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

Does normal Riemann hypothesis for $\zeta_{\mathbb{Q}}$ follows from the extended Riemann hypothesis for some $K \neq \mathbb{Q}$ (i.e. the statement that all zeroes of the Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_K$ for $K$ a number field in the critical strip lie on the axis $\mathfrak{R}(s)=1/2$)?

share|cite|improve this question
Well, $\mathbb{Q}$ is a number field... – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 18 '12 at 0:12
Yes I mean if we know it is true for one $K \neq \mathbb{Q}$ does it follow for $\mathbb{Q}$? – user16974 Aug 18 '12 at 0:13
up vote 10 down vote accepted

Yes, certainly: zeta functions of abelian extensions of $\mathbb Q$ factor as products of Dirichlet $L$-functions over $\mathbb Q$, including $\zeta(s)$, and those other $L$-functions have no poles (which might cancel an off-line zero of zeta), so RH for any abelian extension of $\mathbb Q$ implies that for $\mathbb Q$.

At this point in history, the fact that we do not know that all Artin $L$-functions lack poles in the critical strip severely complicates our provable understanding of an analogous assertion for not-abelian extensions.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. – user16974 Aug 18 '12 at 0:35
Nonabelian Galois extensions still work. That is, if $L/K$ is a finite Galois extension of number fields, then $\zeta_L(s)/\zeta_K(s)$ is known to be analytic. – Emil Jeřábek Jun 24 '14 at 10:05

Your Answer


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