The Stacks project

15.123 Extensions of valuation rings

This section is the analogue of Section 15.111 for general valuation rings.

Definition 15.123.1. We say that $A \to B$ or $A \subset B$ is an extension of valuation rings if $A$ and $B$ are valuation rings and $A \to B$ is injective and local. Such an extension induces a commutative diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ A \setminus \{ 0\} \ar[r] \ar[d]_ v & B \setminus \{ 0\} \ar[d]^ v \\ \Gamma _ A \ar[r] & \Gamma _ B } \]

where $\Gamma _ A$ and $\Gamma _ B$ are the value groups. We say that $B$ is weakly unramified over $A$ if the lower horizontal arrow is a bijection. If the extension of residue fields $\kappa _ A = A/\mathfrak m_ A \subset \kappa _ B = B/\mathfrak m_ B$ is finite, then we set $f = [\kappa _ B : \kappa _ A]$ and we call it the residual degree or residue degree of the extension $A \subset B$.

Note that $\Gamma _ A \to \Gamma _ B$ is injective, because the units of $A$ are the inverse of the units of $B$ under the map $A \to B$. Note also, that we do not require the extension of fraction fields to be finite.

Lemma 15.123.2. Let $A \subset B$ be an extension of valuation rings with fraction fields $K \subset L$. If the extension $L/K$ is finite, then the residue field extension is finite, the index of $\Gamma _ A$ in $\Gamma _ B$ is finite, and

\[ [\Gamma _ B : \Gamma _ A] [\kappa _ B : \kappa _ A] \leq [L : K]. \]

Proof. Let $b_1, \ldots , b_ n \in B$ be units whose images in $\kappa _ B$ are linearly independent over $\kappa _ A$. Let $c_1, \ldots , c_ m \in B$ be nonzero elements whose images in $\Gamma _ B/\Gamma _ A$ are pairwise distinct. We claim that $b_ i c_ j$ are $K$-linearly independent in $L$. Namely, we claim a sum

\[ \sum a_{ij} b_ i c_ j \]

with $a_{ij} \in K$ not all zero cannot be zero. Choose $(i_0, j_0)$ with $v(a_{i_0j_0}b_{i_0}c_{j_0})$ minimal. Replace $a_{ij}$ by $a_{ij}/a_{i_0j_0}$, so that $a_{i_0 j_0} = 1$. Let

\[ P = \{ (i, j) \mid v(a_{ij}b_ ic_ j) = v(a_{i_0j_0}b_{i_0}c_{j_0}) \} \]

By our choice of $c_1, \ldots , c_ m$ we see that $(i, j) \in P$ implies $j = j_0$. Hence if $(i, j) \in P$, then $v(a_{ij}) = v(a_{i_0j_0}) = 0$, i.e., $a_{ij}$ is a unit. By our choice of $b_1, \ldots , b_ n$ we see that

\[ \sum \nolimits _{(i, j) \in P} a_{ij}b_ i \]

is a unit in $B$. Thus the valuation of $\sum \nolimits _{(i, j) \in P} a_{ij}b_ ic_ j$ is $v(c_{j_0}) = v(a_{i_0j_0}b_{i_0}c_{j_0})$. Since the terms with $(i, j) \not\in P$ in the first displayed sum have strictly bigger valuation, we conclude that this sum cannot be zero, thereby proving the lemma. $\square$

Lemma 15.123.3. Let $A \to B$ be a flat local homomorphism of Noetherian local normal domains. Let $f \in A$ and $h \in B$ such that $f = w h^ n$ for some $n > 1$ and some unit $w$ of $B$. Assume that for every height $1$ prime $\mathfrak p \subset A$ there is a height $1$ prime $\mathfrak q \subset B$ lying over $\mathfrak p$ such that the extension $A_\mathfrak p \subset B_\mathfrak q$ is weakly unramified. Then $f = u g^ n$ for some $g \in A$ and unit $u$ of $A$.

