10
$\begingroup$

In this article by Katz and Tate here, there's a nice account of Dwork's argument for showing the rationality of the zeta function part of the Weil conjectures. Here is an excerpt.

To recapitulate, we now know that the zeta function as power series has integer coefficients and that it is the ratio of two $p$-adically entire functions. We also know the zeta function has a nonzero radius of archimedean convergence (since we have the trivial archimedean bound $N_d \le (q^d - 1)^n$). Bernie's third new idea is to generalize a classical but largely forgotten result of E. Borel to show that any power series with these three properties is a rational function. Thus he proves the rationality of the zeta function.

Can anybody give a sketch of the argument for this "third new idea"? What is the crux of the proof of Dwork's generalization of Borel's result that any power series with the aforementioned three properties is a rational function? What is the intuition behind the proof, what are the key steps that the proof boils down to?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The intuition is the product formula in number fields, which by Cauchy's derivative estimate implies immediately that the polynomials are the only $f(X) \in \mathbb{Z}[[X]]$ holomorphic in the $v$-adic disk of radii $R_v$ satisfying $\prod_v R_v > 1$. Borel's and Dwork's ideas were that the same persists with 'polynomial' and 'holomorphic' replaced by 'rational' and 'meromorphic,' which is a lot more interesting. You may find here a sketch (and reference) of Andre's extension to polydisks: mathoverflow.net/questions/206450/… $\endgroup$ Sep 23, 2016 at 17:48
  • $\begingroup$ @VesselinDimitrov Is it possible you could expand on this into a complete answer? $\endgroup$
    – user97565
    Sep 23, 2016 at 19:20
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Have you tried to read the proof anywhere first? Asking for the crux of the proof and the key steps without trying to read the proof seems backwards, particularly in this case when the proof is treated in multiple places. Besides Dwork's original paper (where the notation might seem unwieldy since it is not the notation used today) there is the last chapter of Koblitz's GTM on p-adic analysis and also chapter II of "An Introduction to $G$-Functions" by Dwork, Gerotto, and Sullivan. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Sep 26, 2016 at 0:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Terry Tao also has a very nice blog post terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/… $\endgroup$ Sep 26, 2016 at 13:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question seems to demand an awful lot which is not very well defined. Asking for someone to write an explanation is, in my view, significantly more vague than saying "I don't understand this part of Dwork's paper" or "is there a connection between Dwork's paper and these other things I've read about"? $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Sep 28, 2016 at 18:59

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Why don't you read Dwork's paper - it is quite clear (see p. 643)?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A downvote? Why? $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Sep 23, 2016 at 17:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I am not the down-voter, but it strikes me that answering a question with a one sentence pointer to a fairly obvious reference presumes that the OP has made no effort to find an answer to the question him or herself. If this is is the case (as it often is) then the question does not meet the standards laid out in the help center and it should be modified or closed. Otherwise the OP is looking for guidance or intuition which may not be easily found in the literature. In either case, the one sentence answer is not particularly helpful or constructive. $\endgroup$ Sep 26, 2016 at 1:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @PaulSiegel I thought Dwork was quite lucid in his paper (this is not always true in original references), which is why I gave a pointer to it. In addition, the argument is not so long. $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Sep 26, 2016 at 9:23
  • $\begingroup$ @PaulSiegel It isn't clear to me what guidance the OP is looking for; the OP wants an explanation, but doesn't say what requires explanation $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Sep 28, 2016 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi I'm inclined to agree with your assessment, but in that case the question should probably be rewritten or closed rather than answered. And if a good answer is possible it would probably not take the form of a one sentence pointer to the original paper. (Though I will concede to Igor Rivin that there are cases where that can be a good answer to a good question.) $\endgroup$ Sep 28, 2016 at 19:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.