Extensions of local fields given by 3-term Eisenstein polynomials

Abstract: Let $K$ be a local field with residue characteristic $p$ and let $L/K$ be a totally ramified extension of degree $p^k$. In this paper we show that if $L/K$ has only two distinct indices of inseparability then there exists a uniformizer $\pi_L$ for $L$ whose minimum polynomial over $K$ has at most three terms. This leads to an explicit classification of extensions with two indices of inseparability. Our classification extends work of Amano, who considered the case $k=1$.

\section{Introduction} \label{introduction}

Let $K$ be a local field with normalized discrete
valuation $v_K: K\to \mathbb{Z}\cup\{\infty\}$.
Let $L/K$ be a totally ramified extension and let
$\pi_L$ be a uniformizer of $L$. Then the minimum
polynomial for $\pi_L$ over $K$ is Eisenstein, and
$L=K(\pi_L)$.
It
may be desirable to find a uniformizer for $L$ whose
minimum polynomial over $K$ has as few nonzero terms as
possible in order to give a succinct description of the
extension.  In \cite{amano},
Amano studied totally ramified extensions $L/K$ of
degree $p$, where $K$ is a finite extension of
$\mathbb{Q}_p$, and showed that there exists a
uniformizer $\pi_L$ for $L$ that is a root of an
Eisenstein polynomial over $K$ with at most three
nonzero terms. In this paper we study separable totally
ramified extensions $L/K$ of degree $p^k$ for which
there exists a uniformizer $\pi_L$ whose minimum
polynomial over $K$ has three nonzero terms.  In
particular, we show that if $L/K$ has exactly two
indices of inseparability then such a uniformizer always
exists.  We use this fact to give an explicit
classification of isomorphism classes of totally
ramified extensions $L/K$ of degree $p^k$ with two
indices of inseparability.

In Section~\ref{background} we define the indices of
inseparability.  In Section~\ref{quote} we discuss the
``stability theorem'' (Theorem~\ref{stability}) and the
``perturbation theorem'' (Theorem~\ref{perturbation}).
In Section~\ref{iteration} we state our main result,
Theorem~\ref{main}.  The proof of this theorem is found
in Sections~\ref{existence} and \ref{uniqueness}. In Section~\ref{splitting} we discuss the splitting fields of the polynomials obtained in Theorem~\ref{main}.
In Section~\ref{examples} we provide some counterexamples that
rule out various possible generalizations of the results
of Section~\ref{iteration}.

\subsection*{Notation} Let $K$ be a field which is
complete with respect to a normalized discrete valuation
$v_K$.  Let
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{O}_K&=\{\alpha\in K:v_K(\alpha)\geqslant 0\} \\
\mathcal{M}_K&=\{\alpha\in K:v_K(\alpha)\geqslant 1\}
\end{align*}
be the ring of integers and maximal ideal of $K$.  We
assume that the residue field $\overline{K}=\mathcal{O}_K/\mathcal{M}_K$ of $K$
is a perfect field of characteristic $p$.  Let $\mathfrak{R}$
denote the set of Teichm\"uller representatives of $K$.
Let $\pi_K$ be a fixed uniformizer for $K$; thus
$v_K(\pi_K)=1$ and $\mathcal{M}_K=\pi_K\mathcal{O}_K$.  Let $\Omega$ be a
separable closure of $K$.  For a finite subextension
$L/K$ of $\Omega/K$ we get $v_L$, $\mathcal{O}_L$, and $\mathcal{M}_L$ as
above, with $v_L$ normalized for $L$.  However, a
uniformizer $\pi_L$ for $L$ should not be viewed as
fixed.

Most of this work appeared in the first author's 2020
University of Florida Ph.D. thesis \cite{thesis}.

\section{Indices of inseparability}
\label{background}

Let $L/K$ be a finite separable totally ramified
extension.  The indices of inseparability of $L/K$ were
defined by Fried \cite{fried} in the case char$(K)=p$,
and by Heiermann \cite{heiermann} in general.  In this
section we use a theorem of Heiermann to give a
definition of the indices of inseparability in terms of
Eisenstein polynomials.  We then prove some basic facts
about these indices that we will need later.

Let $K$ be a local field with residue characteristic
$p$ and let $L/K$ be a totally ramified extension of
degree $n=up^k$, where $p\nmid u$.  Let
$\pi_L$ be a uniformizer for $L$ whose minimum
polynomial over $K$ is the Eisenstein polynomial
\begin{equation}
\label{pi_L}
f(X) =X^{n}  -c_1 X^{n-1} +\cdots + (-1)^{n-1}c_{n-1}X + (-1)^{n}c_{n}.
\end{equation}
We wish to define certain invariants of $L/K$ in terms
of the valuations of the coefficients of $f(X)$.  For
$0 \leqslant j \leqslant k$ set
\begin{equation}
\label{i_jtilde}
\widetilde{\imath}_j=\min\{nv_K(c_h) -h: 1 \leqslant h \leqslant n, v_p (h) \leqslant j\}.
\end{equation}
Let $e_K=v_K(p)$ be the absolute ramification index of
$K$ and set
\begin{equation}
\label{i_j}
i_j =\min\{\widetilde{\imath}_{j'} +(j'-j)ne_K: \, j \leqslant j' \leqslant k \}.
\end{equation}
Then $\widetilde{\imath}_j$ may depend on our choice of
$\pi_L$, but $i_j$ is an invariant of the extension
$L/K$:

\begin{theorem}

\label{well-defined}
The value of $i_j$ does not depend on the choice of
uniformizer $\pi_L$ for $L$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See Theorem~7.1 of \cite{heiermann}, or Proposition~2.4
and Remark~2.5 of \cite{towers}.
\end{proof}

\begin{definition}
\label{def-i_j}
For $0\leqslant j \leqslant k$ define the $j$th
\emph{index of inseparability} of $L/K$ to be the
nonnegative integer $i_j$ given by \eqref{i_j}.
\end{definition}

If $K$ has characteristic $p$ then $e_K=\infty$, and
hence $i_j=\widetilde{\imath}_j$.  In general we have
\begin{equation} \label{order}
0=i_k < i_{k-1} \leqslant \cdots \leqslant i_1
\leqslant i_0 <\infty.
\end{equation}
For $0 \leqslant j \leqslant k$ and $x\geqslant0$ set
$\widetilde{\phi}_{j}(x)=i_j +p^j x$.
The generalized Hasse-Herbrand functions $\phi_j: [0, \infty) \to [0, \infty)$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{varphi_j}
 \phi_j (x) =\min\{ \widetilde{\phi}_{j_0}(x):  \, 0 \leqslant j_0 \leqslant j\}.
\end{equation}
Let $\phi_{L/K}:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ denote the
classical Hasse-Herbrand function of $L/K$, as defined
in the appendix to \cite{deligne}.  In Corollary~6.11 of
\cite{heiermann} it is shown that
$\phi_{L/K}(x)=\frac1n\cdot\phi_k(x)$ for $x\geqslant0$.

Let $1\leqslant h \leqslant n$ and set $j=v_p(h)$.
Following \cite{perturb} we define a function $\rho_h:
\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ by
\begin{equation} \label{rhoh}
\rho_h(\ell) =\left \lceil \frac{\phi_j(\ell) +h}{n}\right \rceil.
\end{equation}
Let $\pi_L$ be a uniformizer for $L$ whose minimum
polynomial is given by \eqref{pi_L} and let $\widetilde{\pi}_L$
be a uniformizer for $L$ with minimum polynomial
\begin{equation} \label{pi-tilde}
\widetilde{f}(X)=X^n -\widetilde{c}_{1}X^{n-1} +\cdots
+(-1)^{n-1}\widetilde{c}_{n-1}X +(-1)^{n}\widetilde{c}_n.
\end{equation}

\begin{definition}
\label{l-equiv}
For $\ell\geqslant1$ we say $f\sim_{\ell}\widetilde{f}$
if $v_K(\widetilde{c}_h -c_h) \geqslant \rho_h(\ell)$
for $1\leqslant h\leqslant n$.
\end{definition}

We now specialize the results of this section to the
cases that interests us, namely those where $n=p^k$ and
$L/K$ has two distinct indices of inseparability.  We
first observe that in these cases $L/K$ has a unique
ramification break.  (See the appendix to \cite{deligne}
for definitions and basic properties of ramification
breaks in finite separable extensions.)

\begin{proposition} \label{break}
Let $L/K$ be a totally ramified extension of degree
$p^k$ with two distinct indices of inseparability.  Then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item The indices of inseparability of $L/K$ satisfy
$i_0=i_1=\cdots=i_{k-1}$ and $i_k=0$.
\item $L/K$ has a unique upper and lower ramification
break $\mathcal{B}=\displaystyle\frac{i_0}{p^k-1}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Statement (i) follows from (\ref{order}).  To prove
statement (ii), we use (i) to show that
\begin{align} \nonumber
\phi_{L/K}(x)&=p^{-k}\phi_k(x) \\
&=p^{-k}\cdot\min\{i_0+x,p^kx\} \nonumber \\
&=\begin{cases}
x&\text{if }x\leqslant\mathcal{B} \\
\frac{x+i_0}{p^k}&\text{if }x\geqslant\mathcal{B}
\end{cases} \label{phiLK}
\end{align}
for all $x\geqslant0$.  It follows that $\mathcal{B}$ is the
unique upper and lower ramification break of $L/K$.
\end{proof}

The functions $\rho_h$ given in (\ref{rhoh}) are easy to
describe in this setting.  Let $1\leqslant h\leqslant
p^k-1$ and set $j=v_p(h)$.  Then $v_p(h)\leqslant k-1$, so we
have $\phi_j(\ell)=i_0+\ell$.  Therefore
\[\rho_h(\ell)=\left\lceil\frac{i_0+\ell+h}{p^k}
\right\rceil.\]
For $h=p^k$ we get $\phi_k(\ell)=p^k\phi_{L/K}(\ell)$.
Hence by (\ref{rhoh}) and (\ref{phiLK}) we have
\begin{equation} \label{rhopk}
\rho_{p^k}(\ell)=\lceil\phi_{L/K}(\ell)\rceil+1
=\begin{cases}
\ell+1&\text{if }\ell\leqslant\mathcal{B} \\
\left\lceil\frac{i_0+\ell}{p^k}\right\rceil+1
&\text{if }\ell\geqslant\mathcal{B}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

We will need the following basic facts:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma0}
If $k\geqslant 2$ and $L/K$ has two distinct indices of
inseparability then $i_{j} =\widetilde{\imath}_j$ for
all $0\leqslant j \leqslant k$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
First observe that $i_k = \widetilde{\imath}_k =0$.
Suppose $i_{j} \neq \widetilde{\imath}_j$ for some
$0\leqslant j \leqslant k-2$. Then $i_j= i_{j+1} +p^k
e_K > i_{j+1}=i_j$, a contradiction. Therefore
$i_j =\widetilde{\imath}_j$ for all $j\not=k-1$.
In particular, since $k\geqslant2$ we
have $i_0=\widetilde{\imath}_0$.  We need to show that
$i_{k-1} = \widetilde{\imath}_{k-1}$. Suppose not. Then
$i_{k-1} =i_{k} +p^k e_K =p^k e_K$.  Hence by
Proposition~\ref{break}(i) we have $p^k e_K=i_{k-1} =i_0
=\widetilde{\imath}_0$.  This is a contradiction since
$\widetilde{\imath}_0$ is not divisible by $p$.  Thus
$i_{k-1}=\widetilde{\imath}_{k-1}$.  We conclude that $i_{j}
= \widetilde{\imath}_j$ for all $0\leqslant j \leqslant k$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{i0bound}
If $k\geqslant 2$ and $L/K$ has two distinct indices of
inseparability then $i_0<p^ke_K$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma0}, Proposition~\ref{break}(i), and
(\ref{i_j}) we have
\[\widetilde{\imath}_0=i_0= i_{k-1}
\leqslant i_k+p^ke_K=p^ke_K.\]
Since $p\nmid\widetilde{\imath}_0$ the inequality is
strict.
\end{proof}

\section{Perturbing uniformizers of $L$} \label{quote}

We will make frequent use of two theorems from
\cite{perturb}.  First we state the ``stability
theorem''.

\begin{theorem}[\cite{perturb}, Theorem 4.3]
\label{stability}
Let $\pi_L,\widetilde{\pi}_L$ be uniformizers for $L$ with
minimum polynomials $f(X)$, $\widetilde{f}(X)$ given by
(\ref{pi_L}), (\ref{pi-tilde}).  Assume there is
$\ell\geqslant1$ such that $\widetilde{\pi}_L\equiv\pi_L
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{\ell+1}}$.  Then $f\sim_{\ell}\widetilde{f}$.
\end{theorem}

Theorem~\ref{stability} gives a relationship between the
coefficients of the minimum polynomial for $\pi_L$ and
the coefficients of the minimum polynomial of its
perturbation $\widetilde{\pi}_L$, essentially saying
that if the perturbation is small (that is, if
$\widetilde{\pi}_L -\pi_L$ has large valuation) then the
coefficients of the corresponding minimum polynomials
are close (that is, the difference $\widetilde{c}_h -c_h$ has
large valuation).  The next result, the ``perturbation
theorem'', refines Theorem~\ref{stability} for certain
special values of $h$. Theorems~\ref{stability} and
\ref{perturbation} form the basis of the iterative
procedure which we use to prove our main result.

\begin{theorem}[\cite{perturb}, Theorem 4.5]
\label{perturbation} Let $K$ be a local field whose
residue field has characteristic $p$ and let $L/K$ be a
finite separable totally ramified extension of degree
$n=up^k$, with $p\nmid u$.  For $0 \leqslant j \leqslant k$ write the
$j$th index of inseparability of $L/K$ in the form
$i_j= A_j n -b_j$ with $1\leqslant b_j \leqslant n$. Let
$\pi_L, \widetilde{\pi}_L$ be uniformizers for $L$ such that
there are $\ell \geqslant 1$ and $r\in \mathcal{O}_K$ with
$\widetilde{\pi}_L \equiv \pi_L +r \pi_L^{\ell +1}
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{\ell +2}}$. Let $0\leqslant j
\leqslant k$ satisfy $\min\{v_p(\phi_j(\ell)), k\} =j$,
and let $h$ be the unique integer such that $1\leqslant
h \leqslant n$ and $n$ divides $\phi_j(\ell) +h$. Set
$t=(\phi_j(\ell) +h)/n$ and $h_0 =h/p^j$. Then
\[ \widetilde{c}_h \equiv c_h +\sum_{m \in S_j} g_m
c_n^{t-A_m}c_{b_m}r^{p^m} \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}},\]
where
\[ S_j =\{ m: \, 0 \leqslant m \leqslant j, \, \phi_j(\ell)=\widetilde{\phi}_m(\ell)\} \]
and
\[ g_m=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{t+\ell+A_m}(h_0 p^{j-m}+\ell -up^{k-m})
&\text{if } 1\leqslant b_m <h, \\
(-1)^{t+\ell+A_m}(h_0p^{j -m} +\ell)
& \text{if } h \leqslant b_m < n,\\
(-1)^{t+\ell +A_m}up^{k-m}&\text{if } b_m=n.
\end{cases} \]
\end{theorem}

We can specialize Theorem~\ref{perturbation} to our
setting:

\begin{proposition} \label{simple}
Let $K$ be a local field whose residue field
$\overline{K}$ has characteristic $p$ and let $L/K$ be a
finite totally ramified extension of degree $p^k$ which
has two distinct indices of inseparability.  Write
$i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$ with $1\leqslant b_0\leqslant p^k$.
Let $\pi_L, \widetilde{\pi}_L$ be uniformizers for $L$
such that there are $\ell \geqslant 1$ and $r\in \mathcal{O}_K$
such that $\widetilde{\pi}_L \equiv \pi_L +r
\pi_L^{\ell +1} \pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{\ell +2}}$.  Recall from
Proposition~\ref{break}(ii) that $\mathcal{B}=\dfrac{i_0}{p^k-1}$ is
the unique upper and lower ramification break of $L/K$.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $\ell<\mathcal{B}$ then
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k}\equiv c_{p^k}+c_{p^k}^{\ell+1}r^{p^k}
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
\item If $p^k-1\mid i_0$ and $\ell=\mathcal{B}$ then
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k}\equiv
c_{p^k} +(-1)^{A_0+1}b_0c_{p^k}^{\ell+1-A_0}c_{b_0}r
+c_{p^k}^{\ell+1}r^{p^k}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
\item Suppose $\ell>\mathcal{B}$ or
$\ell\not\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$.  Let $h$ be the unique
integer such that $1\leqslant h \leqslant p^k$ and $p^k$
divides $i_0+\ell+h$.  Set $t=(i_0+\ell+h)/p^k$.  Then
\[\widetilde{c}_h\equiv
c_h +(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0}b_0c_{p^k}^{t-A_0}c_{b_0}r
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{break}(i) we have $i_k=0$ and
$i_0=i_1=\cdots=i_{k-1}$.  Hence $\phi_j(x)=i_0+x$ for
all $0\leqslant j\leqslant k-1$, and
\[\phi_k(x)=\begin{cases}p^kx
&\text{if }0\leqslant x\leqslant\mathcal{B}, \\
i_0+x&\text{if }x\geqslant\mathcal{B}.\end{cases}\]
(i) If $\ell<\mathcal{B}$ then $\phi_k(\ell)=p^k\ell$, and hence
$\min\{v_p(\phi_k(\ell)),k\}=k$.  Therefore we
may apply Theorem~\ref{perturbation} with $n=p^k$,
$j=k$, $h=p^k$, $h_0=1$, $t=\ell+1$, and $S=\{k\}$.
Since $A_k=1$ and $b_k=p^k$ we get
$g_k=(-1)^{\ell+1+\ell+1}p^{k-k}=1$, and hence
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k}\equiv
c_{p^k}+1\cdot c_{p^k}^{\ell}\cdot c_{p^k}\cdot r^{p^k}
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
(ii) If $\ell=\mathcal{B}$ then $\min\{v_p(\phi_k(\ell)),k\}=k$,
so we may apply Theorem~\ref{perturbation} with $n=p^k$,
$j=k$, $h=p^k$, $h_0=1$, $t=\ell+1$, and $S=\{0,k\}$.
Therefore
\begin{alignat*}{2}
g_0&\equiv(-1)^{\ell+1+\ell+A_0}\ell
\equiv(-1)^{A_0+1}b_0&&\pmod{p^k} \\
g_k&=(-1)^{\ell+1+\ell+1}p^{k-k}=1 \\
\widetilde{c}_{p^k}&\equiv
c_{p^k} +(-1)^{A_0+1}b_0\cdot c_{p^k}^{\ell+1-A_0}\cdot
c_{b_0}\cdot r
+1\cdot c_{p^k}^{\ell}\cdot c_{p^k}\cdot r^{p^k}
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.
\end{alignat*}
(iii) Set $j=\min\{v_p(i_0+\ell),k\}$.  If
$\ell>\mathcal{B}$ then
$\phi_j(\ell)=i_0+\ell$.  If $\ell\not\equiv
b_0\pmod{p^k}$ then $j<k$, so once again we have
$\phi_j(\ell)=i_0+\ell$.  In either case we get
$j=\min\{v_p(\phi_j(\ell)),k\}$.  Therefore the
hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{perturbation} are satisfied
with $n=p^k$, $t=(i_0+\ell+h)/p^k$, and $S=\{0\}$.  It
follows that
\begin{alignat*}{2}
g_0&\equiv(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0}(h+\ell)
\equiv(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0}b_0&&\pmod{p^k} \\
\widetilde{c}_h&\equiv
c_h +(-1)^{t+\ell-A_0}b_0\cdot c_{p^k}^{t-A_0}\cdot
c_{b_0}\cdot r&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}.
\end{alignat*}
\end{proof}

\section{The main theorem}
\label{iteration}

In this section we state our main result.  Let $K$ be a
local field with perfect residue field $\overline{K}$ and let
$L/K$ be a totally ramified subextension of $\Omega/K$
of degree $n=p^k$.  Let $\pi_L$ be a uniformizer for $L$
and let
\begin{equation} \label{piLpk}
f(X) =X^{p^k}  -c_1 X^{p^k-1} +\cdots +
(-1)^{p^k-1}c_{p^k-1}X + (-1)^{p^k}c_{p^k}
\end{equation}
be the minimum polynomial of $\pi_L$ over $K$.  Assume
that $L/K$ has only two distinct indices of
inseparability.  Then $i_0=i_1=\cdots=i_{k-1}>i_k=0$ by
Proposition~\ref{break}(i).  If $k\geqslant2$ then by
Lemma~\ref{lemma0} we have $i_{j}=\widetilde{\imath}_j$
for all $0\leqslant j \leqslant k$.  This conclusion
need not hold when $K$ has characteristic $0$
and $k=1$; for instance, if $f(X)=X^p-\pi_K$ then
$\widetilde{\imath}_0=\infty$ and $i_0=pe_K$.  Since
the case $k=1$ was considered in \cite{amano}, we will
assume $k\geqslant 2$.

Under these hypotheses we will show that there is a
uniformizer $\pi_L$ for $L$ whose minimum polynomial
over $K$ has only three nonzero terms.  It is not hard
to see that at least three terms are needed. Indeed, let
$\pi_L$ be a uniformizer for $L$ whose minimum
polynomial is given by \eqref{piLpk}.  By
Lemma~\ref{lemma0} and (\ref{i_jtilde}) we have
\[i_0=\widetilde{\imath}_0
=\min\{ p^k v_K(c_h) -h:1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k,\; v_p(h) =0\}. \]
Let $1\leqslant b_0\leqslant p^k$ be such that
$b_0\equiv-i_0\pmod{p^k}$.  Then $i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$ with
$v_K(c_{b_0})=A_0=p^{-k}(i_0+b_0)$.  It follows that
$f(X)$ has at least three nonzero
terms, namely $X^{p^k}$, $(-1)^{b_0}c_{b_0}X^{p^k -b_0}$,
and $(-1)^{p^k} c_{p^k}$, and moreover the valuation of
$c_{b_0}$ is independent of the choice of uniformizer
$\pi_L$. To show that three terms suffice, the strategy
is to construct a Cauchy sequence of uniformizers of $L$
that converge to a uniformizer whose Eisenstein
polynomial has three terms.

Let $\omega\in\mathfrak{R}\smallsetminus\{0\}$.  Keeping in mind
that $i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$, we define
$\psi_{i_0,\omega}:\mathcal{O}_K \to \mathcal{O}_K$ by
\[\psi_{i_0,\omega}(x) =x^{p^k}-(-1)^{A_0} b_0 \omega x.\]
Then $\psi_{i_0,\omega}$ induces an additive group
homomorphism $\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}: \overline{K} \to \overline{K}$,
given by
\[\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(x)
=x^{p^k}-(-1)^{A_0}\overline{b_0\omega}x.\]
Let $\overline{T}_{i_0,\omega}\subset\overline{K}$ be a set
of coset representatives for
$\overline{K}/\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})$ and let
$T_{i_0,\omega}\subset\mathfrak{R}$ be such that
$\overline{T}_{i_0,\omega}=\{x+\mathcal{M}_K:x\in T_{i_0,\omega}\}$.  In
the cases where $\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})=\overline{K}$ we
take $T_{i_0,\omega}=\{0\}$.

\begin{definition} \label{standard}
Let $f(X)\in\mathcal{O}_K[X]$ be an Eisenstein
polynomial of degree $p^k$.  We say that $f(X)$ is in
\emph{standard form} if there exist $1\leqslant A_0\leqslant e_K$,
$1\leqslant b_0\leqslant p^k$ with $p\nmid b_0$, and $\omega \in \mathfrak{R} \smallsetminus \{0\}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{standardf}
f(X)=X^{p^k}+(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}X^{p^k-b_0}
+(-1)^{p^k}a\pi_K
\end{equation}
for some $a\in\mathcal{O}_K$ which can be expressed as
follows.  Set $i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$ and
$\mathcal{B}=\displaystyle\frac{i_0}{p^k-1}$.  Then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $\mathcal{B} \not \in \mathbb{Z}$ there
are $\alpha_j \in \mathfrak{R}$ with $\alpha_j =0$ for
all $j \equiv b_0 \pmod{p^k}$ such that
\[a=1+\sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor\mathcal{B}\rfloor}\alpha_j
\pi_K^{j}.\]
\item If $\mathcal{B}\in \mathbb{Z}$ there are
$\gamma\in T_{i_0,\omega}$ and $\alpha_j \in \mathfrak{R}$ with
$\alpha_j =0$ for all $j \equiv b_0 \pmod{p^k}$ such
that
\[a=1+\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal{B}-1}\alpha_j
\pi_K^{j}\right) +\gamma \pi_K^{\mathcal{B}}.\]
\end{enumerate}
Let $\ell\geqslant1$.  We say that $f(X)$ is in
\emph{$\ell$-standard form} if there is a degree-$p^k$ Eisenstein
polynomial $\widehat{f}(X)\in\mathcal{O}_K[X]$
in standard form such that $f\sim_{\ell}\widehat{f}$ (see Definition~\ref{l-equiv}).
\end{definition}

\begin{remark} \label{exclude}
Let $f(X)\in\mathcal{O}_K[X]$ be a polynomial of the form
(\ref{standardf}), with
$\omega\in\mathfrak{R}\smallsetminus\{0\}$.  Let $\pi_L\in\Omega$
be a root of $f(X)$ and set $L=K(\pi_L)$.  If
$p\nmid b_0$ and $A_0\leqslant e_K$ then it follows from
(\ref{i_j}) that the indices of inseparability of $L/K$
are given by
$i_k=0$ and $i_j=p^kA_0-b_0$ for $0\leqslant j\leqslant k-1$.  On
the other hand, if $p\nmid b_0$ and $A_0>e_K$ then
$i_{k-1}=p^ke_K$ and $i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$, while if
char$(K)=0$ and $p\mid b_0$ then $i_0=i_1+p^ke_K$.  In
both of these cases we have $0=i_k<i_{k-1}<i_0$, so we
have at least three distinct indices of inseparability.
Since we are interested in extensions with just two
indices of inseparability, we exclude these cases in the
definition above.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
Suppose that $\overline{K}$ is finite.  If
$\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}$ has no
nonzero roots in $\overline{K}$ then
$\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})=\overline{K}$.  On the
other hand, if $\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}$ has
a nonzero root $\overline{z}\in\overline{K}$ then
$\overline{(-1)^{A_0}b_0 \omega}=\overline{z}^{p^k-1}$, so
$\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(x)$ can be rewritten in terms of
$\overline{\kappa}(x)=x^{p^k}-x$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-psi}
 \overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(x)=
\overline{z}^{p^k}((x/\overline{z})^{p^k}
-(x/\overline{z}))
= \overline{z}^{p^k}\overline{\kappa}(x/\overline{z}).
 \end{equation}
Hence $\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})
=\overline{z}^{p^k}\overline{\kappa}(\overline{K})$.  Choose a
set $\overline{U}$ of coset representatives for
$\overline{K}/\overline{\kappa}(\overline{K})$.  Then
$\overline{z}^{p^k}\overline{U}$ is a set of coset
representatives for
$\overline{K}/\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})$.  Thus we
only need to choose a single set of coset
representatives in the case where $\overline{K}$ is finite,
although we do need to pick a nonzero root of
$\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}$ for each pair
$(i_0,\omega)$ such that
$\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})\not=\overline{K}$.
\end{remark}

We now state our main result.

\begin{theorem} \label{main}
Let $K$ be a local field with residue characteristic $p$
and let $k\geqslant 2$.  Then there is a one-to-one
correspondence between the set of degree-$p^k$
Eisenstein polynomials $f(X)\in\mathcal{O}_K[X]$ in standard
form, and the set of $K$-isomorphism classes of totally
ramified separable extensions $L/K$ of degree $p^k$
which have two distinct indices of inseparability.  If
$f(X)$ is in standard form and $\pi\in\Omega$ is a root
of $f(X)$ then $K(\pi)/K$ is an extension corresponding
to $f(X)$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Proof of the theorem: Existence}
\label{existence}

In this section we show that every totally ramified
separable extension $L/K$ of degree $p^k$ which has two
distinct indices of inseparability is generated by a
root of an Eisenstein polynomial $f(X)\in\mathcal{O}_K[X]$ in
standard form.  In the next section we show that $f(X)$
is uniquely determined by $L/K$, thus completing the
proof of Theorem~\ref{main}.

Let $\pi_K$ be a fixed uniformizer of $K$ and choose an
arbitrary uniformizer $\pi_L$ for $L$, with minimum
polynomial $f(X)$ given by \eqref{piLpk}.  Let
$\beta\in\mathfrak{R}$ be such that
$c_{p^k}\equiv\beta\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$.  Since $\overline{K}$
is perfect, there exists $\xi \in \mathfrak{R}$  such that
$\xi^{p^k}=\beta$.  Then $\xi^{-1}\pi_L$ is a root of
\begin{equation}
\label{pi_L'}
\widehat{f}(X) =X^{p^k}  -\widehat{c}_1 X^{p^k-1} +\cdots +
(-1)^{p^k-1}\widehat{c}_{p^k-1}X + (-1)^{p^k}\widehat{c}_{p^k},
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{c}_j =\xi^{-j}c_j$.  In particular, we have
$\widehat{c}_{p^k}=\beta^{-1}c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$.
Hence we may assume that the constant term in
\eqref{piLpk} satisfies
$c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$.
Since $v_K(c_{b_0})=A_0$ there is
$\omega\in\mathfrak{R}\smallsetminus\{0\}$ such that
$c_{b_0}\equiv\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_0+1}}$.  We
will show in Proposition~\ref{lemma4.6} that, once
$\pi_K$ has been fixed, $\omega$ is an invariant of the
extension $L/K$.

To show that every
isomorphism class of totally ramified extensions of
degree $p^k$ with two indices of inseparability comes
from a polynomial in standard form we use induction on
$\ell$ to show that every such extension comes from a
polynomial in $\ell$-standard form.  The base case is
given by the following lemma:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma1}
Let $\pi_L$ be a uniformizer of $L$ whose minimum
polynomial \eqref{piLpk} satisfies
$c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$.
Let $\omega\in\mathfrak{R}$ be such that
$c_{b_0}\equiv\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_0+1}}$, and
set
\[g(X)=X^{p^k}+(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}X^{p^k-b_0}
+(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K.\]
Then $f\sim_1g$ (see Definition~\ref{l-equiv}).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $1\leqslant h < b_0$.  Then
$v_p(h)<k$, so
\[ \rho_h(1) =\left \lceil \frac{i_0 +1 +h}{p^k}
\right \rceil  = \left \lceil \frac{p^kA_0-b_0 +h +1}{p^k}
\right \rceil =A_0.\]
By Lemma~\ref{lemma0} and Proposition~\ref{break}(i) we
have
\[\widetilde{\imath}_{k-1}=i_{k-1}=i_0=p^kA_0-b_0.\]
Hence by (\ref{i_jtilde}) we get
$v_K(c_h) \geqslant v_K(c_{b_0})=A_0=\rho_h(1)$.
On the other hand, if $b_0<h<p^k$ then $v_p(h)<k$, and
hence
\[ \rho_h(1)= \left \lceil \frac{i_0 +1 +h}{p^k}
\right \rceil  =\left \lceil \frac{p^k A_0 -b_0 +1+h}{p^k}
\right \rceil  = A_0+1. \]
Therefore $v_K(c_h) \geqslant A_0 +1 = \rho_h(1)$.
Since $c_{b_0} \equiv \omega
\pi_K^{A_0}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_0+1}}$ we have
$v_K(c_{b_0} -\omega \pi_K^{A_0}) \geqslant A_0 +1$.  We
also have
\[ \rho_{b_0}(1)=\left \lceil \frac{i_0 +1 +b_0}{p^k}\right \rceil =\left \lceil \frac{p^k A_0 -b_0 +1+b_0}{p^k} \right \rceil =A_0+1.  \]
Hence $v_K(c_{b_0} -\omega \pi_K^{A_0})\geqslant
\rho_{b_0}(1)$.  Since
$c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$ we have
$v_K(c_{p^k}-\pi_K)\geqslant2$, and by (\ref{rhopk}) we
have $\rho_{p^k}(1)=2$.  Hence
$v_K(c_{p^k}-\pi_K)\geqslant\rho_{p^k}(1)$.
\end{proof}

We now use Proposition~\ref{simple} to prove the
inductive step:

\begin{proposition} \label{main-thm1}
Let $\ell \geqslant 1$ and let $\pi_L$ be a uniformizer
for $L$ whose minimum polynomial $f(X)$ is in
$\ell$-standard form.  Then there exists
$r\in\mathfrak{R}$ such that the minimum polynomial
$\widetilde{f}(X)$ of $\widetilde{\pi}_L
=\pi_L +r\pi_{L}^{\ell+1}$ is in $(\ell+1)$-standard
form.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We begin by making some numerical observations.  Let
$x\ge0$, let $1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k-1$, and set
$j=v_p(h)$.  Then $v_p(h)<k$, so
\begin{equation} \label{phijx}
\frac{\phi_j(x)+h}{p^k}=\frac{i_0+x+h}{p^k}
=\frac{p^kA_0-b_0+x+h}{p^k}.
\end{equation}
Hence by (\ref{rhoh}) we get
\begin{equation} \label{ellplus}
\rho_h(\ell+1)=\begin{cases}
\rho_h(\ell)&\text{ if }\ell\not\equiv b_0-h\pmod{p^k} \\
\rho_h(\ell)+1&\text{ if }\ell\equiv b_0-h\pmod{p^k}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In addition, note that if $\ell=\mathcal{B}\in\mathbb{Z}$ then
$(p^k-1)\ell=i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$, and hence
$\ell\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$.

Let
\begin{equation} \label{ftpk}
\widetilde{f}(X) =X^{p^k}  -\widetilde{c}_1 X^{p^k-1} +\cdots +
(-1)^{p^k-1}\widetilde{c}_{p^k-1}X +
(-1)^{p^k}\widetilde{c}_{p^k}
\end{equation}
be the minimum polynomial for
$\widetilde{\pi}_L=\pi_L +r\pi_{L}^{\ell+1}$ over $K$.  We
wish to choose $r\in\mathfrak{R}$ so that $\widetilde{f}(X)$ is in
$(\ell+1)$-standard form.  We divide the proof into two
cases, based on the congruence class of $\ell$ modulo
$p^k$.

\smallskip \noindent
\textbf{Case 1:}
$\boldsymbol{\ell\not\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}}$\textbf{.}
In this case there is $1\leqslant h_1 \leqslant p^k-1$
such that $p^k\mid-b_0+\ell+h_1$.  Hence by
(\ref{ellplus}) we have $\rho_{h_1}(\ell+1)
=\rho_{h_1}(\ell)+1$ and $\rho_h(\ell+1)=\rho_h(\ell)$
for all $1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k-1$ such that
$h\not=h_1$.  Set $t=\rho_{h_1}(\ell)$.
Then by Proposition~\ref{simple}(iii) we have
\[\widetilde{c}_{h_1}\equiv c_{h_1}
+(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0}h_1c_{p^k}^{t-A_0}c_{h_1}r
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}.\]
Since $c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$ and
$c_{h_1}\equiv\omega\pi_K^{A_0}
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_0+1}}$ we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq-b0}
\widetilde{c}_{h_1}
\equiv c_{h_1}+(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0}h_1\omega\pi_K^{t}r
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}.
\end{equation}

If $h_1\not=b_0$ (equivalently, $p^k\nmid\ell$) then
$v_K(c_{h_1}) \geqslant \rho_{h_1}(\ell)=t$.  Hence
there is $\alpha\in\mathfrak{R}$ such that
$c_{h_1}\equiv\alpha\pi_K^{t}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}$.  Choose
$r\in\mathfrak{R}$ to satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{r}
r\equiv(-1)^{t+\ell +A_0+1}\alpha(b_0\omega)^{-1}
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K}.
\end{equation}
Then by (\ref{eq-b0}) we get
\[v_K(\widetilde{c}_{h_1})\geqslant t+1=
\rho_{h_1}(\ell)+1=\rho_{h_1}(\ell+1).\]
Suppose $h_1=b_0$.  Then by (\ref{eq-b0}) we get
\[ \widetilde{c}_{b_0} -\omega \pi_K^{A_0} \equiv
c_{b_0} -\omega \pi_K^{A_0}
+(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0}b_0\omega\pi_K^{t}r \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}. \]
Since $c_{b_0} -\omega \pi_K^{A_0} \in
\mathcal{M}_K^{t}$ there is $\alpha\in\mathfrak{R}$
such that $c_{b_0}-\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\equiv\alpha\pi_K^t
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}$.  By choosing $r\in\mathfrak{R}$ to satisfy
(\ref{r}) we get
\[v_K(\widetilde{c}_{b_0}-\omega\pi_K^{A_0})\geqslant
\rho_{b_0}(\ell)+1=\rho_{b_0}(\ell+1).\]

Let $1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k$ with $h \neq h_1$.
By Theorem~\ref{stability} we have
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{h}-c_{h}) \geqslant \rho_{h}(\ell)$.
If $h\not=b_0$ and $h\not=p^k$ then
$v_K(c_h)\geqslant\rho_{h}(\ell)$, and hence
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{h})\geqslant\rho_{h}(\ell)
=\rho_{h}(\ell+1)$.  In the case $h=b_0$ we have
$v_K(c_{b_0}-\omega\pi_K^{A_0})\geqslant
\rho_{b_0}(\ell)$, and hence
\[v_K(\widetilde{c}_{b_0} - \omega \pi_K^{A_0})\geqslant
\rho_{b_0}(\ell)=\rho_{b_0}(\ell +1).\]
Finally, when $h=p^k$ we have $v_K(c_{p^k}-\pi_K a)\geqslant
\rho_{p^k}(\ell)$ for some $a$ satisfying conditions (i)
and (ii) of Definition~\ref{standard}.  It follows that
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{p^k}-\pi_K a)\geqslant \rho_{p^k}(\ell)$.
Suppose $\ell>\mathcal{B}$.  Since $\ell\not\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$
it follows from (\ref{rhopk}) that
$\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)=\rho_{p^k}(\ell)$.  Hence
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{p^k}-\pi_K a)\geqslant\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)$.
Suppose $\ell\leqslant \mathcal{B}$.  Then by (\ref{rhopk}) we have
$\rho_{p^k}(\ell)=\ell+1$ and
$\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)=\ell+2$.  Hence there is
$\alpha_{\ell}\in\mathcal{B}$ such that
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k}-\pi_K a\equiv
\alpha_{\ell}\pi_K^{\ell+1}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
Set $\widetilde{a}=a+\alpha_{\ell}\pi_K^{\ell}$.  Then
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{p^k}-\pi_K\widetilde{a})\geqslant
\ell+2=\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)$.  Since
$\ell\not\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$ we have $\ell\not=\mathcal{B}$.
Hence $\widetilde{a}$ satisfies conditions (i) and (ii) of
Definition~\ref{standard}.  We conclude that if
$\ell\not\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$ then $\widetilde{f}(X)$ is in
$(\ell+1)$-standard form.

\smallskip \noindent
\textbf{Case 2:}
$\boldsymbol{\ell\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}}$\textbf{.}
By (\ref{ellplus}) we have
$\rho_{h}(\ell+1)=\rho_{h}(\ell)$ for
$1\leqslant h \leqslant p^k-1$.  Reasoning as in the
preceding paragraph we find that for any choice of
$r\in\mathfrak{R}$ the coefficients of the minimum polynomial
(\ref{ftpk}) of $\widetilde{\pi}_L=\pi_L+r\pi_L^{\ell+1}$ over
$K$ satisfy $v_K(\widetilde{c}_{b_0} -\omega\pi_K^{A_0})
\geqslant \rho_{b_0}(\ell+1)$ and
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{h})\geqslant \rho_{h}(\ell+1)$ for
all $1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k-1$ such that $h\not=b_0$.
We need to choose $r$ so that $v_K(\widetilde{c}_{p^k}
-\pi_K\widetilde{a})\geqslant\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)$ for
some $\widetilde{a}$ which satisfies conditions (i) and
(ii) of Definition~\ref{standard}.

If $\ell < \mathcal{B}$ then by Proposition~\ref{simple}(i) we get
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k} \equiv c_{p^k}+c_{p^k}^{\ell+1}
r^{p^k}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
Since $c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$ it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{cpktilde}
\widetilde{c}_{p^k} \equiv c_{p^k} +\pi_K^{\ell+1}r^{p^k}
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell +2}}.
\end{equation}
Write
\begin{equation}
\label{cpk}
c_{p^k}=\pi_K(1+ \alpha_1 \pi_K +\alpha_2 \pi_K^{2}+\cdots)
\end{equation}
with $\alpha_i \in \mathfrak{R}$. Since the residue field $\overline{K}$
is perfect, there exists $r\in \mathfrak{R}$ such that $r^{p^k}
\equiv -\alpha_{\ell} \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K}$.  It follows from
(\ref{cpktilde}) that with this choice of $r$ we get
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k} \equiv \pi_K(1+ \alpha_1 \pi_K
+\cdots + \alpha_{\ell-1}\pi_K^{\ell-1} + 0\cdot
\pi_K^{\ell}) \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
By (\ref{rhopk}) we have $\rho_{p^k}(\ell)=\ell+1$ and
$\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)=\ell+2$.  Since $f(X)$ is in
$\ell$-standard form, it follows that $\widetilde{f}(X)$ is in
$(\ell+1)$-standard form.

If $\ell=\mathcal{B}$ then by Proposition~\ref{simple}(ii)
we get
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k}\equiv
c_{p^k} +(-1)^{A_0+1}b_0c_{p^k}^{\ell+1-A_0}c_{b_0}r
+c_{p^k}^{\ell+1}r^{p^k}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
Since $c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$ and
$c_{b_0}\equiv\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_0+1}}$
we can rewrite this congruence as
\begin{alignat}{2} \nonumber
\widetilde{c}_{p^k}
&\equiv c_{p^k} +(-1)^{A_0+1}b_0\omega\pi_K^{\ell+1}r
+\pi_K^{\ell+1}r^{p^k}
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}} \\
&\equiv c_{p^k}+\pi_K^{\ell+1}\psi_{i_0,\omega}(r)
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}. \label{psi}
\end{alignat}
Write $c_{p^k}$ as a power series in $\pi_K$ with
coefficients in $\mathfrak{R}$, as in (\ref{cpk}).  It
follows from the definition of $\overline{T}_{i_0,\omega}$ that
there are $\gamma\in T_{i_0,\omega}$ and $r\in\mathfrak{R}$ such
that $\alpha_{\ell}\equiv\gamma-\psi_{i_0,\omega}(r)
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K}$.  Hence by (\ref{psi}) we get
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k} \equiv \pi_K(1+
\alpha_1 \pi_K +\cdots + \alpha_{\ell-1}\pi_K^{\ell-1} +
\gamma\cdot \pi_K^{\ell}) \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{\ell+2}}.\]
Once again we get $\rho_{p^k}(\ell)=\ell+1$ and
$\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)=\ell+2$ by (\ref{rhopk}).
Since $f(X)$ is in $\ell$-standard form it follows that
$\widetilde{f}(X)$ is in $(\ell+1)$-standard form.

Suppose $\ell > \mathcal{B}$.  Since
$\ell\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$ it follows from
(\ref{rhopk}) that
\begin{align*}
\rho_{p^k}(\ell)&=\frac{i_0+\ell}{p^k}+1
=\frac{i_0+\ell+p^k}{p^k} \\
\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)
&=\left\lceil\frac{i_0+\ell+1}{p^k}\right\rceil+1
=\rho_{p^k}(\ell)+1.
\end{align*}
Set $t=\rho_{p^k}(\ell)$.  Then by
Proposition~\ref{simple}(iii) we get
\[ \widetilde{c}_{p^k} \equiv c_{p^k} +(-1)^{t +\ell+A_0}b_0
c_{p^k}^{t-A_0}c_{b_0}r \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}. \]
Since $c_{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}$ and
$c_{b_0}\equiv\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_0+1}}$
we can rewrite this congruence as
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k}
\equiv c_{p^k} +(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0}b_0\omega\pi_K^tr
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}.\]
Write $c_{p^k}$ as in (\ref{cpk}) and let $r\in\mathfrak{R}$
satisfy
\[r\equiv(-1)^{t+\ell+A_0+1}(b_0\omega)^{-1}\alpha_t
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K}.\]
Then
\[\widetilde{c}_{p^k} \equiv \pi_K(1+ \alpha_1 \pi_K
+\cdots + \alpha_{t-1}\pi_K^{t-2} + 0\cdot
\pi_K^{t-1}) \pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{t+1}}.\]
Since $f(X)$ is in $\ell$-standard form and
$\rho_{p^k}(\ell+1)=t+1$ it follows that $\widetilde{f}(X)$ is
in $(\ell+1)$-standard form.
\end{proof}

We now use induction to show that there is a uniformizer
$\widehat{\pi}_L$ for $L$ whose minimum polynomial $\widehat{f}(X)$
is in standard form.  Indeed, it follows from
Lemma~\ref{lemma1} that the minimum polynomial
$f(X)=f_1(X)$ of the initial uniformizer
$\pi_L=\pi_L^{(1)}$ is in 1-standard form.
Proposition~\ref{main-thm1} shows that we can find a new
uniformizer $\pi_L^{(2)}$ whose minimum polynomial
$f_2(X)$ is in 2-standard form.  Repeating this
procedure, at step $\ell$ we get a new uniformizer
$\pi_L^{(\ell)}$ whose minimum polynomial $f_{\ell}(X)$
is in $\ell$-standard form.  The sequence of
uniformizers $(\pi_L^{(\ell)})_{\ell\geqslant1}$ is
Cauchy, and hence converges to a uniformizer
$\widehat{\pi}_L$ for $L$.  It follows from
Theorem~\ref{stability} that the sequence
$(f_{\ell}(X))_{\ell\geqslant1}$ of minimum polynomials
converges coefficientwise to the minimum polynomial
$\widehat{f}(X)$ of $\widehat{\pi}_L$.  Hence $\widehat{f}(X)$ is in
standard form.

We thus have the following degree-$p^k$ analog of a fact
which Amano proved for extensions of degree $p$ (see
Theorem~4 of \cite{amano}).

\begin{corollary} \label{main-cor}
Let $L/K$ be a totally ramified extension of degree
$p^k$ with just two distinct indices of inseparability.
Write $i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$ with $1\leqslant b_0\leqslant
p^k$.  Then there exists a uniformizer $\widehat{\pi}_L$ of $L$
whose minimum polynomial has the form
\[\widehat{f}(X)=X^{p^k} +(-1)^{b_0} \omega\pi_K^{A_0}
X^{p^k -b_0} +(-1)^{p^k} \pi_K a\]
for some $\omega \in \mathfrak{R}\setminus \{0\}$ and $a\in\mathcal{O}_K$
with $a \equiv 1\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K}$.
\end{corollary}

\section{Proof of the theorem: Uniqueness}
\label{uniqueness}

Let $K$ be a local field whose residue field $\overline{K}$ has
characteristic $p$.  Let $k\ge2$ and let $L/K$ be a
totally ramified separable extension of degree $p^k$
which has two distinct indices of inseparability. We
have shown that there exists a uniformizer $\pi_L$ for
$L$ whose minimum polynomial $f(X)$ is in standard form
(see Definition~\ref{standard}).  Thus $f(X)$ has only
three nonzero coefficients, and the possible values of
these coefficients are strictly limited by the indices
of inseparability of $L/K$.  In this section we show
that the polynomial $f(X)$ corresponding to $L/K$ is
uniquely determined once we have chosen a uniformizer
$\pi_K$ for $K$ and sets $\overline{T}_{i_0,\omega}$ of coset
representatives for
$\overline{K}/\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})$.  This
will complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{main}.

\subsection{Some Lemmas}

We begin by considering a few preliminary results.  In
all cases we assume that $L/K$ is a separable totally
ramified extension of degree $p^k$ with two distinct
indices of inseparability.  Hence by
Proposition~\ref{break}(i) we have $i_k=0$ and
$i_{k-1}=\cdots=i_1=i_0$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-elem-sym}
Let $1 \leqslant h\leqslant p^k$ and set
$j=\min\{v_p(h),k\}$. Let $\sigma_1,\ldots,
\sigma_{p^k}$ be the $K$-embeddings of $L$ into a
separable closure $\Omega$ of $K$
and let $e_h(X_1,...,X_{p^k})$ be the $h$th elementary symmetric
polynomial in $p^k$ variables.  For $\alpha \in L$ set
$E_h(\alpha)=e_h(\sigma_1(\alpha), \ldots,
\sigma_{p^k}(\alpha))$.  Define $g_h:\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}$ by
$g_h(r)=\min\{v_K(E_h(\alpha)): \alpha \in
\mathcal{M}_L^r\}$. Then
\[ g_h(r) \geqslant \left \lceil \frac{i_j +hr}{p^k}
\right \rceil. \]
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} This is Theorem~4.6 of \cite{elem-sym},
specialized to the case $n=p^k$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaA}
Let $\alpha\in L$ satisfy
$v_K(\alpha)=\dfrac{r}{p^k}>0$.  Then
\[ v_K(N_{L/K}(1+\alpha) -1 -N_{L/K}(\alpha)) \geqslant
\frac{i_0 +r}{p^k}, \]
with equality only if $r\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $\sigma_1, \sigma_2,\ldots,\sigma_{p^k}$ be the $K$-embeddings of $L$ in the separable closure $\Omega$ of $K$. Then
\[ N_{L/K}(1+\alpha) - 1 -
N_{L/K}(\alpha)=\sum_{h=1}^{p^k-1}E_h(\alpha). \]
Hence by Proposition~\ref{prop-elem-sym} we get
\begin{align*}
v_K(N_{L/K}(1+\alpha) -1 -N_{L/K}(\alpha)) & \geqslant
\min_{1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k-1}v_K(E_h(\alpha)) \\
& \geqslant \min_{1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k-1}
\left \lceil \frac{i_j +hr}{p^k} \right \rceil \\
& = \left \lceil \frac{i_0+r}{p^k} \right \rceil \\
& \geqslant \frac{i_0 +r}{p^k}.
\end{align*}
If equality holds then
$\displaystyle\left \lceil \frac{i_0+r}{p^k}
\right \rceil = \dfrac{i_0+r}{p^k}$, and hence $r
\equiv-i_0\equiv b_0 \pmod{p^k}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaB}
Let $\alpha \in L$ with $v_K(\alpha)=\dfrac{r}{p^k}>0$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $\displaystyle v_K(\alpha^{p^k}+(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\alpha))
\geqslant \frac{i_0}{p^k} +r$,
\item $\displaystyle v_K(\alpha^{p^k} -N_{L/K}(\alpha))
\geqslant \frac{i_0}{p^k} +r$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $f(X)$ be the minimum polynomial of $\alpha$ over
$K$, and set $d=[L:K(\alpha)]$.  Then
\[f(X)^d=X^{p^k}+\sum_{h=1}^{p^k}
(-1)^hE_h(\alpha)X^{p^k-h}.\]
Since $f(\alpha)=0$ we get
\[ \alpha^{p^k} +(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\alpha)
=\sum_{h=1}^{p^k-1}(-1)^{h+1}E_h(\alpha)
\alpha^{p^k-h}.\]
Therefore by Lemma~\ref{prop-elem-sym} we have
\begin{align*}
 v_K(\alpha^{p^k} +(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\alpha))& \geqslant \min_{1\leqslant h\leqslant p^k-1}\left\{ v_K(E_{h}(\alpha)) +\frac{p^k -h}{p^k}r\right\} \\
&\geqslant \min_{1\leqslant h \leqslant p^k-1} \left\{  \left\lceil \frac{i_0 +hr}{p^k} \right\rceil  +\frac{p^k-h}{p^k}r \right\} \\
&\geqslant \min_{1\leqslant h \leqslant p^k-1}\left\{ \frac{i_0 +h r}{p^k} +\frac{p^k -h}{p^k}r \right\} \\
&= \frac{i_0}{p^k} +r.
\end{align*}
This proves (i).  If $p\neq 2$ then (ii) follows
immediately.  If $p=2$ we have
\[ \alpha^{p^k} -N_{L/K}(\alpha) =\alpha^{p^k}
+(-1)^{2^k}N_{L/K}(\alpha) -2N_{L/K}(\alpha) \]
with $v_K(\alpha^{p^k} +(-1)^{2^k}N_{L/K}(\alpha))\geqslant
\dfrac{i_0}{p^k} +r$.  Using Lemma~\ref{i0bound} we get
\[ v_K (2 N_{L/K}(\alpha)) =v_K(2) +v_K(N_{L/K}(\alpha))
= e_K +r \geqslant \frac{i_0}{p^k} +r. \]
Therefore (ii) holds in all cases.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaC}
Let $\alpha \in L$ with $v_K(\alpha)=\dfrac{r}{p^k}>0$.
Then
\[ v_K((1+\alpha)^{p^k} - N_{L/K}(1+\alpha)) \geqslant
\frac{i_0+r}{p^k} . \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that
\[   (1+\alpha)^{p^k} -N_{L/K}(1+\alpha)=((1+\alpha)^{p^k} -N_{L/K}(\alpha) -1) -(N_{L/K}(1+\alpha) -N_{L/K}(\alpha) -1). \]
By Lemma~\ref{lemmaA} we have
\[ v_K(N_{L/K}(1+\alpha) - N_{L/K}(\alpha) -1) \geqslant \frac{i_0+r}{p^k}. \]
Now observe that
\[  (1+\alpha)^{p^k} -N_{L/K}(\alpha) -1 =(\alpha^{p^k} - N_{L/K}(\alpha)) +\sum_{h=1}^{p^k-1}\binom{p^k}{h}\alpha^{h}. \]
By Lemma~\ref{lemmaB}(ii) we have
\[ v_K (\alpha^{p^k} - N_{L/K}(\alpha)) \geqslant \frac{i_0}{p^k} +r > \frac{i_0+r}{p^k}, \]
and by Lemma~\ref{i0bound} we have
\[ v_K\left( \binom{p^k}{h} \alpha^{h}\right) \geqslant
v_K(p) +\frac{hr}{p^k} \geqslant e_K + \frac{r}{p^k}
\geqslant \frac{i_0+r}{p^k} \]
for $1\leqslant h \leqslant p^k-1$.  We conclude that
\[ v_K((\alpha+1)^{p^k} -N_{L/K}(1+\alpha)) \geqslant
\frac{i_0+r}{p^k} . \qedhere \]
\end{proof}

\subsection{Uniqueness}
With the help of the lemmas of the previous subsection,
we now show that there is a unique polynomial in
standard form corresponding to $L/K$.  This gives the
last step in the proof of Theorem~\ref{main}.

\begin{proposition}
\label{unique}
Let $L/K$ be a totally ramified separable extension of
degree $p^k$.  Then there is a unique Eisenstein
polynomial $f(X)\in\mathcal{O}_K[X]$ in standard form such that
$L$ is generated over $K$ by a root of $f(X)$.
\end{proposition}

