Riemann'S Zeta Function and Beyond: Abstract
Riemann'S Zeta Function and Beyond: Abstract
Riemann'S Zeta Function and Beyond: Abstract
Abstract. In recent years L-functions and their analytic properties have as-
sumed a central role in number theory and automorphic forms. In this ex-
pository article, we describe the two major methods for proving the analytic
continuation and functional equations of L-functions: the method of integral
representations, and the method of Fourier expansions of Eisenstein series.
Special attention is paid to technical properties, such as boundedness in verti-
cal strips; these are essential in applying the converse theorem, a powerful tool
that uses analytic properties of L-functions to establish cases of Langlands
functoriality conjectures. We conclude by describing striking recent results
which rest upon the analytic properties of L-functions.
Contents
1. Introduction 2
The Two Methods 3
2. Riemann’s Integral Representation (1859) 4
2.1. Mellin Transforms of Theta Functions 5
2.2. Hecke’s Treatment of Number Fields (1916) 7
2.3. Hamburger’s Converse Theorem (1921) 8
2.4. The Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle and Convexity Bounds 10
3. Modular Forms and the Converse Theorem 12
3.1. Hecke (1936) 12
3.2. Weil’s Converse Theorem (1967) 16
3.3. Maass Forms (1949) 17
3.4. Hecke Operators 17
4. L-functions from Eisenstein Series (1962-) 18
4.1. Selberg’s Analytic Continuation 19
5. Generalizations to Adele Groups 21
6. Tate’s Thesis (1950) 22
7. Automorphic forms on GL(n) 24
7.1. Jacquet-Langlands (1970) 27
7.2. Godement-Jacquet (1972) 30
7.3. Jacquet-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shalika (1979) 31
8. Langlands-Shahidi (1967-) 32
8.1. An Outline of the Method 32
8.2. GL(2) Example 35
The first author was partially supported by the Minerva Foundation, and the second author
was supported by NSF grant DMS-0122799.
1. Introduction
In 1859 Riemann published his only paper1 in number theory, a short ten-page
note which dramatically introduced the use of complex analysis into the subject.
Riemann’s main goal was to outline the eventual proof of the Prime Number The-
orem
x
π(x) = # {primes p ≤ x} ∼ , x → ∞,
log x
log x
i.e. lim π(x) = 1,
x→∞ x
by counting the primes using complex integration (the proof was completed half
a century later by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin). Along this path he first
shows that his ζ-function, initially defined in the half-plane Re (s) > 1 by
∞
X 1 Y 1
ζ(s) = = ,
n=1
ns 1 − p1s
p (prime)
For more on the history of ζ and Riemann’s work, the reader may consult [15, 30,
36, 179]. Our role here is not so much to focus on the zeroes of ζ(s), but in some
sense rather on its poles. In particular, our emphasis will be on explaining how we
know that ζ(s) extends meromorphically to the entire complex plane, and satisfies
the functional equation
s
s
ξ(s) := π − 2 Γ ζ(s) = ξ(1 − s) .
2
It is one purpose of this paper to give two separate treatments of this assertion. We
want also to characterize the ζ-function as satisfying the following three classical
properties (which are simpler to state in terms of ξ(s), the completed ζ-function).
• Entirety (E): ξ(s) has a meromorphic continuation to the entire complex
plane, with simple poles at s = 0 and 1.
• Functional Equation (FE): ξ(s) = ξ(1 − s).
results of Riemann, Hecke, Selberg, and Weil, before their respective generalizations
to adele groups.
To wit, the paper is organized in three parts. The first, Sections 2-4, gives
the background on the classical theory: Section 2 discusses Riemann’s theory of
the ζ-function and its analytic properties; Section 3 focuses on Hecke’s theory of
modular forms and L-functions; and Section 4 centers on Selberg’s theory of non-
holomorphic Eisenstein series. The second part of the paper redescribes these topics
in more modern, adelic terms. Section 5 leads off with a short introduction to the
adeles. Sections 6, 7, and 8 then give a parallel discussion of the respective topics
of Sections 2, 3, and 4, but in a much more general context. Finally, the last part
of the paper is Section 9, where we recount some recent results and applications of
the analytic properties of L-functions. Sections 8 and 9 are quite linked, in that
many of the recent developments and analytic properties used in section 9 come
from the Langlands-Shahidi method, the topic of Section 8. However, the latter
is quite technical, and we have made an attempt to make Section 9 nonetheless
accessible without it.
A word is in order about what we don’t cover. Because our theme is the analytic
properties of L-functions, we have left out a couple of important and timely topics
that lie somewhat outside our focus. Chiefly among these are some developments
towards the Langlands conjectures, for example the work of Lafforgue [92] over
function fields. This is mainly because the analytic properties of L-functions in
the function field setting were long ago established by Grothendieck (see [79]), and
are of a significantly different nature. Some resources to learn more about these
additional topics include [1, 2, 4, 37, 43, 88, 102, 103, 105, 106, 146].
Before starting, we wish to thank J. Bernstein, J. Cogdell, A. Cohen, K. Conrad,
W. Duke, H. Dym, E. Lapid, A. Lubotzky, B. Mazur, S.J. Miller, A. Reznikov, B.
Samuels, P. Sarnak, G. Schectman, F. Shahidi, and the referee for many very helpful
comments.
which relates the sum over the integers of a function f and its Fourier transform
Z
(2.2) fb(r) = f (x) e−2 π i r x dx .
R
The Poisson summation formula is valid for functions f with suitable regularity
properties, such as Schwartz functions: smooth functions which, along with all
1
their derivatives, decay faster than any power of |x| as |x| → ∞. However, by
temporarily neglecting such details, one can in fact quickly see why the Poisson
summation formula implies the functional equation for ζ(s), at least on a formal
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 5
2
By applying Poisson summation to f (x) = e−π x t one thus obtains Jacobi’s
transformation identity
1
(2.9) θ(i t) = √ θ( ti ) ,
t
where
∞
1 X π i n2 τ 1 X 2
θ(τ ) = e = + eπin τ
2 2
n∈Z n=1
(more later in Section 3.1 on θ as a function of a complex variable for Im τ > 0).
Riemann then obtained an integral representation for ξ(s) = π −s/2 Γ( 2s )ζ(s) as
follows:
Z ∞
Γ(s) = ts−1 e−t dt , Re s > 0
0
∞ Z
X ∞
π −s Γ(s) ζ(2s) = (π n2 )−s ts−1 e−t dt , Re s > 1/2
n=1 0
Z ∞
= ts−1 (θ(it) − 21 ) dt
0
∞ 1 1
ts
Z Z
= t s−1 (θ(it) − 12 ) dt + ts−1 θ(it) dt −
1 0 2s 0
Z ∞ Z ∞
= ts−1 (θ(it) − 12 ) dt + t−s−1 θ( ti ) dt − 1
2s
1 1
Z ∞
1 1
= (ts−1 + t1/2−s−1 ) (θ(it) − 12 ) dt − − .
1 2s 1 − 2s
Indeed, replacing s by s/2, the above expression reads
Z ∞
− 2s 1 1 1
s
(2.10) π Γ( 2 ) ζ(s) = (ts/2−1 + t(1−s)/2−1 )(θ(it) − ) dt − − .
1 2 s 1 − s
The integral representation (2.10) allows us to conclude the main analytic properties
mentioned in the introduction:
Theorem 2.1. The function
s
ξ(s) = π − 2 Γ( 2s ) ζ(s)
satisfies properties E, BV, and FE of Section 1.
Proof: We first note that
∞ ∞
1 X 2 X e−π t
(2.11) θ(it) − = e−π n t ≤ e−π n t = = O(e−π t )
2 n=1 n=1
1 − e−π t
for t ≥ 1.2 Since
Z ∞ Z ∞
s −π t
|t e | dt ≤ t b e−π t dt < ∞
1 1
for Re s ≤ b, the integral in (2.10) converges – for any value of s – to an entire
function which is bounded for s in vertical strips. Thus ξ(s) is meromorphic with
2The notation A = O(B) indicates that there exists some absolute constant C > 0 such that
|A| ≤ C · B.
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 7
Two constraints must be made on the family: firstly that χ be trivial on F ∗ , i.e.
for any x ∈ F ⊂ Fv∗
Y
χ(x) = χv (x) = 1 ,
v
and secondly that all but a finite number of the χv be unramified, i.e. trivial
on {x ∈ Fv∗ | |x|v = 1}. If v is such an unramified place, corresponding to a
prime ideal P, χ(P) is defined as χv ($v ), where $v is an element of Fv such that
|$v |v = N P−1 (a “uniformizing parameter” for Fv ). This definition can of course
be extended to ordinary ideals U of OF , provided they are products of prime ideals
corresponding to places where χv is unramified. Hecke’s (abelian) L-series for the
character χ is then defined as the Dirichlet series
X χ(U) Y −1
(2.13) L(s, χ) = s
= 1 − χ(P) (N P)−s .
(N U)
P
Here U is summed over these ordinary ideals of OF just mentioned, and the product
is only over the prime ideals corresponding to these unramified places.
When χ is the trivial character,
P i.e., −sχv = 1 for all v, then L(s, χ) specializes to
be the Dedekind zeta-function (N U) of F . For F = Q this reduces to ζ(s),
and if χ is instead of finite order, LF (s, χ) becomes the Dirichlet L-function (2.12).
Using very clever and intricate arguments, Hecke was able to express his L-series in
terms of generalized “θ-functions”, and to then derive their analytic continuation,
functional equation, and boundedness in vertical strips, a la Riemann.
2.3. Hamburger’s Converse Theorem (1921). Now let us return to the Rie-
mann ζ-function. The next point of the theory is that the Functional Equation
for ζ(s) nearly characterizes it. Indeed, Hamburger [55] showed in 1921 that any
Dirichlet series satisfying ζ’s functional equation and suitable regularity conditions
is necessarily a constant multiple of ζ(s). We state Hamburger’s Theorem 2.4 at
the end of this section, but first begin by describing these conditions, which are
closely related to Boundedness in Vertical strips. In fact, our main motivation in
describing Hamburger’s theorem here is to explain the role of BV and the related
“finite order” conditions; in the modern picture, these are crucial for applications
involving the Converse Theorem (see Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 7.3).
Recall that property BV was stated earlier in terms of the function ξ(s) =
π −s/2 Γ( 2s )ζ(s). One may ask how the individual factors themselves behave as
|Im s| → ∞. Clearly
(2.14) |π −s/2 | = π −Re(s)/2 ,
while Stirling’s formula states that
√
|Γ(σ + it)| ∼ 2π |t|σ−1/2 e−π |t|/2 ,
(2.15)
uniformly for a ≤ σ ≤ b, |t| → ∞.
Yet the size of |ζ(s)| in the critical strip is quite difficult to pin down. In fact, one
of the central unsolved problems in analytic number theory is the following and its
generalizations.
The implied constant in the O-notation here depends implicitly on the value of
ε. In particular, |ζ(1/2 + it)| = O(|t|ε ) for |t| large (this case turns out to be
equivalent to (2.16) via the Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle, Proposition 2.5). The
Lindelöf Hypothesis is implied by the Riemann Hypothesis, and conversely implies
that very few zeros disobey it (see [176, §13]).
Note that by (2.14), (2.15), and the Functional Equation, the behavior for
Re (s) ≤ 1/2 is given by
1/2−σ
t
(2.17) |ζ(σ + it)| ∼ |ζ(1 − σ − it)| , σ fixed, |t| large.
2π
The Lindelöf conjecture is far out of reach, but we can easily prove (weaker) poly-
nomial bounds.
1
Proposition 2.2. ζ(s) − s−1 = O(|s|) for Re s ≥ 1/2.
Proof:
For Re s > 1,
∞ Z ∞
1 X
(2.18) ζ(s) − = n−s − x−s dx
s−1 n=1 1
X∞ Z n+1
(2.19) = (n−s − x−s ) dx .
n=1 n
√ 1 √ 1
(2.21) Γ(s) ∼ 2π e−s s s− 2 = 2π e−s+(s− 2 ) log s , Re s ≥ 1/2, |s| → ∞,
10 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
and hence Γ(s) = O(e M |s| log |s| ) for some M > 0. Thus by (2.14), (2.21), and
Proposition 2.2
M
s (s − 1) π −s/2 Γ( 2s ) ζ(s) = O(|s|3 e 2 |s| log |s| ).
log |s|
Since for any ε > 0, |s|ε → 0 as |s| → ∞, we conclude
1+ε
s (s − 1) π −s/2 Γ( 2s ) ζ(s) = O(e|s| ).
We note that s (s − 1) ξ(s) is not of any order ρ < 1, as can be seen from (2.14)
and (2.21) as s → ∞ along the real numbers – where ζ(s) is always greater than 1.
3
Theorem 2.4.P(Hamburger’s Converse Theorem )
∞ −s
P∞
Let h(s) = n=1 an n and g(s) = n=1 bn n−s be absolutely convergent for
Re s > 1, and suppose that both (s − 1)h(s) and (s − 1)g(s) are entire functions of
finite order. Assume the functional equation
s 1−s
(2.22) π − 2 Γ( 2s ) h(s) = π − 2 Γ( 1−s
2 ) g(1 − s) .
Then in fact h(s) = g(s) = a1 ζ(s).
This is the theorem which says that ζ(s) is uniquely determined by its func-
tional equation (subject to certain regularity conditions). Hamburger’s theorem
was greatly generalized and enlightened by Hecke approximately 15 years later.
We will in fact later show how to derive Theorem 2.4 from Hecke’s method (see the
discussion after Theorem 3.1.) See also [133, 138].
The original proof of Hamburger’s Theorem relies on the Mellin transform and
inversion formulas; that is, if
Z ∞
−s 1
(2.23) π Γ(s) ζ(2s) = ts−1 (θ(it) − ) dt ,
0 2
then
Z
1 1
t−s π −s Γ(s) ζ(2s) ds
(2.24) θ(it) − =
2 2πi Re(s) = c
for sufficiently large c > 0. Using the Phragmen-Lindelöf principle (Proposi-
tion 2.5), plus the regularity conditions of g(s) and h(s), one can fairly directly
show that every ak is equal to a1 ; that is, h(s) = a1 ζ(s). By the way, it is
of course known that (s − 1)ζ(s) is entire and of order 1. This is because both
s(s − 1)π −s/2 Γ(s/2)ζ(s) and sΓ(s/2)
1
are entire and of order 1 (Theorem 2.1).
2.4. The Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle and Convexity Bounds. A standard
fact from complex analysis, the Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle, can be used to obtain
estimates on ζ(s) in vertical strips from ones on their edges:
Proposition 2.5. (Phragmen-Lindelöf ). Let f (s) be meromorphic in the strip
U = {s | a ≤ Re (s) ≤ b}, a, b ∈ R, with at most finitely-many poles. Suppose that
f (s) satisfies the finite order inequality
A
f (s) = O e|s| , for some A > 0 ,
3Actually Hamburger proved a more general statement, allowing for an arbitrary, finite number
of poles (see [55],[176, p.31]).
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 11
The estimate (2.25) for ζ(s) has been improved many times over; however, for
general L-functions, the bounds given by the above argument are usually the best
known. Because (2.25) interpolates between the bounds at Re s = −1 − ε and ε,
results given by this argument are known as the convexity bounds for L-functions.
A very important problem is to improve these by breaking convexity; even slight
improvements to the convexity bounds for more general L-functions – still falling
far short of Lindelöf’s conjecture – have had many profound applications. Let’s
consider, for example, the possible ways of writing a positive integer as the sum of
three squares. Gauss’ famous condition asserts that the equation
(2.26) x2 + y 2 + z 2 = n
is solvable by some (x, y, z) ∈ Z3 if and only if n is not of the form 4a (8b + 7)
for some integers a, b ≥ 0 (see, for example, [160]). Linnik conjectured that the
solutions to (2.26) are randomly distributed in the sense that the sets
(x, y, z)
(2.27) Dn = √ x2 + y 2 + z 2 = n , x, y, z ∈ Z
n
become equidistributed in the sphere S 2 ⊂ R3 as n 6= 4a (8b + 7) increases. This
was in fact proven by W. Duke (see [32, 33, 67]), and can be shown to follow quite
12 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
These two equations say that θ(τ ) is a modular form of weight 21 for the group
generated by τ 7→ τ + 2 and τ 7→ − τ1 . More generally, a modular form of weight
k > 0 and multiplier condition C for the group of substitutions generated by τ 7→
τ + λ and τ 7→ − τ1 is a holomorphic function f (τ ) on the upper half plane satisfying
• (i) f (τ + λ) = f (τ ),
• (ii) f (− τ1 ) = C ( τi )k f (τ ), and
2πiτ P∞ 2πinτ
• (iii) f (τ ) has a Taylor expansion in e λ (cf. (i)): f (τ ) = n=0 an e λ ,
i.e., f is “holomorphic at ∞”.
We denote the space of such f by M (λ, k, C); f is a cusp form if a0 = 0. For
example, the space M (2, 12 , 1) is one dimensional, and consists of multiples of the
θ-function.
Now, given a sequence of complex numbers a0 , a1 , a2 , . . . with an = O(nd ) for
some d > 0, and given λ > 0, k > 0, C = ±1, set
∞
X an
(3.2) φ(s) = ,
n=1
ns
−s
2π
(3.3) Φ(s) = Γ(s) φ(s) ,
λ
and
∞
2πinτ
X
(3.4) f (τ ) = an e λ .
n=0
(The O-condition on the an ensures that φ(s) converges for Re s > d + 1, and that
2π
f (s) is holomorphic in the upper half plane. In fact, f (τ ) − a0 = O(e− λ Im τ ) –
see (2.11).)
Theorem 3.1. (Hecke’s Converse Theorem) The following two conditions are
equivalent:
(A) Φ(s) + as0 + Ca
k−s is an entire function which is bounded in vertical strips
0
−1
(s − k)φ(s) = (s − k)( 2π s
λ ) Γ(s) Φ(s) is also entire and of order 1 (cf. the end of
Section 2.3). The functional equation
2s−k
2π Γ(k − s)
φ(s) = C φ(k − s)
λ Γ(s)
shows that
(3.8) |φ(σ + it)| = O(t2c−k ) , σ = k −c < 0
just as in the proof of Lemma 2.1. We conclude from the Phragmen-Lindelöf Princi-
ple (Proposition 2.5) that φ(s) is O(|Im s|K ) for some K, uniformly as |Im s| → ∞
in the strip k − c ≤ Re s ≤ c. Since this growth is at most polynomial, the expo-
nential decay from Stirling’s formula (2.15) gives us that Φ(σ + it) decays faster
than any polynomial in |t| as |t| → ∞, uniformly for σ in the interval [k − c, c].
Thus the integrals
Z c+ir Z c−ir
x−s Φ(s) ds , x−s Φ(s) ds −→ 0 , as r → ∞ ,
k−c+ir k−c−ir
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 15
Then
1 ∞ 1
ts
Z Z
i
ts−1 (f (it) − a0 ) dt = t−s−1 f ( ) dt − a0
0 1 t s 0
Z ∞
a0 C a0
= C tk−s−1 (f (it) − a0 ) dt − − .
1 s k−s
Thus
Z ∞
a0 C a0
Φ(s) + + = [ts−1 (f (it) − a0 ) + tk−s−1 C(f (it) − a0 )] dt .
s k−s 1
This expression is clearly EBV, and Φ(s) = C Φ(k − s) (just as in the proof of
Theorem 2.1), whence (A).
By reducing a question about Dirichlet series to one about modular forms, The-
orem 3.1 represents a great step forward from Riemann’s treatment of ζ. In par-
ticular, it puts his original argument into a very useful and fruitful context. Note
that a specified type of Dirichlet series is connected to any modular form satisfying
aτ + b
f = (cτ + d)k f (τ )
cτ + d
for
(3.9)
a b a b
∈ SL(2, Z) = a, b, c, d ∈ Z , a d − b c = 1 ,
c d c d
−1
the group of substitutions generated by τ → τ + 1 and τ → τ .
16 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
3.2. Weil’s Converse Theorem (1967). A. Weil in 1967 completed Hecke’s the-
ory by similarly characterizing modular forms for congruence subgroups, such as
a b
(3.10) Γ0 (N ) = ∈ SL(2, Z) c ≡ 0 (mod N ) .
c d
(These subgroups in general have many generators, whereas Hecke’s Theorem deals
with modular forms only for the groups generated by τ 7→ τ + λ and τ 7→ − τ1 .)
Weil’s breakthrough was to twist the series φ(s) by Dirichlet characters. Recall from
Section 2.2 that a Dirichlet character modulo r is a periodic function χ : Z → C
which is completely multiplicative (i.e. χ(nm) = χ(n)χ(m)), and satisfies
χ(1) = 1 , χ(n) = 0, if (n, r) > 1.
Given a Dirichlet character χ modulo r and a proper multiple r0 of r, one may form
a Dirichlet character χ0 modulo r0 by setting
(
χ(n) , (n, r0 ) = 1,
χ0 (n) =
0 , otherwise.
Such a character χ0 obtained this way is termed imprimitive, and one which is not,
primitive. The importance of primitive characters is that their functional equations
are simpler (see [30]). Weil’s converse theorem gives a condition for modularity
under Γ0 (N ) in terms of the functional equations of Dirichlet series twisted by
primitive characters:
Theorem
P∞ 3.2. (Weil [178]) Fix positive integers N and k, and suppose L(s) =
−s
n=1 an n satisfies the following conditions:
• (i) L(s) is absolutely convergent for Re s sufficiently large;
• (ii) for each primitive character χ of modulus r with (r, N ) = 1,
∞
X
Λ(s, χ) = (2π)−s Γ(s) an χ(n) n−s
n=1
Note that the trivial character (with χ(n) ≡ 1) is primitive, so the statement
includes the L-functions used in Theorem 3.1. Property (iii) is certainly satisfied if
L(s) is the L-function of a modular form, as can be shown using a slight variant of
Hecke’s argument used in proving Theorem 3.1. For the obvious reason, we refer
to this Theorem as “Weil’s converse to Hecke Theory”. For a proof, see [10], [68],
or [125].
3.4. Hecke Operators. The Euler product structure of the Riemann ζ-function
has an analog for modular form L-functions through Hecke operators. For any
positive integer n, the Hecke operator
1 X X az + b
(3.14) Tn (f )(z) = ak f
n d
ad = n 0≤b<d
It is not difficult to show that Gk (z) is a holomorphic modular form of weight k for
SL(2, Z). Via a Poisson summation argument over m one can obtain the Fourier
expansion
∞
2(2π i)k X
(4.2) Gk (z) = 2 ζ(k) + σk−1 (n) e2 π i n z ,
(k − 1)! n=1
(see [160, Section 7.5.5] for details). The appearance of ζ(k) here is the first example
of a very general phenomena, which ultimately leads to the Langlands-Shahidi
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 19
method (Section 8). In the next section, we will describe the generalized non-
holomorphic Eisenstein series considered by Selberg, and their connection to the
analytic properties of the Riemann ζ-function throughout the complex plane – not
just at special integral values alone.
for z ∈ H and σ = Re s > 1. This series converges absolutely and uniformly in any
compact subset of the region Re s > 1, and is the first example of a non-holomorphic
Eisenstein series. Very importantly, E(z, s) is unchanged by the substitutions z 7→
az+b
cz+d coming from any matrix in (3.9). Selberg considers the problem of analytically
continuing E(z, s) with respect to s to obtain another functional equation, as we
shall now explain. (Actually, Selberg had several different arguments to do this,
but they mainly appeal to spectral theory to obtain the important properties of
analytic continuation and functional equation of Eisenstein series.)
To motivate the statement of the functional equation, let us first consider the
Fourier expansion of E(z, s). It is given by
X
(4.4) E(z, s) = E(x + i y , s) = am (y, s) e 2 π i m x
m∈Z
2πix
where e(x) = e , and
Z 1
am (y, s) = E(x + iy, s) e−2 π i m x dx .
0
We shall need here only the coefficients a0 and a1 . If one computes directly for
Re s > 1, using the “Bruhat decomposition”4 for SL(2, Z) and recalling (3.13), one
obtains
and
√
y Ks− 21 (2 π |n| y)
(4.6) an (y, s) = 2 |n|s−1 σ1 − 2 s (n) ,
π −s Γ(s) ζ(2s)
with
(A Misleading) Proof: Theorem 2.1 and (4.5-4.6) can then be applied to show
that each term in the Fourier expansion
X
E(z, s) = an (y, s) e 2 π i n x
n∈Z
is meromorphic and satisfies the functional equation (4.7). The sum converges
rapidly because Ks (y) decays exponentially as y → ∞. Hence the whole sum is
meromorphic on C, and satisfies (4.7).
ξ(s0 ) = ξ(1 − s0 ) ,
exactly the Functional Equation for ζ(s0 ). Incidentally, the same analysis applied
to the general Fourier coefficient an (y) from (4.6) does not give any additional
information (this is because the extra factor |n|s−1 σ1−2s (|n|) already obeys the
functional equation). Boundedness in Vertical strips is another matter, which we
will return to in Section 8.3. Selberg’s work on GL(2) was extended by Langlands
[95, 97] to cover Eisenstein series on general groups, where the analysis is much
more difficult. This forms the basis of the Langlands-Shahidi method, the topic of
Section 8.
such that all but finitely many ap lie in Zp . Similarly the ideles A∗ are the restricted
direct product of all Q∗p with respect to Z∗p . Addition and multiplication are defined
componentwise in A and A∗ . The rational numbers embed diagonally into the ring A
and play a fundamental role, which will become apparent shortly when it appears in
Tate’s thesis. The adeles, or more properly the ideles, themselves have an absolute
value; its value on a in (5.3) is
Y
|a|A = |ap |p .
p≤∞
Note that this is actually a finite product, because almost all ap have absolute
value equal to one, a theme which underlies many adelic concepts. The diagonally-
embedded Q∗ consists of the ideles with |a|A = 1.
The above construction can be generalized to an arbitrary number field – or even
“global field” – F to obtain its adele ring AF (see [93, 142]). Most constructions in-
volving AQ generalize to AF , though we will mainly focus on F = Q for expositional
ease. Adeles are usually viewed much more algebraically and with much greater
emphasis on their topology (which we have hardly touched); our intention here is
rather to give enough background to illuminate their effectiveness in analysis.
Let us recall Riemann’s integral from Section 2, after a harmless change of vari-
ables:
Z ∞ X 2 2
(6.1) ξ(s) = π −s/2 Γ( 2s ) ζ(s) = xs e−π n x d∗ x .
0 n6=0
Tate instead considers the sum over Z − {0} as an integral over a disconnected
group. In order to keep the flexibility of treating more general sums, he instead
essentially integrates the characteristic function of Z over a much larger set in his
generalized ζ-integral
Z
(6.2) ζ(f, c) = f (a) c(a) d∗ a .
AQ ∗
b∗
Now fp ((na)p ) ≡ 1 for all p < ∞, and so the integrand is independent of the Z
factor, which has volume 1 under the Haar measure. Now (6.5) amounts to
Z ∞ X 2 2
(6.6) |a∞ | s e−π n a∞ d∗ a∞ ,
0 n6=0
i.e. (6.1). Thus Tate’s and Riemann’s integrals match for ζ(s).
24 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
At the same time, the global integral on the lefthand side of (6.4) factors as a
product
Y Z Z YZ
s ∗ −π|x|2 s dx
(6.7) fp (x) |x|p d xp = e |x| · |xp |sp d∗ xp .
Q∗ R |x| p Zp
p≤∞ p
The integral over R gives π −s/2 Γ( 2s ), and the p-adic integral may actually be broken
up over the “shells” pk Z∗p = {|xp |p = p−k }, k ≥ 0, to give the geometric series
P∞ −k s
k=0 p = (1 − p−s )−1 . This gives the Euler product formula for ζ(s), along
with its natural companion factor π −s/2 Γ( 2s ) for p = ∞ – in other words, the
completed Riemann ξ-function.
We should note that the role of the adelic absolute value (and in particular that
its value is 1 on Q) corresponds to the change of variables x 7→ x/n in the classical
picture. In general for a global field F , we may write the quasi-character c(a) in
the form c0 (a)|a|s , where c0 : A∗ → C∗ is a character of modulus 1. Then c0 (a)
corresponds to χ, a “Hecke character” for F (Section 2.2), and ζ(f, c) differs from
Y −1
LF (s, χ) = 1 − χ(P) (N P)−s
P
(where P now runs over all prime ideals of F ) by only a finite number of factors.
In this idelic setting, Tate uses a Fourier theory and Poisson summation formula
on the ring of adeles A, and proves the elegant functional equation
(6.8) ζ( f , c ) = ζ( fb, b
c),
where fb is the “adelic Fourier transform” of f and b c(a) = c0 (a)|a|1−s . The func-
tional equation for LF (s, χ) may be extracted from this. To illustrate with our
example of the Riemann ζ-function, recall that we had taken c0 to be identically
equal to 1, and in fact our f = fb, so that
s
Y
ζ(f0 , | · |s ) = π − 2 Γ( 2s ) (1 − p−s )−1 = ξ(s) .
p
The functional equation FE is then immediate from (6.8). Tate’s method of course
also yields the Entirety and Boundedness in Vertical strips.
az+b
a b
• f cz+d = (cz + d)k f (z) for all ∈Γ
c d
• f (z) has a Fourier expansion f (z) = n≥0 cn e2 π i n z . In addition f is a
P
cusp form if c 0 = 0.
The above definition of course extends to more general groups Γ, such as the con-
gruence subgroups in (3.10). Before considering f as a function on GL(2, A), we
must first explain how to consider f as a function on GL(2, R), or even SL(2, R).
Indeed, there is a correspondence between holomorphic modular forms f of weight k
for Γ\H, and certain functions F on Γ\SL(2, R) defined via the following relations:
a b ai + b
F = f (c i + d)−k ,
c d ci + d
(7.1) √
1 x y
f (x + i y) = y −k/2 F √ .
1 1/ y
(We leave matrix entries blank if they are zero.) The key reason for this correspon-
dence is that H is isomorphic to the quotient SL(2, R)/SO(2, R). For more details
and a precise characterization of F , see [10] or [40].
Aside from the holomorphic modular forms, the most significant automorphic
forms on H are the non-holomorphic Maass forms: non-constant, L2 Laplace eigen-
functions on the quotient Γ\H. We described these in Section 3.3. Because of
the identification H ∼= SL(2, R)/SO(2, R), Maass forms can directly be viewed as
functions on Γ\SL(2, R).
Now that we view the holomorphic and Maass modular forms on the group
G = SL(2, R), wide generalizations are possible, and techniques from representa-
tion theory may be applied. The group G acts on L2 (Γ\G) by the right regular
representation, which is translation on the right:
(7.2) [ρ(g)f ](h) = f (hg) .
The study of automorphic forms on Γ\G now becomes understanding the decom-
position of the very large (and highly reducible) representation ρ into irreducible
components. This is the starting point for the notion of “automorphic representa-
tion,” but for that we first need to delve more into the arithmetic nature of Γ, and
consider G adelically.
In addition to the action on the right, left-translation by rational matrices is
very important in many constructions in automorphic forms. We have, therefore,
also the left regular representation:
(7.3) [λ(g)f ](h) = f (g −1 h) ,
which maps L2 (Γ\G) to L2 (gΓg −1 \G). In general this moves automorphic forms for
one congruence subgroup Γ to those on a conjugate, which may be wildly different.
For this reason it is natural to act on the left only by rational matrices g, so that
the conjugate of Γ is still closely related to a congruence subgroup.5 In fact, many
fundamental constructions (such as Hecke operators) require action by rational
matrices g which lie in GL(2, Q), but not SL(2, Q). It is for this reason that
we will consider adelic automorphic forms on GL(2, A), not SL(2, A), though a
theory exists for that group as well. Because GL(2, R) is one dimension larger than
SL(2, R), we technically need to consider L2ω (ZΓ\GL(2, R)) where Z is the center of
5See [113] for a thorough explanation.
26 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
This was proven by Mordell [119], and nowadays we understand the factorization as
being equivalent to the assertion that ∆ is an eigenfunction of the Hecke operators
(3.14) from Section 3.4 – in particular, this is (3.15).
Let us now explain the connection between the arguments of Jacquet-Langlands
and of Hecke. Our starting point is the Fourier expansion of a modular or Maass
form φ(x + iy) in the variable x, in which it is periodic (with period 1 in the case
of SL(2, Z), as we shall now consider). Recall that if φ is a holomorphic cusp form
of weight k,
∞
X
(7.10) φ(z) = cn e 2 π i n z .
n=1
Similarly for a Maass form we have the Fourier expansion (3.12). Up to constants
(and a factor of y k/2 in the holomorphic case, like in (7.1)), we may write these
expansions as
X an
(7.11) 1/2
W (2 π n y) e2 π i n x ,
n6=0
|n|
cn
where as before an = in the holomorphic case, and
n(k−1)/2
k/2 −y
y e , φ holomorphic,
(7.12) W (y) = p
|y| Kν (|y|) , φ a Maass form.
In Section 7 we saw how both holomorphic and Maass forms can be viewed as
functions on GL(2, R). With this point of view we can write the corresponding
function, up to constants, as
X an
n
(7.13) F (g) = W g ,
|n|1/2 1
n6=0
where
1 x y1
(7.14) W k = e2 π i n x W (2 π y1 /y2 ) .
1 y2
(Here the matrix k on the lefthand side is orthogonal; all matrices in GL(2) can be
written in that form according to the Iwasawa decomposition.) This W (g) is called
a “Whittaker” function in connection with the special functions it is related to. It
satisfies a transformation law on the left:
1 u
(7.15) W g = e2 π i u W (g) ,
1
and thus can be obtained from the integral
Z 1
1 u
(7.16) W (g) = F g e−2 π i u du .
0 1
The adelic method of Jacquet and Langlands involves incorporating the coeffi-
cient an into a cognate Whittaker function which generalizes the properties (7.15)
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 29
and (7.16). Consider now the adelized version FA of F defined in (7.5-7.7), and
define its adelic Whittaker function
Z
1 u
(7.17) WA (gA ) = FA gA ψ(−u) du , gA ∈ GL(2, A) ,
Q\A 1
where ψ is a non-trivial character of A that is trivial on the subgroup Q (which
we recall is diagonally embedded into A). The measure du is normalized to give
Q\A measure 1. The definition depends on the precise choice of character, but all
∗
non-trivial characters can be written for some q ∈ Q , and this q can
as ψ(qu)
q
be absorbed into gA via the matrix ; changing variables does not affect
1
the measure since the adelic absolute value |q|A = 1. The result is that FA can be
reconstructed from WA via the succinct formula
X q
(7.18) FA (gA ) = WA gA ,
∗
1
q∈Q
where each Wp obeys a transformation law similar to (7.15). In fact, just as with
the Iwasawa decomposition in (7.14), the local Whittaker functions depend only on
diagonal matrices, and actually their value there is related to the original Fourier
pk
coefficient by W = apk . This last fact underlies the connection between
1
(7.11) and (7.18): the extra adelic variables encode the value of the Fourier coeffi-
cients; these are very often zero, notably when k < 0 and the subscript is no longer
an integer. This is why the sum over Q, which appears to be much larger, actually
corresponds to the sum over Z.
Jacquet and Langlands use this theory beautifully to write the global L-function
as
Z
a s−1/2 ∗
(7.20) Λ(s) = FA |a|A d a.
Q∗ \A∗ 1
This
has afunctional equation s 7→ 1 − s, owing to the invariance of W under
−1
, just as in Hecke’s argument. Now by substituting (7.18) and collapsing
1
the common Q∗ from the quotient and sum together (“unfolding”), the integral
(7.21) Z
a s−1/2 ∗
Y Z ap
Λ(s) = WA |a|A d a = Wp |ap |ps−1/2 d∗ ap
A ∗ 1 Q∗ 1
p≤∞ p
splits as a product of local integrals. The ones for p < ∞ separately give the local
factors of an Euler product which represents the Dirichlet series for Hecke’s L-
function L(s), and the integral for p = ∞ gives the corresponding Γ-functions L(s)
must be multiplied by in order to have a clean functional equation. This is entirely
30 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
analogous to the situation in Tate’s thesis after (6.7), and the computations are
deep down identically those needed for the classical treatment in Section 3. Details
can be found in [10, 48, 72].
We should emphasize that the method is far more general and has strong ad-
vantages in its local precision, in that it gives a very satisfactory treatment of the
contribution to the functional equation by each prime. Also the technique works
for congruence subgroups, as well as over general global fields. Just as Tate’s thesis
understood Riemann’s ζ-function in terms of A∗ = GL(1, A), Jacquet-Langlands
subsumed the theory of modular forms and their L-functions through GL(2, A).
Subsequently, efforts were underway to provide a similar theory for general groups,
most notably GL(n, A).
7.2. Godement-Jacquet (1972). Tate (see Section 6) redid Hecke (Section 2.2)
by using adeles, developing a Poisson summation formula, and working with
Z
ζ(f, c) = f (a) c(a) d∗ a .
A∗
R. Godement and H. Jacquet [49] generalized Tate by working with GL(n) for
arbitrary n instead of GL(1). In particular, they proved that the global, completed
L-functions of automorphic forms on GL(n) satisfy properties E, BV and FE of
Section 1 (actually their integral representation for GL(2) is completely different
than Jacquet-Langlands and Hecke).
We shall not pursue this avenue here, but will briefly describe the L-functions
of cusp forms on GL(n). Recall how after (7.8) we renormalized the coefficients
of Ramanujan’s ∆-form by a factor of n(k−1)/2 . This can be carried out for any
holomorphic cusp form f of weight k for SL(2, Z), resulting in an Euler product of
the same form as (7.9). Writing ap = αp + αp−1 , the Euler product factors further
as
Y
(7.22) L(s, f ) = (1 − αp p−s )−1 (1 − αp−1 p−s )−1 .
p
The preceding expression is called a degree two Euler product because of its two
p−s )−1 .
Q
factors, in comparison with the degree one Euler product ζ(s) = p (1 −
The L-functions of cusp forms φ for GL(n, AQ ) are Euler products of degree n,
n
YY
(7.23) L(s, φ) = (1 − αp,j p−s )−1 .
p j=1
where the µj are special complex parameters related to π (for example, the ν
from Maass forms in (3.12)), and ΓR (s) = π −s/2 Γ(s/2) is again the factor which
distinguishes ξ(s) from ζ(s). The completed L-function,
(7.25) Λ(s, φ) = L∞ (s, φ) L(s, φ)
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 31
is Entire (unless n = 1 and Λ(s, φ) = ζ(s)), Bounded in Vertical strips, and satisfies
the Functional Equation
(7.26) Λ(s, φ) = w Q1/2 − s Λ(1 − s, φ̃) .
Here w is a complex number of modulus one, the “conductor” Q is a positive integer
(related to the congruence subgroup φ comes from), and φ̃ is the “contragredient”
automorphic form to φ (coming from the automorphic representation dual to φ’s).
The notion of contragredient does not really rear its head in the previous topics we
have covered, but is a feature of the more general functional equations.
8. Langlands-Shahidi (1967-)
This section is meant for readers having some familiarity with Lie groups, but
it can be skipped without loss of continuity. References include [3, 7, 44, 56, 118,
166, 167]. Our purpose here is to describe the general method of obtaining analytic
properties of L-functions from Eisenstein series, generalizing Selberg’s method for
ζ(s) in Section 4.1. Many of the applications in Section 9 are based upon properties
yielded by the Langlands-Shahidi method.
The theory of Eisenstein series was widened by Langlands to more general Lie
groups in [95, 97]; in particular Langlands proved the analytic continuation and
functional equations that were useful in Selberg’s proof of the analytic properties
of ζ(s). In his Yale monograph [96], Langlands considered the constant terms of
the completely general Eisenstein series. This time, a wide variety of (generalized)
L-functions appeared; his analysis gives their meromorphic continuation. The cal-
culations involved are quite complicated and are performed adelically; they led
Langlands to define the L-group and ultimately to the formulation of his functori-
ality conjectures.
Recall the example of GL(2) from Section 4.1 (which we will reconsider through
group representations and adeles in Section 8.2). There, analysis of the constant
term and first Fourier coefficient already sufficed for the analytic continuation and
functional equation of ζ(s) via Selberg’s method. Langlands proposed studying the
non-trivial Fourier coefficients in general, and Shahidi has now worked that the-
ory out ([161–168]) along with Kim and others. In general it has been a difficult
challenge to prove the L-functions arising in the constant terms and Fourier coeffi-
cients are entire. The analytic continuation of Eisenstein series typically gives the
meromorphic continuation to C, except for a finite number of poles on the real axis
between 0 and 1; these come from points where the Eisenstein series themselves are
not known to be holomorphic. A recent breakthrough came with a clever observa-
tion of H. Kim: the residues of the Eisenstein series at these potential singularities
are L2 , non-cuspidal automorphic forms, and – as in Section 7 – give rise to unitary
representations that can be explicitly described by the Eisenstein series they came
from. Kim remarked that results about the classification of irreducible unitary rep-
resentations show that many of these potential representations do not exist, thus
allowing one to conclude the holomorphy of the Eisenstein series at these points in
question! When combined with [162, 164], this has recently led to new examples of
entire L-functions (more on this in Section 9).
8.1. An Outline of the Method. The following is a brief sketch of the main
points of the method; a fuller introduction with more definitions and detailed ex-
amples can be found in [166]. Detailed examples of constant term calculations can
be found in many places, e.g. [44, 96, 100, 114]. Though it is possible to describe the
method without adeles (as was done in Section 4.1), their use is key in higher rank
for factoring infinite sums and product expansions into L-functions. Because the
Langlands-Shahidi method utilizes various algebraic groups, we will have to assume
some familiarity with the basic concepts. For this reason we include an example of
the GL(2) case in Section 8.2.
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 33
Let F be a global field, A = AF its ring of adeles, and G a split algebraic group
over F . Much carries over to quasi-split case as well, and we will highlight the
technical changes needed for this at the end. Fix a Borel (= a maximal connected
solvable) subgroup B ⊂ G, and a standard maximal parabolic P ⊃ B defined over
F .7 Decompose B = T U, where T is a maximal torus. The parabolic can be also
decomposed as P = M N , where the unipotent radical N ⊂ U , and M is the unique
Levi component containing T . Denote by L G,L M,L N, etc. the Langlands dual
L-groups (see [166] for definitions).
One of the key aspects of this method is that it uses many possibilities of parabol-
ics of different groups G, especially exceptional groups. This is simultaneously a
strength (in that there is a wide range of exotic possibilities) and a limitation (in
that there are only finitely many exceptional groups).
8.1.1. Cuspidal Eisenstein Series. Recall that an automorphic form in L2 (Γ\G)
is associated to a (unitary) automorphic representation of G. Let π = ⊗v πv be
a cuspidal automorphic representation of M (A); we may assume that almost all
components πv are spherical unitary representations (meaning that they have a
vector fixed by G(Ov ), where Ov is the ring of integers of the local field Fv ). For
these places v the equivalence class of the unitary representation πv is determined
by a semisimple conjugacy class tv ∈ L G, the L-group. This conjugacy class is used
to define the L-functions below in (8.3). The finite number of exceptional places
are where π ramifies.
A maximal parabolic subgroup P has a modulus character δP , which is the ratio
of the Haar measures on M ·N and N ·M . It is related to the simple root of G which
does not identically vanish on P . For any automorphic form φ in the representation
space of π, we can define the Eisenstein series
X
(8.1) E(s, g, φ) = φ(γg) δP (γg)s
γ∈P (F )\G(F )
7The theory has an extension to non-maximal parabolic subgroups, but this does not yield any
extra information about L-functions. This matches the fact that the Eisenstein series for maximal
parabolic subgroups depend on one complex variable, as do L-functions.
34 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
Here qv is the cardinality of the residue field of Fv , a prime power. The full, com-
pleted, L-function involves extra factors for the places in S, whose definition is
technical and in general difficult. This is connected to the local Langlands cor-
respondence, proven recently by Harris and Taylor for GL(n) and by Jiang and
Soudry for SO(2n + 1) (see [14, 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 78, 101]). When ρ is the standard
representation of L GL(n) = GL(n) and F = Q, the Euler factors in (8.3) agree
with those in (7.23); in general the degree of LS (s, π, ρ) equals the dimension of ρ.
8.1.3. The Constant Term Formula. The constant term formula involves the sum
of two terms. The first, which only occurs when the parabolic P is its own opposite
P 0 , is φ(g)δP (g)s – simply the term in (8.1) for γ = the identity matrix. Langlands
showed that the map from φ to the second term is described by an operator
m
Y L(a j s , π̃ , r j ) ⊗v∈S A(s, πv ) ,
(8.4) M (s, π) =
j=1
L(1 + aj s , π̃ , r j )
where the A(s, πv ) are a finite collection of operators, r the adjoint action of L M
on the lie algebra of L N , r1 , . . . , rm the irreducible representations it decomposes
into, and aj integers which are multiples of each other (coming from roots related
to the rj ). The variety of decompositions of r is what gives this method much of its
power for treating complicated L-functions. See [166] for a fuller discussion, along
with an example for the Lie group G2 and the symmetric cube L-function. Tables
listing Lie groups and the representations rj occurring for them can be found in
[96] and [163], for example.
8.1.4. The Non-Constant Term: Local Coefficients. We must now make a further
restriction on the choice of π involved, namely that it be generic, i.e. have a
Whittaker model. This means that if ψ is a generic unitary character of U (F )\U (A),
we need to require
Z
W (g, ψ) = φ(ng) ψ(n) dn 6= 0 , UM = U ∩ M
UM (F )\UM (A)
for some φ and g (we have already seen this notion in (7.17) and (7.27)).
Shahidi’s formula uses the Casselman-Shalika formula for Whittaker functions
(see [18, 171]) to express the following non-constant term at the identity g = e as
Z m
Y 1 Y
(8.5) E(s, ne, φ) ψ(n) dn = · Wv (e) ,
N 0 (F )\N 0 (A) j=1
L(1 + aj s , π̃ , rj )
v∈S
for a certain choice of φ. Applying the functional equation of the Eisenstein se-
ries (which has the constant-term ratio involved), one gets the “crude” functional
equation for the product of m L-functions
m
Y m
Y Y
(8.6) LS (aj s , π̃ , rj ) = LS (1 − aj s , π , rj ) · (local factors) .
j=1 j=1 v∈S
Shahidi’s papers [162] and [164] match all the local factors above to the desired
L-functions (cf. the remark after (8.3)). This gives the full functional equation for
these m L-functions, but only when multiplied together. His 1990 paper [164] uses
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 35
8.1.5. Analytic Properties and the Quasi-Split Case. It still remains to prove that
the L-functions are entire, except perhaps at s = 0 and 1 (where the order of the
poles is understood, like for ξ(s)). The theory of Eisenstein series provides this
full analyticity for the L-functions arising in the constant term unless π satisfies a
self-duality condition; even in this case, it can be shown that the L-functions have
only a finite number of poles, all lying on the real axis between 0 and 1. Kim’s
observation of using the unitary dual has worked in many cases to eliminate this
possibility. It is also always possible to remove the potential poles by twisting by
a highly-ramified GL(1) character of AF ; this has been crucial for applications to
functoriality through the converse theorem [25–27], which we come to in Section 9.
The main difference in the quasi-split case is that the action of the Galois group
GF is no longer trivial. The L-groups are potentially disconnected, inasmuch as
they are semi-direct products of a connected component with GF . Also, the repre-
sentation ρ used to define the Langlands L-functions in (8.3) may also depend on
the place v.
8.2. GL(2) Example. Here we reconsider the ζ-function example from Section 4.1,
but in the framework of the Langlands-Shahidi method. In this setting, the Eisen-
stein series on G = GL(2) is defined by
X
(8.7) E(s, g, f ) = f (γg) ,
γ∈B(Q)\G(Q)
x a
where M = P = P 0 = B = ⊂ G is the Borel subgroup/minimal
b
parabolic (GL(2) is too small a group to afford other interesting choices). The
Eisenstein series formed from π are related to the representations induced from π,
from M (A) to G(A). In (8.7) we may absorb the factor δPs into f by taking a
G(A)
vector in the induced representation I(s) = IndB(A) |a|s , which roughly speaking is
the space of functions
a x s+1
f : G(A) → C f g = |a| f (g) .
a−1
The Eisenstein series (8.7) converges for Re(s) sufficiently large. In fact, we may
choose our f ∈ I(s) so that E(s, g, f ) reduces to just the classical Eisenstein series
E(z, 1+s
2 ) considered in Section 4.1. To do this, we take f to be identically 1 on
K = O(2, R) × p<∞ GL(2, Zp ), and use the fact B(Q)\G(Q) ' B(Z)\G(Z)8;
b Q
8Classically speaking, this isomorphism comes from the decomposition of any rational matrix
g ∈ GL(2, Q) as g = bu, b ∈ B(Q), u ∈ GL(2, Z). The resulting indexing of B(Z)\G(Z) via
rational matrices gives powerful insight into how to arrange the summands of the Eisenstein series
into a computationally-useful form.
36 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
For an elliptic curve E defined over the rational numbers, this L-series, called
the Hasse-Weil L-function L(s, E), is defined by counting points on E over varying
finite fields. Here 1 + p − ap is the number of points on the reduced curve modulo
p, and L(s, E) is defined by the Euler product in (3.15) with k = 2, except for
a finite number of exceptional prime factors (see [172]). The resemblance to the
L-functions of holomorphic modular forms of weight 2 is the springboard for the
celebrated “Modularity Conjecture” of Taniyama, Shimura, and Weil, which was
recently proven in [181], [175], and [12]. It asserts that L(s, E) = L(s, f ), the L-
function of some holomorphic cusp form f of weight 2 on Γ0 (N ), where N is a subtle
invariant (the “conductor”) calculable from the arithmetic of the curve.9 Since
the L-functions of modular forms are known to be entire through Hecke’s theory
(Section 3.1), we therefore now know that the Hasse-Weil L-functions of rational
elliptic curves are entire. Among other things, this gives a definition of L(s, E) at
the center of its critical strip, where the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture asserts
deep relations with arithmetic ([5, 54, 90]).
One might ask if the modularity of an elliptic curve might be proved using Weil’s
Converse Theorem 3.2. Unfortunately, this route requires one to know that the
Hasse-Weil L-functions are entire beforehand, which at present seems far beyond
reach. Thus the prospect of proving entirety and applying the Converse Theorem
to these arithmetic L-functions seems to be begging the question. However, it is
an interesting fact the Converse Theorem on GL(3) (proven in 1979 by Jacquet,
Piatetski-Shapiro, and Shalika) [73] does enter into the proof of the Modularity
Conjecture, as it had been earlier used to establish a key step: the Langlands-
Tunnell Theorem [99, 177].
Furthermore the Converse Theorem (in the form developed by Piatetski-Shapiro
and Cogdell, e.g. [27], Theorem 9.1) has had remarkable success towards the Lang-
lands Program in a different aspect. Roughly speaking, the Langlands conjectures
assert correspondences between automorphic forms on different groups. When
starting with an automorphic form, it is often possible to prove the Entirety,
Boundedness in Vertical strips, and Functional Equations of the (twisted) L-
functions the Converse Theorem requires. This has led to very significant progress,
especially on liftings of automorphic forms on GL(n) to GL(m), n < m. In particu-
lar, the recent breakthroughs of Kim and Shahidi (cf. [23, 82, 85–87] and Section 8),
and also of Lafforgue ([37, 92, 105]), have proven many important new examples
of Langlands “Functoriality”, by showing certain L-functions are entire and then
appealing to the Converse Theorem of Cogdell and Piatetski-Shapiro ([27]). Unfor-
tunately the precise statements connected to the use of the Converse Theorem are
quite technical and complicated, and so we will just make do with a less-technical
(but still very useful) version of the Converse Theorem in Theorem 9.1. We will
then summarize the main applications in Section 9.3. In short the basic idea, which
can also been see through the standard functoriality conjectures of Langlands, is
the following: any Langlands L-function (8.3) – of any automorphic form, on any
group, over any field – should itself be the L-function of an automorphic form on
GL(n, AQ ). So GL(n, AQ ) is speculated to the mother of all automorphic forms,
9Weil’s contribution [178] to the conjecture is closely related to Theorem 3.2: in fact his
prediction of modularity on Γ0 (N ), N being the conductor of E, comes from a comparison of
the expected functional equations of Hasse-Weil L-functions with the exact form of (3.11) in
Theorem 3.2.
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 39
and its offspring L-functions are already known to have an analytic continuation
and functional equation.
9.2. Examples of Langlands L-functions: Symmetric Powers. To get the
full statements of the Langlands conjectures, one requires even more than the def-
initions of the Langlands L-functions from (8.3). For simplicity and the benefit of
readers who have skipped Section 8, we will explain the relevant L-functions here
in the everywhere-unramified case, which corresponds to cusp forms on GL(n, R)
invariant under GL(n, Z).
Recall the Euler product for the L-function of a modular form f from (7.22); this
formula is also valid for the Maass forms from Section 3.3, of course provided they
are eigenforms of all the Hecke operators Tp . To better highlight the symmetries
involved (as well as to allow for more generality), let us introduce the parameter
βp = αp−1 and rewrite (7.22) as
Y
(9.1) L(s, f ) = (1 − αp p−s )−1 (1 − βp p−s )−1 .
p
Langlands has defined higher degree Euler products from L(s, f ) called the sym-
metric k-th power L-functions:
k
YY
(9.2) L(s, Symk f ) = (1 − αpj βpk−j p−s )−1 .
p j=0
New Euler products may be taken using symmetric combinations of the αp,j above
(the individual αp,j chiefly have meaning only in the context of their aggregate
{αp,j }1≤j≤n ). In addition to the symmetric powers for GL(2), there are symmetric
and exterior powers for GL(n):
Y Y
(9.4) L(s, π, Symk ) = (1 − αp,i1 αp,i2 · · · αp,ik p−s )−1
p i1 ≤i2 ≤···≤ik
Y Y
(9.5) L(s, π, Extk ) = (1 − αp,i1 αp,i2 · · · αp,ik p−s )−1 .
p i1 <i2 <···<ik
in analogy with the classical constructions [143, 155] for GL(2) (see [9]). There is a
complementary theory for Γ-factors and completed, global Langlands L-functions
as well. The general Langlands construction is in terms of finite dimensional repre-
sentations of L-groups (Section 8.1.2); in particular, they can be repeated in various
configurations. Now, thanks to the recent proof of the local Langlands correspon-
dence by Harris and Taylor for GL(n) [14, 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 101], the definitions at
the ramified places can be made also. Langlands’ deep conjectures, in these cases
here, assert that each of the L-functions defined above is in fact the L-function of
some automorphic form on some GL(d), where d is the degree of the Euler product
in each case (i.e. the number of factors occurring for each prime). Or, in other
words, if his symmetric-looking Euler products look like the Euler product of an
automorphic form as in (9.3), they probably are!
9.3. Recent Examples of Langlands Functoriality (2000-). To continue, we
now wish to focus on the examples of Langlands’ lifting mentioned above. We will
describe various lifts which start with automorphic forms on GL(n), and create
automorphic forms on some GL(m), m > n. Though many examples of Lang-
lands functoriality are known in various types of cases, this class is very analytic
and has largely been unapproachable without using the types of analytic proper-
ties of L-functions that we have come across in this paper. When considered as
correspondences between eigenfunctions one space and another, the lifts below are
quite stunning theorems in harmonic analysis, made possible by a deep use of the
arithmetic of GL(n, Z).
Having explained the tensor product L-function (9.7), we can now state a version
of the converse theorem (in practice, slightly weaker assumptions are often used, as
well as analogs over different number fields):
Theorem 9.1. (GL(n) × GL(n − 2) Converse Theorem – [27])
Consider the Euler product L(s, π) (9.3), and assume that it is convergent for
Re s sufficiently large. Suppose that L(s, π) along with all possible tensor product L-
functions L(s, π ⊗ τ ), for τ an arbitrary cuspidal automorphic form on GL(m, AQ ),
1 ≤ m ≤ n−2, satisfy Entirety, Boundedness in Vertical strips, and the Functional
Equation. Then L(s, π) is in fact the L-function of a cuspidal automorphic form
on GL(n, AQ ).
Of course, in this statement we have not described the global L-function (e.g.
Γ-factors) whose analytic properties we are describing, but it is similar to the ones
from Section 3.1. Needless to say, Theorem 9.1 is a generalization of Theorem 3.2.
When n = 3, it is an earlier theorem of Jacquet-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shalika [73]. To
use the Converse Theorem to establish lifting to GL(n), one still needs to show that
various tensor product L-functions obey the analytic conditions it requires. Such
properties are themselves very difficult assertions in their own right, and progress
has been hard won. We shall now describe the established lifts from GL(n) to
GL(m) that were mentioned at the end of the last subsection.
The first such example is the symmetric square lift Sym2 : GL(2) → GL(3), the
so-called Gelbart-Jacquet lift [41]. Because it is the simplest of these to explain,
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 41
Theorem 9.2. The following instances of Langlands functoriality are known. That
is, in each case there are automorphic forms on the target GL(n) whose standard
L-functions agree with the Langlands L-functions on the source group (cf. Sec-
tion 9.2):
• Gelbart-Jacquet [41]. Sym2 : GL(2) → GL(3).
• Ramakrishnan [140]. Tensor Product: GL(2) × GL(2) → GL(4).
• Kim-Shahidi [85, 86]. Tensor product: GL(2) × GL(3) → GL(6).
• Kim-Shahidi [85, 86]. Sym3 : GL(2) → GL(4).
• Kim [82, 85]. Ext2 : GL(4) → GL(6) weakly automorphic (bad at 2 and 3).
• Kim [82, 85]. Sym4 : GL(2) → GL(5).
• Cogdell-Kim-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shahidi [23,24]: Weak functoriality to GL(n)
for generic cusp forms on split classical groups.
The notion of “weak” automorphy means that an automorphic form on the target
GL(n) exists whose L-function matches the desired Euler product – but except
perhaps for a finite number of factors. Much more about these results can be found
in these references, and also the ICM lectures [22, 168]. Ramakrishnan’s result
used an integral representation for a triple-product L-function ([39, 58, 66, 134]),
but can also now be proven using the Langlands-Shahidi method ([82]). The last
example mentioned here is a lift from generic cuspidal automorphic forms on SO(n)
or Sp(2n) to some GL(m) (see [22–24, 168]). A differing “descent method” (i.e.
studying the opposite direction of the lift) of Ginzburg, Rallis, and Soudry [47] can
be used to establish the lifts of [23, 24] in strong form; in other words, the adjective
“weak” can be removed from the last assertion of Theorem 9.2.
Of course Langlands’ conjectures go far beyond these examples involving only
GL(n) over a number field. Other routes, through theta liftings (see [2, 106]) and
the Arthur-Selberg trace formula (see [1,43,89]), have also provided many instances
of Langlands Functoriality. In particular, the trace formula is in some sense the
most successful when successful, in that it gives a very complete description and
characterization of the lifts it treats. Nevertheless, the full force of Langlands’
Conjectures seem absolutely beyond current technology (see [104] for intriguing
comments by Langlands on the limitations of the trace formula). We shall not
describe these nor the exact formulations of the Converse Theorem here, though
we hope we have transmitted the flavor of the arguments and technical analytic
properties such as EBV which have put these recent results in grasp.
42 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
[50, 69, 70, 148, 158]. The sizes of the an and eigenvalue parameter ν, along with
their distributions, are very important in many instances; in the remainder of this
section, we will describe the role of the analytic properties of L-functions in gleaning
some of this information.
9.4.1. Progress towards the Ramanujan and Selberg conjectures. Recall Ramanu-
jan’s ∆ form, defined in (7.8). We mentioned that Ramanujan conjectured a bound
on the normalized coefficients an of his ∆ form, a bound which has a natural gen-
eralization to the coefficients of modular forms of any weight, and to Maass forms
as well.
Conjecture 9.3. (Ramanujan Conjecture) Let φ(x + iy) be either a holomorphic
cusp form of weight k with Fourier coefficients cn = an n(k−1)/2 as in (7.10), or
a Maass form with Fourier coefficients an as in (3.12). Then an = O(|n|ε ) for
any ε > 0 (of course the implied constant in the O-notation here may depend on
ε). When φ is a Hecke eigenform and a1 is normalized to be 1, then equivalently
|ap | ≤ 2.
This conjecture was proven in the holomorphic case by Deligne [31] in 1974, but
remains open for Maass forms.
Years later after Ramanujan, Selberg made a separate conjecture about the size
of the parameter ν that enters into the Fourier expansion of Maass forms. It is
related to the Laplace eigenvalue by λ = 1/4 − ν 2 . Selberg conjectured
Conjecture 9.4. (Selberg, 1965 [158]) Let λ > 0 be the Laplace eigenvalue of a
Maass form for Γ\H, where Γ is a congruence subgroup of SL(2, Z). Then λ ≥ 41
(equivalently, ν is purely imaginary).
Selberg was originally motivated by questions involving cancellation in sums of
Kloosterman sums, but his question is a deep one about the nature of the Rie-
mann surfaces Γ\H. Their volumes grow to infinity as their index increases, and
one would naively expect an accumulation of small Laplace eigenvalues. However,
Selberg predicts a barrier at λ = 41 . This has implications for the geometry of
Γ\H: intuitively, small eigenvalues are a measure of how close a surface is to being
disconnected, since, after all, the multiplicity of the eigenvalue λ = 0 is the number
of disconnected components. These ideas have played a crucial role in the devel-
opment of expander graphs: discrete combinatorial networks which have relatively
few edges connecting their vertices, but which are extremely difficult to disconnect
by removing only a moderate number of edges. See [107, 108, 112, 124, 148, 150]. By
the way, Maass forms with eigenvalue exactly equal to 14 are known to exist, and
in fact they will play a role later at the end of this section. So Selberg’s conjecture,
if true, is sharp!
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 43
9.4.2. The distribution of the Hecke eigenvalues, Sato-Tate. Having seen that the
Hecke eigenvalue parameters αp for a GL(2) modular, Hecke eigenform should lie
on the unit circle in the complex plane, we now turn to their distribution over
this circle as p varies. The question has its origin in conjectures and investigations
made independently by Sato and Tate [174] for the ap of rational elliptic curves
(Section 9.1). Namely, if we consider the phase of αp , i.e. the angle θp such that
ap = 2 cos θp , the θp ∈ [0, π] should be equidistributed with respect to the measure
2 2
π sin θ dθ. This means that
Z β
#{ α < θp < β | p ≤ X} 2 2
(9.10) lim = sin θ dθ ;
X→∞ #{ p ≤ X} α π
when viewed in terms of the ap themselves, √ the conjecture states that a histogram
1
of the ap is governed by the distribution 2π 4 − x2 , which looks like a semi-circle
(really, semi-ellipse) between −2 and 2 of area 1. The Sato-Tate semi-circle measure
occurs in many contexts; here it is related to the Weyl integration formula, which
weighs the relative sizes of conjugacy classes in SL(2, R). This conjecture is not
meant to be valid for all elliptic curves (nor, by extension, to all modular forms
via Wiles et al), but instead only for the “typical” (i.e. non-CM) elliptic curve.
In the other cases, the distribution is much simpler and the desired results are
known (see [159]). Regardless, the Sato-Tate conjecture is expected to also hold
for most modular and Maass forms, as we shall see shortly. See [98, p.210] for a
generalization to GL(n).
As in nearly all distributional questions in number theory, an equivalent formu-
lation of the Sato-Tate conjecture can be made in terms of the moments
X
(9.11) Sm (X) := am
p .
p≤X
Z 2
1 X 1 p
(9.13) lim P (ap ) = P (x) 4 − x2 dx = 1 .
X→∞ π(X) 2π −2
p≤X
Here P (x) = x2 (4 − x2 )(x2 − 1), a sixth degree polynomial which vanishes at the
integers {−2, −1, 0, 1, 2}, and is negative at all others; a contradiction arises because
the righthand side is positive. As a result, one obtains the first algebraicity result
in the subject of Maass forms:
46 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
Theorem 9.7. (Sarnak [152]) Let φ be a Maass form for Γ\H as in (3.12) with
integral coefficients. Assume φ is a Hecke eigenform. Then φ arises from a Galois
representation, and in particular the Laplace eigenvalue of φ is 14 (i.e. ν = 0).
Conjecture 9.8. (See [17]) Let φ be a Maass form which has Laplace eigenvalue
1
4 . Does φ necessarily arise from a Galois representation?
Conjecture 9.9. (Cartier, [16]) Is the Laplace spectrum of Maass forms for SL(2, Z)\H
simple? In other words, can there be two linearly-independent Maass forms on
SL(2, Z)\H sharing the same eigenvalue?
References
[1] James Arthur, The principle of functoriality, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 40 (2002), 39–53
(electronic), Mathematical challenges of the 21st century (Los Angeles, CA, 2000). 1 943 132
[2] James Arthur and Stephen Gelbart, Lectures on automorphic L-functions, L-Functions and
Arithmetic (Durham, 1989), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 153, Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp. 1–59. MR 92j:11045
[3] Joseph Bernstein, Meromorphic Continuation of Eisenstein Series, IAS/Park City Lecture
Notes, Park City, Utah, 2002.
[4] Joseph Bernstein and Stephen Gelbart (eds.), An Introduction to the Langlands Program,
Birkhauser, 2003.
[5] B. J. Birch and H. P. F. Swinnerton-Dyer, Notes on elliptic curves. II , J. Reine Angew.
Math. 218 (1965), 79–108. MR 31 #3419
[6] Andrew Booker, Poles of Artin L-functions and the strong Artin conjecture, Ann. of Math.
(2), to appear.
http://www.math.princeton.edu/~arbooker/papers.
[7] Armand Borel, Automorphic forms on SL2 (R), Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 130,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, ISBN 0-521-58049-8. MR 98j:11028
[8] Daniel Bump, Automorphic forms on GL(3, R), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1083,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984, ISBN 3-540-13864-1. MR 86g:11028
[9] , The Rankin-Selberg method: a survey, Number Theory, Trace Formulas and Discrete
Groups (Oslo, 1987), Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1989, pp. 49–109. MR 90m:11079
[10] , Automorphic forms and representations, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathe-
matics, vol. 55, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, ISBN 0-521-55098-X. MR
97k:11080
[11] Daniel Bump and David Ginzburg, Symmetric square L-functions on GL(r), Ann. of Math.
(2) 136 (1992), 137–205. MR 93i:11058
[12] Christophe Breuil, Brian Conrad, Fred Diamond, and Richard Taylor, On the modularity
of elliptic curves over Q: wild 3-adic exercises, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (2001), 843–939
(electronic). MR 2002d:11058
[13] Farrell Brumley, Maass cusp forms with quadratic integer coefficients, Int. Math. Res. Not.
(2003), 983–997. 1 962 012
[14] Henri Carayol, Preuve de la conjecture de Langlands locale pour GLn : travaux de Harris-
Taylor et Henniart, Astérisque (2000), Exp. No. 857, 4, 191–243, Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol.
1998/99. MR 2001i:11136 (French, with French summary)
[15] Pierre Cartier, Des nombres premiers à la géométrie algébrique (une brève histoire de la
fonction zéta), Analyse diophantienne et géométrie algébrique, Cahiers Sém. Hist. Math.
Sér. 2, vol. 3, Univ. Paris VI, Paris, 1993, pp. 51–77. MR 94i:11060 (French)
[16] P. Cartier, Some numerical computations relating to automorphic functions. (English), Com-
puters in Number Theory, Proc. Atlas Sympos. No.2, 1971, pp. 37–48.
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 47
[17] W. Casselman, GLn , Algebraic Number Fields: L-Functions and Galois Properties (Proc.
Sympos., Univ. Durham, Durham, 1975), Academic Press, London, 1977, pp. 663–704. MR
58 #27777
[18] W. Casselman and J. Shalika, The unramified principal series of p-adic groups. II. The
Whittaker function, Compositio Math. 41 (1980), 207–231. MR 83i:22027
[19] J. Brian Conrey, The Riemann hypothesis, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 50 (2003), 341–353. 1
954 010
[20] Laurent Clozel, Spectral Theory of Automorphic Forms, IAS/Park City Lecture Notes, Park
City, Utah, 2002.
[21] J. W. Cogdell, L-functions and Converse Theorems for GL(n), IAS/Park City Lecture Notes,
Park City, Utah, 2002,
http://www.math.okstate.edu/~cogdell/.
[22] J. W. Cogdell and I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro, Converse theorems, functoriality, and applica-
tions to number theory, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol.
II (Beijing, 2002), Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2002, pp. 119–128. 1 957 026
[23] J. W. Cogdell, H. H. Kim, I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro, and F. Shahidi, On lifting from classical
groups to GLN , Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. (2001), 5–30. MR 2002i:11048
[24] , Functoriality for the classical groups, preprint.
[25] J. W. Cogdell and I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro, Converse theorems for GLn , Inst. Hautes Études
Sci. Publ. Math. (1994), 157–214. MR 95m:22009
[26] , A converse theorem for GL4 , Math. Res. Lett. 3 (1996), 67–76. MR 97d:22019
[27] , Converse theorems for GLn . II , J. Reine Angew. Math. 507 (1999), 165–188. MR
2000a:22029
[28] Paul Cohen and Peter Sarnak, Notes on Eisenstein Series, Stanford University, 1980.
[29] J. B. Conrey and D. W. Farmer, An extension of Hecke’s converse theorem, Internat. Math.
Res. Notices (1995), 445–463. MR 96i:11101
[30] Harold Davenport, Multiplicative number theory, 3rd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics,
vol. 74, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000, ISBN 0-387-95097-4, Revised and with a preface
by Hugh L. Montgomery. MR 2001f:11001
[31] Pierre Deligne, La conjecture de Weil. I , Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1974), 273–
307. MR 49 #5013 (French)
[32] W. Duke, Hyperbolic distribution problems and half-integral weight Maass forms, Invent.
Math. 92 (1988), 73–90. MR 89d:11033
[33] , Rational points on the sphere, Ramanujan Journal, Rankin Volume, to appear.
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~duke.
[34] W. Duke, J. Friedlander, and H. Iwaniec, Bounds for automorphic L-functions, Invent. Math.
112 (1993), 1–8. MR 94c:11043
[35] W. Duke and H. Iwaniec, Estimates for coefficients of L-functions. I , Automorphic Forms
and Analytic Number Theory (Montreal, PQ, 1989), Univ. Montréal, Montreal, QC, 1990,
pp. 43–47. MR 92f:11068
[36] H. M. Edwards, Riemann’s zeta function, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY, 2001, ISBN
0-486-41740-9, Reprint of the 1974 original [Academic Press, New York; MR 57 #5922]. MR
2002g:11129
[37] Edward Frenkel, Recent advances in the Langlands program, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/
math/pdf/0303/0303074.pdf.
[38] Wee Teck Gan, Benedict Gross, and Gordan Savin, Fourier coefficients of modular forms on
G2 , Duke Math. J. 115 (2002), 105–169. 1 932 327
[39] Paul B. Garrett, Decomposition of Eisenstein series: Rankin triple products, Ann. of Math.
(2) 125 (1987), 209–235. MR 88m:11033
[40] Stephen S. Gelbart, Automorphic forms on adèle groups, Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton, N.J., 1975, Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 83. MR 52 #280
[41] Stephen Gelbart and Hervé Jacquet, A relation between automorphic representations of
GL(2) and GL(3), Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 11 (1978), 471–542. MR 81e:10025
[42] Stephen Gelbart, An elementary introduction to the Langlands program, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. (N.S.) 10 (1984), 177–219. MR 85e:11094
[43] , Lectures on the Arthur-Selberg trace formula, University Lecture Series, vol. 9, Amer-
ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996, ISBN 0-8218-0571-1. MR 98d:22017
48 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
[44] Stephen Gelbart and Freydoon Shahidi, Analytic properties of automorphic L-functions,
Perspectives in Mathematics, vol. 6, Academic Press Inc., Boston, MA, 1988, ISBN 0-12-
279175-4. MR 89f:11077
[45] , Boundedness of automorphic L-functions in vertical strips, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 14
(2001), 79–107 (electronic). MR 2003a:11056
[46] David Ginzburg and Stephen Rallis, The exterior cube L-function for GL(6), Compositio
Math. 123 (2000), 243–272. MR 2001j:11025
[47] David Ginzburg, Stephen Rallis, and David Soudry, Generic automorphic forms on SO(2n +
1): functorial lift to GL(2n), endoscopy, and base change, Internat. Math. Res. Notices
(2001), 729–764. MR 2002g:11065
[48] Roger Godement, Notes on Jacquet-Langlands’ theory, The Institute for Advanced Study,
1970, (mimeographed notes).
[49] Roger Godement and Hervé Jacquet, Zeta functions of simple algebras, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1972, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 260. MR 49 #7241
[50] D. Goldfeld and P. Sarnak, Sums of Kloosterman sums, Invent. Math. 71 (1983), 243–250.
MR 84e:10037
[51] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of integrals, series, and products, 5th ed., Academic
Press Inc., Boston, MA, 1994, ISBN 0-12-294755-X, Translation edited and with a preface by
Alan Jeffrey. MR 94g:00008
[52] Benedict H. Gross, Algebraic modular forms, Israel J. Math. 113 (1999), 61–93. MR
2001b:11037
[53] Benedict H. Gross and Stephen S. Kudla, Heights and the central critical values of triple
product L-functions, Compositio Math. 81 (1992), 143–209. MR 93g:11047
[54] Benedict H. Gross and Don B. Zagier, Heegner points and derivatives of L-series, Invent.
Math. 84 (1986), 225–320. MR 87j:11057
[55] H. Hamburger, Über die Funktionalgleichung der ζ-Funktion, Math. Z., 10 (1921), 240 –258,
11 (1921), 224 –245, 13 (1922), 283 –311.
[56] Harish-Chandra, Automorphic forms on semisimple Lie groups, Notes by J. G. M. Mars.
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 62, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1968. MR 38 #1216
[57] Michael Harris, On the local Langlands correspondence, Proceedings of the International
Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Beijing, 2002), Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2002, pp. 583–
597. 1 957 067
[58] Michael Harris and Stephen S. Kudla, The central critical value of a triple product L-function,
Ann. of Math. (2) 133 (1991), 605–672. MR 93a:11043
[59] Michael Harris and Richard Taylor, The geometry and cohomology of some simple Shimura
varieties, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 151, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
2001, ISBN 0-691-09090-4, With an appendix by Vladimir G. Berkovich. MR 2002m:11050
[60] Erich Hecke, Mathematische Werke, 3rd ed., Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1983,
ISBN 3-525-40729-7, With introductory material by B. Schoeneberg, C. L. Siegel and J.
Nielsen. MR 86a:01049 (German)
[61] , Lectures on Dirichlet series, modular functions and quadratic forms, Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1983, ISBN 3-525-40727-0, Edited by Bruno Schoeneberg; With the
collaboration of Wilhelm Maak. MR 85c:11042
[62] Guy Henniart, Une preuve simple des conjectures de Langlands pour GL(n) sur un corps p-
adique, Invent. Math. 139 (2000), 439–455. MR 2001e:11052 (French, with English summary)
[63] , Sur la conjecture de Langlands locale pour GLn , J. Théor. Nombres Bordeaux 13
(2001), 167–187, 21st Journées Arithmétiques (Rome, 2001). MR 2002f:11178 (French)
[64] G. Henniart, Progrés rècents en fonctorialitè de Langlands, Seminaire Bourbaki Exposé
890 (Juin 2001), 890-1 to 890-21.
[65] Guy Henniart, Une caractérisation de la correspondance de Langlands locale pour GL(n),
Bull. Soc. Math. France 130 (2002), 587–602. 1 947 454 (French)
[66] Tamotsu Ikeda, On the gamma factor of the triple L-function. I , Duke Math. J. 97 (1999),
301–318. MR 2000a:11080
[67] Henryk Iwaniec, Fourier coefficients of modular forms of half-integral weight, Invent. Math.
87 (1987), 385–401. MR 88b:11024
[68] , Topics in classical automorphic forms, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 17,
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997, ISBN 0-8218-0777-3. MR 98e:11051
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 49
[69] , Spectral methods of automorphic forms, 2nd ed., Graduate Studies in Mathematics,
vol. 53, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002, ISBN 0-8218-3160-7. 1 942
691
[70] H. Iwaniec and P. Sarnak, Perspectives on the analytic theory of L-functions, Geom. Funct.
Anal. (2000), 705–741, GAFA 2000 (Tel Aviv, 1999). MR 2002b:11117
[71] Hervé Jacquet, Dirichlet series for the group GL(n), Automorphic Forms, Representation
Theory and Arithmetic (Bombay, 1979), Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Studies in Math., vol. 10,
Tata Inst. Fundamental Res., Bombay, 1981, pp. 155–163. MR 83j:10032
[72] H. Jacquet and R. P. Langlands, Automorphic forms on GL(2), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970,
http://sunsite.ubc.ca/DigitalMathArchive/Langlands/JL.html. MR 53 #5481
[73] Hervé Jacquet, Ilja Iosifovitch Piatetski-Shapiro, and Joseph Shalika, Automorphic forms on
GL(3)., Ann. of Math. (2) 109 (1979), 169–258. MR 80i:10034b
[74] H. Jacquet, I. I. Piatetskii-Shapiro, and J. A. Shalika, Rankin-Selberg convolutions, Amer. J.
Math. 105 (1983), 367–464. MR 85g:11044
[75] Hervé Jacquet and Joseph A. Shalika, A non-vanishing theorem for zeta functions of GLn ,
Invent. Math. 38 (1976/77), 1–16. MR 55 #5583
[76] H. Jacquet and J. A. Shalika, On Euler products and the classification of automorphic rep-
resentations. I , Amer. J. Math. 103 (1981), 499–558,
http://www.jstor.org/view/00029327/di994444/99p0113q/0. MR 82m:10050a
[77] Hervé Jacquet and Joseph Shalika, Exterior square L-functions, Automorphic Forms,
Shimura Varieties, and L-Functions, Vol. II (Ann Arbor, MI, 1988), Perspect. Math., vol. 11,
Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1990, pp. 143–226. MR 91g:11050
[78] D. Jiang and D. Soudry, Generic representations and local Langlands reciprocity law for
p-adic SO2n+1 ( 2001), preprint.
[79] N. M. Katz, The work of Pierre Deligne, Proceedings of the International Congress of Math-
ematicians (Helsinki, 1978), Acad. Sci. Fennica, Helsinki, 1980, pp. 47–52. MR 82g:01060
[80] D. Kazhdan, B. Mazur, and C.-G. Schmidt, Relative modular symbols and Rankin-Selberg
convolutions, J. Reine Angew. Math. 519 (2000), 97–141. MR 2001j:11026
[81] Henry H. Kim, Langlands-Shahidi method and poles of automorphic L-functions: application
to exterior square L-functions, Canad. J. Math. 51 (1999), 835–849. MR 2000f:11058
[82] , Functoriality for the exterior square of GL4 and the symmetric fourth of GL2 , J.
Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), 139–183 (electronic),
http://www.ams.org/jourcgi/jour-getitem?pii=S0894034702004101. 1 937 203
[83] , Applications of Langlands’ functorial lift of odd orthogonal groups, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 354 (2002), 2775–2796 (electronic). MR 2003c:22025
[84] Henry H. Kim and Freydoon Shahidi, Symmetric cube L-functions for GL2 are entire, Ann.
of Math. (2) 150 (1999), 645–662. MR 2000k:11065
[85] , Functorial products for GL2 × GL3 and functorial symmetric cube for GL2 , C. R.
Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 331 (2000), 599–604. MR 2002i:11049 (English, with English
and French summaries)
[86] , Functorial products for GL2 × GL3 and the symmetric cube for GL2 , Ann. of Math.
(2) 155 (2002), 837–893, With an appendix by Colin J. Bushnell and Guy Henniart. 1 923
967
[87] , Cuspidality of symmetric powers with applications, Duke Math. J. 112 (2002), 177–
197. MR 2003a:11057
[88] A. W. Knapp, Introduction to the Langlands program, Representation Theory and Auto-
morphic Forms (Edinburgh, 1996), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 61, Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 245–302. MR 99d:11123
[89] A. W. Knapp and J. D. Rogawski, Applications of the trace formula, Representation Theory
and Automorphic Forms (Edinburgh, 1996), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 61, Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 413–431. MR 98j:11105
[90] V. A. Kolyvagin and D. Yu. Logachëv, Finiteness of the Shafarevich-Tate group and the group
of rational points for some modular abelian varieties, Algebra i Analiz 1 (1989), 171–196.
MR 91c:11032 (Russian)
[91] Tomio Kubota, Elementary theory of Eisenstein series, Kodansha Ltd., Tokyo, 1973. MR
55 #2759
[92] Laurent Lafforgue, Chtoucas de Drinfeld et correspondance de Langlands, Invent. Math. 147
(2002), 1–241. MR 2002m:11039 (French)
50 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
[93] Serge Lang, Algebraic number theory, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 110,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994, ISBN 0-387-94225-4. MR 95f:11085
[94] , Complex analysis, 4th ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 103, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1999, ISBN 0-387-98592-1. MR 99i:30001
[95] R. P. Langlands, Eisenstein series, Algebraic Groups and Discontinuous Subgroups (Proc.
Sympos. Pure Math., Boulder, Colo., 1965), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1966,
pp. 235–252,
http://sunsite.ubc.ca/DigitalMathArchive/Langlands/automorphic.html#esboulder.
MR 40 #2784
[96] Robert P. Langlands, Euler products, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1971,
http://sunsite.ubc.ca/DigitalMathArchive/Langlands/automorphic.html#
eulerproducts. MR 54 #7387
[97] , On the functional equations satisfied by Eisenstein series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1976,
http://sunsite.ubc.ca/DigitalMathArchive/Langlands/automorphic.html#esspringer.
MR 58 #28319
[98] R. P. Langlands, Automorphic representations, Shimura varieties, and motives. Ein
Märchen, Automorphic Forms, Representations and L-Functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.,
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 2, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979, pp. 205–246. MR 83f:12010
[99] Robert P. Langlands, Base change for GL(2), Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 96,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1980, ISBN 0-691-08263-4, 0-691-08272-3,
http://sunsite.ubc.ca/DigitalMathArchive/Langlands/basechange.html#book. MR
82a:10032
[100] R. P. Langlands, Eisenstein series, the trace formula, and the modern theory of automor-
phic forms, Number Theory, Trace Formulas and Discrete Groups (Oslo, 1987), Academic
Press, Boston, MA, 1989, pp. 125–155,
http://sunsite.ubc.ca/DigitalMathArchive/Langlands/endoscopy.html#oslo. MR
90e:11077
[101] , On the classification of irreducible representations of real algebraic groups, Repre-
sentation Theory and Harmonic Analysis on Semisimple Lie Groups, Math. Surveys Monogr.,
vol. 31, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989, pp. 101–170. MR 91e:22017
[102] Robert P. Langlands, Where stands functoriality today? , Representation Theory and Au-
tomorphic Forms (Edinburgh, 1996), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 61, Amer. Math. Soc.,
Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 457–471. MR 99c:11140
[103] , The trace formula and its applications: an introduction to the work of James
Arthur , Canad. Math. Bull. 44 (2001), 160–209. MR 2002e:22024
[104] Robert Langlands, Beyond endoscopy, Contributions to Automorphic Forms, Geometry
and Number Theory: Shalika Fest 2002 ( Haruzo Hida Dinakar Ramakrishnan Freydoon
Shahidi, eds.), to appear.
[105] Gérard Laumon, La correspondance de Langlands sur les corps de fonctions (d’après Lau-
rent Lafforgue), Astérisque (2002), 207–265, Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 1999/2000. MR
2003b:11052 (French)
[106] Jian-Shu Li and Joachim Schwermer, Automorphic representations and cohomology of arith-
metic groups, Challenges for the 21st Century (Singapore, 2000), World Sci. Publishing, River
Edge, NJ, 2001, pp. 102–137. MR 2003c:11051
[107] Alexander Lubotzky, Discrete groups, expanding graphs and invariant measures, Progress
in Mathematics, vol. 125, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1994, ISBN 3-7643-5075-X, With an
appendix by Jonathan D. Rogawski. MR 96g:22018
[108] A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips, and P. Sarnak, Ramanujan graphs, Combinatorica 8 (1988), 261–
277. MR 89m:05099
[109] W. Luo, Z. Rudnick, and P. Sarnak, On Selberg’s eigenvalue conjecture, Geom. Funct. Anal.
5 (1995), 387–401. MR 96h:11045
[110] Wenzhi Luo, Zeév Rudnick, and Peter Sarnak, On the generalized Ramanujan conjecture
for GL(n), Automorphic Forms, Automorphic Representations, and Arithmetic (Fort Worth,
TX, 1996), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 66, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999,
pp. 301–310. MR 2000e:11072
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 51
[111] Hans Maass, Über eine neue Art von nichtanalytischen automorphen Funktionen und die
Bestimmung Dirichletscher Reihen durch Funktionalgleichungen, Math. Ann. 121 (1949),
141–183. MR 11,163c (German)
[112] G. A. Margulis, Explicit constructions of expanders, Problemy Peredači Informacii 9 (1973),
71–80. MR 58 #4643 (Russian)
[113] , Discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer
Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)], vol. 17, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1991, ISBN 3-540-12179-X. MR 92h:22021
[114] Stephen D. Miller, Cusp Forms on SL3 (Z)\SL3 (R)/SO3 (R), Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton
University, 1997
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sdmiller/thesis.html/.
[115] Stephen D. Miller and Wilfried Schmid, Summation Formulas, from Poisson and Voronoi
to the Present, Noncommutative Analysis, in Honor of Jacques Carmona, Progress in Math-
ematics, vol. 220, Birkhäuser, 2003, http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sdmiller/voronoi.
[116] , Distributions and Analytic Continuation of Dirichlet Series,
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sdmiller/voronoi.
[117] , Automorphic Distributions, L-functions, and Voronoi Summation for GL(3),
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sdmiller/voronoi.
[118] C. Mœglin and J.-L. Waldspurger, Spectral decomposition and Eisenstein series, Cambridge
Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 113, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, ISBN 0-521-
41893-3, Une paraphrase de l’Écriture [A paraphrase of Scripture]. MR 97d:11083
[119] L. J. Mordell, On Mr. Ramanujan’s Empirical Expansions of Modular Functions, Proc.
Cambridge Phil. Soc. 19 (1917), 117 –124.
[120] Carlos J. Moreno, Analytic proof of the strong multiplicity one theorem, Amer. J. Math.
107 (1985), 163–206. MR 86m:22027
[121] Goran Muić, A proof of Casselman-Shahidi’s conjecture for quasi-split classical groups,
Canad. Math. Bull. 44 (2001), 298–312. MR 2002f:22015
[122] , Some results on square integrable representations; irreducibility of standard repre-
sentations, Internat. Math. Res. Notices (1998), 705–726. MR 99f:22031
[123] Werner Müller, The trace class conjecture in the theory of automorphic forms, Ann. of
Math. (2) 130 (1989), 473–529. MR 90m:11083
[124] M. Ram Murty, Ramanujan Graphs, Journal of the Ramanujan Mathematical Society, to
appear.
[125] Andrew Ogg, Modular forms and Dirichlet series, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York-
Amsterdam, 1969. MR 41 #1648
[126] A. P. Ogg, A remark on the Sato-Tate conjecture, Invent. Math. 9 (1969/1970), 198–200.
MR 41 #3481
[127] R. S. Phillips and P. Sarnak, On cusp forms for co-finite subgroups of PSL(2, R), Invent.
Math. 80 (1985), 339–364. MR 86m:11037
[128] , The Weyl theorem and the deformation of discrete groups, Comm. Pure Appl.
Math. 38 (1985), 853–866. MR 87f:11035
[129] R. Phillips and P. Sarnak, Perturbation theory for the Laplacian on automorphic functions,
J. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1992), 1–32. MR 92g:11056
[130] I. I. Pjateckij-Šapiro, On the Weil-Jacquet-Langlands theorem, Lie Groups and Their Rep-
resentations (Proc. Summer School, Bolyai János Math. Soc., Budapest, 1971), Halsted, New
York, 1975, pp. 583–595. MR 53 #10719
[131] I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro, Multiplicity one theorems, Automorphic Forms, Representations and
L-Functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 1,
Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979, pp. 209–212.
MR 81m:22027
[132] S. J. Patterson and I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro, The symmetric-square L-function attached to
a cuspidal automorphic representation of GL3 , Math. Ann. 283 (1989), 551–572. MR
90d:11070
[133] I. Piatetski-Shapiro and Ravi Raghunathan, On Hamburger’s theorem, Lie Groups and Lie
Algebras: E. B. Dynkin’s Seminar, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, vol. 169, Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, RI, 1995, pp. 109–120. MR 97a:11134
[134] I. Piatetski-Shapiro and Stephen Rallis, Rankin triple L functions, Compositio Math. 64
(1987), 31–115. MR 89k:11037
52 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
[135] I. Piatetski-Shapiro and S. Rallis, A new way to get Euler products, J. Reine Angew. Math.
392 (1988), 110–124. MR 90c:11032
[136] I. Piatetski-Shapiro, S. Rallis, and G. Schiffmann, L functions for the group G2 , Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. (N.S.) 23 (1990), 389–399. MR 91a:11023
[137] , Rankin-Selberg integrals for the group G2 , Amer. J. Math. 114 (1992), 1269–1315.
MR 93m:22022
[138] Ravi Raghunathan, A converse theorem for Dirichlet series with poles, C. R. Acad. Sci.
Paris Sér. I Math. 327 (1998), 231–235. MR 99i:11034 (English, with English and French
summaries)
[139] Dinakar Ramakrishnan, On the coefficients of cusp forms, Math. Res. Lett. 4 (1997), 295–
307. MR 98e:11064
[140] , Modularity of the Rankin-Selberg L-series, and multiplicity one for SL(2), Ann. of
Math. (2) 152 (2000), 45–111. MR 2001g:11077
[141] , Existence of Ramanujan primes for GL(3), Contributions to Automorphic Forms,
Geometry and Number Theory: Shalika Fest 2002 ( Haruzo Hida Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Freydoon Shahidi, eds.), to appear.
[142] Dinakar Ramakrishnan and Robert J. Valenza, Fourier analysis on number fields, Graduate
Texts in Mathematics, vol. 186, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999, ISBN 0-387-98436-4. MR
2000d:11002
[143] R. A. Rankin, Contributions to the theory of Ramanujan’s function τ (n) and similar arith-
metical functions. I. The zeros of the function ∞ s
P
n=1 τ (n)/n on the line Rs = 13/2. II. The
order of the Fourier coefficients of integral modular forms, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 35
(1939), 351–372. MR 1,69d
[144] Michael J. Razar, Modular forms for G0 (N ) and Dirichlet series, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
231 (1977), 489–495. MR 56 #2926
[145] B. Riemann, Über die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse, Mon. Not.
Berlin Akad (Nov. 1859), 671–680,
See also http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Zeta/.
[146] Jonathan D. Rogawski, Automorphic representations of unitary groups in three variables,
Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 123, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990,
ISBN 0-691-08586-2, 0-691-08587-0. MR 91k:22037
[147] , Functoriality and the Artin conjecture, Representation Theory and Automorphic
Forms (Edinburgh, 1996), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 61, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI, 1997, pp. 331–353. MR 98j:11106
[148] Peter Sarnak, Some applications of modular forms, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics,
vol. 99, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, ISBN 0-521-40245-6. MR 92k:11045
[149] P. Sarnak, On cusp forms. II , Festschrift in Honor of I. I. Piatetski-Shapiro on the Occa-
sion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Part II (Ramat Aviv, 1989), Israel Math. Conf. Proc., vol. 3,
Weizmann, Jerusalem, 1990, pp. 237–250. MR 93e:11068
[150] Peter Sarnak, Selberg’s eigenvalue conjecture, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 42 (1995), 1272–
1277. MR 97c:11059
[151] , Letter to Stephen Gelbart and Freydoon Shahidi (2001).
[152] , Maass cusp forms with integer coefficients, A Panorama of Number Theory or The
View from Baker’s Garden ( G. Wüstholz, ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 121–
128.
[153] , Nonvanishing of L-functions on Re(s)=1 , Contributions to Automorphic Forms,
Geometry and Number Theory: Shalika Fest 2002 ( Haruzo Hida Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Freydoon Shahidi, eds.), to appear.
[154] , Spectra of hyperbolic surfaces, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), to appear.
http://www.math.princeton.edu/~sarnak.
[155] Atle Selberg, Bemerkungen über eine Dirichletsche Reihe, die mit der Theorie der Modul-
formen nahe verbunden ist, Arch. Math. Naturvid. 43 (1940), 47–50. MR 2,88a (German)
[156] A. Selberg, Harmonic analysis and discontinuous groups in weakly symmetric Riemannian
spaces with applications to Dirichlet series, J. Indian Math. Soc. (N.S.) 20 (1956), 47–87.
MR 19,531g
[157] Atle Selberg, Discontinuous groups and harmonic analysis, Proc. Internat. Congr. Math-
ematicians (Stockholm, 1962), Inst. Mittag-Leffler, Djursholm, 1963, pp. 177–189. MR 31
#372
RIEMANN’S ZETA FUNCTION AND BEYOND 53
[158] , On the estimation of Fourier coefficients of modular forms, Proc. Sympos. Pure
Math., Vol. VIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1965, pp. 1–15. MR 32 #93
[159] Jean-Pierre Serre, Abelian l-adic representations and elliptic curves, McGill University lec-
ture notes written with the collaboration of Willem Kuyk and John Labute, W. A. Benjamin,
Inc., New York-Amsterdam, 1968. MR 41 #8422
[160] J.-P. Serre, A course in arithmetic, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1973, Translated from the
French; Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 7. MR 49 #8956
[161] Freydoon Shahidi, On certain L-functions, Amer. J. Math. 103 (1981), 297–355. MR
82i:10030
[162] , Local coefficients as Artin factors for real groups, Duke Math. J. 52 (1985), 973–
1007. MR 87m:11049
[163] , On the Ramanujan conjecture and finiteness of poles for certain L-functions, Ann.
of Math. (2) 127 (1988), 547–584. MR 89h:11021
[164] , A proof of Langlands’ conjecture on Plancherel measures; complementary series
for p-adic groups, Ann. of Math. (2) 132 (1990), 273–330. MR 91m:11095
[165] , Symmetric power L-functions for GL(2), Elliptic Curves and Related Topics, CRM
Proc. Lecture Notes, vol. 4, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994, pp. 159–182. MR
95c:11066
[166] , Intertwining Operators, L-functions, and Representation Theory, Lecture Notes
of the Elevent KAIST Mathematics Workshop ( Ja Kyung Koo, ed.), 1996, pp. 1 –63,
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~sdmiller/L-functions/.
[167] , Langlands-Shahidi Method and Converse Theorems, IAS/Park City Lecture Notes,
Park City, Utah, 2002.
[168] , Automorphic L-functions and functoriality, Proceedings of the International Con-
gress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Beijing, 2002), Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2002, pp. 655–666.
1 957 073
[169] J. A. Shalika, The multiplicity one theorem for GLn , Ann. of Math. (2) 100 (1974), 171–193.
MR 50 #545
[170] Goro Shimura, On the holomorphy of certain Dirichlet series, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3)
31 (1975), 79–98. MR 52 #3064
[171] Takuro Shintani, On an explicit formula for class-1 “Whittaker functions” on GLn over
P -adic fields, Proc. Japan Acad. 52 (1976), 180–182. MR 53 #10991
[172] Joseph H. Silverman, The arithmetic of elliptic curves, Graduate Texts in Mathematics,
vol. 106, Springer-Verlag, New York, 199?, ISBN 0-387-96203-4, Corrected reprint of the
1986 original. MR 95m:11054
[173] J. T. Tate, Fourier analysis in number fields, and Hecke’s zeta-functions, Algebraic Number
Theory (Proc. Instructional Conf., Brighton, 1965), Thompson, Washington, D.C., 1967,
pp. 305–347. MR 36 #121
[174] John T. Tate, Algebraic cycles and poles of zeta functions, Arithmetical Algebraic Geometry
(Proc. Conf. Purdue Univ., 1963), Harper & Row, New York, 1965, pp. 93–110. MR 37 #1371
[175] Richard Taylor and Andrew Wiles, Ring-theoretic properties of certain Hecke algebras, Ann.
of Math. (2) 141 (1995), 553–572. MR 96d:11072
[176] E. C. Titchmarsh, The theory of the Riemann zeta-function, 2nd ed., The Clarendon Press
Oxford University Press, New York, 1986, ISBN 0-19-853369-1, Edited and with a preface by
D. R. Heath-Brown. MR 88c:11049
[177] Jerrold Tunnell, Artin’s conjecture for representations of octahedral type, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. (N.S.) 5 (1981), 173–175. MR 82j:12015
[178] André Weil, Über die Bestimmung Dirichletscher Reihen durch Funktionalgleichungen,
Math. Ann. 168 (1967), 149–156. MR 34 #7473 (German)
[179] , Prehistory of the zeta-function, Number Theory, Trace Formulas and Discrete
Groups (Oslo, 1987), Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1989, pp. 1–9. MR 90e:01029
[180] , On Eisenstein’s copy of the Disquisitiones, Algebraic Number Theory, Adv. Stud.
Pure Math., vol. 17, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1989, pp. 463–469. MR 91m:01016
[181] Andrew Wiles, Modular elliptic curves and Fermat’s last theorem, Ann. of Math. (2) 141
(1995), 443–551. MR 96d:11071
[182] Scott A. Wolpert, Spectral limits for hyperbolic surfaces. I, II , Invent. Math. 108 (1992),
67–89, 91–129. MR 93b:58160
54 STEPHEN S. GELBART AND STEPHEN D. MILLER
[183] , Disappearance of cusp forms in special families, Ann. of Math. (2) 139 (1994),
239–291. MR 95e:11062
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Nicki and J. Ira Harris Professorial
Chair, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
E-mail address: gelbar@wisdom.weizmann.ac.il