Timeline for Underlying idea for (automorphic) L-function?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 1:50 | answer | added | Kimball | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 5:36 | answer | added | Tian An | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 8, 2015 at 16:33 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | I feel like what we lack to really understand the true nature of L-functions is a rather natural geometric interpretation thereof. Just my opinion as a non specialist of the topic. | |
| Feb 8, 2015 at 14:38 | history | edited | Spencer Leslie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1269 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2014 at 13:56 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 25, 2014 at 17:46 | |||||
| Nov 25, 2014 at 12:29 | history | edited | Spencer Leslie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 468 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2014 at 15:22 | history | edited | Spencer Leslie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body; edited title
|
| Nov 23, 2014 at 21:17 | history | edited | Spencer Leslie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 922 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2014 at 15:23 | comment | added | Daniel Loughran | In which case, I don't understand what your question is. At the moment it seems quite broad, and it's not clear to me what kind of answer you are expecting. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 14:45 | comment | added | Spencer Leslie | I think of the Selberg class as defining the "most interesting" set of Dirichlet series so that the fundamantal properties expected of L-functions can be dealt with axiomatically. I'm not sure in what sense that illuminates what L-functions are as they arise "in nature." | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 14:12 | comment | added | Daniel Loughran | My point was that the Selberg class (arguably) gives an answer to your first question. Namely it formalises "the (conjectural) underlying idea of what an $L$-function is". | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 13:08 | answer | added | Myshkin | timeline score: 19 | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 12:47 | comment | added | Spencer Leslie | I am, and do intend on mentioning this in my talk. Perhaps it is my lack of reading on the subject, but I view the Selberg class as a way of formalizing what we see in the theory of L-functions, rather than an explanation. Is this thought incorrect? | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 12:34 | comment | added | Daniel Loughran | Are you aware of the Selberg class? | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 12:28 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 23, 2014 at 12:51 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2014 at 12:24 | history | asked | Spencer Leslie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |