]> Number Fields - Splitting of Primes in Extensions

Splitting of Primes in Extensions

Primes in are not necessarily irreducible in larger number rings. For example, 2 =(1 +i)(1 i),5 =(2 +i)(2 i) in [i]. Similarly, although 2,3 remain irreducible in [5 ], the principal ideals (2 ),(3 ) do not. This phenomenon is known as splitting. We say 3 splits into the product of two primes in [5 ]. We shall study how a prime splits in a given number ring.

More generally, if P is a prime ideal in some number ring R=𝔸K for some number field K, and if L is a number field containing K, we consider the prime decomposition of the ideal generated by P in S=𝔸L, i.e. PS={α 1 β 1 +...+α rβ r:α iPβ iS}.

For now we shall fix some notation. Let K,L be number fields with KL and let R=𝔸K,S=𝔸L, and "prime" means "nonzero prime ideal".

Theorem: Let P be a prime of R, and Q a prime of S. The following are equivalent:

  1. QPS

  2. QPS

  3. QP

  4. QR=P

  5. QK=P

Proof: (1 )(2 ) was proved earlier. (2 )(3 ) since Q is an ideal in S, (4 )(3 ) trivially, (4 )(5 ) since Q𝔸. We need only show (3 )(4 ). Now QR contains P and is an ideal in R. Since P is maximal, we have QR=P or R. If QR=R then 1 Q which implies Q=S, a contradiction.

When the above conditions hold, we say that Q lies over P, or that P lies under Q.

Theorem: Every prime Q of S lies over a unique prime P of R. Every prime P of R lies under at least one prime Q of S.

Proof: For the first statement, we need to show that QR is a prime in R. Observe 1 Q. Also, we must have QR nonempty because in particular it contains N(a) for all aQ, and norms of nonzero elements are nonzero in any integral domain. (Here N means N R Q.) Lastly, if rsQ, then one of r,s also lies in Q. If r,sR, then we have that one of r,s lies in QR showing that it is indeed prime.

Now for the second statement. The primes lying over P are the prime divisors of PS, so we need only show PSS, that is, PS has at least one prime divisor. We shall show that 1 PS by using lemma proved earlier: there exists a γKR with γPR. thus γPSRS=S. Then if 1 PS, we have γS. But this would mean γ is an algebraic integer, which is a contradiction.

The primes lying over P are those that occur in the prime decomposition of PS. Their corresponding exponents are called the ramification indices. If Q e is the exact power of Q dividing PS, then e is the ramification index of Q over P. We denote this by e(QP).

Example: Let R=,S=[i]. Then (1 i) lies over 2 (which we use as shorthand for 2 ). It can be checked that (1 i) is prime, and hence e((1 i)2 )=2 since 2 S=(1 i) 2 . Also, we have e(Qp)=1 for p2 and any Q lying over p.

More generally, if R=,S=[ω] for ω=e 2 πi/m where m=p r for some prime p then the principal ideal (1 ω) is S is a prime lying over p, and e((1 ω)p)=ϕ(m)=p r1 (p1 ) (TODO: proof). Also e(Qq)=1 whenever qp and Q lies over q, which will follow from a theorem we shall prove later.

Notice R/P,S/Q are fields since P,Q are maximal. Moreover, there is a natural way to view R/P as a subfield of S/Q. Since RS, there is a ring homomorphism from RS/Q whose kernel is RQ. Now RQ=P hence we have an embedding R/PS/Q. The fields R/P,S/Q are called the residue fields associated with P,Q. The residue fields of a number ring are finite as was shown when proving every number field is a Dedekind domain, hence S/Q is a finite extension of R/P. Let f be the degree of this extension. We call f the inertial degree of Q over P, and denote it by f(QP).

Example: Let R=,S=[i]. Then 2 in lies under the prime (1 i) in [i].