Modern Algebraic Geometry and Analytic Number Theory












6












$begingroup$


I am currently discovering the algebraic geometry of Grothendieck. I have the impression that this theory, which leads to categories, schemas, topos etc. alone can encompass all modern mathematics (with the exception of probabilities). That is to say, to understand it, you really need to know everything. It also has extraordinary opportunities in the understanding of arithmetic (Pierre Deligne in the proofs of André Weil etc.).



However, I don't see any connection with the analytic number theory like the one undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on.




Does anyone have ideas of theorems, conjectures, or "approaches" that
combine these two points of view?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 23




    $begingroup$
    I like the question at the end of your post, but I think that your claim "encompass all modern mathematics" is quite exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – EFinat-S
    Feb 24 at 14:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Drinfeld's "Finitely additive measures on S2 and S3, invariant with respect to rotations" solves a measure-theoretic problem using automorphic forms and a consequence of Weil conjectures (although the latter is not crucial to the argument, one can do with a weaker version which can be proved without algebraic geometry)
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    Feb 24 at 16:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I remember rightly, one of Weil's original uses for the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields was applications to bounding exponential sums. Grothendieck invented $ell$-adic cohomology to prove the Weil conjectures (including the Riemann hypothesis for varieties that was eventually proved by Deligne), so it's not totally surprising that there is a connection to exponential sums.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 24 at 23:20






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The question would benefit from changing the speculative "I have the impression... everything." to something saying that it is connected with many subfields of maths, possibly with examples.
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Feb 25 at 0:36


















6












$begingroup$


I am currently discovering the algebraic geometry of Grothendieck. I have the impression that this theory, which leads to categories, schemas, topos etc. alone can encompass all modern mathematics (with the exception of probabilities). That is to say, to understand it, you really need to know everything. It also has extraordinary opportunities in the understanding of arithmetic (Pierre Deligne in the proofs of André Weil etc.).



However, I don't see any connection with the analytic number theory like the one undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on.




Does anyone have ideas of theorems, conjectures, or "approaches" that
combine these two points of view?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 23




    $begingroup$
    I like the question at the end of your post, but I think that your claim "encompass all modern mathematics" is quite exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – EFinat-S
    Feb 24 at 14:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Drinfeld's "Finitely additive measures on S2 and S3, invariant with respect to rotations" solves a measure-theoretic problem using automorphic forms and a consequence of Weil conjectures (although the latter is not crucial to the argument, one can do with a weaker version which can be proved without algebraic geometry)
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    Feb 24 at 16:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I remember rightly, one of Weil's original uses for the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields was applications to bounding exponential sums. Grothendieck invented $ell$-adic cohomology to prove the Weil conjectures (including the Riemann hypothesis for varieties that was eventually proved by Deligne), so it's not totally surprising that there is a connection to exponential sums.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 24 at 23:20






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The question would benefit from changing the speculative "I have the impression... everything." to something saying that it is connected with many subfields of maths, possibly with examples.
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Feb 25 at 0:36
















6












6








6


5



$begingroup$


I am currently discovering the algebraic geometry of Grothendieck. I have the impression that this theory, which leads to categories, schemas, topos etc. alone can encompass all modern mathematics (with the exception of probabilities). That is to say, to understand it, you really need to know everything. It also has extraordinary opportunities in the understanding of arithmetic (Pierre Deligne in the proofs of André Weil etc.).



However, I don't see any connection with the analytic number theory like the one undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on.




Does anyone have ideas of theorems, conjectures, or "approaches" that
combine these two points of view?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am currently discovering the algebraic geometry of Grothendieck. I have the impression that this theory, which leads to categories, schemas, topos etc. alone can encompass all modern mathematics (with the exception of probabilities). That is to say, to understand it, you really need to know everything. It also has extraordinary opportunities in the understanding of arithmetic (Pierre Deligne in the proofs of André Weil etc.).



However, I don't see any connection with the analytic number theory like the one undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on.




Does anyone have ideas of theorems, conjectures, or "approaches" that
combine these two points of view?








ag.algebraic-geometry at.algebraic-topology analytic-number-theory dirichlet-series






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 24 at 14:25


























community wiki





lulu2612









  • 23




    $begingroup$
    I like the question at the end of your post, but I think that your claim "encompass all modern mathematics" is quite exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – EFinat-S
    Feb 24 at 14:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Drinfeld's "Finitely additive measures on S2 and S3, invariant with respect to rotations" solves a measure-theoretic problem using automorphic forms and a consequence of Weil conjectures (although the latter is not crucial to the argument, one can do with a weaker version which can be proved without algebraic geometry)
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    Feb 24 at 16:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I remember rightly, one of Weil's original uses for the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields was applications to bounding exponential sums. Grothendieck invented $ell$-adic cohomology to prove the Weil conjectures (including the Riemann hypothesis for varieties that was eventually proved by Deligne), so it's not totally surprising that there is a connection to exponential sums.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 24 at 23:20






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The question would benefit from changing the speculative "I have the impression... everything." to something saying that it is connected with many subfields of maths, possibly with examples.
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Feb 25 at 0:36
















  • 23




    $begingroup$
    I like the question at the end of your post, but I think that your claim "encompass all modern mathematics" is quite exaggerated.
    $endgroup$
    – EFinat-S
    Feb 24 at 14:28






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Drinfeld's "Finitely additive measures on S2 and S3, invariant with respect to rotations" solves a measure-theoretic problem using automorphic forms and a consequence of Weil conjectures (although the latter is not crucial to the argument, one can do with a weaker version which can be proved without algebraic geometry)
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    Feb 24 at 16:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If I remember rightly, one of Weil's original uses for the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields was applications to bounding exponential sums. Grothendieck invented $ell$-adic cohomology to prove the Weil conjectures (including the Riemann hypothesis for varieties that was eventually proved by Deligne), so it's not totally surprising that there is a connection to exponential sums.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Furber
    Feb 24 at 23:20






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The question would benefit from changing the speculative "I have the impression... everything." to something saying that it is connected with many subfields of maths, possibly with examples.
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Feb 25 at 0:36










23




23




$begingroup$
I like the question at the end of your post, but I think that your claim "encompass all modern mathematics" is quite exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– EFinat-S
Feb 24 at 14:28




$begingroup$
I like the question at the end of your post, but I think that your claim "encompass all modern mathematics" is quite exaggerated.
$endgroup$
– EFinat-S
Feb 24 at 14:28




2




2




$begingroup$
Drinfeld's "Finitely additive measures on S2 and S3, invariant with respect to rotations" solves a measure-theoretic problem using automorphic forms and a consequence of Weil conjectures (although the latter is not crucial to the argument, one can do with a weaker version which can be proved without algebraic geometry)
$endgroup$
– Aknazar Kazhymurat
Feb 24 at 16:24




$begingroup$
Drinfeld's "Finitely additive measures on S2 and S3, invariant with respect to rotations" solves a measure-theoretic problem using automorphic forms and a consequence of Weil conjectures (although the latter is not crucial to the argument, one can do with a weaker version which can be proved without algebraic geometry)
$endgroup$
– Aknazar Kazhymurat
Feb 24 at 16:24




1




1




$begingroup$
If I remember rightly, one of Weil's original uses for the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields was applications to bounding exponential sums. Grothendieck invented $ell$-adic cohomology to prove the Weil conjectures (including the Riemann hypothesis for varieties that was eventually proved by Deligne), so it's not totally surprising that there is a connection to exponential sums.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Feb 24 at 23:20




$begingroup$
If I remember rightly, one of Weil's original uses for the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields was applications to bounding exponential sums. Grothendieck invented $ell$-adic cohomology to prove the Weil conjectures (including the Riemann hypothesis for varieties that was eventually proved by Deligne), so it's not totally surprising that there is a connection to exponential sums.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Feb 24 at 23:20




3




3




$begingroup$
The question would benefit from changing the speculative "I have the impression... everything." to something saying that it is connected with many subfields of maths, possibly with examples.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Feb 25 at 0:36






$begingroup$
The question would benefit from changing the speculative "I have the impression... everything." to something saying that it is connected with many subfields of maths, possibly with examples.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Feb 25 at 0:36












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

Do you consider $L$-functions of elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ (or other number fields) to be in the spirit of "analytic number theory undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on"? Those 19th and early 20th century folks did not have the definition, which only came much later in the 20th century, but the idea of defining such functions as an Euler product and then Dirichlet series, and seeking an analytic continuation and functional equation, is a task they would have understood. Deuring proved the analytic continuation and functional equation in a special case (CM elliptic curves) in the 1950s, but the case of all elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ was settled using ideas coming from the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, hence using modern algebraic geometry.



