Timeline for Difference of Beilinson conjecture and equivariant Tamagawa number conjecture
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 1, 2018 at 20:35 | comment | added | David Loeffler | I think this is part of the TNC, because Galois-conjugate Artin representations will correspond to the same Artin motive (the coefficient field of a motive is an "abstract" number field, it doesn't come with a distinguished embedding into $\mathbf{C}$). | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 14:36 | comment | added | Chris Wuthrich | @david Of course I agree with almost all of this nice answer, but I think that the ETNC even for $\ell\nmid \# G$ says something a bit stronger than TNC for the twists. For instance for two representations of a finite $G$ that are conjugate over $\overline\mathbb{Q}$, then ETNC with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}[G]$ will also say that the order of vanishing of the two twisted $L$-functions are equal and that the leading terms divided by periods and regulators are conjugate. I don't think that would follow from the TNC, would it? | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 7:15 | vote | accept | User0829 | ||
| Dec 28, 2017 at 7:15 | vote | accept | User0829 | ||
| Dec 28, 2017 at 7:15 | |||||
| Dec 27, 2017 at 11:15 | history | answered | David Loeffler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |