3
$\begingroup$

Hello,

I began to read a few weeks ago an article about automorphic L-functions in which a formula like $L(s,\pi\times\pi')=L(s,\pi)L(s,\pi')$ appeared. Unfortunately, I can't find it back. Could someone give me some reference? Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The identity $L(s,\pi \boxplus \pi')=L(s,\pi)L(s,\pi')$ is true, where $\boxplus$ indicates "isobaric sum" of automorphic representations (part of Langlands's theory of Eisenstein series). $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2011 at 5:43

1 Answer 1

9
$\begingroup$

As David Hansen says, Langlands proved that there is an automorphic representation (consisting of specific Eisenstein series) whose $L$-function is your right hand side. This representation is denoted by $\pi \boxplus \pi'$ and is called the isobaric sum of $\pi$ and $\pi'$, it mimics the direct sum of Galois representations. The notation $\pi\times\pi'$ or $\pi\otimes\pi'$ usually denotes the Rankin-Selberg convolution: it mimics the tensor product of Galois representations, and its $L$-function is not your right hand side.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. Indeed the notation that I used is incorrect, but I just couldn't remember the right one. And, as a matter of fact, that is why I wrote "like". Anyway it shows that the product of any two automorphic L-functions is again an automorphic L-function, am I wrong? $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2011 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the product of two automorphic $L$-functions is again automorphic. Moreover, any automorphic $L$-function has a unique maximal factorization into automorphic $L$-functions, and the factors correspond to cusp forms on possibly smaller groups. Actually, here I have automorphic representations of $\mathrm{GL}_n$ in mind (which produce the so-called principal $L$-functions), I don't know much about the general theory. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Jul 20, 2011 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ @paul: I will now delete my comment to your comment, so that you can delete your comment to my comment to your comment :) $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Jul 20, 2011 at 21:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ But another point: sometimes or often it is implicit that one is interested in whether a product L-function (from two cuspidal) is again itself cuspidal (as opposed to being "of course" attached to suitable Eisenstein series). This "cuspidal?" version of the question is much harder, but/and whenever answered affirmatively gives bounds, entireness, and such stuff that do not follow for L-functions attached to not-necessarily-cuspidal data. $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2011 at 23:20

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.