Unramified Extensions of Discrete Valuation Rings












1












$begingroup$


Let $i: R subset A$ be an integral extension of discrete valuation rings and denote by $$f: operatorname{Spec}(A) to operatorname{Spec}(R)$$ the corresponding scheme morphism. Since $operatorname{Spec}(R) = {sigma_R, eta_R}$ (resp. $operatorname{Spec}(A) = {sigma_A, eta_A}$ where $sigma$ is the unique closed and $eta$ the unique generic points)



denote



$K_R := kappa(eta_R) = operatorname{Frac}(R)$



$K_A := kappa(eta_A) = operatorname{Frac}(A)$



and



$k_R := kappa(sigma_R)= mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}/m_{sigma_R}mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}$



$ k_A := kappa(sigma_A)$



we obtain field extensions $K_Rsubset K_A$ and $k_Rsubset k_A$.



I want to show that:



$f$ is a unramified morphism (in sense of scheme morphism) $Leftrightarrow$



$K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ are finite separable and $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$.



Source: S. Bosch, Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, p. 374.



My attempts:



Since there are only two points it seems ok to apply the chararacterization (v) from Thm 3:



enter image description here



So the the finite separability condition for $K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ works in both directions.



The only problem lies in the condition $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$ and that $m_{sigma_R}$ generates $m_{sigma_A}$ ($m_{eta_R}$and $m_{eta_A}=0$ so it's ok)



The author's hint was to use exersise 3.1.8 (page 90):



enter image description here



So in our case $K= K_R$ and $L= K_A$. Then the integral closure of $R$ is in $K_A$ a finite $R$-module. How does it help to get $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$?



Btw: In Ex 3.1.8: What would fail with the trace function $Tr_{L/K}$ if $L/K$ wouldn't separable?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    Let $i: R subset A$ be an integral extension of discrete valuation rings and denote by $$f: operatorname{Spec}(A) to operatorname{Spec}(R)$$ the corresponding scheme morphism. Since $operatorname{Spec}(R) = {sigma_R, eta_R}$ (resp. $operatorname{Spec}(A) = {sigma_A, eta_A}$ where $sigma$ is the unique closed and $eta$ the unique generic points)



    denote



    $K_R := kappa(eta_R) = operatorname{Frac}(R)$



    $K_A := kappa(eta_A) = operatorname{Frac}(A)$



    and



    $k_R := kappa(sigma_R)= mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}/m_{sigma_R}mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}$



    $ k_A := kappa(sigma_A)$



    we obtain field extensions $K_Rsubset K_A$ and $k_Rsubset k_A$.



    I want to show that:



    $f$ is a unramified morphism (in sense of scheme morphism) $Leftrightarrow$



    $K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ are finite separable and $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$.



    Source: S. Bosch, Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, p. 374.



    My attempts:



    Since there are only two points it seems ok to apply the chararacterization (v) from Thm 3:



    enter image description here



    So the the finite separability condition for $K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ works in both directions.



    The only problem lies in the condition $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$ and that $m_{sigma_R}$ generates $m_{sigma_A}$ ($m_{eta_R}$and $m_{eta_A}=0$ so it's ok)



    The author's hint was to use exersise 3.1.8 (page 90):



    enter image description here



    So in our case $K= K_R$ and $L= K_A$. Then the integral closure of $R$ is in $K_A$ a finite $R$-module. How does it help to get $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$?



    Btw: In Ex 3.1.8: What would fail with the trace function $Tr_{L/K}$ if $L/K$ wouldn't separable?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      Let $i: R subset A$ be an integral extension of discrete valuation rings and denote by $$f: operatorname{Spec}(A) to operatorname{Spec}(R)$$ the corresponding scheme morphism. Since $operatorname{Spec}(R) = {sigma_R, eta_R}$ (resp. $operatorname{Spec}(A) = {sigma_A, eta_A}$ where $sigma$ is the unique closed and $eta$ the unique generic points)



      denote



      $K_R := kappa(eta_R) = operatorname{Frac}(R)$



      $K_A := kappa(eta_A) = operatorname{Frac}(A)$



      and



      $k_R := kappa(sigma_R)= mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}/m_{sigma_R}mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}$



      $ k_A := kappa(sigma_A)$



      we obtain field extensions $K_Rsubset K_A$ and $k_Rsubset k_A$.



      I want to show that:



      $f$ is a unramified morphism (in sense of scheme morphism) $Leftrightarrow$



      $K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ are finite separable and $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$.



      Source: S. Bosch, Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, p. 374.



      My attempts:



      Since there are only two points it seems ok to apply the chararacterization (v) from Thm 3:



      enter image description here



      So the the finite separability condition for $K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ works in both directions.



      The only problem lies in the condition $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$ and that $m_{sigma_R}$ generates $m_{sigma_A}$ ($m_{eta_R}$and $m_{eta_A}=0$ so it's ok)



      The author's hint was to use exersise 3.1.8 (page 90):



      enter image description here



      So in our case $K= K_R$ and $L= K_A$. Then the integral closure of $R$ is in $K_A$ a finite $R$-module. How does it help to get $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$?



      Btw: In Ex 3.1.8: What would fail with the trace function $Tr_{L/K}$ if $L/K$ wouldn't separable?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $i: R subset A$ be an integral extension of discrete valuation rings and denote by $$f: operatorname{Spec}(A) to operatorname{Spec}(R)$$ the corresponding scheme morphism. Since $operatorname{Spec}(R) = {sigma_R, eta_R}$ (resp. $operatorname{Spec}(A) = {sigma_A, eta_A}$ where $sigma$ is the unique closed and $eta$ the unique generic points)



      denote



      $K_R := kappa(eta_R) = operatorname{Frac}(R)$



      $K_A := kappa(eta_A) = operatorname{Frac}(A)$



      and



      $k_R := kappa(sigma_R)= mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}/m_{sigma_R}mathcal{O}_{R, sigma_R}$



      $ k_A := kappa(sigma_A)$



      we obtain field extensions $K_Rsubset K_A$ and $k_Rsubset k_A$.



      I want to show that:



      $f$ is a unramified morphism (in sense of scheme morphism) $Leftrightarrow$



      $K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ are finite separable and $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$.



      Source: S. Bosch, Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, p. 374.



      My attempts:



      Since there are only two points it seems ok to apply the chararacterization (v) from Thm 3:



      enter image description here



      So the the finite separability condition for $K_A/K_R, k_A/k_R$ works in both directions.



      The only problem lies in the condition $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$ and that $m_{sigma_R}$ generates $m_{sigma_A}$ ($m_{eta_R}$and $m_{eta_A}=0$ so it's ok)



      The author's hint was to use exersise 3.1.8 (page 90):



      enter image description here



      So in our case $K= K_R$ and $L= K_A$. Then the integral closure of $R$ is in $K_A$ a finite $R$-module. How does it help to get $[K_A:K_R]=[k_A: k_R]$?



      Btw: In Ex 3.1.8: What would fail with the trace function $Tr_{L/K}$ if $L/K$ wouldn't separable?







      algebraic-geometry ring-theory commutative-algebra






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 28 '18 at 22:41









      user26857

      39.4k124183




      39.4k124183










      asked Dec 28 '18 at 4:47









      KarlPeterKarlPeter

      4641315




      4641315






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Hint: You can show that $A/R$ is in fact finite free with $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$. This will create the missing link between the degrees of the two field extensions.



          As to your last remark: If the field extension is not separable then the trace will be zero.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The freeness of $A/R$ commes from a structure theorem for modules over Dedekid rings (I never heard about a structure theorem over DVRs). Then $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ boils down to the general property of free extensions. But the link between $ [K_A:K_R]$ and $ [k_A:k_R]$ is still unclear. Is $mathrm{rk}_R$ conserved (why?) if we quotient out someting that is contained in Jacobsen ideal? So some kind of Nakayama argument?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 4:18










          • $begingroup$
            One way to show this is by observing $A/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_A}=Aotimes R/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_R}$ by using unramifiedness.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:13












          • $begingroup$
            Ah ok, this settle $rk_R(A)=[k_A: k_R]$. One point stays unclear: How do you get the finiteness of $A/R$? SInce after settled this $A$ considered as $R$ module without torsion is indeed finite free so $A = oplus_{rk_R A} R$. Regarding equality $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ there occure following problem. Passing to $K_R$ is the same as localizing by $S := R backslash {0}$ and that respects products. So $AS^{-1} = oplus R S^{-1}= oplus K_R$. But $S$ is not enough to get $AS^{-1} = K_A$. I guess I have to combine it with result from Ex 8.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54












          • $begingroup$
            Does the information about finiteness of integral closure of $R$ help here?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54










          • $begingroup$
            Well exercise 8 tells you that $A/R$ is finite since $A$ is precisely the integral closure of $R$ in $K_A$.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 11:53











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054573%2funramified-extensions-of-discrete-valuation-rings%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          Hint: You can show that $A/R$ is in fact finite free with $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$. This will create the missing link between the degrees of the two field extensions.



          As to your last remark: If the field extension is not separable then the trace will be zero.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The freeness of $A/R$ commes from a structure theorem for modules over Dedekid rings (I never heard about a structure theorem over DVRs). Then $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ boils down to the general property of free extensions. But the link between $ [K_A:K_R]$ and $ [k_A:k_R]$ is still unclear. Is $mathrm{rk}_R$ conserved (why?) if we quotient out someting that is contained in Jacobsen ideal? So some kind of Nakayama argument?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 4:18










          • $begingroup$
            One way to show this is by observing $A/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_A}=Aotimes R/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_R}$ by using unramifiedness.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:13












          • $begingroup$
            Ah ok, this settle $rk_R(A)=[k_A: k_R]$. One point stays unclear: How do you get the finiteness of $A/R$? SInce after settled this $A$ considered as $R$ module without torsion is indeed finite free so $A = oplus_{rk_R A} R$. Regarding equality $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ there occure following problem. Passing to $K_R$ is the same as localizing by $S := R backslash {0}$ and that respects products. So $AS^{-1} = oplus R S^{-1}= oplus K_R$. But $S$ is not enough to get $AS^{-1} = K_A$. I guess I have to combine it with result from Ex 8.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54












          • $begingroup$
            Does the information about finiteness of integral closure of $R$ help here?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54










          • $begingroup$
            Well exercise 8 tells you that $A/R$ is finite since $A$ is precisely the integral closure of $R$ in $K_A$.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 11:53
















          1












          $begingroup$

          Hint: You can show that $A/R$ is in fact finite free with $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$. This will create the missing link between the degrees of the two field extensions.



          As to your last remark: If the field extension is not separable then the trace will be zero.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The freeness of $A/R$ commes from a structure theorem for modules over Dedekid rings (I never heard about a structure theorem over DVRs). Then $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ boils down to the general property of free extensions. But the link between $ [K_A:K_R]$ and $ [k_A:k_R]$ is still unclear. Is $mathrm{rk}_R$ conserved (why?) if we quotient out someting that is contained in Jacobsen ideal? So some kind of Nakayama argument?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 4:18










          • $begingroup$
            One way to show this is by observing $A/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_A}=Aotimes R/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_R}$ by using unramifiedness.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:13












          • $begingroup$
            Ah ok, this settle $rk_R(A)=[k_A: k_R]$. One point stays unclear: How do you get the finiteness of $A/R$? SInce after settled this $A$ considered as $R$ module without torsion is indeed finite free so $A = oplus_{rk_R A} R$. Regarding equality $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ there occure following problem. Passing to $K_R$ is the same as localizing by $S := R backslash {0}$ and that respects products. So $AS^{-1} = oplus R S^{-1}= oplus K_R$. But $S$ is not enough to get $AS^{-1} = K_A$. I guess I have to combine it with result from Ex 8.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54












          • $begingroup$
            Does the information about finiteness of integral closure of $R$ help here?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54










          • $begingroup$
            Well exercise 8 tells you that $A/R$ is finite since $A$ is precisely the integral closure of $R$ in $K_A$.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 11:53














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Hint: You can show that $A/R$ is in fact finite free with $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$. This will create the missing link between the degrees of the two field extensions.



          As to your last remark: If the field extension is not separable then the trace will be zero.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Hint: You can show that $A/R$ is in fact finite free with $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$. This will create the missing link between the degrees of the two field extensions.



          As to your last remark: If the field extension is not separable then the trace will be zero.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 28 '18 at 12:00









          asdqasdq

          1,8681518




          1,8681518












          • $begingroup$
            The freeness of $A/R$ commes from a structure theorem for modules over Dedekid rings (I never heard about a structure theorem over DVRs). Then $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ boils down to the general property of free extensions. But the link between $ [K_A:K_R]$ and $ [k_A:k_R]$ is still unclear. Is $mathrm{rk}_R$ conserved (why?) if we quotient out someting that is contained in Jacobsen ideal? So some kind of Nakayama argument?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 4:18










          • $begingroup$
            One way to show this is by observing $A/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_A}=Aotimes R/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_R}$ by using unramifiedness.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:13












          • $begingroup$
            Ah ok, this settle $rk_R(A)=[k_A: k_R]$. One point stays unclear: How do you get the finiteness of $A/R$? SInce after settled this $A$ considered as $R$ module without torsion is indeed finite free so $A = oplus_{rk_R A} R$. Regarding equality $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ there occure following problem. Passing to $K_R$ is the same as localizing by $S := R backslash {0}$ and that respects products. So $AS^{-1} = oplus R S^{-1}= oplus K_R$. But $S$ is not enough to get $AS^{-1} = K_A$. I guess I have to combine it with result from Ex 8.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54












          • $begingroup$
            Does the information about finiteness of integral closure of $R$ help here?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54










          • $begingroup$
            Well exercise 8 tells you that $A/R$ is finite since $A$ is precisely the integral closure of $R$ in $K_A$.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 11:53


















          • $begingroup$
            The freeness of $A/R$ commes from a structure theorem for modules over Dedekid rings (I never heard about a structure theorem over DVRs). Then $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ boils down to the general property of free extensions. But the link between $ [K_A:K_R]$ and $ [k_A:k_R]$ is still unclear. Is $mathrm{rk}_R$ conserved (why?) if we quotient out someting that is contained in Jacobsen ideal? So some kind of Nakayama argument?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 4:18










          • $begingroup$
            One way to show this is by observing $A/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_A}=Aotimes R/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_R}$ by using unramifiedness.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:13












          • $begingroup$
            Ah ok, this settle $rk_R(A)=[k_A: k_R]$. One point stays unclear: How do you get the finiteness of $A/R$? SInce after settled this $A$ considered as $R$ module without torsion is indeed finite free so $A = oplus_{rk_R A} R$. Regarding equality $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ there occure following problem. Passing to $K_R$ is the same as localizing by $S := R backslash {0}$ and that respects products. So $AS^{-1} = oplus R S^{-1}= oplus K_R$. But $S$ is not enough to get $AS^{-1} = K_A$. I guess I have to combine it with result from Ex 8.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54












          • $begingroup$
            Does the information about finiteness of integral closure of $R$ help here?
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Dec 29 '18 at 5:54










          • $begingroup$
            Well exercise 8 tells you that $A/R$ is finite since $A$ is precisely the integral closure of $R$ in $K_A$.
            $endgroup$
            – asdq
            Dec 29 '18 at 11:53
















          $begingroup$
          The freeness of $A/R$ commes from a structure theorem for modules over Dedekid rings (I never heard about a structure theorem over DVRs). Then $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ boils down to the general property of free extensions. But the link between $ [K_A:K_R]$ and $ [k_A:k_R]$ is still unclear. Is $mathrm{rk}_R$ conserved (why?) if we quotient out someting that is contained in Jacobsen ideal? So some kind of Nakayama argument?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 29 '18 at 4:18




          $begingroup$
          The freeness of $A/R$ commes from a structure theorem for modules over Dedekid rings (I never heard about a structure theorem over DVRs). Then $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ boils down to the general property of free extensions. But the link between $ [K_A:K_R]$ and $ [k_A:k_R]$ is still unclear. Is $mathrm{rk}_R$ conserved (why?) if we quotient out someting that is contained in Jacobsen ideal? So some kind of Nakayama argument?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 29 '18 at 4:18












          $begingroup$
          One way to show this is by observing $A/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_A}=Aotimes R/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_R}$ by using unramifiedness.
          $endgroup$
          – asdq
          Dec 29 '18 at 5:13






          $begingroup$
          One way to show this is by observing $A/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_A}=Aotimes R/mathfrak{m}_{sigma_R}$ by using unramifiedness.
          $endgroup$
          – asdq
          Dec 29 '18 at 5:13














          $begingroup$
          Ah ok, this settle $rk_R(A)=[k_A: k_R]$. One point stays unclear: How do you get the finiteness of $A/R$? SInce after settled this $A$ considered as $R$ module without torsion is indeed finite free so $A = oplus_{rk_R A} R$. Regarding equality $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ there occure following problem. Passing to $K_R$ is the same as localizing by $S := R backslash {0}$ and that respects products. So $AS^{-1} = oplus R S^{-1}= oplus K_R$. But $S$ is not enough to get $AS^{-1} = K_A$. I guess I have to combine it with result from Ex 8.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 29 '18 at 5:54






          $begingroup$
          Ah ok, this settle $rk_R(A)=[k_A: k_R]$. One point stays unclear: How do you get the finiteness of $A/R$? SInce after settled this $A$ considered as $R$ module without torsion is indeed finite free so $A = oplus_{rk_R A} R$. Regarding equality $mathrm{rk}_R A=[K_A:K_R]$ there occure following problem. Passing to $K_R$ is the same as localizing by $S := R backslash {0}$ and that respects products. So $AS^{-1} = oplus R S^{-1}= oplus K_R$. But $S$ is not enough to get $AS^{-1} = K_A$. I guess I have to combine it with result from Ex 8.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 29 '18 at 5:54














          $begingroup$
          Does the information about finiteness of integral closure of $R$ help here?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 29 '18 at 5:54




          $begingroup$
          Does the information about finiteness of integral closure of $R$ help here?
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Dec 29 '18 at 5:54












          $begingroup$
          Well exercise 8 tells you that $A/R$ is finite since $A$ is precisely the integral closure of $R$ in $K_A$.
          $endgroup$
          – asdq
          Dec 29 '18 at 11:53




          $begingroup$
          Well exercise 8 tells you that $A/R$ is finite since $A$ is precisely the integral closure of $R$ in $K_A$.
          $endgroup$
          – asdq
          Dec 29 '18 at 11:53


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054573%2funramified-extensions-of-discrete-valuation-rings%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

          Aardman Animations

          Are they similar matrix