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

In Andrews, Askey, and Roy's Special Functions, the authors state that Gauß sums are finite field analogs of the $\Gamma$-function as Jacobi sums are to B-function. The $\Gamma$-function is well-known as the analytic continuation for the factorial function and if $x$ is in a divided power algebra then $$x^{[m]}\cdot x^{[n]}={(m+n)!\over (n!)(m!)}x^{[m+n]}.$$ where $x^{[n]}$ is the nth power of x under the divided power meaning of $x^n$. For characteristic 0, this combinatorial coefficient can be written as $${\Gamma(1+m+n)\over \Gamma(1+m)\Gamma(1+n)}=B(1+x,1+y)^{-1}\cdot[(1+x)+(1+y)].\quad (*)$$ What I mean to ask is: "Is there value in considering these objects--i.e. divided power algebras and these coefficients-- from this point of view--i.e. use of Gauß and Jacobi sums? Is this formula just a coincidence or a pattern that I want to see, or is there more to it?"

share|cite|improve this question
maybe this is dumb, but your coefficient is always an integer, so can't you just reduce it mod p? – Sean Tilson Nov 8 '10 at 13:29
Sometimes there are issues with dividing by p. I only put up the formula for multiplying powers of x. The "normal" $\gamma_n(x)$ is ${1\over n!}x^n$ where the $\{\gamma_i\}$ are structure morphisms for the algebra. It's this that I'm having issues with, especially because I have an interest in exponential maps on this algebra, and division is a standard obstruction to this. Sorry for not making things more clear from the outset. – Adam Hughes Nov 8 '10 at 14:46
You don't have to define your divided power algebra that way. The $\gamma_i(x)$ are a choice of elements of the ring that must satisfy some formulas that would be satisfied if you used your definition. In fact, the equations you assume should imply that $i!\gamma_i(x)=x^i$. – Sean Tilson Dec 1 '13 at 23:05
I recognize that it's not strictly necessary, but I'm asking for this particular choice, sorry if that was unclear. – Adam Hughes Dec 2 '13 at 1:21
That particular choice is the classical example. If your ring contains the rationals, then that is the unique system of divided powers on your ring. – Sean Tilson Dec 4 '13 at 18:51

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.