We argue by contradiction. Suppose that $\pi_L$ and
$\widehat{\pi}_L$ are uniformizers for $L$ whose minimum
polynomials $f(X)$ and $\widehat{f}(X)$ are in standard form:
\begin{align} \label{fpoly}
f(X)&=X^{p^k} +(-1)^{b_0}\omega \pi_K^{A_0} X^{p^k-b_0} +(-1)^{p^k} \pi_K a \\
\widehat{f}(X) &=X^{p^k} +(-1)^{b_0}\widehat{\omega} \pi_K^{A_0} X^{p^k-b_0}
+(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K\widehat{a}. \label{gpoly}
\end{align}
Note that the index of inseparability $i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$
of $L/K$ determines $A_0$ and $b_0$.  We now show that
the coefficient of $X^{p^k-b_0}$ is the same for $f(X)$
and $\widehat{f}(X)$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{lemma4.6}
 $\omega =\widehat{\omega}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We have
\[v_K(\omega\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{p^k-b_0})
=v_K(\widehat{\omega}\pi_K^{A_0} \widehat{\pi}_L^{p^k-b_0})
=A_0+\frac{p^k-b_0}{p^k}=\frac{i_0}{p^k}+1.\]
Since $\pi_L$ and $\widehat{\pi}_L$ are uniformizers for $L$,
there is $u\in\mathcal{O}_L^{\times}$ such that
$\widehat{\pi}_L=u\pi_L$.  It follows that
\[\pi_K\widehat{a}=N_{L/K}(\widehat{\pi}_L)=N_{L/K}(u)N_{L/K}(\pi_L)
=N_{L/K}(u)\pi_Ka.\]
Hence $N_{L/K}(u)=\widehat{a}/a$ is a 1-unit in $\mathcal{O}_K$.
Since $L/K$ is totally ramified we have
$N_{L/K}(u)\equiv u^{p^k}\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L}$.  Therefore $u$ is
a 1-unit in $\mathcal{O}_L$.
Since $f(\pi_L)=\widehat{f}(\widehat{\pi}_L)=0$ we get
\begin{align*}
(-1)^{b_0}(\omega\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
-\widehat{\omega}\pi_K^{A_0} \widehat{\pi}_L^{p^k-b_0})
\hspace{-3cm} \\
&=(\widehat{\pi}_L^{p^k} + (-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\widehat{\pi}_L))
-(\pi_L^{p^k}+(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\pi_L)) \\
&=(u^{p^k}-1)(\pi_L^{p^k}+(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\pi_L))
+(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\pi_L)(N_{L/K}(u)-u^{p^k}).
\end{align*}
It follows from Lemmas~\ref{lemmaB}(i) and \ref{lemmaC}
that
\begin{align*}
v_K((u^{p^k} -1)(\pi_L^{p^k}+(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\pi_L)))
&> \frac{i_0}{p^k} +1 \\
v_K(N_{L/K}(\pi_L)(N_{L/K}(u)-u^{p^k}))
&\geqslant 1 +\frac{i_0+1}{p^k}.
\end{align*}
Therefore
\[v_K(\omega \pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
-\widehat{\omega} \pi_K^{A_0}\widehat{\pi}_L^{p^k-b_0})
> \frac{i_0}{p^k}+1
=v_K(\omega \pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{p^k-b_0}).\]
Since $\omega,\widehat{\omega}\in\mathfrak{R}$ we conclude
that $\omega =\widehat{\omega}$.
\end{proof}

We now assume that $a\neq\widehat{a}$, and derive a
contradiction.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaD}
Let $\pi_L$ and $\widehat{\pi}_L$ be as above and write
$\widehat{\pi}_L =
\pi_L (1+\theta)$ with $\theta\in\mathcal{M}_L$. Then
$v_L(\theta) \equiv b_0 \pmod{p^k}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Since $\widehat{f}(\pi_L(1+\theta))=\widehat{f}(\widehat{\pi}_L)=0$ and
$f(\pi_L)=0$ we get
\begin{align*}
0&=\pi_L^{p^k}(1+\theta)^{p^k} +(-1)^{b_0}\omega
\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{p^k-b_0}(1+\theta)^{p^k-b_0} +(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K \widehat{a} \\
&= \pi_L^{p^k}
+\pi_L^{p^k}\sum_{s=1}^{p^k}\binom{p^k}{s}\theta^s
+(-1)^{b_0} \omega \pi_K^{A_0}
\pi_L^{p^k-b_0}\left(1+\sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}
\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}\theta^t\right)
+(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K \widehat{a} \\
&=\pi_L^{p^k}\sum_{s=1}^{p^k}\binom{p^k}{s}\theta^s
+(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
\sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}\theta^t
+(-1)^{p^k} \pi_K(\widehat{a}-a).
\end{align*}
It follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4}
(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K(\widehat{a}-a)+\pi_L^{p^k}\theta^{p^k}
+\pi_L^{p^k}\sum_{s=1}^{p^k-1}\binom{p^k}{s}\theta^s
=(-1)^{b_0+1}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
\sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}\theta^t.
\end{equation}
By considering the term $t=1$ in the sum on the right we
see that the $K$-valuation of \eqref{eq4} is
\[ A_0 +\frac{p^k-b_0}{p^k} +v_K(\theta)=1+
\frac{i_0}{p^k} +v_K(\theta). \]
We claim that for $1\leqslant s \leqslant p^k-1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq6}
v_K \left(\pi_L^{p^k}\binom{p^k}{s} \theta^{s}\right) > 1 + \frac{i_0}{p^k} +v_K(\theta).
\end{equation}
By Lemma~\ref{i0bound} we get
\[ v_K \left(\pi_L^{p^k}\binom{p^k}{s} \theta^{s}\right) \geqslant 1+ e_K + sv_K(\theta) \geqslant 1+ \frac{i_0}{p^k} +sv_K(\theta). \]
Therefore it suffices to prove \eqref{eq6} with $s=1$.
Using Lemma~\ref{i0bound} again we get
\begin{align*}
v_K \left(\pi_L^{p^k}\binom{p^k}{1} \theta^{1}\right)
&=v_K(\pi_L^{p^k} p^k \theta ) \\
&= 1+ ke_K + v_K(\theta) \\
&\geqslant 1 +\frac{ki_0}{p^k} +v_K(\theta).
\end{align*}
Since we are assuming $k\geqslant 2$ this gives
\eqref{eq6}.  It follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq7}
v_K ((-1)^{p^k}\pi_K(\widehat{a}-a)+\pi_L^{p^k}\theta^{p^k} )= 1+ \frac{i_0}{p^k} +v_K(\theta).
\end{equation}
Note that $\pi_K a=N_{L/K}(\pi_L)$ and $\pi_K \widehat{a} =
N_{L/K}(\widehat{\pi}_L)$. Since $\widehat{\pi}_L = \pi_L (1+\theta)$ we get
$\pi_K \widehat{a}= \pi_K a N_{L/K}(1+\theta)$, and hence
\begin{align} \nonumber
(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K(\widehat{a}-a)+\pi_L^{p^k} \theta^{p^k}
&=(-1)^{p^k}\pi_Ka(N_{L/K}(1+\theta)-1)
+\pi_L^{p^k}\theta^{p^k} \\
&= (\pi_L \theta)^{p^k} +(-1)^{p^k} N_{L/K}(\pi_L \theta)
\label{ek} \\
&\hspace*{2.5cm}+(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K a (N_{L/K}(1+\theta) -1
-N_{L/K}(\theta)  ). \nonumber
\end{align}
By Lemmas~\ref{lemmaB}(i) and \ref{lemmaA} we have
\begin{align} \nonumber
v_K((\pi_L \theta)^{p^k}+(-1)^{p^k}N_{L/K}(\pi_L\theta))
&\geqslant \frac{i_0}{p^k} +1+p^k v_K(\theta) \\
&>1+ \frac{i_0}{p^k} +v_K(\theta) \label{vKpif} \\
v_K(\pi_Ka(N_{L/K}(1+\theta) -1 -N_{L/K}(\theta)) )
&\geqslant 1+\frac{i_0}{p^k} +v_K(\theta). \label{vKNLK}
\end{align}
Using \eqref{eq7}, (\ref{vKpif}), and (\ref{ek}) we
deduce that equality holds in (\ref{vKNLK}).  Hence by
Lemma~\ref{lemmaA} we have $v_L(\theta) \equiv b_0
\pmod{p^k}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{lemmaZ}
Let $a$, $\widehat{a}$ be as above.  Then
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $v_K(a-\widehat{a})\leqslant\mathcal{B}$.
\item If $v_K(a-\widehat{a})<\mathcal{B}$ then
$v_K(a-\widehat{a})\not\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By Definition~\ref{standard} we can write $\widehat{a}$ as
\begin{equation} \label{ahat}
\widehat{a}=\begin{cases}
\dst1+\sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor\mathcal{B}\rfloor}\widehat{\alpha}_j
\pi_K^{j}&(\mathcal{B}\not\in\mathbb{Z}) \\[5mm]
\dst1+\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal{B}-1}\widehat{\alpha}_j
\pi_K^{j}\right)+\widehat{\gamma}\pi_K^{\mathcal{B}}&(\mathcal{B}\in\mathbb{Z}).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with $\widehat{\gamma}\in T_{i_0,\omega}$, $\widehat{\alpha}_j\in\mathfrak{R}$,
and $\widehat{\alpha}_j=0$ for all $j\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k}$.
Both claims follow by comparing these formulas with the
corresponding formulas for $a$ given in
Definition~\ref{standard}.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemmaE}
With $a,\widehat{a}$, and $\theta$ as above, we have
$v_L(\theta) =p^kv_K(\theta)= v_K(a-\widehat{a})$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We can rewrite \eqref{eq4} as
\begin{equation} \label{rewrite}
\pi_L^{p^k}\theta^{p^k}
+\pi_L^{p^k}\sum_{s=1}^{p^k-1}\binom{p^k}{s}\theta^s
+(-1)^{b_0}\omega
\pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
\sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}\theta^t
= (-1)^{p^k} \pi_K(a-\widehat{a}).
\end{equation}
Thus we have $U+V+W=(-1)^{p^k+1} \pi_K(a-\widehat{a})$, with
\begin{align*}
U&=\pi_L^{p^k}\theta^{p^k}, \\
V&= \pi_L^{p^k}\sum_{s=1}^{p^k-1}\binom{p^k}{s}\theta^s,
\\
W&=(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
\sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}\theta^t.
\end{align*}
As in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemmaD} we have
\[v_K(V)> v_K(W)=1+\frac{i_0}{p^k}+v_K(\theta).\]
We consider a few cases. Suppose that $v_K(U) < v_K(W)$.
Then $v_K(U+V+W)=v_K(U)$, and hence
\[1+v_K(a-\widehat{a})=v_K(\pi_K(a-\widehat{a}))=v_K(U)=1+p^kv_K(\theta).\]
Therefore the lemma holds in this case. Suppose that
$v_K(U)=v_K(W)$.  Then
\[1+p^kv_K(\theta)=1+\frac{i_0}{p^k}+v_K(\theta).\]
It follows that
$p^kv_K(\theta)=\frac{i_0}{p^k-1}=\mathcal{B}$ and
$v_K(U+V+W)\geqslant v_K(U)$.  Hence
\[1+v_K(a-\widehat{a})
\geqslant v_K(U)=1+ p^k v_K(\theta) =1+\mathcal{B}.\]
By Lemma~\ref{lemmaZ}(i) we have
$v_K(a-\widehat{a}) \leqslant \mathcal{B}$.  Therefore
$v_K(a-\widehat{a})=\mathcal{B}= v_L(\theta)$, and the lemma holds
in this case as well. Finally, if $v_K(U)>v_K(W)$ then
\[1+p^kv_K(\theta)>1+\frac{i_0}{p^k}+v_K(\theta),\]
and hence $p^kv_K(\theta)>\frac{i_0}{p^k-1}=\mathcal{B}$.
Furthermore, we have $v_K(U+V+W)=v_K(W)$, so we get
\[1+v_K(a-\widehat{a})=v_K(W)=1+\frac{i_0}{p^k}+v_K(\theta)
>1+\frac{i_0}{p^k}+\frac{\mathcal{B}}{p^k}=1+ \mathcal{B},\]
which contradicts Lemma~\ref{lemmaZ}(i).  Therefore this
case does not occur. It follows that $v_K(a-\widehat{a})=p^k
v_K(\theta)=v_L(\theta)$ holds in all cases.
\end{proof}

It follows from Lemmas~\ref{lemmaD} and \ref{lemmaE}
that $v_K(a-\widehat{a}) \equiv b_0 \pmod{p^k}$.  Hence by
Lemma~\ref{lemmaZ} we get $v_K(a-\widehat{a})=\mathcal{B}$.  In
particular, we have $\mathcal{B}\in\mathbb{Z}$.  Since $\gamma,\widehat{\gamma}$
are chosen from the set $T_{i_0,\omega}$ of liftings to
$\mathfrak{R}$ of coset representatives of
$\overline{K}/\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})$, it suffices
to show that the images of $\gamma,\widehat{\gamma}$ in $\overline{K}$
belong to the same coset in
$\overline{K}/\overline{\psi}_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})$.

Recall that $i_0 =(p^k-1)\mathcal{B}$ and $\widehat{\pi}_L
=\pi_L(1+\theta)$.  By Lemma~\ref{lemmaE} we have
\[p^kv_K(\theta)=v_L(\theta)=v_K(a-\widehat{a})=\mathcal{B}.\]
Therefore there is $y\in\mathcal{O}_L^{\times}$ such that
$\theta=\pi_L^{\mathcal{B}}y$.  Hence by (\ref{rewrite}) we have
\[ \pi_L^{(\mathcal{B}+1)p^k}y^{p^k}
+\sum_{s=1}^{p^k-1}\binom{p^k}{s}\pi_L^{p^k +s\mathcal{B}}y^{s}
+(-1)^{b_0} \sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}\omega
\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{p^k-b_0 +t\mathcal{B}}y^{t}
=(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K(a-\widehat{a}). \]
By dividing this equation by $\pi_L^{(\mathcal{B}+1)p^k}$ and
using the identity $p^kA_0-b_0=(p^k-1)\mathcal{B}$ we get
\begin{multline}
\label{eku}
 y^{p^k}
+\sum_{s=1}^{p^k-1}\binom{p^k}{s}\pi_L^{(s-p^k)\mathcal{B}}y^{s}
+(-1)^{b_0} \sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}\omega
\pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{(t-1)\mathcal{B}-p^kA_0}y^t \\
=(-1)^{p^k} \pi_K(a-\widehat{a})\pi_L^{-(\mathcal{B}+1)p^k}.
\end{multline}
By Lemma~\ref{i0bound} we have $e_K>\frac{i_0}{p^k}
=\frac{p^k-1}{p^k}\mathcal{B}$.  Therefore for $1\leqslant
s\leqslant p^k-1$ we get
\[ v_K \left(\binom{p^k}{s}\pi_L^{(s-p^k)\mathcal{B}}\right)
\geqslant e_K +\frac{s-p^k}{p^k}\mathcal{B} >
\frac{p^k-1}{p^k}\mathcal{B}+\frac{s-p^k}{p^k}\mathcal{B}
=\frac{(s-1)\mathcal{B}}{p^k}\geqslant0. \]
Furthermore, for $2\leqslant t \leqslant p^k-b_0$ we have
\[ v_K \left(  \binom{p^k-b_0}{t} \omega \pi_K^{A_0}
\pi_L^{(t-1)\mathcal{B}-p^kA_0} \right)  \geqslant \frac{(t-1)\mathcal{B}}{p^k} > 0. \]
Since $\pi_L^{p^k} \equiv N_{L/K}(\pi_L)\equiv
\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L}$, it follows from \eqref{eku} that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq*}
y^{p^k} +(-1)^{b_0 +1}b_0 \omega y \equiv (-1)^{p^k}
\pi_K^{-\mathcal{B}}(a-\widehat{a})\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L}.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathcal{B}=i_0/(p^k-1)$ is an integer and
$i_0=p^kA_0-b_0$ we get $A_0\equiv b_0\pmod{p^k-1}$.
If $p>2$ then $A_0\equiv b_0\pmod2$, and hence
$(-1)^{b_0}=(-1)^{A_0}$, while for $p=2$,
$(-1)^{b_0}\equiv(-1)^{A_0}\pmod2$ holds in general.
Therefore by (\ref{eq*}) we get
\begin{alignat}{2} \nonumber
y^{p^k}-(-1)^{A_0}b_0 \omega y&\equiv (-1)^{p^k}
\pi_K^{-\mathcal{B}}(a-\widehat{a})&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L} \\
(-1)^{p^k}\psi_{i_0,\omega}(y)\pi_K^{\mathcal{B}}&\equiv
a-\widehat{a}&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{\mathcal{B}+1}}. \label{ekuac}
\end{alignat}
By Definition~\ref{standard} and (\ref{ahat}) we have
\begin{align*}
a&=1+\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal{B}-1}\alpha_j
\pi_K^{j}\right)+\gamma\pi_K^{\mathcal{B}} \\
\widehat{a}&=1+\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\mathcal{B}-1}\widehat{\alpha}_j
\pi_K^{j}\right)+\widehat{\gamma}\pi_K^{\mathcal{B}},
\end{align*}
with $\alpha_j,\widehat{\alpha}_j\in\mathfrak{R}$ and
$\gamma,\widehat{\gamma}\in T_{i_0,\omega}$.  In addition, we
have $\alpha_j = \widehat{\alpha}_j$ for $1\leqslant j<\mathcal{B}$.  By
substituting these formulas into \eqref{ekuac} we obtain
\[  \gamma- \widehat{\gamma} \equiv
(-1)^{p^k}\psi_{i_0,\omega}(y)\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L}.\]
Since $\gamma,\widehat{\gamma}\in T_{i_0,\omega}$ and
$(-1)^{p^k}\psi_{i_0,\omega}(y)\in\psi_{i_0,\omega}(\overline{K})$
we get $\gamma=\widehat{\gamma}$, and hence $a=\widehat{a}$.

This completes the proof of the
Proposition~\ref{unique}, and hence also completes the
proof of Theorem~\ref{main}.

\section{Splitting fields}
\label{splitting}

In this section we compute the splitting field in
$\Omega$ of a polynomial
\begin{equation}
\label{poly}
f(X)= X^{p^k} +(-1)^{b_0}\omega \pi_K^{A_0} X^{p^k -b_0} +(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K a
\end{equation}
in standard form over $\mathcal{O}_K$.  This allows us to
determine when the extension $L/K$ generated by a root
of $f(X)$ is Galois over $K$.

We first need to prove the following basic result.

\begin{proposition} \label{tamesplit}
Let $K$ be a local field with residue characteristic $p$
and let $n\geqslant1$ with $p\nmid n$.  Let
\begin{align*}
f(X)=X^n+\sum_{i=1}^nc_iX^{n-i}, \hspace{1cm}
g(X)=X^n+\sum_{i=1}^nd_iX^{n-i}
\end{align*}
be monic polynomials with coefficients in $K$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $v_K(c_n)=v_K(d_n)=r$ for some $r\in\mathbb{Z}$,
\item $c_n\equiv d_n\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{r+1}}$,
\item $v_K(c_i)>ir/n$ and $v_K(d_i)>ir/n$ for
$1\leqslant i\leqslant n-1$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the splitting field of $f(X)$ over $K$ is the same
as the splitting field of $g(X)$ over $K$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $L_f$, $L_g$ denote the splitting fields of $f(X)$,
$g(X)$ over $K$.  Let $\beta\in L_g$ be a root of
$g(X)$.  Then by the assumptions on $v_K(d_i)$ we have
$v_K(\beta)=r/n$.  Hence
\[f(\beta)=f(\beta)-g(\beta)
=\sum_{i=1}^n(c_i-d_i)\beta^{n-i}\]
satisfies $v_K(f(\beta))>r$.  Set
$\widetilde{f}(X)=\beta^{-n}f(\beta X)$.  Then
$\widetilde{f}(X)\in K(\beta)[X]$ is monic, and for
$1\leqslant i\leqslant n-1$ the coefficient
$\widetilde{c}_i=\beta^{-i}c_i$ of $X^{n-i}$ in $\widetilde{f}(X)$
has positive valuation.  Furthermore, we have
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_n)=0$ and $v_K(\widetilde{f}(1))>0$.  Since
$p\nmid n$ it follows by Hensel's lemma that there is
$u\in L_g$ with $u\equiv1\pmod{\mathcal{M}_{L_g}}$ and
$\widetilde{f}(u)=0$.  Set $\alpha=u\beta$.  Then
$\alpha\in L_g$, and since $f(\alpha)=0$ we also have
$\alpha\in L_f$.  Set $\widehat{f}(X)=\alpha^{-n}f(\alpha X)$.
Then $L_f$ is the splitting field of $\widehat{f}(X)$ over
$K(\alpha)$.
As above we see that for $1\leqslant i\leqslant n-1$
the coefficient $\widehat{c}_i=\alpha^{-i}c_i$ of $X^{n-i}$ in
$\widehat{f}(X)$ has positive valuation.  Since $\widehat{f}(X)$ is
monic and $\widehat{f}(1)=0$, the constant term $\widehat{c}_n$ of
$\widehat{f}(X)$ satisfies $\widehat{c}_n\equiv-1\pmod{\mathcal{M}_{L_f}}$.
Since $p\nmid n$ it follows by Hensel's lemma that
$L_f=K(\alpha,\zeta_n)$, where $\zeta_n\in\Omega$ is a
primitive $n$th root of unity.  By symmetry we get
$\zeta_n\in L_g$, and hence $L_f\subset L_g$.  Using
symmetry once again we get $L_g\subset L_f$, and hence
$L_f=L_g$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary} \label{kummer}
Let $K$ be a local field with residue characteristic $p$
and let $n\geqslant1$ with $p\nmid n$.  Let
\[f(X)=X^n+\sum_{i=1}^nc_iX^{n-i}\in K[X],\]
and assume there is $r\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $v_K(c_n)=r$ and
$v_K(c_j)>jr/n$ for $1\leqslant j\leqslant n-1$.  Let
$a\in K$ with $a\equiv c_n\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{r+1}}$.  Then the
splitting field of $f(X)$ over $K$ is
$K(\zeta_n,\sqrt[n]{-a})$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Apply the proposition with $g(X)=X^n+a$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
The splitting field over $K$ of the polynomial $f(X)$
from (\ref{poly}) is
\[
K\left(\pi_L, \zeta_{p^k-1},
\sqrt[p^k-1]{(-1)^{b_0}b_0\omega \pi_K^{p^k-b_0+A_0-1}}\right),
 \]
where $\zeta_{p^k-1}$ is a primitive $p^k-1$ root of
unity in the separable closure $\Omega$ of $K$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be the splitting field of $f(X)$ over $K$, let
$\pi_L\in M$ be a root of $f(X)$, and set $L=K(\pi_L)$.
Let $g(Y)=f(\pi_L+\pi_LY)\in L[X]$.  Then the splitting
field of $g(Y)$ over $L$ is $M$.  Since $f(\pi_L)=0$ we
get
\begin{align*}
g(Y)&=\pi_L^{p^k}(1+Y)^{p^k} +(-1)^{b_0}
\omega\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
(1+Y)^{p^k-b_0} +(-1)^{p^k}\pi_K a \\
&=\pi_L^{p^k}\sum_{s=1}^{p^k}\binom{p^k}{s}
Y^s+(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{p^k-b_0}
\sum_{t=1}^{p^k-b_0}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t}Y^t.
\end{align*}
Set $h(Y)=\pi_L^{-p^k}Y^{-1}g(Y)$.  Then
\begin{align*}
h(Y)&=\sum_{s=0}^{p^k-1}\binom{p^k}{s+1}
Y^s+(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{-b_0}
\sum_{t=0}^{p^k-b_0-1}\binom{p^k-b_0}{t+1}Y^t
\end{align*}
is a monic polynomial over $L$ of degree $p^k-1$ whose
splitting field is $M$.  Therefore we can write
\[h(Y)=Y^{p^k-1}+\sum_{j=1}^{p^k-1}a_jY^{p^k-1-j}\]
with $a_j\in L$.  The constant term of $h(Y)$ is
\begin{align*}
a_{p^k-1}
&=p^k+(p^k-b_0)(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{-b_0}.
\end{align*}
Hence by Lemma~\ref{i0bound} we get
$v_L(a_{p^k-1})=p^kA_0-b_0=i_0$ and
\begin{equation} \label{apk1cong}
a_{p^k-1}\equiv-b_0(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}\pi_L^{-b_0}
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{p^kA_0-b_0+1}}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for $0\leqslant s\leqslant p^k-2$ we
have
\begin{align*}
v_L\left(\binom{p^k}{s+1}\right)
&\geqslant p^ke_K>i_0,
\end{align*}
again by Lemma~\ref{i0bound}.  For
$0\leqslant t\leqslant p^k-b_0-1$ we have
\begin{align*}
v_L\left((-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0} \pi_L^{-b_0}
\binom{p^k-b_0}{t+1}\right)
&\geqslant p^kA_0-b_0=i_0.
\end{align*}
Hence $v_L(a_j)\geqslant i_0$ for
$0\leqslant j\leqslant p^k-2$.

Now define $\widehat{h}(Y)=\pi_L^{(p^k-1)(p^k-b_0)}
h(\pi_L^{b_0-p^k}Y)$ and write
\[\widehat{h}(Y)=Y^{p^k-1}+\sum_{j=1}^{p^k-1}\widehat{a}_jX^{p^k-1-j}.\]
Using (\ref{apk1cong}) and the congruence
$\pi_L^{p^k}\equiv\pi_K\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{p^k+1}}$ we get
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\widehat{a}_{p^k-1}&=\pi_L^{(p^k-1)(p^k-b_0)}a_{p^k-1} \\
&\equiv-b_0(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0}
\pi_L^{p^{2k}-p^k-p^kb_0}
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{p^k(A_0+p^k-1-b_0)+1}} \\
&\equiv-b_0(-1)^{b_0}\omega\pi_K^{A_0+p^k-1-b_0}
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^{p^k(A_0+p^k-1-b_0)+1}}.
\end{alignat*}
For $1\leqslant j\leqslant p^k-2$ we have
\[\frac{v_L(a_j)}{j}\geqslant\frac{i_0}{j}
>\frac{i_0}{p^k-1}=\frac{v_L(a_{p^k-1})}{p^k-1}.\]
It follows that $v_L(\widehat{a}_j)/j>
v_L(\widehat{a}_{p^k-1})/(p^k-1)$, so $\widehat{h}(Y)$ satisfies the
hypotheses of Corollary~\ref{kummer}.  Since $M$ is the
splitting field of $\widehat{h}(Y)$ over $L$ we get
\begin{align*}
M&=L\left(\zeta_{p^k-1},\sqrt[p^k-1]{(-1)^{b_0}
b_0\omega\pi_K^{p^k-b_0+A_0-1}}\right) \\
&=K\left(\pi_L,\zeta_{p^k-1},\sqrt[p^k-1]{(-1)^{b_0}
b_0\omega\pi_K^{p^k-b_0+A_0-1}}\right). \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary} \label{Gal}
Let $L$ be generated over $K$ by a root of the
polynomial (\ref{poly}).  Then $L/K$ is Galois if and
only if $\zeta_{p^k-1}\in K$ and there is a $p^k-1$
root of $(-1)^{b_0}b_0\omega\pi_K^{p^k-b_0+A_0-1}$ in
$K$.  In this case $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is an elementary abelian
$p$-group of rank $k$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Let $F$ be the splitting field of
$g(X)=X^{p^k-1}-(-1)^{b_0}b_0\omega\pi_K^{p^k-b_0+A_0-1}$
over $K$.  It follows from the proposition that $L/K$ is
Galois if and only if $F\subset L$.  Since $F/K$ is at
most tamely ramified, and $L/K$ is totally wildly
ramified, this holds if and only if $F=K$.  This proves
the first claim.  Suppose $L/K$ is Galois.  By
Proposition~\ref{break}(ii), $\mathcal{B}=\frac{i_0}{p^k-1}$ is the only
ramification break of $L/K$.  Hence $\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)$ is an
elementary abelian $p$-group.
\end{proof}

\section{Some examples}
\label{examples}

In this section we give an example which illustrates
Theorem~\ref{main}.  We also give examples which rule
out some plausible approaches to generalizing this
theorem.

