So, I’ll discuss the proof of a classification theorem that DVRs are often power series rings, using Hensel’s lemma.
Systems of representatives
Let be a complete DVR with maximal ideal
and quotient field
. We let
; this is the residue field and is, e.g., the integers mod
for the
-adic integers (I will discuss this more later).
The main result that we have today is:
Theorem 1 Suppose
is of characteristic zero. Then
, the power series ring in one variable, with respect to the usual discrete valuation on
.
The “usual discrete valuation” on the power series ring is the order at zero. Incidentally, this applies to the (non-complete) subring of consisting of power series that converge in some neighborhood of zero, which is the ring of germs of holomorphic functions at zero; the valuation again measures the zero at
.
For a generalization of this theorem, see Serre’s Local Fields.
To prove it, we need to introduce another concept. A system of representatives is a set such that the reduction map
is bijective. A uniformizer is a generator of the maximal ideal
. Then:
Proposition 2 If
is a system of representatives and
a uniformizer, we can write each
uniquely as
Given , we can find by the definitions
with
. Repeating, we can write
as
, or
. Repeat the process inductively and note that the differences
tend to zero.
In the -adic numbers, we can take
as a system of representatives, so we find each
-adic integer has a unique
-adic expansion
for
.
Hensel’s Lemma
Hensel’s lemma, as already mentioned, allow us to lift approximate solutions of equations to exact solutions. This will enable us to construct a system of representatives which is actually a field.
Theorem 3 Let
be a complete DVR with quotient field
. Suppose
and
satisfies
(i.e.
) while
. Then there is a unique
with
and
.
(Here the bar denotes reduction.)
The idea is to use Newton’s method of successive approximation. Recall that given an approximate root , Newton’s method “refines” it to
So define inductively (
is already defined) as
, the
notation as above. I claim that the
approach a limit
which is as claimed.
For by Taylor’s formula we can write
, where
depends on
. Then for any
Thus, if and
, we have
and
, since
. We even have
. This enables us to claim inductively:
.
.
Now it follows that we may set and we will have
. The last assertion follows because
is a simple root of
.
There is a more general (Sorry, Bourbaki!) version of Hensel’s lemma that says if you have , the conclusion holds. It is proved using a very similar argument. Also, there’s no need for discreteness of the absolute value—just completeness is necessary.
Corollary 4 For
fixed, any element of
sufficiently close to 1 is a
-th power.
Use the polynomial .
Proof of the Classification Theorem
We now prove the first theorem.
Note that gets sent to nonzero elements in the residue field
, which is of characteristic zero. This means that
consists of units, so
.
Let be a subfield. Then
; if
, I claim that there is
containing
with
.
If is transcendental, lift it to
; then
is transcendental over
and is invertible in
, so we can take
.
If the minimal polynomial of over
is
, we have
. Moreover,
because these fields are of characteristic zero and all extensions are separable. So lift
to
; by Hensel lift
to
with
. Then
is irreducible in
(otherwise we could reduce a factoring to get one of
), so
, which is a field
.
So if is the maximal subfield (use Zorn), this is our system of representatives by the above argument.
September 11, 2009 at 11:13 pm
[…] his. Speaking of characteristics, Akhil Mathews at fellow group blog Delta Epsilons has a post on Hensel’s lemma and a classification theorem for complete Discrete Valuation Rings with a residue field of characteristic zero. (It’s […]
October 21, 2009 at 8:06 pm
[…] to ; then of course in general, but if is the maximal ideal in , say lying over . So, we use Hensel’s lemma to find reducing to with —indeed is a unit by separability of […]
October 23, 2009 at 8:51 pm
[…] This is a basic fact, which I discussed earlier, about systems of representatives. […]