Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have heard people discussing the utility of $L$-functions, claiming that since they are essentially cohomological entities, they are "abelian" and therefore lack force.

From looking around on the web, I see that this idea has a base of believers, and that there is some notion of non-abelian $L$-functions.

Question

What is the definition of non-abelian $L$-functions? Does it have to do with replacing cohomology with homotopy in some way? How does it relate to the original definition of $L$-function (in particular, what is the analogue of the characteristic polynomial?)? What is the context in which it arises?

share|improve this question
3  
Allow me a bit of snark: "abelian" L-functions may lack force, but "non-abelian" L-functions may lack a definition. More seriously, I personally have never heard to such a thing, aside from e.g. arxiv.org/abs/math/0412008, which does not seem to be what you want. But I imagine that some people do speculate on what such a thing could be (or, rather, what sort of homotopical invariants could replace L-functions). Since these speculations haven't filtered down to us hoi polloi, I am skeptical they have found practical use. –  B R Oct 23 '11 at 22:46
1  
Since I have "The collected papers of Emil Artin" to hand, allow me to quote the first paragraph of "Über eine neue Art von L-Reihen"; "Für die Untersuchung beliebiger, auch nicht Abelscher algebraischer Zahlkörper benötigt man eine Reihe neuer analytischer Funktionen, die mit FROBENIUSschen Gruppencharakteren gebildet sind und im Abelschen Falle mit den gewöhnlichen L-Reihen zusammenfallen. Ihrer Untersuchung sind die folgenden Zeilen gewidmet". Sehr schön! –  Barinder Banwait Oct 23 '11 at 22:59
    
One kind of non-abelian L-function that promises some applications comes up in non-abelian Iwasawa theory, where one can find some speculation and some computation. You could check, for example, the paper of Coates, Fukaya, Kato, Sujatha, Venjakob, IHES publications, 101. –  Minhyong Kim Oct 23 '11 at 23:40
    
Link to the Coates, Fukaya, Kato, Sujatha, Venjakob paper: archive.numdam.org/ARCHIVE/PMIHES/PMIHES_2005__101_/… –  B R Oct 24 '11 at 0:53

1 Answer 1

"I have heard people discussing the utility of L-functions, claiming that since they are essentially cohomological entities, they are "abelian" and therefore lack force." This sounds like twaddle to me. Artin L-series are non-abelian; the L-series of representations of the Weil group are non-abelian; automorphic L-series are nonabelian (unless they are on GL1); the L-series of motives are usually nonabelian. Perhaps you could clarify your question.

share|improve this answer
2  
I know very little about this, so my ability to elaborate is limited. I agree that L-functions can deal with non-abelian extensions. But it is also true that their definition goes through cohomology. I imagine that the "non-abelian" part of "non-abelian L-functions" has to do with their construction, and not with their applications. As for in what sense they would be stronger than the usual L-functions, this is part of my question. –  James D. Taylor Oct 23 '11 at 21:46

Your Answer

 
discard

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.