\subsection{Classifying extensions with specified
indices of inseparability}

Let $K=\mathbb{Q}_3(\zeta_8)$ be the unramified extension of
$\mathbb{Q}_3$ of degree 2.  In this example we determine all
totally ramified extensions $L/K$ of degree $3^2=9$ such
that $i_0=i_1=8$ and $i_2=0$.  Since $8=3^2\cdot1-1$ we
get $A_0=b_0=1$ in this case.  It follows from
Theorem~\ref{main} that the isomorphism classes of such
extensions are generated by roots of polynomials of the
form $X^9-3\omega X^8-3a$, where
$\omega\in\mathfrak{R}\smallsetminus\{0\}
=\langle\zeta_8\rangle$ and $a=1+3\gamma$ with
$\gamma\in T_{8,\omega}$.  We have
$\psi_{8,\omega}=X^9+\omega X$.  Since $\overline{K}\cong\mathbb{F}_9$
it follows that $\overline{\psi}_{8,-1}(\alpha)=0$ for all
$\alpha\in\overline{K}$.  Hence $\overline{T}_{8,-1}=\overline{K}$, so
$T_{8,-1}=\mathfrak{R}$.  Now suppose
$\omega\in\langle\zeta_8\rangle$ with $\omega\not=-1$.
Then the only root in $\overline{K}$ of
$\overline{\psi}_{8,\omega}$ is 0, so
$\overline{\psi}_{8,\omega}$ is onto.  Therefore we can
take $\overline{T}_{8,\omega}=\{0\}$, and hence
$T_{8,\omega}=\{0\}$.  It follows that the totally
ramified extensions of $K$ of degree 9 such that
$i_0=i_1=8$ are precisely
those generated by a root of one of the 16 polynomials
\begin{alignat}{2} \label{minusone}
&X^9+3X^8-3(1+3\gamma)\;\;\;&&(\gamma\in\mathfrak{R}), \\
&X^9-3\omega X^8-3&&(\omega\in\langle\zeta_8\rangle,\;
\omega\not=-1). \label{omega}
\end{alignat}

We can ask which of these extensions are Galois.  It
follows from Corollary~\ref{Gal} that we get a
Galois extension if and only if
$(-1)^{1+1}(9-1)\omega\cdot3^{9-1+1-1}=8\omega\cdot3^8$
is an 8th power in $K$.  By Hensel's lemma this is
equivalent to $-\overline{\omega}$ being an 8th power in
$\overline{K}$, which holds if and only if $\omega=-1$.  Hence
the 9 Eisenstein polynomials in (\ref{minusone}) give
Galois extensions, while the 7 polynomials in
(\ref{omega}) do not.  If $L/K$ is the Galois extension
associated to a polynomial from (\ref{minusone}) then
$\operatorname{Gal}(L/K)\cong(\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z})^2$ by Corollary~\ref{Gal}.

\subsection{Extensions with $d$ indices of inseparability}

Let $L/K$ be a separable totally ramified extension of
local fields of degree $p^k$.  If $L/K$ has just two
distinct indices of inseparability then $L$ is generated
over $K$ by a root of an Eisenstein polynomial with
three terms.  One might hope that in the cases where
$L/K$ has $d\geqslant 3$ distinct indices of
inseparability then $L$ can be generated over $K$ by a
root of an Eisenstein polynomial with $d+1$ terms.  This
does not hold in general, as we now demonstrate.

Let $K$ be a local field with residue characteristic 3
and let $\pi_K$ be a uniformizer for $K$.  Let $L/K$ be
an extension obtained by adjoining to $K$ a root $\pi_L$
of the Eisenstein polynomial
\begin{align*}
f(X)&=X^9 + \pi_K X^7 -\pi_K X^6 +\pi_K X^{3} -\pi_K \\
&=X^9+\sum_{i=1}^9(-1)^ic_iX^{9-i}.
\end{align*}
Then $L/K$ is a totally ramified extension of degree $9$
which has three distinct indices of inseparability:
$i_0=7$, $i_1=3$, and $i_2=0$. We show that $L$ is not
generated over $K$ by a root of an Eisenstein polynomial
with fewer than five nonzero terms.

Let $\widetilde{\pi}_L$ be a uniformizer for $L$.  Then there
are $r_0,r_1\in\mathfrak{R}$ with $r_0\not=0$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{piLcong}
\widetilde{\pi}_L\equiv r_0\pi_L+r_1r_0^2\pi_L^2
\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^3}.
\end{equation}
Let $\widehat{\pi}_L=r_0\pi_L$.  Then the minimum polynomial
for $\widehat{\pi}_L$ over $K$ is
\begin{align*}
\widehat{f}(X)
&=X^9+r_0^2\pi_K X^7-r_0^3\pi_K X^6
+r_0^6\pi_K X^{3} -r_0^9\pi_K \\
&=X^9+\sum_{i=1}^9(-1)^i\widehat{c}_iX^{9-i}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, we have
\begin{equation} \label{piLtcong}
\widetilde{\pi}_L\equiv\widehat{\pi}_L+r_1\widehat{\pi}_L^2\pmod{\mathcal{M}_L^3}.
\end{equation}
We use Theorem~\ref{perturbation} with $\ell=1$ to
obtain congruences for the coefficients of the minimum
polynomial
\[\widetilde{f}(X)=X^9+\sum_{i=1}^9(-1)^i\widetilde{c}_iX^{9-i}\]
for $\widetilde{\pi}_L$ over $K$.  The values of $j$ that
satisfy the hypothesis of the theorem are $j=0$ and
$j=1$.  Taking $j=0$ we get $\phi_0(1)=8$, $h=h_0=1$,
$t=1$, $S_0=\{0\}$, and $A_0=b_0=1$.  Therefore
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\widetilde{c}_1&\equiv\widehat{c}_1+(-1)^{1+1+1}(1+1)r_1\widehat{c}_2
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2} \\
&\equiv r_1r_0^2\pi_K&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}.
\end{alignat*}
When $j=1$ we have $\phi_1(1)=6$, $h=3$, $h_0=1$, $t=1$,
$S_1=\{1\}$, $A_1=1$, and $b_1=3$.  Therefore we get
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\widetilde{c}_3&\equiv\widehat{c}_3+(-1)^{1+1+1}(1+1)r_1^3\widehat{c}_6
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2} \\
&\equiv r_0^3\pi_K + r_1^3r_0^6\pi_K&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}.
\end{alignat*}
Hence if $r_1\not=0$ then $v_K(\widetilde{c}_1)=1$, while if
$r_1=0$ then $v_K(\widetilde{c}_3)=1$.  In particular, at
least one of $\widetilde{c}_1,\widetilde{c}_3$ is nonzero.  Since
$i_0=7$ we have $\widetilde{c}_2\not=0$, and since $i_1=3$ we
have $\widetilde{c}_6\not=0$.  Together with $X^9$ and
$\widetilde{c}_9$ this gives at least five nonzero terms in
$\widetilde{f}(X)$, as claimed.

\subsection{Extensions of degree $n\neq p^k$}
One might hope to generalize Theorem~\ref{main}, or at
least Corollary~\ref{main-cor}, to include totally
ramified extensions $L/K$ whose degree $n=[L:K]$ is not
a power of $p$.  The following example shows that such a
generalization is not possible, even in the case
$v_p(n)=1$.

Let $K$ be a local field with residue characteristic 3
and let $\pi_L$ be a uniformizer for $K$.  Let $L/K$ be a
totally ramified extension of degree $6$ obtained by
adjoining to $K$ a root of the Eisenstein polynomial
\begin{align} \label{deg6}
f(X)&=X^{6} -\pi_K X^5 +\pi_K X^{4}   + \pi_K \\
&=X^6+\sum_{i=1}^6(-1)^ic_iX^{6-i}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Then $L/K$ is totally ramified of degree 6 and has
indices of inseparability $i_1=0$ and $i_0=4$. We show
that there does not exist a uniformizer for $L$ whose
minimum polynomial over $K$ has fewer than four nonzero
terms.

Let  $\widetilde{\pi}_L$ be a uniformizer for $L$ whose minimum polynomial is given by
\[\widetilde{f}(X)=X^6+\sum_{i=1}^6
(-1)^i\widetilde{c}_iX^{6-i}.\]
As in the previous
example there are $r_0,r_1\in\mathfrak{R}$ such that
$\widetilde{\pi}_L$ satisfies (\ref{piLcong}).  We find
that the minimum polynomial for
$\widehat{\pi}_L=r_0\pi_L$ over $K$ is
\begin{align*}
\widehat{f}(X)
&=X^6-r_0\pi_K X^5+r_0^2\pi_K X^4+r_0^6\pi_K \\
&=X^6+\sum_{i=1}^6(-1)^i\widehat{c}_iX^{6-i},
\end{align*}
and the congruence (\ref{piLtcong}) from the previous
example holds.  We apply Theorem~\ref{perturbation} with
$\ell=1$ to obtain congruences for the coefficients of
the minimum polynomial
\[\widetilde{f}(X)=X^6+\sum_{i=1}^6
(-1)^i\widetilde{c}_iX^{6-i}\]
for $\widetilde{\pi}_L$ over $K$.  Once again, the values of
$j$ that satisfy the hypothesis of the theorem are
$j=0$ and $j=1$.  Taking $j=0$ gives $\phi_0(1)=5$,
$h=h_0=1$, $t=1$, $S_0=\{0\}$, $A_0=1$, and $b_0=2$.
Therefore we get
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\widetilde{c}_1&\equiv\widehat{c}_1+(-1)^{1+1+1}(1+1)r_1\widehat{c}_2
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2} \\
&\equiv r_0\pi_K+r_1r_0^2\pi_K&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}.
\end{alignat*}
When $j=1$ we have $\phi_1(1)=3$, $h=3$, $h_0=1$, $t=1$,
$S_1=\{1\}$, $A_1=1$, and $b_1=6$. Therefore we get
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\widetilde{c}_3&\equiv\widehat{c}_3+(-1)^{1+1+1}\cdot2r_1^3\widehat{c}_6
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2} \\
&\equiv r_1^3r_0^6\pi_K&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^2}.
\end{alignat*}
Hence if $r_1=0$ then $v_K(\widetilde{c}_1)=1$, while if
$r_1\not=0$ then $v_K(\widetilde{c}_3)=1$.  In particular, at
least one of $\widetilde{c}_1$, $\widetilde{c}_3$ is nonzero.  Since
$i_0=4$ we have $\widetilde{c}_2\not=0$.  Together with $X^6$
and $\widetilde{c}_6$ this gives at least four nonzero terms in
$\widetilde{f}(X)$, as claimed.

\subsection{Indices of inseparability and the number of
terms in an Eisenstein polynomial}

Here we give an example that shows that there are
totally ramified extensions $L/K$ and $M/K$ of degree
$p^k$ with the same indices of inseparability such that
$M$ is generated over $K$ by a root of an Eisenstein
polynomial with three nonzero terms, but $L$ is not.
This implies that the indices of inseparability by
themselves are not enough to characterize totally
ramified extensions of degree $p^k$ which are generated
by a root of a 3-term Eisenstein polynomial.

Let $p$ be an odd prime and let $K$ be a finite
extension of $\mathbb{Q}_p$. Let
\begin{align*}
f(X) &= X^{p^2} +(-1)^{b_1-1}\pi_K^{A_1+e_K} X^{p^2 -b_1 +1}
+(-1)^{b_1}\pi_K^{A_1} X^{p^2-b_1} -\pi_K \\
g(X) &=X^{p^2} +(-1)^{b_1}\pi_K^{A_1} X^{p^2 -b_1} -\pi_K
\end{align*}
with $p \mid b_1$, $p<b_1 <p^2$, and $1\leqslant A_1 \leqslant
e_K$. Let $L$ be the totally ramified extension of $K$
obtained by adjoining a root of $f(X)$ to $K$ and let
$M/K$ be the totally ramified extension obtained by
adjoining a root of $g(X)$ to $K$. Then $L/K$ and $M/K$
have the same indices of inseparability:
\[ i_0 = p^2(A_1 +e_K)-b_1,\; i_1= p^2 A_1 -b_1,\; i_2=0.\]
We claim that $L$ is not generated over $K$ by a root of
a three-term Eisenstein polynomial.

Suppose there exists a uniformizer $\widetilde{\pi}_L$
for $L$ whose minimum polynomial
\[\widetilde{f}(X)=X^{p^2}+\sum_{i=1}^{p^2}
(-1)^i\widetilde{c}_iX^{p^2-i}\]
has just three nonzero terms.  Since $i_1=p^2A_1-b_1$ is
an index of inseparability of $L/K$, $\widetilde{f}(X)$ must
have the form
\begin{equation} \label{f3}
\widetilde{f}(X)=X^{p^2}
+(-1)^{b_1}\widetilde{c}_{b_1}X^{p^2-b_1}
-\widetilde{c}_{p^2}
\end{equation}
for some $\widetilde{c}_{b_1},\widetilde{c}_{p^2}\in K$
with $v_K(\widetilde{c}_{b_1})=A_1$ and
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{p^2})=1$.  Let $\pi_L$ be a root of $f(X)$
which generates $L$ over $K$.  As in the previous
examples there are $r_0,r_1\in\mathfrak{R}$ such that
$\widetilde{\pi}_L$ satisfies (\ref{piLcong}).  We find that
the minimum polynomial for $\widehat{\pi}_L=r_0\pi_L$ over $K$
is
\begin{align*}
\widehat{f}(X)
&=X^{p^2}+(-1)^{b_1-1}r_0^{b_1-1}\pi_K^{A_1+e_K}X^{p^2-b_1+1}
+(-1)^{b_1}r_0^{b_1}\pi_K^{A_1}X^{p^2-b_1}-r_0^{p^2}\pi_K \\
&=X^{p^2}+\sum_{i=1}^{p^2}(-1)^i\widehat{c}_iX^{{p^2}-i},
\end{align*}
and the congruence (\ref{piLtcong}) holds.  We apply
Theorem~\ref{perturbation} with $\ell=1$ to obtain
congruences for the coefficients of $\widetilde{f}(X)$.  As in
the previous two examples, the values of $j$ that
satisfy the hypothesis of the theorem are $j=0$ and
$j=1$.  When $j=0$ we have $\phi_0(1)=p^2(A_1+e_K)-b_1+1$,
$h=h_0=b_1-1$, $t=A_1+e_K$, $S_0=\{0\}$, $A_0=A_1+e_K$,
and $b_0=b_1$. Therefore we get
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\widetilde{c}_{b_1-1}&\equiv\widehat{c}_{b_1-1}
+(-1)^{A_1+e_K+1+A_1+e_K}(b_1-1+1)\widehat{c}_{b_0}r_1
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_1+e_K+1}} \\
&\equiv r_0^{b_1-1}\pi_K^{A_1+e_K}-b_1
\pi_K^{A_1}r_0^{b_1}r_1
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_1+e_K+1}}.
\end{alignat*}
When $j=1$ we have $\phi_1(1)=p^2A_1-b_1+p$, $h=b_1-p$,
$h_0=p^{-1}b_1-1$, $t=A_1$, and $S_1=\{1\}$.  Therefore
we get
\begin{alignat*}{2}
\widetilde{c}_{b_1-p}&\equiv\widehat{c}_{b_1-p}
+(-1)^{A_1+1+A_1}(p^{-1}b_1-1+1)\widehat{c}_{b_1}r_1^p
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_1+1}} \\
&\equiv-p^{-1}b_1\pi_K^{A_1}r_0^{b_1}r_1^p
&&\pmod{\mathcal{M}_K^{A_1+1}}.
\end{alignat*}
Hence if $r_1=0$ then
$v_K(\widetilde{c}_{b_1-1})=A_1+e_K$, while if
$r_1\not=0$ then $v_K(\widetilde{c}_{b_1-p})=A_1$.  In
particular, at least one of
$\widetilde{c}_{b_1-1},\widetilde{c}_{b_1-p}$ is
nonzero.  This contradicts the fact that
$\widetilde{f}(X)$ has the form given in (\ref{f3}).
Hence $L$ is not generated over $K$ by a root of an
Eisenstein polynomial with three terms.

