On equivariant Dedekind zeta-functions at \(s=1\) (Q612975): Difference between revisions

Let \(L/K\) be a finite Galois extension of number fields with Galois group \(G\). \textit{T. Chinburg} [Invent. Math. 74, 321--349 (1983; Zbl 0564.12016)] defined an algebraic invariant \(\Omega(L/K)\) in \(K_0(\mathbb Z[G])\) to be the difference of the two middle terms of a Tate sequence. He conjectured that \(\Omega(L/K)\) equals the root number class \(W(L/K)\), an analytic invariant defined in terms of Artin root numbers. In [Ann. Math. (2) 121, 351--376 (1985; Zbl 0567.12010)] he introduced two further algebraic invariants in \(K_0(\mathbb Z[G])\), now called \(\Omega_i(L/K)\), \(i=1,2,3\), where \(\Omega_3(L/K) = \Omega(L/K)\). These invariants are related by the equation \[ \Omega_2(L/K) = \Omega_1(L/K) \cdot \Omega_3(L/K). \] Chinburg conjectured that \(\Omega_1(L/K) = 1\), and hence that \(\Omega_2(L/K)\) also equals the root number class. All these conjectures have meanwhile been lifted to corresponding conjectures in the relative \(K\)-group \(K_0(\mathbb Z[G], \mathbb R)\); so the Lifted Root Number Conjecture of \textit{K. W. Gruenberg, J. Ritter} and \textit{A. Weiss} [Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 79, No. 1, 47--80 (1999; Zbl 1041.11075)] and the central conjecture of \textit{D. Burns} [Compos. Math. 129, No. 2, 203--237 (2001; Zbl 1014.11070)] refine Chinburg's \(\Omega_3\)-conjecture, whereas the conjectures formulated by \textit{W. Bley} and \textit{D. Burns} [Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 87, No. 3, 545--590 (2003; Zbl 1056.11071)] and the authors of the article under review [Compos. Math. 143, No. 6, 1427--1464 (2007; Zbl 1135.11060)] are the same concerning Chinburg's \(\Omega_2\) and \(\Omega_1\)-conjecture, respectively. This last conjecture relates the leading term of the (\(S\)-truncated) equivariant Artin \(L\)-function at \(s=1\) to the refined Euler characteristic of a certain natural perfect complex of \(\mathbb Z[G]\)-modules (constructed via the global fundamental class of \(L/K\)). As the second author has shown that his lifted version of Chinburg's \(\Omega_3\)-conjecture is equivalent to the equivariant Tamagawa number conjecture for the pair \((h^0(\mathrm{Spec}(L))(0), \mathbb Z[G])\), it is natural to ask if the lifted version of Chinburg's \(\Omega_1\)-conjecture (due to the authors) is equivalent to the equivariant Tamagawa number conjecture for the pair \((h^0(\mathrm{Spec}(L))(1), \mathbb Z[G])\) (note that the conjecture of Bley and Burns measures the compatibility with the functional equation of the equivariant Artin \(L\)-function). In the article under review the authors show that this is in fact true for all extensions \(L/K\) provided that Leopoldt's conjecture holds for all number fields. To give a more concrete example: If \(L\) is complex and \(K = \mathbb Q\), then it suffices to assume Leopoldt's conjecture for the number field \(L\). In particular this leads to a full proof of their conjecture for absolutely abelian extensions.