The Sato-Tate conjecture is an analytic conjecture somewhat in the spirit of the prime number theorem. It was formulated in the 2nd half of the 20th century but could have been appreciated earlier. Like the prime number theorem, which is equivalent to nonvanishing of the zeta-function on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$, the Sato-Tate conjecture was known to be a consequence of analyticity and nonvanishing of certain $L$-functions on vertical lines (boundary of right half-planes) and those $L$-function properties were proved about 10 years ago with algebro-geometric methods.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Could you tell where heavy estimates are needed ? One looks at the symmetric power L-functions $L(s,text{sym}^mE)=exp(sum_{p^k} frac{p^{-sk}}{k}frac{sin t_p k(m+1)}{sin t_p k})$ where $p+1−#E(mathbf{F}_p)=2cos(t_p)p^{1/2}$ having no pole at $s=1$ iff E has no CM, from the PNT-like asymptotic $sum_{p le x} frac{sin t_p m}{sin t_p }=o(pi(x))$ and the orthonormal basis for $(u,v)=frac1piint_0^pi u(t)v(t)sin^2(t)dt$ one finds $sum_{p le x}f(t_p) sim (f,1)pi(x)$ for any $f$ continuous, which implies Sato-Tate
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    Feb 25 at 22:08








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @reuns the deduction of Sato-Tate from analytic continuation and nonvanishing of symmetric-power $L$-functions on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ (which is the boundary of the half-plane of convergence of their Euler products) is discussed in the Murty-Murty book "Non-vanishing of $L$-functions and Applications." See Section 7 of Chapter IV, where the argument relies on an equidistribution theorem (Theorem 3.1 on p. 68), whose proof relies on Weyl's equidistribution theorem in a compact group (Cor. 2.2 on p. 67) and a Tauberian theorem (Thm. 1.1 on p. 7)
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 12:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The Tauberian theorem used in the book is the Wiener-Ikehara one, but they could also have used Newman's Tauberian theorem, which gets the same conclusion (an asymptotic relation) by a less technical argument at the cost of an added hypothesis that is often easy to verify in practice.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 12:20






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Kumar Murty showed ("On the Sato-Tate conjecture", pp. 195-205 in Number Theory related to Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1982) that analytic continuation to ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-functions for all $m geq 1$ is enough, as their nonvanishing can be deduced from the analytic continuation. (The paper also has a result about Sato-Tate in the function field case, and unfortunately the MathSciNet review of this paper --- see MR0685296 -- mentions only the function field result.)
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 13:02



















16












$begingroup$

There are lots of examples, so let me just tell one.



P. Deligne (1971) used Eichler–Shimura isomorphism to reduce the Ramanujan conjecture on the $tau$ function to the Weil conjectures, that he later proved by using the full strength of Grothendieck's machinery.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I don't know if this is tacit in your answer, but Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures used, in addition to the Grothendieck machinery, the method of de la Vallee-Poussin from analytic number theory.
    $endgroup$
    – aginensky
    Feb 24 at 18:07










  • $begingroup$
    @aginensky that I think is only true of Deligne's second paper ("Weil II").
    $endgroup$
    – Piotr Achinger
    Feb 26 at 19:52



















8












$begingroup$

You can look at Lectures on applied $ell$-adic cohomology by Fouvry, Kowalski, Michel and Sawin : https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03173






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    From the point of view of analytic number theory the most important specific result which is proved using algebraic geometry is Burgess' bounds for character sums. The proof relies on Wiles bound for character sums, together with a rather complicated combinatorial argument. One could argue that as Stepanov, Schmidt, and Bombieri gave independent proofs of the required bounds, Weils bounds are not really required, but the "elementary" approach is certainly not easy either.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Wiles' bound...?
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 27 at 22:44











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324004%2fmodern-algebraic-geometry-and-analytic-number-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    10












    $begingroup$

    Do you consider $L$-functions of elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ (or other number fields) to be in the spirit of "analytic number theory undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on"? Those 19th and early 20th century folks did not have the definition, which only came much later in the 20th century, but the idea of defining such functions as an Euler product and then Dirichlet series, and seeking an analytic continuation and functional equation, is a task they would have understood. Deuring proved the analytic continuation and functional equation in a special case (CM elliptic curves) in the 1950s, but the case of all elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ was settled using ideas coming from the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, hence using modern algebraic geometry.



