g ′′ ∈ Dx|M ′′ ,M ′ ⊆ AutM ′ (M ′′ ) such that g ′ g ′′ ∈ Ix|M ′′ ,K and g ′ g ′′ = g ∈ AutK (M ′ ).
A similar proof, using Proposition 6.5 and the result just obtained, shows the
surjectivity of Vx|M ′′ ,K → Vx|M ′ ,K .

22

MICHIEL KOSTERS

This shows that all sequences in the limit remain exact (for the first one, we could
have also used Corollary 4.13). Since kx|M ′ has enough roots of unity (Proposition
6.5) we find
Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) = Hom(lim∆x|M ′ /∆v , k∗x )) = lim Hom(∆|x|M ′ /∆v , k∗x|M ′ ).
→

←

M′

M′

For the limit of the third sequence, we need to prove
AutK ∗ ,Γx,v (M ∗ /(1 + mx )) = lim AutK ∗ ,Γx|

M′

←

M′

,v

(M ∗ /(1 + mx|M ′ ))

It is easy to see that the right group is contained in the left group. The other
implication follows since such an automorphism of
1 → k∗x → M ∗ /(1 + mx ) → ∆x → 1

induces an automorphism of

1 → k∗x|M ′ → M ′∗ /(1 + mx|M ′ ) → ∆x|M ′ → 1
because kx|M ′ /kv is normal (Proposition 6.2).
The statement about the pro-pv -Sylow statement follow from Proposition 6.5.
The normality of kx /kv follows from Proposition 6.2. Proposition 6.5 also gives the
statement about the roots of unity.
Statement i directly follows from the definition. Statement ii follows from statement i and Lemma 6.9.
We will prove the exactness of the last three sequences. The only non-trivial
part is the surjectivity of the last maps. The exactness for the last two sequences
is as before, and the exactness of the first sequence follows from the transitivity of
the action of G on S. The last statements then follow directly.

Lemma 6.10. Suppose we have the following commutative diagram of groups with
exact rows:
// B h // C
// 0
// A
0
f

g




′
// A′
// B ′ h // C ′
// 0.
0
Assume that s : C → B is a splitting of the first exact sequence and assume that
Hom(ker(g), A′ ) = 0. Then the map
s′ : C ′ → B ′

c′ = g(c) 7→ f ◦ s(c)

is well-defined and it is a splitting of the second exact sequence.
Proof. Consider the morphism f ◦ s|ker(g) : ker(ϕ) → B ′ . Note that the image
actually lands in A′ and hence this is the 0 map. Hence s′ is a well-defined map.
Take c′1 , c′2 ∈ C ′ , say with preimage c1 respectively c2 in C. Then c1 + c2 is a
preimage of c′1 + c′2 and hence have
s′ (c′1 + c′2 ) = f ◦ s(c1 + c2 ) = f ◦ s(c1 ) + f ◦ s(c2 ) = s′ (c′1 ) + s′ (c′2 ).

This shows that s′ is a morphism. For c′ ∈ C ′ with preimage c ∈ C we find
h′ (s′ (c′ )) = h′ ◦ f ◦ s(c) = g ◦ h ◦ s(c) = g(c) = c′ .



THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

23

Proof of Theorem 3.8. We may assume that K = Kh,x . Set Γ = Autkv (kx ).
i: Let M be an algebraic closure of M with valuation x′ extending x. Let S be
the set of intermediate fields L of Kv,x′ /K with the property that (L, x′ |L ) ⊇ (K, v)
is totally ramified and tame. Order this set by inclusion. This set is not empty.
Note that a chain has an upper bound, namely the union. By Zorn there is a
maximal element, say L′ . Notice that ∆x′ /∆x′ |L′ is a pv -group. Indeed, if not, we
could find a totally and tamely ramified extension of L′ in M by taking a root of
an element of L′ . Using the exact sequences (Theorem 3.6) it is not hard to see
that Gal(Kv,x′ /L′ ) ∼
= Γ (the extension Kv,x′ /L′ has trivial V and hence trivial I).
This shows that the sequence 0 → Ix′ ,K / Vx′ ,K → Dx′ ,K / Vx′ ,K → Γ → 0 is split.
We have the following commutative diagram:
0

// Ix′ ,K / Vx′ ,K

// Dx′ ,K / Vx′ ,K

// Γ

// 0

0


// Ix,K / Vx,K


// Dx,K / Vx,K


// Autkv (kx )

// 0.

Lemma 6.10 gives us a splitting of the second sequence provided that we can show
Hom(Autkx (kx ), Ix,K / Vx,K ) = 0. Note that Ix,K / Vx,K ∼
= Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x ) (Theorem 3.6). Suppose we have such a non-trivial morphism. Then as ∆x /∆v is torsion,
we can find an element of prime order l coprime to pv in ∆x /∆v not mapping to
zero (note that the order of l divids ord(Ix,K / Vx,K )). This gives us a surjective
morphism Autkx (kx ) → Z/lZ. By assumption such a morphism does not exist.
ii: Note that Vx,K is the unique pro-pv -Sylow subgroup of Ix,K (Theorem 3.6)
and hence the statement trivially follows when pv = 1 or when pv ∤ ord(Ix,K ).
Assume pv 6= 1 and pv | ord(Ix,K ). It is enough to show that the cohomological
pv -dimension of Dx,K / Vx,K , cdpv (Dx,K / Vx,K ), is at most 1 [Ser02, Chapter I,
Proposition 16]. We have an exact sequence 0 → Ix,K / Vx,K → Dx,K / Vx,K →
Dx,K / Ix,K → 0. From Theorem 3.6 it follows that Dx,K / Ix,K is isomorphic to
Autkv (kx ). This group has cohomological dimension at most 1 (see the proof of
[Ser02, Chapter II, Proposition 3] or [Efr06, Theorem 22.2.1], in combination with
Artin-Schreier theory). We have an isomorphism Ix,K / Vx,K ∼
= Hom(∆x /∆v , k∗x )
and its order is coprime to pv . Hence we have cdpv (Ix,K / Vx,K ) = 0 ([Ser02,
Chapter I, Corollary 2 on Page 19]). Using [Ser02, Chapter I, Proposition 15] we
see that cdpv (Dx,K / Vx,K ) ≤ 1 and the result follows.
iii: This follows after combining i and ii and the fact that Vx,K is a pv -group
(Theorem 3.6).

7. Algebraic extensions
7.1. Proofs.
Proposition 7.1. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite extension of valued fields. Let
(M, x) be a finite normal extension of (K, v) containing (L, w). Then the following
hold:
i. the quantity n(w/v) is well-defined and one has n(w/v) =
[Lh,x : Kh,x];
Z
ii. d(w/v) is well-defined and has values in pv ≥0 .

gM,w
gM,v

· [L : K] =

24

MICHIEL KOSTERS

Furthermore, the quantities d, dw , e, et ew , f, f s , f i and n are multiplicative in
towers.
Proof. i. We will show that n(w/v) is well-defined, i.e. does not depend on
the choice of M . Let M ′ be another normal extension of K containing L with
G = AutK (M ′ ). Without loss of generality, we may assume M ′ ⊇ M . Put
H = AutM (M ′ ). Let X (respectively X ′ ) be the set of primes of M (respectively
M ′ ) extending v. Note that G acts transitively on X ′ , and G/H acts transitively
on X (Proposition 5.6). Then one easily shows that the map X ′ → X has equally
sized fibers. Hence gM ′ ,v = #X ′ = #X · #(fiber above x) = gM,v · gM ′ ,x as required. Similarly, if one replaces K by L, one obtains gM ′ ,w = gM,w · gM ′ ,x . Hence
the required ratio does not depend on the choice of M .
From Lemma 6.6 and Theorem 3.6ii one obtains [Kh,x : K] = gM,v and [LKh,x :
L] = [Lh,x : L] = gM,w . Hence we have
[Lh,x : Kh,x ] = [LKh,x : Kh,x] =

gM,w
[LKh,x : L]
· [L : K] =
· [L : K] = n(w/v).
[Kh,x : K]
gM,v

We will now prove the last statement. It is obvious that e, et ew , f, f s , f i are
multiplicative. If we show that n is multiplicative, it directly follows that d and dw
are multiplicative. Hence it is enough to show that n is multiplicative. Let (L′ , w′ )
be a finite extension of (L, w). Let M be a finite normal extension of K containing
L′ . Then one has
gM,w
gM,w′
· [L′ : L] ·
· [L : K]
n(w′ /w) n(w/v) =
gM,w
gM,v
gM,w′ ′
[L : K] = n(w′ /v).
=
gM,v
[L

:K

]

h,x
h,x
ii. It is now obvious that d(w/v) is well-defined. One has d(w/v) = e(w/v)
f(w/v) ∈
Z≥1 by Proposition 5.6, Proposition 6.1 and the multiplicativity of e and f.
If L/K is normal, one has

d(w/v) =

[L : Kh,w ]
[L : Kv,w ]
=
∈ pZ
v
e(w/v) f(w/v)
ew (w/v) f s (w/v)
Z

(Lemma 6.6). Together with the multiplicativity of d, this shows d(w/v) ∈ pv ≥0 in
general.

Proof of Proposition 3.7. This follows directly from Lemma 6.6 and the definitions.

Proof of Theorem 3.9. The first equality is easily from the definition, the second
follows by definition and the third follows from Proposition 7.1ii.

Remark 7.2. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be an algebraic extension of valued fields. Note
that immediate implies unramified, unramified implies tame, totally wild implies
totally ramified and totally ramified implies local.
Suppose that one of the following hold:
i. w/v is immediate and local;
ii. w/v is unramified and totally ramified;
iii. w/v is tame and totally wild.
Then from Theorem 3.9 it follows that L = K.

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

25

Remark 7.3. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be an algebraic extension of valued fields which
is purely inseparable. Then one easily sees that it is totally wild (Lemma 5.8).
Proof of Theorem 3.10. The surjectivity of π follows directly from the transitivity
as in Proposition 5.6 and the extension property as in Proposition 5.2.
Let σ ∈ X. This gives us embeddings (K, v) ⊆ (L, w) ⊆ (M, x). Write
H = Gal(M/L). Then X corresponds to G/H. Let T be the set of finite normal subextensions of M/K. We first consider w/v:
i, ii, iii: w/v is immediate ⇐⇒ for all M ′ ∈ T the extension w|M ′ ∩L /v is
immediate ⇐⇒ for all M ′ ∈ T we have # Dx|M ′ ,K = # Dx|M ′ ,L∩M ′ (Proposition
3.7, look at degrees such as [K : Kh,x|M ′ ] = # Dx|M ′ ,K ) ⇐⇒ for all M ′ ∈ T we
have Dx|M ′ ,K = Dx|M ′ ,L∩M ′ = Dx|M ′ ,K ∩ AutL∩M ′ (M ′ ) (Theorem 3.6) ⇐⇒ for all
M ′ ∈ T we have Dx|M ′ ,K ⊆ AutL∩M ′ (M ′ ) ⇐⇒ Dx,K ⊆ H (Theorem 3.6) ⇐⇒
L ⊆ Kh,x. The other cases are similar.
iv, v, vi: w/v is local ⇐⇒ for all M ′ ∈ T the extension w|M ′ ∩L /v is local
⇐⇒ for all M ′ ∈ T we have [L ∩ M ′ : K][Kh,x|M ′ : K] = [(L ∩ M ′ )h,x|M ′ :
Kh,x|M ′ ][Kh,x|M ′ : K] = [(L ∩ M ′ )Kh,x|M ′ : K] (Proposition 3.7 and Theorem 3.6)
⇐⇒ for all M ′ ∈ T we have AutK (M ′ ) = Dx|M ′ ,K AutL∩M ′ (M ′ ) (as Kh,x is
separable, one can apply Proposition 4.2) ⇐⇒ for all M ′ ∈ T the group Dx|M ′ ,K
acts transitively on AutK (M ′ )/ AutL∩M ′ (M ′ ).
We prove that the last statement is equivalent with Dx,K acting transitively on
G/H. If Dx,K acts transitively on G/H, then one easily sees from the surjectivity
G/H → AutK (M ′ )/ AutL∩M ′ (M ′ ) for M ′ ∈ T and Theorem 3.6, that Dx|M ′ ,K acts
transitively on AutK (M ′ )/ AutL∩M ′ (M ′ ). Conversely, given u, v ∈ G/H, consider
the projective system of non-empty finite sets which at level M ′ consists of those
elements mapping u|M ′ to v|M ′ . One can easily show that this set is non-empty
and deduce the result. The other cases are similar.
Now consider x/w:
vii, viii, ix: x/w is immediate ⇐⇒ M ⊆ Lh,x = LKh,x (using i and Theorem
3.6) ⇐⇒ M = LKh,x. The latter is equivalent to [σ(L) : K]i = [M : K]i and
Gσ ∩ Dx,K = 0 by Galois theory. The proofs of viii and ix are similar.
x, xi, xii: x/w is local ⇐⇒ M and Lh,x = LKh,x are linearly disjoint over L
(using ii and Theorem 3.6) ⇐⇒ Kh,x ⊆ L iff Gσ ⊆ Dx,K . The proofs of xi and xii
are similar.
Consider the last statements.
xiii: This follows from i and the surjectivity of π.
xiv: w is totally split in M ⇐⇒ M/σ(L) is separable and for all g ∈ G we have
Gσ ∩ Dg(x),K = 0 (vii and Theorem 3.6) iff M/L is separable and only the trivial
element of Gσ is conjugate to Dx,K (Theorem 3.6).

