Timeline for constants in Gamma factors in functional equation for zeta functions.
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2019 at 11:55 | comment | added | Ilya Zakharevich | In Serre’s Facteurs locaux… of 1970 he also uses a different convention: he omits the factor 2 from γ-factor for ℂ. (See formula (19).) | |
| Sep 29, 2015 at 19:18 | review | Late answers | |||
| Sep 30, 2015 at 0:57 | |||||
| Mar 26, 2010 at 11:12 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | You've suggested this before James, and I think this time I'll rise to the bait. I'll let you know if he responds and what he says. | |
| Mar 26, 2010 at 8:14 | comment | added | JBorger | I believe Deninger's of the opinion that his normalization is the right one. But if you really want to know, you should just ask him. | |
| Mar 26, 2010 at 7:17 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | OK so I guess that just lends more credibility to the hypothesis that at infinite places one can make arbitrary choices of scalars! My question to you then, another-anon, is whether, when you get to the bottom of things, Deninger genuinely does a "canonical" thing, "independent of the place". such that at the finite places he gets (1-p^{-s})^{-1} and at the infinite places he gets a Gamma factor, canonically normalised? Because I don't see this in Jacq-Lan; they make a "non-canonical" explicit choice of constant at the infinite place and nothing would change if they made another one. | |
| Mar 26, 2010 at 5:58 | history | answered | another anon | CC BY-SA 2.5 |