Timeline for Does the symmetric square L-function vanish at one?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 23, 2019 at 1:49 | vote | accept | TheStudent | ||
| Nov 23, 2019 at 1:49 | comment | added | TheStudent | @GHfromMO I should have made a misclick, there is not problem with your very clear answer, thank you very much. | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 9:43 | vote | accept | TheStudent | ||
| Nov 22, 2019 at 13:40 | |||||
| Nov 20, 2019 at 8:06 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 20, 2019 at 0:33 | answer | added | GH from MO | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 0:31 | comment | added | MyNinthAccount | Also, Bump and Ginzburg show the symmetric square on GL(3) is nice (probably already Shahidi is enough). They consider poles in Thm 7.5. Banks gives a "no Siegel zeros" result. doi.org/10.2307/2946548 faculty.missouri.edu/~bankswd/papers/… | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 0:20 | comment | added | MyNinthAccount | No. There are general $L$-function methods (eg Eisenstein series) that show nonvanishing on the edge of the critical strip. eudml.org/doc/142439 web.math.princeton.edu/sarnak/ShalikaBday2002.pdf | |
| Nov 20, 2019 at 0:04 | history | asked | TheStudent | CC BY-SA 4.0 |