Proof of Corollary 3.11. Let (E, x′ ) be a normal extension of (K, v) extending the
valued field (LL′ , x).
i, ii, iii, iv: Assume that w/v is immediate. Theorem 3.10 gives us that L ⊆ Kh,x′ .
But then we have LL′ ⊆ L′ Kh,x′ = L′h,x′ (Theorem 3.6). Hence Theorem 3.10 shows
that x/w′ is immediate. The proofs for the other cases are similar.

Remark 7.4. Statements as in Corollary 3.11 are false for local, totally ramified
or totally wild extensions.
Here is an √
example from algebraic number theory. Let
√
K = Q, L = Q( 7) and L′ = Q( −1) and look at the primes above 2. In
this case L/K and L′ /K is totally wild (and hence local and totally ramified).

26

MICHIEL KOSTERS

√
In the extension
L′′ = Q( √−7) of Q the prime 2 splits. Hence in the extension
√
√
LL′ /K = Q( 7, −1)/Q( −1) the prime above 2 splits. The extension LL′ /K is
not local.
Proof of Corollary 3.12. Let (M, x) be a normal extension of (K, v) containing
(L, w).
For the immediate case, we have the following: L ⊆ Kh,x ⇐⇒ K ′ ⊆ Kh,x and
′
L ⊆ Kh,x
= K ′ Kh,x (Theorem 3.6). The result follows from Theorem 3.10. The
unramified and tame cases are similar.
′
Now consider the local case. One has: L ⊗K Kh,x is a domain ⇐⇒ L ⊗K ′ Kh,x
′
′
and K ⊗K Kh,x are domains. Assume first that K ⊗K Kh,x is a domain. Observe
that
′
= L ⊗K ′ (K ′ Kh,x )
L ⊗K ′ Kh,x

= L ⊗K ′ K ′ ⊗K Kh,x
= L ⊗K Kh,x

(Theorem 3.6). This directly proves ⇐=. The implication =⇒ follows from
K ′ ⊗K Kh,x ⊆ L ⊗K Kh,x and the above observation observation.
The result follows from Theorem 3.10. The totally ramified and totally wild
cases are similar.

Proof of Corollary 3.15. Pick an extension (M, x) ⊇ (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) such that
M/K is normal. Using Theorem 3.10 we see L1 = Kh,x ∩ L, L2 = Ki,x ∩ L and
L3 = Kv,x ∩ L.
We will now construct a minimal local subextension. Assume that L′ is a field
such that w/w|L′ is local. Then w/w|L′K,sep is also local (Lemma 5.8). Hence we
can replace L by LK,sep . Using Theorem 3.10 and Theorem 3.6, we see that we
need to find the smallest intermediate field L′ of LK,sep /K such that LK,sep and
L′h,x = L′ Kh,x are linearly disjoint over L′ . Such a field exists by Theorem 3.13
and it is denoted by LK,sep |\ Kh,x . The proofs of the other cases are similar when
D is replaced by I respectively V.
We will now prove that L1 ⊆ L4 . As w|L1 /v is immediate, it follows that the
extension w|L1 L4 /w|L4 is immediate (Corollary 3.11). Hence L1 L4 /L4 is immediate
and local. From Remark 7.2 it follows that L1 L4 = L4 , that is, L1 ⊆ L4 . The
inclusions L2 ⊆ L5 and L3 ⊆ L6 follow in a similar manner.
Assume that gM,w = 1 for some normal extension M/K containing L. Note
that gM,w = 1 is equivalent to H = AutL (M ) ⊆ Dx,K (Theorem 3.10x). From
Theorem 3.10 it follows that we need to show that Dx,K → hH, Dx,K i/H, Ix,K →
hH, Ix,K i/H and Vx,K → hH, Vx,K i/H are surjective. The surjectivity of the first
map is obvious, and the surjectivity of the second and third map is implied by the
normality of Ix,K respectively Vx,K in Dx,K (Theorem 3.6).

Actually, one can make the diagram a bit bigger. For i = 1, 2, 3 we define L′i to
be the intersection of the Li while varying over the extensions of v to L. Similarly,
for i = 4, 5, 6 we define L′i to be the compositum of the Li while varying over the
extensions of v to L. For example, L′1 is the maximal extension such that v is

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

27

totally split. If we put L′7 = LK,sep , we get the following diagram,
L
L′7
L′6
L′5

⑥⑥

❆❆

L6 ❆
❆
⑥⑥
L′4
L5 ❆
L3
❆❆
❆ ⑥⑥ ❆❆
⑥⑥
L′3
L4 ❆
L2
❆ ⑥⑥ ❆❆
⑥⑥
L′2
L1 ❆
❆
⑥⑥
L′1
⑥⑥

❆❆

K.
Proof of Corollary 3.16. We will prove ii. The other proofs are similar.
Assume that gM,w = 1. Assume that w/v is not totally ramified. Then one has
L2 = L5 in Corollary 3.15. And hence there is a non-trivial unramified extension in
L/K. But then L5 L′ /L′ is unramified and non-trivial (Corollary 3.11 respectively
L ∩ L′ = K). Contradiction.

Example 7.5. In Corollary 3.16 it is not enough to require that L ∩ L′ = K.
Here is an example where all three statements are false. Consider the extension
L = Q(α) of Q where α is a root of x(x − 1)2 + 2. Well-known techniques show
that there are two primes above (2), namely p = (2, α) and q = (2, α − 1). One
has (2) = pq2 . It follows that Q(α)/Q is not Galois. Hence the Galois closure M
of this extension has group S3 . Let α be another root in this Galois closure and
let L′ = Q(α). Then the prime (2) has the same splitting behavior in L′ /Q as in
L/Q, say (2) = p′ q′2 . Note that LL′ = M , L ∩ L′ = Q. Furthermore, we know the
splitting behavior of (2) in M : (2) = p21 p22 p23 where there is just one prime above p
respectively p′ , which is totally wild, and there are two primes above q respectively
q′ . Say that p1 lies above p′ . Then p1 /p′ is totally wild, but p1 |L /2Z is not even
local. Hence statements i, ii and iii of Corollary 3.16 do not hold in this case.
The same example shows that in Corollary 3.15 it is not necessarily true that
L1 = L4 , L2 = L5 or L3 = L6 . Indeed, for the extension (Q(α), q)/(Q, 2Z) we have
L1 = L2 = L3 = Q and L4 = L5 = L6 = Q(α).
Example 7.6. Let K be a field with field extensions L, L′ inside a field M . Assume that L ∩ L′ = K and that M/L′ is purely inseparable. Then L/K is purely
inseparable. Indeed, if char(k) = p > 0, then for x ∈ L there is n ∈ Z≥1 with
n
xp ∈ L ∩ L′ = K.
This statement also follows from our general theory. Consider the trivial valuation on K, that is, K is the valuation ring. This valuation has a unique valuation
to any algebraic field extension of K. Furthermore, M/L′ is totally wild. Hence
from Corollary 3.16 it follows that L/K is totally wild and the result follows.
Proposition 7.7. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L be an algebraic extension
of K. Let (M, x) ⊇ (K, v) be a normal extension of valued fields with group G =

28

MICHIEL KOSTERS

AutK (L) such that the G-set XL = HomK (L, M ) is not empty. Then for any
intermediate extension L′ of L/K we have the following commutative diagram,
where the maps are the natural maps:
G × XL

// XL


G × XL ′


// XL′ .

The map
ϕ : Dx,K \XL → {w of L extending v}

Dx,K σ 7→ w s.t. Ow = σ −1 (Ox ∩ σ(L))

is a bijection of sets. Furthermore, for σ ∈ XL we have the following bijections:
Dx,K σ → HomKh,x (σ(L)h,x , M )
tσ 7→ t|σ(L)h,x ,

Ix,K σ → HomKi,x (σ(L)i,x , M )
tσ 7→ t|σ(L)i,x ,

and
Vx,K σ → HomKv,x (σ(L)v,x , M )
tσ 7→ t|σ(L)v,x .

Proof. The commutativity of the diagram is obvious.
Define ϕ′ : XL → {w of L extending v} by putting σ 7→ w s.t. Ow = σ −1 (Ox ∩
σ(L)). One should think of ϕ′ as mapping an embedding L ⊆ M to the restriction
of x to L. The surjectivity is part of Theorem 3.10. Suppose ϕ′ (s) = ϕ′ (t). There
exists h ∈ G such that ht = s. But then by Proposition 5.6 there exists g ∈
Auts(L) (M ) with gh(x) = x, that is, gh ∈ Dx,s(L) ⊆ Dx,K . We have ght = ht = s.
It is obvious that ϕ′ (Dx,K s) = ϕ′ (s). This shows that the map is a bijection.
We will show that the map Dx,K s → HomKh,x (s(L)h,x , M ) is a bijection. The
other cases are similar. Suppose we have τ ∈ HomKh,x (s(L)h,x , M ). Then we can
extend it to a morphism τ ′ ∈ AutKh,x (M ) = Dx,K and τ ′ 7→ τ .

Proof of Proposition 3.17. The first statement directly follows from Proposition
7.7. The last statements follows from Proposition 7.7 and Proposition 3.7 and
the separability of L/K.

Proof of Corollary 3.18. From Proposition 3.17 one sees that the set of valuations
with the given properties is in bijection with the set of orbits of X under Dx,K such
that the length of such an orbit is equal to the length of the orbit under Ix,K . And
this easily translates to the required statement.

7.2. Finding extensions explicitly.
Proposition 7.8. Let (K, v) be a valued field and let L/K be a finite extension.
Pick a ∈ Q
L which is integral over Ov with minimal polynomial f ∈ Ov [x]. Suppose
m
that f = i=1 fini ∈ kv [x] where the fi are monic irreducible and pairwise distinct.
Then the following hold:

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

29

i. for i = 1, . . . , m there are pairwise distinct valuations wi on L with f(wi /v) ≥
deg(fi );
ii. if f is separable, then the wi are all valuations extending v to L and one
has f(wi /v) = deg(fi ), e(wi /v) = d(wi /v) = 1.
Proof. Notice that f K[x] ∩ R[x] = f R[x] as f is monic. Statement i follows directly
from Proposition 5.2 and Proposition 5.4. Statement ii follows from i and Theorem
3.9.

If the valuation in the above statement is discrete, one can say a bit more. See
for example [Sti09, Theorem 3.3.7].
8. Defects in the discrete case
In this section we will give examples of defects and show that under certain
circumstances, defects do not occur. This section is quite different from the other
sections in this article, but we felt it was needed to show the reader that defects
are not necessarily a defect of our theory.
We start with an example where there is a defect.
Example 8.1. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite purely inseparable extension of valued
fields where v is discrete, that is, ∆v ∼
= Z. Then one can have d(w/v) > 1. Let p be
a prime number. Consider Fp (t) ⊆ Fp ((t)) with the valuation w0 on Fp ((t)) with
w0 (t) = 1. Let v0 be its restriction to Fp (t). Then we have ∆v0 = ∆w0 and kv0 =
kw0 . Let s ∈ Fp ((t)) be transcendental over Fp (t) (such s exist, because Fp (t) is
countable, and Fp ((t)) is uncountable) and consider K = Fp (t, sp ) ⊆ Fp (t, s) = L,
with restricted valuations v respectively w. This is a purely inseparable extension
of degree p with the property that gL,v = e(w/v) = f(w/v) = 1. From Proposition
5.6 and Theorem 3.9 we conclude d(w/v) = p.
We will show that in certain cases, there is no defect. We use the following
lemma.
Lemma 8.2. Let k be a field and let A be a localization at a multiplicative set
of a finitely generated k-algebra which is a domain. Put K = Q(A) and let L/K
be a finite extension of fields. Then the integral closure A of A in L is finite as
A-module.
Proof. Assume first that A is finitely generated as k-algebra.
Notice that it is enough to prove the statement for a finite extension of L. Indeed,
a finitely generated module over a noetherian ring is a noetherian module ([AM69,
Proposition 6.5]), and hence all submodules are finitely generated.
Noether normalization, [Liu02, Proposition 2.1.9], tells us that A is finite over
a polynomial ring A′ = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] with quotient field K ′ . We show that the
integral closure of A′ in L, which is A, is a finite A′ -module and hence a finite
A-module. This reduces to the case where A = k[x1 , . . . , xn ].
We will start enlarging L. First enlarge it such that L/K is normal. We can
split L/K into a tower L ⊇ L′ ⊇ K where L′ /K is purely inseparable and L/L′ is
separable. Hence we are reduced to proving the following two cases:
i. L/K separable;
ii. L/K purely inseparable and A = k[x1 , . . . , xn ].

