MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I would really like to know whether the following famous conjecture has been solved. I've read in a few places that it has been solved, but I have been unable to find a reference. I do know that there was once a very credible proof which was believed for a while and then turned out to be false. The statement is:

If $f:\mathbb H/\Gamma(N)\to\mathbb R$ is of moderate growth in the cusps and satisfies $\Delta f+\frac 14f=0$, then the Hecke eigenvalues $\lambda_p(f)$ are algebraic.

There is of course a much stronger conjecture (still unsolved) that there is a Galois representation $\rho:\operatorname{Gal}(\bar{\mathbb Q}/\mathbb Q)\to GL(2,\mathbb C)$ such that $\lambda_p(f)=\operatorname{tr}\rho(\operatorname{Fr}_p)$. This would imply the weaker conjecture above.

It was once believed that this stronger conjecture was solved by Blasius and Ramakrishnan (and see a second paper), but their proof relied on a statement (which they could not prove, but which was widely believed to be true) which turned out to be false. I thought at some point, though, that, perhaps because of work of Richard Taylor, that the weaker boxed statement above had been proven later using different methods. I have been unable to locate a reference, though, and many papers actually refer to the claimed proof of B&R.

Is the boxed statement known to be true (and does someone know a good reference for the proof)?

share|cite|improve this question
I would ask Ramakrishnan and Taylor. – GH from MO Jul 4 '12 at 1:32
I think this is wide wide open. – Marty Jul 4 '12 at 2:24
Kevin Buzzard's answer here is relevant:… – Kevin Ventullo Jul 4 '12 at 5:20
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Your boxed statement is an open problem. Blasius and Ramakrishnan did not rely on a widely believed statement which turned out to be false. Their argument accidentally conflated two L-packets for $GSp_4(\mathbb{R})$ which are in fact distinct, due to a miscalculation of the central character of one of the L-packets in question. This mistake was discovered several years later by Henniart, I believe - see MR1157812.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.