In his very nice article



> 
> Peter Roquette,
>  History of valuation theory. I. (English summary) Valuation theory and its applications, Vol. I (Saskatoon, SK, 1999), 291--355,
>  Fields Inst. Commun., 32, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002
> 
> 
> 


Roquette states the following result, which he attributes to Kurschak:


Hensel-Kurschak Lemma: Let $(K,|\ |)$ be a complete, non-Archimedean normed field. Let $f(x) = x^n + a\_{n-1} x^{n-1} + \ldots + a\_1 x + a\_0 \in K[x]$ be a polynomial. Assume (i) $f(x)$ is irreducible and (ii) $|a\_0| \leq 1$. Then $|a\_i| \leq 1$ for all $0 < i < n$. 


He says that this result is today called Hensel's Lemma and that Hensel's standard proof applies.


This is an interesting result: Roquette explains how it can be used to give a very simple proof of the fact that, with $K$ as above, if $L/K$ is an algebraic field extension, there exists a unique norm on $L$ extending $| \ |$ on $K$. This is in fact the argument I gave in a course on local fields that I am currently teaching. 


It was my initial thought that the Hensel-Kurschak Lemma would follow easily from one of the more standard forms of Hensel's Lemma. Indeed, in class last week I claimed that it would follow from


Hensel's Lemma, version 1: Let $(K,| \ |)$ be a complete non-Archimedean normed field with valuation ring $R$, and let $f(x) \in R[x]$ be a polynomial. If there exists $\alpha \in R$ such that $|f(\alpha)| < 1$ and $|f'(\alpha)| = 0$, then there exists $\beta \in R$ with $f(\beta) = 0$ and $|\alpha - \beta| < 1$. 


Then in yesterday's class I went back and tried to prove this...without success. (I was not at my sharpest that day, and I don't at all mean to claim that it is not possible to deduce Hensel-Kurschak from HLv1; only that I tried the obvious thing -- rescale $f$ to make it a primitive polynomial -- and that after 5-10 minutes, neither I nor any of the students saw how to proceed.) I am now wondering if maybe I should be trying to deduce it from a different version of Hensel's Lemma (e.g. one of the versions which speaks explicitly about factorizations modulo the maximal ideal). 


This brings me to a second question. There are of course many results which go by the name Hensel's Lemma. Nowadays we have the notion of a **Henselian normed field**, i.e., a non-Archimedean normed field in which the exended norm in any finite dimensional extension is unique. (There are many other equivalent conditions; that's rather the point.) Therefore, whenever I state a result -- let us restrict attention to results about univariate polynomials, to fix ideas -- as "Hensel's Lemma", I feel honorbound to inquire as to whether this result holds in a non-Archimedean normed field if and only if the field is Henselian, i.e., that it is equivalent to all the standard Hensel's Lemmata.


Is it true that the conclusion of the Hensel-Kurschak Lemma holds in a non-Archimedean valued field iff the field is Henselian?


More generally, what is a good, reasonably comprehensive reference for the various Hensel's Lemmata and their equivalence in the above sense?



An unfamiliar (to me) form of Hensel's Lemma
What you say at the beginning of your post is right: Hensel-Kurschak's lemma may be deduced from some refined version of Hensel's lemma. Actually, it's what Neukirch does in Algebraic Number Theory (see chapter II, corollary 4.7). His proof relies on the following (see 4.6)


Hensel's lemma: Let $(K,|.|)$ be a complete valued field with valuation ring $R$, maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$. Let $f(x) \in R[x]$ be a primitive polynomial (ie $f\ne 0$ mod $\mathfrak{m}$). Suppose $f=\bar{g}\bar{h}$ mod $\mathfrak{m}$, with $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ relatively prime. Then you can lift $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ to polynomials $g$ and $h$ in $R[x]$ such that $\textrm{deg}(g)=\textrm{deg}(\bar{g})$ and $f=gh$. 


Neukirch goes on with proving that the valuation on $K$ extends uniquely to any algebraic extension (see corollary 4.7), as you say Roquette does.


As regards your last question, you may want to have a look at chapter II, paragraph 6 (appropriately called Henselian Fields) in the book of Neukirch. His definition of Henselian field is that it should satisfy Hensel-Kurschak's lemma. In theorem 6.6, he shows that this property is equivalent to the unique extension of the valuation to algebraic extensions.