30

MICHIEL KOSTERS

Assume that L/K is separable. Let y1 , . . . , ym be a basis of L/K with yi ∈ A.
′
Let y1′ , . . . , ym
be a dual basis of L/K with respect to the trace. Then it follows
that Ay1 ⊕ . . . ⊕ Ayn ⊆ A ⊆ Ay1′ ⊕ . . . ⊕ Ayn′ . Note that Ay1′ ⊕ . . . ⊕ Ayn′ is a finitely
generated module over a noetherian ring, and hence a finite A-module. It follows
that A is a finite A-module.
Assume that L/K is purely inseparable and A = k[x1 , . . . , xn ]. Since L/K is
d
d
, . . . , x−p
finite, we see that L is contained in L′ = l(x−p
n ) for some d ∈ Z≥0 large
1
enough and l a finite (purely inseparable) extension of k. Replace L by L′ . Notice
d
d
, . . . , x−p
that A′ = l[x−p
n ] is integral over A and it is integrally closed. Hence the
1
integral closure of A in L is A′ , and it is finite over A.
We will now treat the general case. Write A = S −1 B where B is a finitely
generated k-algebra and S a multiplicative set. From [AM69, Proposition 5.12] we
obtain A = S −1 B. We have shown that B is a finite A-module and hence A is a
finite A-module.

Proposition 8.3. Let (L, w) ⊇ (K, v) be a finite extension of valued fields. Suppose
one of the following hold:
i. L/K is separable and ∆v ∼
= Z;
ii. Ov contains a field k, Ov 6= K, K finitely generated over k, and trdegk (K) =
1.
Then we have ∆v ∼
= Z and d(w/v) = 1.
Proof. First we prove that in the second case we also have ∆v ∼
= Z. Let x ∈ Ov
transcendental over k. Then p = k[x] ∩ mv is a prime ideal. If it is zero, then
Ov ⊇ k(x) and since K is finite over k(x), it follows that Ov = K, contradiction.
Hence Ov ∩ k(x) = k[x]p (this follows since we know all valuations on k(x) which
are trivial on k). Notice that k[x]p is a discrete valuation ring, and hence the same
follows for Ov (as e is finite). Replace Ov by k[x]p and K by k(x) in this case.
We will show the statement about d(w/v) for the bigger extension, and the result
about d(w/v) follows from multiplicativity.
Now we will consider both cases at once. Let O be the integral closure of Ov in L.
Assume first that O is a finitely generated Ov -module. Then one easily sees that O
is a free Ov -module of rank [L : K],
Q since Ov is a discrete valuation ring. Consider
O/mv O, which is isomorphic to w|v Ow /mv Ow (Proposition 5.4, in combination
with theorems on artinian rings from [AM69]). Notice that Ow /mv Ow is a vector
space over kv of dimension e(w/v) f(w/v) and the result follows.
Hence we are finished if we can show that O is finite over Ov . In the first case,
this follows directly from the trace pairing. In the second case, use Lemma 8.2. 
We will finish this section by giving an example of a separable extension of valued
fields which has a defect. We start with the following lemma, which goes back to
[Sch77]. We follow a proof from [Ste88].
Lemma 8.4. Let K be a field and n ∈ Z≥1 be an integer coprime with char K.
Let w be the number of n-th roots of unity in K. Let L be the splitting field of
xn − a ∈ K[x]. Then one has: L/K is abelian iff aw ∈ K n .
Proof. We may assume a 6= 0.

THE ALGEBRAIC THEORY OF VALUED FIELDS

31

=⇒ : Fix α ∈ L with αn = a and let ζn be an n-th root of unity. Let
k(σ)
σ ∈ G = Gal(L/K). Write σ(ζn ) = ζn . For τ ∈ G one has
 
k(σ)

τ (α)
τ (αk(σ) )
στ (α)
τ (α)
τ σ(α)
=
=
=
=σ
.
σ(α)
σ(α)
α
α
αk(σ)
Hence αk(σ) /σ(α) is fixed by τ and hence lies in K. Its n-th power is ak(σ)−1 ∈ K n .
Let r be the greatest common divisor of n and k(σ) − 1 for σ ∈ G. Then we have
n/r
ar ∈ K n . As hζn i is the set of G-invariant n-th roots of unity, one has r = w.
⇐=: Suppose aw = bn for some b ∈ K. One has K ⊆ L ⊆ L′ = K(b1/w , ζnw ).
Notice that L′ /K is abelian and hence L/K is abelian.

Remark 8.5. Next we will give an example of a separable extension which has a
defect. Let p be a prime and consider the field Qp with its standard p-adic valuation. It is well-known that this valuation has a unique extension to each algebraic
extension (Qp is henselian). Let L be the maximal tamely ramified extension of
Qp . Put L′ = L(ζpi : i ∈ Z≥1 ). We claim that for any finite extension L′′ /L′
we have d(L′′ /L′ ) = [L′′ : L′ ] (we do not specify the valuations, since they are
unique). Indeed, from the construction one easily sees that e = f = 1 (the residue
field of L is already algebraically closed, and the value group of L′ is Q) and as the
extension is unique, the degree is equal to the defect. We will now find a non-trivial
√
√
√
extension L′′ /L′ . We claim that p2 p 6∈ L′ . Suppose p2 p ∈ L′ , then L( p2 p)/L is
2
an abelian Galois extension. Note that #{x ∈ L : xp = 1} = p, as Qp (ζp2 )/Qp
2
is wild. Lemma 8.4 gives us pp ∈ Lp . But this means that L/Qp is not tame,
√
contradiction. Hence we can take L′′ = L′ ( p2 p).
References
[AM69] M. F. Atiyah and I. G. Macdonald. Introduction to commutative algebra. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1969.
[Efr06] Ido Efrat. Valuations, orderings, and Milnor K-theory, volume 124 of Mathematical
Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006.
[End72] Otto Endler. Valuation theory. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1972. To the memory of
Wolfgang Krull (26 August 1899–12 April 1971), Universitext.
[EP05] Antonio J. Engler and Alexander Prestel. Valued fields. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
[Kuh] Franz-Viktor
Kuhlman.
Book
on
Valuation
Theory
(in
preparation).
http://math.usask.ca/~ fvk/Fvkbook.htm.
[Lan02] Serge Lang. Algebra, volume 211 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag,
New York, third edition, 2002.
[Liu02] Qing Liu. Algebraic geometry and arithmetic curves, volume 6 of Oxford Graduate Texts
in Mathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002. Translated from the French by
Reinie Erné, Oxford Science Publications.
[RV99] Dinakar Ramakrishnan and Robert J. Valenza. Fourier analysis on number fields, volume
186 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999.
[Sch77] A. Schinzel. Abelian binomials, power residues and exponential congruences. Acta Arith.,
32(3):245–274, 1977.
[Ser79] Jean-Pierre Serre. Local fields, volume 67 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, New York, 1979. Translated from the French by Marvin Jay Greenberg.
[Ser02] Jean-Pierre Serre. Galois cohomology. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2002. Translated from French to English by Patrick Ion and revised by
the author.
[Ste88] Peter Stevenhagen. Class groups and governing fields. University of California, Berkeley,
1988. Phd thesis.

32

MICHIEL KOSTERS

[Sti09]

Henning Stichtenoth. Algebraic function fields and codes, volume 254 of Graduate Texts
in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2009.

Mathematisch Instituut P.O. Box 9512 2300 RA Leiden the Netherlands
E-mail address: mkosters@math.leidenuniv.nl
URL: www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~mkosters

