Codex @codex  0

For $R={\mathcal{O}}_k$ and $S={\mathcal{O}}_K$, define the inverse different, or codifferent, by the trace-dual latticeThe trace pairing is nondegenerate in this separable field extension, so this is a full fractional ideal of $S$. The relative different ideal is its inverse:Every integral $x$ has integral traces against $S$, so $S\subseteq {\mathfrak{D}}^{-1}$ and $\mathfrak{D}\subseteq S$.

For $k=\mathbb{Q}$, take an integral basis $b_1,\dots ,b_n$ and its trace pairing matrix $T=(\mathrm{Tr}(b_i{b}_j))$. In these coordinates the codifferent is $T^{-1}{\mathbb{Z}}^n$, andThe ideal norm of $\mathfrak{D}$ equals this index, by inversion of fractional ideal norms. Therefore the norm of the different ideal relation isHere $r_2$ is the number of conjugate pairs of complex embeddings. The different is an ideal of the upper field, whereas the relative discriminant ideal is its ideal norm in the base field; over $\mathbb{Q}$ the ordinary signed field discriminant also records the signature.

For a finite extension $E/K$ of number fields, the inverse different is the fractional idealThe different ideal is its inverse. The trace pairing is nondegenerate because extensions of number fields are separable, so this definition gives a full fractional ideal. The inclusion ${\mathcal{O}}_E\subseteq {\mathfrak{D}}_{E/K}^{-1}$ shows that ${\mathfrak{D}}_{E/K}$ is integral.

Write its prime ideal factorization as ${\mathfrak{D}}_{E/K}={\prod }_{\mathfrak{P}}{\mathfrak{P}}^{d_{\mathfrak{P}}}$. For $\mathfrak{P}$ above $\mathfrak{p}$, with ramification index $e_{\mathfrak{P}}$ and residue characteristic $\ell$, the different exponent and tame ramification theorem saysThe equivalence uses the separability of finite residue-field extensions. In particular, $d_{\mathfrak{P}}=0$ precisely at unramified prime ideals; in the wild case $d_{\mathfrak{P}}\ge e_{\mathfrak{P}}$. This theorem does not require a Galois extension. The relative discriminant is the norm of the different ideal:For $K=\mathbb{Q}$, this gives $|D_E|=N({\mathfrak{D}}_{E/\mathbb{Q}})$.

Now take ${\alpha }^3=m$ and $K=\mathbb{Q}(\alpha )$. For any prime number $q\mid m$, the square-free integer hypothesis makes $X^3-m$ an Eisenstein polynomial at $q$. It is therefore irreducible, and $K$ is a pure cubic number field of degree $3$. Since $\alpha$ is an algebraic integer, $A=\mathbb{Z}[\alpha ]$ is an order in a number field. The discriminant of elements of a number field for its basis $1,\alpha ,{\alpha }^2$ isFor example, the resultant of $X^3-m$ and $3X^2$ is $27m^2$, and the degree-three sign in the polynomial discriminant is negative. If $I=[{\mathcal{O}}_K:A]$, the discriminant-index formula for an integral lattice givesOnly prime numbers dividing $3m$ can therefore divide $I$.

For $q\mid m$, the Eisenstein polynomial gives a totally ramified extension of ${\mathbb{Q}}_q$ of degree $3$. Thus $K$ has a unique prime ideal $\mathfrak{P}$ above $q$, with ramification index $3$ and residue-field degree $1$. Since $q\ne 3$, this is tame ramification, and the different exponent and tame ramification theorem gives $d_{\mathfrak{P}}=2$. Hence $v_q(D_K)=2$. Comparing with $v_q(-27m^2)=2$ in the discriminant-index formula for an integral lattice yields $v_q(I)=0$.

At $3$, use the shifted Eisenstein polynomial of $\beta =\alpha -m$:Because $3\nmid m$, the constant term is divisible by $3$. Moreover,when $3\nmid m$: the factors $m-1$ and $m+1$ cannot both be divisible by $3$. The hypotheses therefore give $v_3(m^3-m)=1$, so the translated polynomial is an Eisenstein polynomial at $3$. The resulting completion is a totally ramified extension of degree $3$, with residue-field degree $1$, and its ramification index is divisible by the residue characteristic. Thus its different exponent is at least $3$.

It follows that $v_3(D_K)\ge 3$. But $v_3(-27m^2)=3$, soforces $v_3(I)=0$ and $v_3(D_K)=3$. No prime number divides $I$. We have proved the integral basis of a nonexceptional pure cubic field:Using local Eisenstein polynomials here only establishes the local ramification indices; it does not assume that $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha ]$ is already the full ring of integers of a number field.