    The Sato-Tate conjecture is an analytic conjecture somewhat in the spirit of the prime number theorem. It was formulated in the 2nd half of the 20th century but could have been appreciated earlier. Like the prime number theorem, which is equivalent to nonvanishing of the zeta-function on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$, the Sato-Tate conjecture was known to be a consequence of analyticity and nonvanishing of certain $L$-functions on vertical lines (boundary of right half-planes) and those $L$-function properties were proved about 10 years ago with algebro-geometric methods.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Could you tell where heavy estimates are needed ? One looks at the symmetric power L-functions $L(s,text{sym}^mE)=exp(sum_{p^k} frac{p^{-sk}}{k}frac{sin t_p k(m+1)}{sin t_p k})$ where $p+1−#E(mathbf{F}_p)=2cos(t_p)p^{1/2}$ having no pole at $s=1$ iff E has no CM, from the PNT-like asymptotic $sum_{p le x} frac{sin t_p m}{sin t_p }=o(pi(x))$ and the orthonormal basis for $(u,v)=frac1piint_0^pi u(t)v(t)sin^2(t)dt$ one finds $sum_{p le x}f(t_p) sim (f,1)pi(x)$ for any $f$ continuous, which implies Sato-Tate
      $endgroup$
      – reuns
      Feb 25 at 22:08








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @reuns the deduction of Sato-Tate from analytic continuation and nonvanishing of symmetric-power $L$-functions on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ (which is the boundary of the half-plane of convergence of their Euler products) is discussed in the Murty-Murty book "Non-vanishing of $L$-functions and Applications." See Section 7 of Chapter IV, where the argument relies on an equidistribution theorem (Theorem 3.1 on p. 68), whose proof relies on Weyl's equidistribution theorem in a compact group (Cor. 2.2 on p. 67) and a Tauberian theorem (Thm. 1.1 on p. 7)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:18






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The Tauberian theorem used in the book is the Wiener-Ikehara one, but they could also have used Newman's Tauberian theorem, which gets the same conclusion (an asymptotic relation) by a less technical argument at the cost of an added hypothesis that is often easy to verify in practice.
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:20






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Kumar Murty showed ("On the Sato-Tate conjecture", pp. 195-205 in Number Theory related to Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1982) that analytic continuation to ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-functions for all $m geq 1$ is enough, as their nonvanishing can be deduced from the analytic continuation. (The paper also has a result about Sato-Tate in the function field case, and unfortunately the MathSciNet review of this paper --- see MR0685296 -- mentions only the function field result.)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 13:02
















    10












    $begingroup$

    Do you consider $L$-functions of elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ (or other number fields) to be in the spirit of "analytic number theory undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on"? Those 19th and early 20th century folks did not have the definition, which only came much later in the 20th century, but the idea of defining such functions as an Euler product and then Dirichlet series, and seeking an analytic continuation and functional equation, is a task they would have understood. Deuring proved the analytic continuation and functional equation in a special case (CM elliptic curves) in the 1950s, but the case of all elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ was settled using ideas coming from the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, hence using modern algebraic geometry.



    The Sato-Tate conjecture is an analytic conjecture somewhat in the spirit of the prime number theorem. It was formulated in the 2nd half of the 20th century but could have been appreciated earlier. Like the prime number theorem, which is equivalent to nonvanishing of the zeta-function on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$, the Sato-Tate conjecture was known to be a consequence of analyticity and nonvanishing of certain $L$-functions on vertical lines (boundary of right half-planes) and those $L$-function properties were proved about 10 years ago with algebro-geometric methods.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Could you tell where heavy estimates are needed ? One looks at the symmetric power L-functions $L(s,text{sym}^mE)=exp(sum_{p^k} frac{p^{-sk}}{k}frac{sin t_p k(m+1)}{sin t_p k})$ where $p+1−#E(mathbf{F}_p)=2cos(t_p)p^{1/2}$ having no pole at $s=1$ iff E has no CM, from the PNT-like asymptotic $sum_{p le x} frac{sin t_p m}{sin t_p }=o(pi(x))$ and the orthonormal basis for $(u,v)=frac1piint_0^pi u(t)v(t)sin^2(t)dt$ one finds $sum_{p le x}f(t_p) sim (f,1)pi(x)$ for any $f$ continuous, which implies Sato-Tate
      $endgroup$
      – reuns
      Feb 25 at 22:08








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @reuns the deduction of Sato-Tate from analytic continuation and nonvanishing of symmetric-power $L$-functions on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ (which is the boundary of the half-plane of convergence of their Euler products) is discussed in the Murty-Murty book "Non-vanishing of $L$-functions and Applications." See Section 7 of Chapter IV, where the argument relies on an equidistribution theorem (Theorem 3.1 on p. 68), whose proof relies on Weyl's equidistribution theorem in a compact group (Cor. 2.2 on p. 67) and a Tauberian theorem (Thm. 1.1 on p. 7)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:18






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The Tauberian theorem used in the book is the Wiener-Ikehara one, but they could also have used Newman's Tauberian theorem, which gets the same conclusion (an asymptotic relation) by a less technical argument at the cost of an added hypothesis that is often easy to verify in practice.
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:20






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Kumar Murty showed ("On the Sato-Tate conjecture", pp. 195-205 in Number Theory related to Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1982) that analytic continuation to ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-functions for all $m geq 1$ is enough, as their nonvanishing can be deduced from the analytic continuation. (The paper also has a result about Sato-Tate in the function field case, and unfortunately the MathSciNet review of this paper --- see MR0685296 -- mentions only the function field result.)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 13:02














    10












    10








    10





    $begingroup$

    Do you consider $L$-functions of elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ (or other number fields) to be in the spirit of "analytic number theory undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on"? Those 19th and early 20th century folks did not have the definition, which only came much later in the 20th century, but the idea of defining such functions as an Euler product and then Dirichlet series, and seeking an analytic continuation and functional equation, is a task they would have understood. Deuring proved the analytic continuation and functional equation in a special case (CM elliptic curves) in the 1950s, but the case of all elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ was settled using ideas coming from the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, hence using modern algebraic geometry.



    The Sato-Tate conjecture is an analytic conjecture somewhat in the spirit of the prime number theorem. It was formulated in the 2nd half of the 20th century but could have been appreciated earlier. Like the prime number theorem, which is equivalent to nonvanishing of the zeta-function on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$, the Sato-Tate conjecture was known to be a consequence of analyticity and nonvanishing of certain $L$-functions on vertical lines (boundary of right half-planes) and those $L$-function properties were proved about 10 years ago with algebro-geometric methods.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Do you consider $L$-functions of elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ (or other number fields) to be in the spirit of "analytic number theory undertaken by Dirichlet, Von Mangoldt, Chebyshev, Hardy, Littlewood, Ramanujan, and so on"? Those 19th and early 20th century folks did not have the definition, which only came much later in the 20th century, but the idea of defining such functions as an Euler product and then Dirichlet series, and seeking an analytic continuation and functional equation, is a task they would have understood. Deuring proved the analytic continuation and functional equation in a special case (CM elliptic curves) in the 1950s, but the case of all elliptic curves over $mathbf Q$ was settled using ideas coming from the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, hence using modern algebraic geometry.



    The Sato-Tate conjecture is an analytic conjecture somewhat in the spirit of the prime number theorem. It was formulated in the 2nd half of the 20th century but could have been appreciated earlier. Like the prime number theorem, which is equivalent to nonvanishing of the zeta-function on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$, the Sato-Tate conjecture was known to be a consequence of analyticity and nonvanishing of certain $L$-functions on vertical lines (boundary of right half-planes) and those $L$-function properties were proved about 10 years ago with algebro-geometric methods.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    answered Feb 25 at 11:00


























    community wiki





    KConrad









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Could you tell where heavy estimates are needed ? One looks at the symmetric power L-functions $L(s,text{sym}^mE)=exp(sum_{p^k} frac{p^{-sk}}{k}frac{sin t_p k(m+1)}{sin t_p k})$ where $p+1−#E(mathbf{F}_p)=2cos(t_p)p^{1/2}$ having no pole at $s=1$ iff E has no CM, from the PNT-like asymptotic $sum_{p le x} frac{sin t_p m}{sin t_p }=o(pi(x))$ and the orthonormal basis for $(u,v)=frac1piint_0^pi u(t)v(t)sin^2(t)dt$ one finds $sum_{p le x}f(t_p) sim (f,1)pi(x)$ for any $f$ continuous, which implies Sato-Tate
      $endgroup$
      – reuns
      Feb 25 at 22:08








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @reuns the deduction of Sato-Tate from analytic continuation and nonvanishing of symmetric-power $L$-functions on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ (which is the boundary of the half-plane of convergence of their Euler products) is discussed in the Murty-Murty book "Non-vanishing of $L$-functions and Applications." See Section 7 of Chapter IV, where the argument relies on an equidistribution theorem (Theorem 3.1 on p. 68), whose proof relies on Weyl's equidistribution theorem in a compact group (Cor. 2.2 on p. 67) and a Tauberian theorem (Thm. 1.1 on p. 7)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:18






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The Tauberian theorem used in the book is the Wiener-Ikehara one, but they could also have used Newman's Tauberian theorem, which gets the same conclusion (an asymptotic relation) by a less technical argument at the cost of an added hypothesis that is often easy to verify in practice.
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:20






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Kumar Murty showed ("On the Sato-Tate conjecture", pp. 195-205 in Number Theory related to Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1982) that analytic continuation to ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-functions for all $m geq 1$ is enough, as their nonvanishing can be deduced from the analytic continuation. (The paper also has a result about Sato-Tate in the function field case, and unfortunately the MathSciNet review of this paper --- see MR0685296 -- mentions only the function field result.)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 13:02














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Could you tell where heavy estimates are needed ? One looks at the symmetric power L-functions $L(s,text{sym}^mE)=exp(sum_{p^k} frac{p^{-sk}}{k}frac{sin t_p k(m+1)}{sin t_p k})$ where $p+1−#E(mathbf{F}_p)=2cos(t_p)p^{1/2}$ having no pole at $s=1$ iff E has no CM, from the PNT-like asymptotic $sum_{p le x} frac{sin t_p m}{sin t_p }=o(pi(x))$ and the orthonormal basis for $(u,v)=frac1piint_0^pi u(t)v(t)sin^2(t)dt$ one finds $sum_{p le x}f(t_p) sim (f,1)pi(x)$ for any $f$ continuous, which implies Sato-Tate
      $endgroup$
      – reuns
      Feb 25 at 22:08








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @reuns the deduction of Sato-Tate from analytic continuation and nonvanishing of symmetric-power $L$-functions on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ (which is the boundary of the half-plane of convergence of their Euler products) is discussed in the Murty-Murty book "Non-vanishing of $L$-functions and Applications." See Section 7 of Chapter IV, where the argument relies on an equidistribution theorem (Theorem 3.1 on p. 68), whose proof relies on Weyl's equidistribution theorem in a compact group (Cor. 2.2 on p. 67) and a Tauberian theorem (Thm. 1.1 on p. 7)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:18






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The Tauberian theorem used in the book is the Wiener-Ikehara one, but they could also have used Newman's Tauberian theorem, which gets the same conclusion (an asymptotic relation) by a less technical argument at the cost of an added hypothesis that is often easy to verify in practice.
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 12:20






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Kumar Murty showed ("On the Sato-Tate conjecture", pp. 195-205 in Number Theory related to Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1982) that analytic continuation to ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-functions for all $m geq 1$ is enough, as their nonvanishing can be deduced from the analytic continuation. (The paper also has a result about Sato-Tate in the function field case, and unfortunately the MathSciNet review of this paper --- see MR0685296 -- mentions only the function field result.)
      $endgroup$
      – KConrad
      Feb 26 at 13:02








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Could you tell where heavy estimates are needed ? One looks at the symmetric power L-functions $L(s,text{sym}^mE)=exp(sum_{p^k} frac{p^{-sk}}{k}frac{sin t_p k(m+1)}{sin t_p k})$ where $p+1−#E(mathbf{F}_p)=2cos(t_p)p^{1/2}$ having no pole at $s=1$ iff E has no CM, from the PNT-like asymptotic $sum_{p le x} frac{sin t_p m}{sin t_p }=o(pi(x))$ and the orthonormal basis for $(u,v)=frac1piint_0^pi u(t)v(t)sin^2(t)dt$ one finds $sum_{p le x}f(t_p) sim (f,1)pi(x)$ for any $f$ continuous, which implies Sato-Tate
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    Feb 25 at 22:08






    $begingroup$
    Could you tell where heavy estimates are needed ? One looks at the symmetric power L-functions $L(s,text{sym}^mE)=exp(sum_{p^k} frac{p^{-sk}}{k}frac{sin t_p k(m+1)}{sin t_p k})$ where $p+1−#E(mathbf{F}_p)=2cos(t_p)p^{1/2}$ having no pole at $s=1$ iff E has no CM, from the PNT-like asymptotic $sum_{p le x} frac{sin t_p m}{sin t_p }=o(pi(x))$ and the orthonormal basis for $(u,v)=frac1piint_0^pi u(t)v(t)sin^2(t)dt$ one finds $sum_{p le x}f(t_p) sim (f,1)pi(x)$ for any $f$ continuous, which implies Sato-Tate
    $endgroup$
    – reuns
    Feb 25 at 22:08






    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @reuns the deduction of Sato-Tate from analytic continuation and nonvanishing of symmetric-power $L$-functions on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ (which is the boundary of the half-plane of convergence of their Euler products) is discussed in the Murty-Murty book "Non-vanishing of $L$-functions and Applications." See Section 7 of Chapter IV, where the argument relies on an equidistribution theorem (Theorem 3.1 on p. 68), whose proof relies on Weyl's equidistribution theorem in a compact group (Cor. 2.2 on p. 67) and a Tauberian theorem (Thm. 1.1 on p. 7)
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 12:18




    $begingroup$
    @reuns the deduction of Sato-Tate from analytic continuation and nonvanishing of symmetric-power $L$-functions on the line ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ (which is the boundary of the half-plane of convergence of their Euler products) is discussed in the Murty-Murty book "Non-vanishing of $L$-functions and Applications." See Section 7 of Chapter IV, where the argument relies on an equidistribution theorem (Theorem 3.1 on p. 68), whose proof relies on Weyl's equidistribution theorem in a compact group (Cor. 2.2 on p. 67) and a Tauberian theorem (Thm. 1.1 on p. 7)
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 12:18




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    The Tauberian theorem used in the book is the Wiener-Ikehara one, but they could also have used Newman's Tauberian theorem, which gets the same conclusion (an asymptotic relation) by a less technical argument at the cost of an added hypothesis that is often easy to verify in practice.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 12:20




    $begingroup$
    The Tauberian theorem used in the book is the Wiener-Ikehara one, but they could also have used Newman's Tauberian theorem, which gets the same conclusion (an asymptotic relation) by a less technical argument at the cost of an added hypothesis that is often easy to verify in practice.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 12:20




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Kumar Murty showed ("On the Sato-Tate conjecture", pp. 195-205 in Number Theory related to Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1982) that analytic continuation to ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-functions for all $m geq 1$ is enough, as their nonvanishing can be deduced from the analytic continuation. (The paper also has a result about Sato-Tate in the function field case, and unfortunately the MathSciNet review of this paper --- see MR0685296 -- mentions only the function field result.)
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 13:02




    $begingroup$
    Kumar Murty showed ("On the Sato-Tate conjecture", pp. 195-205 in Number Theory related to Fermat’s Last Theorem, 1982) that analytic continuation to ${rm Re}(s) = 1$ of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-functions for all $m geq 1$ is enough, as their nonvanishing can be deduced from the analytic continuation. (The paper also has a result about Sato-Tate in the function field case, and unfortunately the MathSciNet review of this paper --- see MR0685296 -- mentions only the function field result.)
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Feb 26 at 13:02











    16












    $begingroup$

    There are lots of examples, so let me just tell one.



    P. Deligne (1971) used Eichler–Shimura isomorphism to reduce the Ramanujan conjecture on the $tau$ function to the Weil conjectures, that he later proved by using the full strength of Grothendieck's machinery.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 10




      $begingroup$
      I don't know if this is tacit in your answer, but Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures used, in addition to the Grothendieck machinery, the method of de la Vallee-Poussin from analytic number theory.
      $endgroup$
      – aginensky
      Feb 24 at 18:07










    • $begingroup$
      @aginensky that I think is only true of Deligne's second paper ("Weil II").
      $endgroup$
      – Piotr Achinger
      Feb 26 at 19:52
















    16












    $begingroup$

    There are lots of examples, so let me just tell one.



    P. Deligne (1971) used Eichler–Shimura isomorphism to reduce the Ramanujan conjecture on the $tau$ function to the Weil conjectures, that he later proved by using the full strength of Grothendieck's machinery.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 10




      $begingroup$
      I don't know if this is tacit in your answer, but Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures used, in addition to the Grothendieck machinery, the method of de la Vallee-Poussin from analytic number theory.
      $endgroup$
      – aginensky
      Feb 24 at 18:07










    • $begingroup$
      @aginensky that I think is only true of Deligne's second paper ("Weil II").
      $endgroup$
      – Piotr Achinger
      Feb 26 at 19:52














    16












    16








    16





    $begingroup$

    There are lots of examples, so let me just tell one.



    P. Deligne (1971) used Eichler–Shimura isomorphism to reduce the Ramanujan conjecture on the $tau$ function to the Weil conjectures, that he later proved by using the full strength of Grothendieck's machinery.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    There are lots of examples, so let me just tell one.



    P. Deligne (1971) used Eichler–Shimura isomorphism to reduce the Ramanujan conjecture on the $tau$ function to the Weil conjectures, that he later proved by using the full strength of Grothendieck's machinery.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Feb 24 at 14:41


























    community wiki





    Francesco Polizzi









    • 10




      $begingroup$
      I don't know if this is tacit in your answer, but Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures used, in addition to the Grothendieck machinery, the method of de la Vallee-Poussin from analytic number theory.
      $endgroup$
      – aginensky
      Feb 24 at 18:07










    • $begingroup$
      @aginensky that I think is only true of Deligne's second paper ("Weil II").
      $endgroup$
      – Piotr Achinger
      Feb 26 at 19:52














    • 10




      $begingroup$
      I don't know if this is tacit in your answer, but Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures used, in addition to the Grothendieck machinery, the method of de la Vallee-Poussin from analytic number theory.
      $endgroup$
      – aginensky
      Feb 24 at 18:07










    • $begingroup$
      @aginensky that I think is only true of Deligne's second paper ("Weil II").
      $endgroup$
      – Piotr Achinger
      Feb 26 at 19:52








    10




    10




    $begingroup$
    I don't know if this is tacit in your answer, but Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures used, in addition to the Grothendieck machinery, the method of de la Vallee-Poussin from analytic number theory.
    $endgroup$
    – aginensky
    Feb 24 at 18:07




    $begingroup$
    I don't know if this is tacit in your answer, but Deligne's proof of the Weil conjectures used, in addition to the Grothendieck machinery, the method of de la Vallee-Poussin from analytic number theory.
    $endgroup$
    – aginensky
    Feb 24 at 18:07












    $begingroup$
    @aginensky that I think is only true of Deligne's second paper ("Weil II").
    $endgroup$
    – Piotr Achinger
    Feb 26 at 19:52




    $begingroup$
    @aginensky that I think is only true of Deligne's second paper ("Weil II").
    $endgroup$
    – Piotr Achinger
    Feb 26 at 19:52











    8












    $begingroup$

    You can look at Lectures on applied $ell$-adic cohomology by Fouvry, Kowalski, Michel and Sawin : https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03173






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      8












      $begingroup$

      You can look at Lectures on applied $ell$-adic cohomology by Fouvry, Kowalski, Michel and Sawin : https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03173






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        8












        8








        8





        $begingroup$

        You can look at Lectures on applied $ell$-adic cohomology by Fouvry, Kowalski, Michel and Sawin : https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03173






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        You can look at Lectures on applied $ell$-adic cohomology by Fouvry, Kowalski, Michel and Sawin : https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03173







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        answered Feb 25 at 0:28


























        community wiki





        François Brunault
























            1












            $begingroup$

            From the point of view of analytic number theory the most important specific result which is proved using algebraic geometry is Burgess' bounds for character sums. The proof relies on Wiles bound for character sums, together with a rather complicated combinatorial argument. One could argue that as Stepanov, Schmidt, and Bombieri gave independent proofs of the required bounds, Weils bounds are not really required, but the "elementary" approach is certainly not easy either.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Wiles' bound...?
              $endgroup$
              – KConrad
              Feb 27 at 22:44
















            1












            $begingroup$

            From the point of view of analytic number theory the most important specific result which is proved using algebraic geometry is Burgess' bounds for character sums. The proof relies on Wiles bound for character sums, together with a rather complicated combinatorial argument. One could argue that as Stepanov, Schmidt, and Bombieri gave independent proofs of the required bounds, Weils bounds are not really required, but the "elementary" approach is certainly not easy either.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Wiles' bound...?
              $endgroup$
              – KConrad
              Feb 27 at 22:44














            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            From the point of view of analytic number theory the most important specific result which is proved using algebraic geometry is Burgess' bounds for character sums. The proof relies on Wiles bound for character sums, together with a rather complicated combinatorial argument. One could argue that as Stepanov, Schmidt, and Bombieri gave independent proofs of the required bounds, Weils bounds are not really required, but the "elementary" approach is certainly not easy either.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            From the point of view of analytic number theory the most important specific result which is proved using algebraic geometry is Burgess' bounds for character sums. The proof relies on Wiles bound for character sums, together with a rather complicated combinatorial argument. One could argue that as Stepanov, Schmidt, and Bombieri gave independent proofs of the required bounds, Weils bounds are not really required, but the "elementary" approach is certainly not easy either.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            answered Feb 26 at 15:59


























            community wiki





            Jan-Christoph Schlage-Puchta









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Wiles' bound...?
              $endgroup$
              – KConrad
              Feb 27 at 22:44














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Wiles' bound...?
              $endgroup$
              – KConrad
              Feb 27 at 22:44








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Wiles' bound...?
            $endgroup$
            – KConrad
            Feb 27 at 22:44




            $begingroup$
            Wiles' bound...?
            $endgroup$
            – KConrad
            Feb 27 at 22:44


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324004%2fmodern-algebraic-geometry-and-analytic-number-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?