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

The Dedekind zeta function of an abelian extension $E$ of $\mathbb{Q}$ factors as a product of Artin L function $L(s, \chi)$, where the product runs over all irreducible representations $\chi$ of $Gal(E : \mathbb{Q})$ .

Question: What is known for irreducible representation $ \sigma$ of $G(F) = Gal(\overline{Q}, F)$. How does the Artin $L$ function decompose? Something like $$L_F(s, \sigma) = \prod\limits_{\sigma' \subset Ind_{G(F)}^{G(E)} \sigma} L_E(s, \sigma'),$$ where $F$ is a finite extension of $E$?

share|cite|improve this question
Surely the fact that the Dedekind zeta function of $E$ factorises is simply a restatement of the fact that the regular representation of a group $G$ factorises as a product over all the irreducible representations of $G$? Artin reciprocity is more the statement that any L-function associated to a one-dimensional representation is in fact a Hecke L-function. – Daniel Loughran Jun 8 '11 at 9:42
Yes, this is true, and is a standard consequence of the inductivity properties of Artin L-functions. – David Hansen Jun 8 '11 at 10:21
Anywhere Artin L-functions are sold. – David Hansen Jun 8 '11 at 10:26
For example, try taking a look at Chapter 2 of M. Ram Murty & V. Kumar Murty, Non-vanishing of L-functions and applications, Birkhauser 1997. – Stefano V. Jun 8 '11 at 11:55
For $F$ a number field, the above product is incorrect. For example it would imply that $1=\prod_{\sigma′\in Ind^{G(E)}_{G(F)} \setminus \{\sigma\}} L(s,\sigma′,F)$, which is false unless $F=\mathbb{Q}$. What is true however is that $L(s,\sigma,F) = L(s, Ind^{G(E)}_{G(F)}(\sigma), E)$ for any $E\subset F.$ – JSpecter Jun 8 '11 at 13:24
up vote 2 down vote accepted

You should define what you mean by a decomposition of an Artin $L$-function. If you assume standard conjectures of Langlands and Selberg, then the Artin $L$-function of an irreducible representation of $G(\mathbb{Q})$ is a primitive function in the Selberg class, hence it has no nontrivial decomposition there (or among Artin $L$-functions for that matter). If you start with an irreducible representation $\sigma$ of $G(F)$, then $L_F(s,\sigma)=\prod_\rho L_\mathbb{Q}(s,\rho)^{m(\rho)}$, where $\rho$ runs through the irreducible representations of $G(\mathbb{Q})$ and $m(\rho)$ denotes the multiplicity of $\rho$ in the induced representation of $\sigma$ from $G(F)$ to $G(\mathbb{Q})$. This should be the unique maximal factorization into $L$-functions over $\mathbb{Q}$. In particular, if $F/\mathbb{Q}$ is Galois, then $L_F(s,\sigma)$ should be "irreducible". For a reference I recommend Murty's paper here.

share|cite|improve this answer

Thinking from the automorphic point of view, it should be an $L$-function over $\mathbb Q$ corresponding to the automorphic induction of the Hecke character to a representation $\Pi$ of $GL_N(\mathbb A_{\mathbb Q})$ where $N=deg(E:\mathbb Q)$. However, automorphic induction is only known for cyclic (whence solvable) and non-normal cubic extensions.

Depending on your extension and what you induce, it may be that $\Pi$ is cuspidal, but in general it should break up as an isobaric sum $$ \Pi = \pi_1 \boxplus \cdots \boxplus \pi_r,$$ where the $\pi_i$'s are cuspidal. ($r=1$ and $\pi_1 = \Pi$ if $\Pi$ is cuspidal). Then your desired $L$-function decomposition over $\mathbb Q$ is $$ L(s,\pi_1)L(s,\pi_2) \cdots L(s,\pi_r).$$

In the case of the Dedekind zeta function for an abelian extension, these $\pi_i$'s correspond to the irreducible characters of Gal$(E/\mathbb Q)$. For more general extensions, one knows this when each irreducible representation of Gal$(E/\mathbb Q)$ is known to be modular (corresponding to a cuspidal automorphic representation).

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for this answer and the automorphic picture. I edited the question, since i am here interested in a purely galois theoretic formulation of the decomposition. – Marc Palm Jun 8 '11 at 10:13

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.