## (why) Are the following two constructions of zeta functions equal?

### Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

Let $X$ be a variety defined over $\mathbb{Q}$. One has the usual Hasse-Weil zeta function.

Now, let's do a different construction. Base change $X$ to $\mathbb{C}$: $X_{\mathbb{C}}$. Now look at its pure numerical motive $hX_{\mathbb{C}}$ (living in $\mathcal{M}_{num}(\mathbb{C})$). I am given to believe that there is a way to define zeta functions on pure numerical motives (although I can't say I understand the construction).

Are these two the same? Could this be? It seems like one would lose a lot of (arithmetic) information when base changing to $\mathbb{C}$. For example, doesn't this imply that one would get the same function if one were to take the Hasse-Weil zeta function for any other $\mathbb{Q}$-model of $X_{\mathbb{C}}$?

Am I misunderstanding, or is this truly an uncanny phenomena? Is the construction conjectural? If not -- then it must mean that $X_{\mathbb{C}}$, a geometric object, contains all of the arithmetic information of a $\mathbb{Q}$-model of it. Why should that be true?

-

2
Half of your instincts are correct: you can't recover the zeta function from what happens at $\mathbb{C}$. You can see this already by just considering Dedekind zeta functions: certainly they carry more information than the degree of the extension. The zeta function is rather something of an amalgamation of what happens at every prime, or a kind of generating function for the number of solutions to some equation or what have you. – Moosbrugger Aug 9 2011 at 2:01

3
I think Dipendra Prasad and C.S. Rajan conjecture something close to what you write, that is, that the zeta function for smooth projective curves should almost be determined by $X_{\mathbb{C}}$. Maybe something like: If $X$ and $Y$ over a number field $F$ are isospectral for every complex embedding of $F$, then there is a finite extenstion $K$ of $F$ such that the zeta functions of $X_K$ and $Y_K$ are the same. Here, the spectrum refers to that of the Laplacian, when computed using a constant curvature metric. Obviously, such a statement, if true, is meant to be difficult and deep. – Minhyong Kim Aug 9 2011 at 2:41
I'm beginning to think that I did misunderstand. I guess the two things that should be equal are the Hasse-Weil zeta function of $X$ and the zeta function of the motive $hX$ living in $\mathcal{M}_{num}(\mathbb{Q})$, rather than $\mathcal{M}_{num}(\mathbb{C})$... – James D. Taylor Aug 9 2011 at 2:58
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 26, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9275813698768616, "perplexity_flag": "head"}