Skip to main content
edited tags
Link
Gerry Myerson
  • 39.9k
  • 10
  • 186
  • 247
added 2 characters in body
Source Link
José Hdz. Stgo.
  • 8.8k
  • 4
  • 68
  • 106

Let $\chi$ be a Dirichlet character and $L(1,\chi)$ the associated L-function evaluated at $s=1$. What would be the 'shortest' proof of the non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$?

Background: The non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$ plays an essential role in the proof of Dirichlet´s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions. In his "Introduction to analytic number theory", T.M M.Apostol Apostol gives an elementary proof of the above fact estimating various sums in a few lemmas in the context of a proof of the aforementioned Dirichlet theorem. While his approach has the advantage of being self-contained and not requiring much of a background, it is quite lenghty. In their "Analytic number theory", H.Iwaniec Iwaniec and TE.Kowalski Kowalski remark that in Dirichlet´s original proof the non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$ for real Dirichlet characters is a simple consequence of Dirichlet´s class number formula. However, in both approaches it is necessary to distinguish between real and complex Dirichlet characters. Hence my two "sub"-questions:

  1. Is there a proof that avoids the distinction between the complex and real case?

  2. Are there in general other proof strategies for $L(1,\chi)\neq 0$ that can be considered shorter and/or more elegant than the two mentioned above?

Let $\chi$ be a Dirichlet character and $L(1,\chi)$ the associated L-function evaluated at $s=1$. What would be the 'shortest' proof of the non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$?

Background: The non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$ plays an essential role in the proof of Dirichlet´s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions. In his "Introduction to analytic number theory" T.M.Apostol gives an elementary proof of the above fact estimating various sums in a few lemmas in the context of a proof of the aforementioned Dirichlet theorem. While his approach has the advantage of being self-contained and not requiring much of a background, it is quite lenghty. In their "Analytic number theory" H.Iwaniec and T.Kowalski remark that in Dirichlet´s original proof the non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$ for real Dirichlet characters is a simple consequence of Dirichlet´s class number formula. However, in both approaches it is necessary to distinguish between real and complex Dirichlet characters. Hence my two "sub"-questions:

  1. Is there a proof that avoids the distinction between the complex and real case?

  2. Are there in general other proof strategies for $L(1,\chi)\neq 0$ that can be considered shorter and/or more elegant than the two mentioned above?

Let $\chi$ be a Dirichlet character and $L(1,\chi)$ the associated L-function evaluated at $s=1$. What would be the 'shortest' proof of the non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$?

Background: The non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$ plays an essential role in the proof of Dirichlet´s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions. In his "Introduction to analytic number theory", T. M. Apostol gives an elementary proof of the above fact estimating various sums in a few lemmas in the context of a proof of the aforementioned Dirichlet theorem. While his approach has the advantage of being self-contained and not requiring much of a background, it is quite lenghty. In their "Analytic number theory", H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski remark that in Dirichlet´s original proof the non-vanishing of $L(1,\chi)$ for real Dirichlet characters is a simple consequence of Dirichlet´s class number formula. However, in both approaches it is necessary to distinguish between real and complex Dirichlet characters. Hence my two "sub"-questions:

  1. Is there a proof that avoids the distinction between the complex and real case?

  2. Are there in general other proof strategies for $L(1,\chi)\neq 0$ that can be considered shorter and/or more elegant than the two mentioned above?

edited tags
Link
GH from MO
  • 105.2k
  • 8
  • 292
  • 398
Source Link
M.G.
  • 7.1k
  • 3
  • 46
  • 60
Loading