Proof.
Let be a
uniformiser and let ,
with the normalised
valuation (). We
construct a sequence
in such
that:
-
(i)
-
(ii)
Take :
then .
Now we suppose we have constructed
satisfying (i) and (ii). Define
Since ,
we have
and hence
by (i).
It follows that , so (ii)
holds. Note that letting
be indeterminates, we have
|
where
and ,
. Thus
|
where .
Since
and we
have
|
so (i) holds.
Property (ii) implies that
is Cauchy, so let
such that .
Then
by (i).
Moreover, (ii) impies that
This proves existence.
Uniqueness: suppose
also satisfies ,
. Set
. Then
|
and the ultrametric inequality implies
|
But
|
Hence ,
so , a
contradiction. □
Proof.
Case :
Let .
Applying to ,
we find that
if and only if .
Thus
().
We have an isomorphism
given by .
Thus
Case :
Let .
Consider .
Note .
Let .
Then
Hensel’s Lemma version 1 gives
Then
|
Again using ,
we find that .
□
Proof.
Upon scaling, we may assume
with . Thus we need
to show that . If
not, let minimal
such that ,
then .
Thus we have
|
Then Theorem 4.4 implies
with .
□