6
$\begingroup$

I know that the polynomial $f(x)=x^p-x-\frac1p\in\mathbb Q_p[x]$ is irreducible. So, let $\alpha$ be a root of $f(x)$, and $K=\mathbb Q_p(\alpha)$. Let $O_K$ be the valuation ring of $K$ with respect to the unique extension of the p-adic valuation to $K$. Let $\mathfrak p_K$ be the unique maximal ideal of $O_K$. We know that $O_K$ is also the integral closure of $\mathbb Z_p$ in $K$.

I am trying to show that there exists $\beta_i \in O_K$ for $i =0,...,p-1$ such that $\alpha + \beta_i$ is a root of $f(x)$ and $\beta_i \equiv i$ (mod $\mathfrak p_k$).

My guess is the following:

I know from Hensel's lemma that the polynomial $x^p - x$ splits in $\mathbb Z_p$ with roots $\beta_i \in \mathbb Z_p$ for $i =0,...,p-1$ such that $\beta_i \equiv i$ (mod $p\mathbb Z_p$). So clearly, $\beta_i \equiv i$ (mod $\mathfrak p_k$). What remains to show is that $\alpha + \beta_i$ are the roots that I seek.

I think I am on the right track, but I don't know how to show that $\alpha + \beta_i$ are roots of $f(x)$. Any help or hint would be appreciated.

Of course, my guess could be totally wrong. In that case I have no idea how to come up with the desired $\beta_i 's$.

  • 0
    Do you think there is some other natural choice of $\beta_i$ then? I can't think of any other way to come up with the $\beta_i 's$.2012-04-23

1 Answers 1

5

Let $g(x)=f(x+\alpha)$. I claim that the coefficients of $g$ lie in $\mathcal O_K$, and not just $K$. To see this, write out $g$ and expand the first term using the binomial theorem; note that the valuation of $\alpha$, while negative, is greater than $-1$ (the valuation is normalized from $\mathbb Z_p$).

Since we have checked this, it now makes sense to reduce $g$ modulo the maximal ideal of $\mathcal O_K$ so that we can apply Hensel's lemma, but after reducing, the polynomial $g$ is just $x^p-x$, so over $\mathcal O_K$ it has roots congruent to all the residue classes mod $p$. This is equivalent to your claim since $\beta$ is a root of $g$ if and only if $\beta+\alpha$ is a root of $f$.

  • 0
    This is really nice. Thanks.2012-04-23