The first result on the google search "zeta function of grassmannian" seems to contain quite a direct and not too long derivation of the zeta function for a grassmannian over a finite field:

• http://www.math.mcgill.ca/goren/SeminarOnCohomology/GrassmannVarieties.pdf

From the zeta you see that it is rational, of course get the zeros (which are none), but you don't immediately get confirmation of the functional equation. Though, from the very simple combinatoric representation of the zeta function, it might be easy to prove directly, I will try with pen and paper later.

I'm glad I searched this, I didn't know the zeta was so simple in this case as well.

The first result on the google search "zeta function of grassmannian" seems to contain quite a direct and not too long derivation of the zeta function for a grassmannian over a finite field:

http://www.math.mcgill.ca/goren/SeminarOnCohomology/GrassmannVarieties%20.pdf

From the zeta you see that it is rational, of course get the zeros (which are none), but you don't immediately get confirmation of the functional equation. Though, from the very simple combinatoric representation of the zeta function, it might be easy to prove directly, I will try with pen and paper later.

I'm glad I searched this, I didn't know the zeta was so simple in this case as well

The first result on the google search "zeta function of grassmannian" seems to contain quite a direct and not too long derivation of the zeta function for a grassmannian over a finite field.

http://www.math.mcgill.ca/goren/SeminarOnCohomology/GrassmannVarieties%20.pdf

From the zeta you see that it is rational, of course get the zeros (which are none), but you don't immediately get confirmation of the functional equation. Though, from the very simple combinatoric representation of the zeta function, it might be easy to prove directly, I will try with pen and paper later.

I'm glad I searched this, I didn't know the zeta was so simple in this case as well.

The first result on the google search "zeta function of grassmannian" seems to contain quite a direct and not too long derivation of the zeta function for a grassmannian over a finite field:

• http://www.math.mcgill.ca/goren/SeminarOnCohomology/GrassmannVarieties.pdf

From the zeta you see that it is rational, of course get the zeros (which are none), but you don't immediately get confirmation of the functional equation. Though, from the very simple combinatoric representation of the zeta function, it might be easy to prove directly, I will try with pen and paper later.

I'm glad I searched this, I didn't know the zeta was so simple in this case as well.