Proof. The local rings of $A$ and $B$ at height $1$ primes are discrete valuation rings (Algebra, Lemma 10.119.7). Thus the assumption makes sense (via Definition 15.111.1). Let $\mathfrak p_1, \ldots , \mathfrak p_ r$ be the primes of $A$ minimal over $f$. These have height $1$ by Algebra, Lemma 10.60.11. For each $i$ let $\mathfrak q_{i, j} \subset B$, $j = 1, \ldots , r_ i$ be the height $1$ primes of $B$ lying over $\mathfrak p_ i$. Say we number them so that $A_{\mathfrak p_ i} \to B_{\mathfrak q_{i, 1}}$ is weakly unramified. Since $f$ maps to an $n$th power times a unit in $B_{\mathfrak q_{i, 1}}$ we see that the valuation $v_ i$ of $f$ in $A_{\mathfrak p_ i}$ is divisible by $n$. Say $v_ i = n w_ i$ for some $w_ i \geq 0$. Consider the exact sequence

\[ 0 \to I \to A \to \prod \nolimits _{i = 1, \ldots , r} A_{\mathfrak p_ i}/\mathfrak p_ i^{w_ i}A_{\mathfrak p_ i} \]

defining the ideal $I$. Applying the exact functor $- \otimes _ A B$ we obtain an exact sequence

\[ 0 \to I \otimes _ A B \to B \to \prod \nolimits _{i = 1, \ldots , r} (A_{\mathfrak p_ i}/\mathfrak p_ i^{w_ i}A_{\mathfrak p_ i}) \otimes _ A B \]

Fix $i$. We claim that the canonical map

\[ (A_{\mathfrak p_ i}/\mathfrak p_ i^{w_ i}A_{\mathfrak p_ i}) \otimes _ A B \to \prod \nolimits _{j = 1, \ldots , r_ i} B_{\mathfrak q_{i, j}}/\mathfrak q_{i, j}^{e_{i, j}w_ i}B_{\mathfrak q_{i, j}} \]

is injective. Here $e_{i, j}$ is the ramification index of $A_{\mathfrak p_ i} \to B_{\mathfrak q_{i, j}}$. The claim asserts that $\mathfrak p_ i^{w_ i}B_{\mathfrak p_ i}$ is equal to the set of elements $b$ of $B_{\mathfrak p_ i}$ whose valuation at $\mathfrak q_{i, j}$ is $\geq e_{i, j}w_ i$. Choose a generator $a \in A_{\mathfrak p_ i}$ of the principal ideal $\mathfrak p_ i^{w_ i}$. Then the valuation of $a$ at $\mathfrak q_{i, j}$ is equal to $e_{i, j}w_ i$. Hence, as $B_{\mathfrak p_ i}$ is a normal domain whose height one primes are the primes $\mathfrak q_{i, j}$, $j = 1, \ldots , r_ i$, we see that, for $b$ as above, we have $b/a \in B_{\mathfrak p_ i}$ by Algebra, Lemma 10.157.6. Thus the claim.

The claim combined with the second exact sequence above determines an exact sequence

\[ 0 \to I \otimes _ A B \to B \to \prod \nolimits _{i = 1, \ldots , r} \prod \nolimits _{j = 1, \ldots , r_ i} B_{\mathfrak q_{i, j}}/\mathfrak q_{i, j}^{e_{i, j}w_ i}B_{\mathfrak q_{i, j}} \]

It follows that $I \otimes _ A B$ is the set of elements $h'$ of $B$ which have valuation $\geq e_{i, j}w_ i$ at $\mathfrak q_{i, j}$. Since $f = wh^ n$ in $B$ we see that $h$ has valuation $e_{i, j}w_ i$ at $\mathfrak q_{i, j}$. Thus $h'/h \in B$ by Algebra, Lemma 10.157.6. It follows that $I \otimes _ A B$ is a free $B$-module of rank $1$ (generated by $h$). Therefore $I$ is a free $A$-module of rank $1$, see Algebra, Lemma 10.78.6. Let $g \in I$ be a generator. Then we see that $g$ and $h$ differ by a unit in $B$. Working backwards we conclude that the valuation of $g$ in $A_{\mathfrak p_ i}$ is $w_ i = v_ i/n$. Hence $g^ n$ and $f$ differ by a unit in $A$ (by Algebra, Lemma 10.157.6) as desired. $\square$

Lemma 15.123.4. Let $A$ be a valuation ring. Let $A \to B$ be an étale ring map and let $\mathfrak m \subset B$ be a prime lying over the maximal ideal of $A$. Then $A \subset B_\mathfrak m$ is an extension of valuation rings which is weakly unramified.

Proof. The ring $A$ has weak dimension $\leq 1$ by Lemma 15.104.18. Then $B$ has weak dimension $\leq 1$ by Lemmas 15.104.4 and 15.104.14. hence the local ring $B_\mathfrak m$ is a valuation ring by Lemma 15.104.18. Since the extension $A \subset B_\mathfrak m$ induces a finite extension of fraction fields, we see that the $\Gamma _ A$ has finite index in the value group of $B_{\mathfrak m}$. Thus for every $h \in B_\mathfrak m$ there exists an $n > 0$, an element $f \in A$, and a unit $w \in B_\mathfrak m$ such that $f = w h^ n$ in $B_\mathfrak m$. We will show that this implies $f = ug^ n$ for some $g \in A$ and unit $u \in A$; this will show that the value groups of $A$ and $B_\mathfrak m$ agree, as claimed in the lemma.

Write $A = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits A_ i$ as the colimit of its local subrings which are essentially of finite type over $\mathbf{Z}$. Since $A$ is a normal domain (Algebra, Lemma 10.50.10), we may assume that each $A_ i$ is normal (here we use that taking normalizations the local rings remain essentially of finite type over $\mathbf{Z}$ by Algebra, Proposition 10.162.16). For some $i$ we can find an étale extension $A_ i \to B_ i$ such that $B = A \otimes _{A_ i} B_ i$, see Algebra, Lemma 10.143.3. Let $\mathfrak m_ i$ be the intersection of $B_ i$ with $\mathfrak m$. Then we may apply Lemma 15.123.3 to the ring map $A_ i \to (B_ i)_{\mathfrak m_ i}$ to conclude. The hypotheses of the lemma are satisfied because:

  1. $A_ i$ and $(B_ i)_{\mathfrak m_ i}$ are Noetherian as they are essentially of finite type over $\mathbf{Z}$,

  2. $A_ i \to (B_ i)_{\mathfrak m_ i}$ is flat as $A_ i \to B_ i$ is étale,

  3. $B_ i$ is normal as $A_ i \to B_ i$ is étale, see Algebra, Lemma 10.163.9,

  4. for every height $1$ prime of $A_ i$ there exists a height $1$ prime of $(B_ i)_{\mathfrak m_ i}$ lying over it by Algebra, Lemma 10.113.2 and the fact that $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}((B_ i)_{\mathfrak m_ i}) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(A_ i)$ is surjective,

  5. the induced extensions $(A_ i)_\mathfrak p \to (B_ i)_\mathfrak q$ are unramified for every prime $\mathfrak q$ lying over a prime $\mathfrak p$ as $A_ i \to B_ i$ is étale.

This concludes the proof of the lemma. $\square$

Lemma 15.123.5. Let $A$ be a valuation ring. Let $A^ h$, resp. $A^{sh}$ be its henselization, resp. strict henselization. Then

\[ A \subset A^ h \subset A^{sh} \]

are extensions of valuation rings which induce bijections on value groups, i.e., which are weakly unramified.

Proof. Write $A^ h = \mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits (B_ i)_{\mathfrak q_ i}$ where $A \to B_ i$ is étale and $\mathfrak q_ i \subset B_ i$ is a prime ideal lying over $\mathfrak m_ A$, see Algebra, Lemma 10.155.7. Then Lemma 15.123.4 tells us that $(B_ i)_{\mathfrak q_ i}$ is a valuation ring and that the induced map

\[ (A \setminus \{ 0\} )/A^* \longrightarrow ((B_ i)_{\mathfrak q_ i} \setminus \{ 0\} ) / (B_ i)_{\mathfrak q_ i}^* \]

is bijective. By Algebra, Lemma 10.50.5 we conclude that $A^ h$ is a valuation ring. It also follows that $(A \setminus \{ 0\} )/A^* \to (A^ h \setminus \{ 0\} )/(A^ h)^*$ is bijective. This proves the lemma for the inclusion $A \subset A^ h$. To prove it for $A \subset A^{sh}$ we can use exactly the same argument except we replace Algebra, Lemma 10.155.7 by Algebra, Lemma 10.155.11. Since $A^{sh} = (A^ h)^{sh}$ we see that this also proves the assertions of the lemma for the inclusion $A^ h \subset A^{sh}$. $\square$

Comments (0)

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

In order to prevent bots from posting comments, we would like you to prove that you are human. You can do this by filling in the name of the current tag in the following input field. As a reminder, this is tag 0ASF. Beware of the difference between the letter 'O' and the digit '0'.