Lemma 15.115.4. Let $A \to B \to C$ be extensions of discrete valuation rings with fraction fields $K \subset L \subset M$. Let $K_1/K$ be a finite extension.
If $K_1$ is a (weak) solution for $A \to C$, then $K_1$ is a (weak) solution for $A \to B$.
If $K_1$ is a (weak) solution for $A \to B$ and $L_1 = (L \otimes _ K K_1)_{red}$ is a product of fields which are (weak) solutions for $B \to C$, then $K_1$ is a (weak) solution for $A \to C$.
Proof. Let $L_1 = (L \otimes _ K K_1)_{red}$ and $M_1 = (M \otimes _ K K_1)_{red}$ and let $B_1 \subset L_1$ and $C_1 \subset M_1$ be the integral closure of $B$ and $C$. Note that $M_1 = (M \otimes _ L L_1)_{red}$ and that $L_1$ is a (nonempty) finite product of finite extensions of $L$. Hence the ring map $B_1 \to C_1$ is a finite product of ring maps of the form discussed in Remark 15.114.1. In particular, the map $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(C_1) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(B_1)$ is surjective. Choose a maximal ideal $\mathfrak m \subset C_1$ and consider the extensions of discrete valuation rings
If the composition is weakly unramified, so is the map $(A_1)_{A_1 \cap \mathfrak m} \to (B_1)_{B_1 \cap \mathfrak m}$. If the residue field extension $\kappa _{A_1 \cap \mathfrak m} \to \kappa _\mathfrak m$ is separable, so is the subextension $\kappa _{A_1 \cap \mathfrak m} \to \kappa _{B_1 \cap \mathfrak m}$. Taking into account Lemma 15.111.5 this proves (1). A similar argument works for (2). $\square$
Your email address will not be published.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).
All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Comments (0)
There are also: