-1
$\begingroup$

Selberg orthonormality conjecture for automorphic L-functions was proven under Ramanujan conjecture, and SOC itself implies unique factorization for those L-functions.

My question is: does the unique factorization imply a weakened form of Ramanujan conjecture? Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by unique factorization? $\endgroup$
    – Kimball
    Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 2:38
  • $\begingroup$ In terms of L-functions attached to automorphic irreducible cuspidal representations of $GL_{m}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 9:29
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean the decomposition of an isobaric representation into cuspidal constituents? Can you link to a paper that explains how SOC implies this unique factorization you mean? $\endgroup$
    – Kimball
    Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ Here it is: homepage.math.uiowa.edu/~yey/papers/unique3.pdf $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2015 at 11:00

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

This seems unlikely to me. Philosophically unique factorization means something like the following: if $R$ is a (say completely reducible) representation of a group $G$ then the trace of $R$ determines the irreducible constituent representations. This will be true if the characters satisfy an orthogonality relation. Selberg's orthogonality conjecture is roughly that the trace of $\pi \times \check \pi$ is small if $\pi \not \simeq \check \pi$, which is sufficient to get the unique factorization. In fact one can get by with a weaker version of this "small", which is what Liu and Ye do to prove "factorizations are unique" (though they don't prove that factorizations exist, which would be a big deal).

On the other hand, if you just start off knowing unique factorization (i.e., the trace of $R$ determines the irreducible constituents), this doesn't a priori imply orthogonality. (If it did, one would presumably be able to get Selberg's orthogonality conjecture.) It doesn't even seem to imply that the traces of $\pi \times \check \pi$ ($\pi \not \simeq \check \pi$) should be small. All it seems to imply is something like the irreducible characters of $G$ are linearly independent (so if $G$ were a finite group, they could be a priori just some random $\mathbb Z$-basis for the space of class functions (well, such that any group character is a non-negative integral linear combination of them)).

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .