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


this may be a very naive question, but has the degree conjecture (namely "the degree of any function of the Selberg class is a non negative integer") been proven for automorphic L-functions? Thank you in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Going off wikipedia, it is true that automorphic $L$-functions for $GL_n$ over a number field have non-negative integral degree, where by degree I mean the number $2\sum_{i=1}^k \omega_i$, where the $\omega_i$ are the coefficients of $s$ appearing in the gamma factor, which is more-or-less $$L_\infty(s,F)=Q^s\prod_{i=1}^k\Gamma(\omega_i s+\mu_i)$$ We know that for $GL_n(\mathbb R)$ and $GL_n(\mathbb C)$ the $\omega_i$ are either $1/2$ or $1$ (see, e.g., Knapp's "Local Langlands Correspondence: The Archimedean case", in Motives, vol 2), so twice the sum will always be an integer (of course, only a few of these $L$-functions are known to be in Selberg's class).

For general $G$, it depends on whether someone has written done the $L$-factors for general real reductive groups. I don't know if this has been done, or if it is technically known but difficult to write out, or if it is not known.

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear BR, Since Langlands proved the local Langlands correspondence for real groups, doesn't this mean that (at least in principle) the $L$-factors at infinity for an arbitrary group are worked out, and in fact will reduce to $L$-factors for standard reps. of $GL_n$? Of course, one can imagine that in particular situations, there are alternative definitions of the $L$-function than via local Langlands, and I don't know if these are always verified to coincide with local Langlands at the infinite primes. Regards, Matthew – Emerton Nov 22 '11 at 5:04
Matthew, your comment was almost exactly what I was thinking. Since I couldn't find a source that said anything definite, I decided to be cautious. Regarding alternative definitions, I can't help but think that it is a relatively recent result that the gamma factors for $L$-functions on $GL_n\times GL_m$ are "correct" (see Cogdell and PS's Shalikafest article,, and, even then, I believe there is still room for improvement (i.e. choosing elements in the representation space such that the zeta integral is exactly the $L$-function). – B R Nov 22 '11 at 6:32
Dear BR, Thanks a lot for your additional remarks, and for the Cogdell--PS reference. Best wishes, Matthew – Emerton Nov 22 '11 at 7:22
Matthew, you are welcome. And thank you for bringing up these important points, which I had elided. – B R Nov 22 '11 at 7:39

To the best of my knowledge, we are very far from proving such a conjecture. If $\mathcal S_d$ is the subclass of the Selberg class $\mathcal S$ consisting of the functions of degree $d$ then it is known that

1) $\mathcal S_0=\{1\}$ (Conrey-Ghosh, 1993);

2) $\mathcal S_d=\emptyset$ for $0\lt d\lt1$ (Richert, 1957 and others);

3) $\mathcal S_1$ consists of the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$ and the shifted Dirichlet $L$-functions $L(s+i\tau,\chi)$ with $\tau\in\mathbb R$ and $\chi$ a primitive character (Kaczorowski-Perelli, 1999);

4) $\mathcal S_d=\emptyset$ for $1\lt d\lt2$ (Kaczorowski-Perelli, 2002 and 2011).

Apart from these results, I think that nothing has been established in general. A nice survey of the results obtained so far can be found in the introduction to

J. Kaczorowski, A. Perelli, "On the structure of the Selberg class, VII: $1\lt d\lt2$", Ann. of Math. (2) 173 (2011), 1397-1441.

Note that, in fact, Kaczorowski and Perelli prove their results for functions in the so-called extended Selberg class $\mathcal S^\sharp$, whose elements are not required to satisfy the Ramanujan hypothesis and the Euler product property.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your answer. So nothing has been proven for L-functions that are known to be both automorphic and elements of the Selberg class? – Sylvain JULIEN Nov 20 '11 at 0:35
Not being an expert in the field, I'm not sure about that. In any case, my feeling is that almost nothing is known even in the automorphic case. – Stefano V. Nov 20 '11 at 1:45
Can anyone fix my LaTeX? For some reason, it's not working properly... – Stefano V. Nov 20 '11 at 1:46

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.