\bibliographystyle{plain}


Packing and covering directed triangles

Abstract: We prove that if a directed multigraph $D$ has at most $t$ pairwise arc-disjoint directed triangles, then there exists a set of less than $2t$ arcs in $D$ which meets all directed triangles in $D$, except in the trivial case $t=0$. This answers affirmatively a question of Tuza from 1990.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

In the 1980s, Tuza~\cite{TuzaProc, Tuza} posed the following conjecture about packing
and covering triangles in undirected simple graphs (hereafter called graphs). Given a graph $G$,
let $\nu(G)$ be the maximum size of a family of pairwise edge-disjoint triangles in $G$,
and let $\tau(G)$ be the minimum size of an edge set $X$ such that $G-X$ is triangle-free.
Evidently $\tau(G) \geq \nu(G)$, since we are forced to delete at least one edge from
each triangle in a family of edge-disjoint triangles (and these edges must be distinct),
and on the other hand $\tau(G) \leq 3\nu(G)$, since it suffices to delete \emph{all} edges
from each triangle in a maximal family of edge-disjoint triangles. Tuza conjectured
that in fact $\tau(G) \leq 2\nu(G)$ for every graph $G$. As Tuza
observed, this upper bound is sharp if true, and in particular it is achieved by $K_4$ and $K_5$.

The best general result on Tuza's conjecture is due to
Haxell~\cite{Haxell}, who proved that $\tau(G) \leq 2.87\nu(G)$ for
every graph $G$. Other authors have approached the conjecture by
proving that $\tau(G)\leq 2 \nu(G)$ for all graphs in some given
family. Tuza \cite{Tuza} showed that his conjecture holds for all
planar graphs, and Aparna~Lakshmanan, Bujt\'as, and Tuza~\cite{LBT}
showed that it holds for all 4-colorable graphs. The planar result has
been generalized to graphs without $K_{3,3}$-subdivisions (Krivelevich
\cite{Krivelevich}), and then to graphs with maximum average degree
less than $7$ (Puleo \cite{Puleo}). In the case where $G$ is a
$K_4$-free planar graph, the stronger inequality
$\tau(G) \leq \frac{3}{2}\nu(G)$ was proved by Haxell, Kostochka, and
Thomass\'e~\cite{SashaK4}.

Asymptotic, fractional, and multigraph versions of Tuza's conjecture
have also been considered. Yuster \cite{Yuster} proved that
$\tau(G)\leq (2+o(1))\nu(G)$ when $G$ is a dense graph, and this was
shown to be asymptotically tight by Kahn and Baron
\cite{BarKahn}. Yuster \cite{Yuster} also noted that a combination of
results by Krivelevich \cite{Krivelevich} and Haxell and R\"{o}dl
\cite{HaxRod} implies that for any graph $G$ with $n$ vertices,
$\tau(G)< 2 \nu(G)+o(n^2)$. Two fractional versions of Tuza's
Conjecture were proved by Krivelevich~\cite{Krivelevich}. Chapuy,
DeVos, McDonald, Mohar, and Scheide~\cite{CDMMS} tightened one of
these fractional versions, and considered the natural extension of
Tuza's conjecture to multigraphs. Here by multigraph we mean that
multiple edges are permitted, but not loops (they have no
effect on our problem anyways); the definitions of $\mu$ and
$\tau$ are identical to those given in the simple graph case. In
\cite{CDMMS}, planar multigraphs were shown to satisfy Tuza's
conjecture, and $\tau(G)\leq 2.92\nu(G)$ was shown to hold for all
multigraphs $G$.

When posing his conjecture in \cite{Tuza}, Tuza also discussed the problem of packing and covering \emph{directed} triangles. Here by directed multigraph we shall mean any oriented multigraph; by directed graph we shall mean any directed multigraph without parallel arcs in the same direction (but we allow digons, i.e., a pair of arcs $u \to v$ and $v \to u$). Given a directed multigraph $D$, let $\nu_c(D)$ denote the maximum size of a family of pairwise arc-disjoint directed triangles, and let $\tau_c(D)$
denote the minimum size of an edge set $Y$ such that $D-Y$ has no
directed triangles. Tuza asked: \emph{``Is $\tau_c(D)< 2 \nu_c(D)$ for every digraph $D$?''}. In this paper we answer this affirmatively with the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
  If $D$ is a directed multigraph with at least one directed triangle, then $\tau_c(D) < 2\nu_c(D)$.
\end{theorem}

Tuza \cite{Tuza} observed that the rotational 5-tournament $T_5$, pictured in Figure~\ref{fig:5tourn},
satisfies $\tau_c(T_5)/ \nu_c(T_5)= \tfrac{3}{2}$. Our computational efforts have not yielded any examples with a larger ratio for $\tau_c/\nu_c$, and in fact we find the following conjecture plausible.

\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:32}
  If $D$ is a directed multigraph, then $\tau_c(D) \leq \frac{3}{2}\nu_c(D)$.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}[rotate=18, scale=1.5]
    \foreach \i in {0,...,4}
    {
      \apoint{} (v\i) at (72*\i : 1cm) {};
    }
    \foreach \i in {0,...,4}
    {
      \draw[-latex] let \n1={int(mod(\i+1,5))} in (v\i) -- (v\n1);
      \draw[-latex] let \n2={int(mod(\i+2,5))} in (v\i) -- (v\n2);
    }
  \end{tikzpicture}
  \caption{The rotational $5$-tournament $T_5$, with $\tau_c(T_5) = 3$ and $\nu_c(T_5) = 2$.}
  \label{fig:5tourn}
\end{figure}

In \cite{TuzaPerfect}, Tuza proved that if $D$ is a planar oriented graph, then $\tau_c(D)=\nu_c(D)$. This topic of packing and covering directed triangles appears not to have caught on in the literature however (in contrast to the undirected analogue), and we hope that Conjecture \ref{conj:32} and Theorem \ref{thm:main} may create interest.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}

The main idea of our proof is based on the reducibility argument in
Puleo~\cite{Puleo}. We use induction on $\sizeof{V(D)}$, with trivial
base case when $\sizeof{V(D)} = 1$. \new{Note that in what follows ``triangle'' always means ``directed triangle''.}

  Take any $v \in V(D)$, and define an auxiliary directed multigraph $N$ as
  follows: the vertex set of $N$ is the disjoint union of a set
  $\{s,t\}$ consisting of designated source and sink vertices, as well
  as two sets $W^+$ and $W^-$, where $W^+$ contains a copy $w^+$ of
  each vertex $w \in N^+(v)$, and $W^-$ contains a copy $w^-$ of each
  vertex $w \in N^-(v)$. (Note that if $w \in N^+(v) \cap N^-(v)$, then
  there is a copy of $w$ in \emph{each} of $W^+$ and $W^-$.) Given
  vertices $u^+ \in W^+$ and $z^- \in W^-$, we include the arc
  $u^+ \to z^-$ in $E(N)$ with the same multiplicity as the arc $u \to z$
  in $E(D)$. For each $w^+ \in W^+$, we include the arc $s \to w^+$ in $E(D)$ with
  the same multiplicity as the arc $v \to w$, and for each $w^- \in W^-$, we include the arc $w^- \to t$ in
  $E(N)$ with the same multiplicity as the arc $w \to v$ in $E(D)$.

  Observe that there is a bijection between directed triangles in $D$
  containing $v$, and directed $(s,t)$-paths in $N$; triangle
  $z \to v \to u \to z$ in $D$ corresponds to directed path $su^+z^-t$
  in $N$. Furthermore, two directed triangles in $D$ are arc-disjoint
  if and only if the corresponding paths in $N$ are
  arc-disjoint. (Whenever two triangles use different parallel arcs,
  the corresponding paths have parallel arcs as well.)

  Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a maximum-size set of arc-disjoint
  $(s,t)$-paths in $N$, say with $|\mathcal{P}|=p$.  Let $\mathcal{R}$ be the
  corresponding set of pairwise arc-disjoint triangles in $D$, all of
  which contain $v$. Each triangle in $\mathcal{R}$ has exactly one arc that
  is not incident to $v$; let $\mathcal{R}_v$ be the set consisting of these
  $p$ arcs.

  Let $X$ be a minimum-size set of arcs in $N$ so that $N-X$ has no
  $(s, t)$-paths. By Menger's Theorem, $|X|=|\mathcal{P}|=p$. Note
  that in $D$, the set $X$ corresponds to a set $X_D$ of $p$ arcs, and
  every triangle incident to $v$ has at least one arc in $X_D$. Let
  $C=X_D\cup \mathcal{R}_v$, and observe that $C$ is a triangle arc cover of
  every triangle involving $v$ as well as every triangle sharing an
  edge with $\mathcal{R}$. We have $|C|\leq 2p$, with equality if and only if
  $X_D$ and $\mathcal{R}_v$ are disjoint.

\new{Let $D'=D-v-\mathcal{R}_v$, and suppose first that} $D'$ has at least one directed triangle. By induction, $\tau_c(D')<2\nu_c(D')$. Let $\mathcal{R}'$ be a maximum-size set of edge-disjoint directed triangles in $D'$ and let $C'$ be a minimum-size triangle arc cover in $D'$. By our observations above, note that $C\cup C'$ is a triangle arc cover of $D$, and $\mathcal{R}' \cup \mathcal{R}$ is a set of edge-disjoint triangles in $D$. We get that
 \[ |C'\cup C| < 2|\mathcal{R}'|+2p =2|\mathcal{R}\cup\mathcal{R}'|,\]
 as desired.

We may now assume that $D'$ has no directed triangles. In this case,
 $C$ is a triangle arc cover for $D$ with size at most $2p$. Since
 $\mathcal{R}$ is set of $p$ arc-disjoint triangles in $D$, \new{we may assume that $\tau_c(D) = 2p$. We will show that $\nu_c(D) \geq p+1$}.

\new{There exists a directed triangle $T_0$ in $D$ that is disjoint from $\mathcal{R}_v$, since $|\mathcal{R}_v|=p<\tau_c(D)$.  Since $D'$ has no directed triangles, $T_0$ must be incident to $v$; let $e_0$ be the arc of $T_0$ that is not incident to $v$. If $T_0$ has no arcs in common with $\mathcal{R}$, then $\mathcal{R}\cup\{T_0\}$ is our desired triangle packing of size $p+1$. Let $\mathcal{R}^0$ be the set of triangles in $\mathcal{R}$ with at least one arc in common with $T_0$. Since $e_0\not\in\mathcal{R}_v$, we know that $|\mathcal{R}^0|\in\{1, 2\}$. We will show that we can find a set $\mathcal{T}$ of $|\mathcal{R}^0|$ directed triangles so that $(\mathcal{R}- \mathcal{R}^0)\cup\{T_0\}\cup \mathcal{T}$ is a set of $p+1$ arc-disjoint triangles in $D$.}

\new{Let $\mathcal{R}^0_v$ be the subset of $\mathcal{R}_v$ that corresponds to $\mathcal{R}^0$. Consider $D^* = D-v - (\mathcal{R}_v - \mathcal{R}^0_v)$. Note that $D^*$ contains at least one triangle, because if not, the arc set  $X_D \cup (\mathcal{R}_v -\mathcal{R}^0_v)$ is a triangle arc cover for $D$. Since $D'$ is triangle-free, every triangle in $D^*$ must contain at least one arc from $\mathcal{R}^0_v$. Hence $|\mathcal{R}^0_v|\in\{1, 2\}$ implies that $\nu_c(D^*)\in\{1, 2\}$. Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a maximum packing of directed triangles in $D^*$.}

\new{We first claim that $|\mathcal{T}|=|\mathcal{R}^0|$. If not, then $\nu_c(D^*)=1$ and $|\mathcal{R}^0|=2$, since every triangle in $\mathcal{T}$ must contain at least one edge from $\mathcal{R}^0_v$. However $\nu_c(D^*) = 1$ implies (by applying the induction hypothesis to $D^*$) that $\tau_c(D^*) = 1$, so there is an arc $f^*$ that covers all directed triangles in $D^*$, and hence $X_D \cup (\mathcal{R}_v - \mathcal{R}^0_v) \cup \{f^*\}$ is a triangle arc cover in $D$ that is smaller than $C$.}

\new{We now complete our proof by showing that $\mathcal{T}$ is arc-disjoint from $(\mathcal{R}- \mathcal{R}^0)\cup\{T_0\}$. Each arc used in this second set of triangles, aside from $e_0$, is either incident to $v$ or from the set $\mathcal{R}_v-\mathcal{R}_v^0$. Given that $\mathcal{T}$ is chosen from $D^*$, we need only worry about $e_0$ appearing in some triangle $T \in \mathcal{T}$.
  As observed above, such a $T$ must contain at least one arc from $\mathcal{R}^0_v$, say the arc $e_1$ from the triangle $R_1 \in \mathcal{R}^0$. As $R_1$ and $T_0$ share
    an arc incident to $v$, their arcs $e_1$ and $e_0$ either have a common head or a common tail (or both, if they are parallel). Either way, no directed triangle can contain both
    of the arcs $e_1$ and $e_0$, and in particular $T$ cannot contain the arc $e_0$.}

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Packing and covering directed triangles