Test vector for local zeta integral with ramified characterA natural way of thinking of the definition of an...
Understanding "audieritis" in Psalm 94
Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?
Is there a problem with hiding "forgot password" until it's needed?
Can a monster with multiattack use this ability if they are missing a limb?
Is there any easy technique written in Bhagavad GITA to control lust?
Time travel short story where a man arrives in the late 19th century in a time machine and then sends the machine back into the past
Dot above capital letter not centred
How was Earth single-handedly capable of creating 3 of the 4 gods of chaos?
What are the ramifications of creating a homebrew world without an Astral Plane?
How can I get through very long and very dry, but also very useful technical documents when learning a new tool?
voltage of sounds of mp3files
What't the meaning of this extra silence?
Is there an Impartial Brexit Deal comparison site?
Is expanding the research of a group into machine learning as a PhD student risky?
Will it be accepted, if there is no ''Main Character" stereotype?
The plural of 'stomach"
Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?
I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?
Coordinate position not precise
Personal Teleportation as a Weapon
Generic lambda vs generic function give different behaviour
Everything Bob says is false. How does he get people to trust him?
Is a roofing delivery truck likely to crack my driveway slab?
How can I use the arrow sign in my bash prompt?
Test vector for local zeta integral with ramified character
A natural way of thinking of the definition of an Artin $L$-function?A $p$-adic “Jacobi sum” with an unramified characterDefinition of tamely ramifiedWhat is the correct definition of the cuspidal subspace of $L^2$?A critierion for tamely ramified extension for local fieldIntegral formula for the local L factor of a base changed automorphic representationCharacters of a quadratic extension and convergenceConvergence of local zeta functionExample of fully ramified extension of local fieldEisenstein series with character
$begingroup$
Suppose $pi$ is an unramified principal series representation of ${rm GL}_2(F)$, where $F$ is a non-archimedean local field with integers $mathfrak{o}$. Let $W$ be a function in its Whittaker model. If $chi$ is a quasi-character of $F^times$ then we define its local zeta integral as
$$ Z(W, s, chi, g) = int_{F^times} W((begin{smallmatrix} y & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix})g) chi(y) |y|^{s-1/2}, d^times y,$$ see e.g. (6.28) of Gelbart's book. Then for $W= W_0$ the unique $K = {rm GL}_2(mathfrak{o})$-invariant Whittaker function with $W_0(1)=1$, we have $$Z(W_0,s,chi,1) = L(s, pi otimes chi),$$ see e.g. prop 6.17b of Gelbart.
Note that if $chi$ is ramified, then we have simply $$L(s,pi otimes chi)=1.$$ Let's write $y in F^times$ as $p^n x,$ where $x in mathfrak{o}^times$, and $p$ is a uniformizer, and $chi$ as $chi(p^nx) = |p^n|^{s'} chi^*(x),$ where $ chi^*$ is a character of $mathfrak{o}^times$. Then we have
$$Z(W,s, chi, 1) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} W((begin{smallmatrix} p^n & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix}))|p^n|^{s-1/2+s'} int_{x in mathfrak{o}^times} chi^*(x),dx,$$
which is $0$ if $chi$ is ramified. Contradiction.
Am I correct to interpret the above to mean that the $W_0$ that I have chosen above is not the correct choice of test vector for the zeta integral when $chi$ is ramified? If so, what is the correct test vector?
number-theory modular-forms automorphic-forms l-functions
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Suppose $pi$ is an unramified principal series representation of ${rm GL}_2(F)$, where $F$ is a non-archimedean local field with integers $mathfrak{o}$. Let $W$ be a function in its Whittaker model. If $chi$ is a quasi-character of $F^times$ then we define its local zeta integral as
$$ Z(W, s, chi, g) = int_{F^times} W((begin{smallmatrix} y & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix})g) chi(y) |y|^{s-1/2}, d^times y,$$ see e.g. (6.28) of Gelbart's book. Then for $W= W_0$ the unique $K = {rm GL}_2(mathfrak{o})$-invariant Whittaker function with $W_0(1)=1$, we have $$Z(W_0,s,chi,1) = L(s, pi otimes chi),$$ see e.g. prop 6.17b of Gelbart.
Note that if $chi$ is ramified, then we have simply $$L(s,pi otimes chi)=1.$$ Let's write $y in F^times$ as $p^n x,$ where $x in mathfrak{o}^times$, and $p$ is a uniformizer, and $chi$ as $chi(p^nx) = |p^n|^{s'} chi^*(x),$ where $ chi^*$ is a character of $mathfrak{o}^times$. Then we have
$$Z(W,s, chi, 1) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} W((begin{smallmatrix} p^n & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix}))|p^n|^{s-1/2+s'} int_{x in mathfrak{o}^times} chi^*(x),dx,$$
which is $0$ if $chi$ is ramified. Contradiction.
Am I correct to interpret the above to mean that the $W_0$ that I have chosen above is not the correct choice of test vector for the zeta integral when $chi$ is ramified? If so, what is the correct test vector?
number-theory modular-forms automorphic-forms l-functions
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure you have quoted Gelbart's Prop 6.17 correctly? It's clear that the local zeta integral with the spherical test vector will be 0 if $chi$ is ramified. The correct test vector is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$, which is not the same as the image in $pi otimes chi$ of the new vector of $pi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 16 at 0:08
$begingroup$
Gelbart Says: "If $pi_v$ is class one then $W(pi_v)$ contains exactly one $K_v$ invariant function $W^0_v(g)$ such that $W^0_v(e)=1$ and for this $W^0_v(g)$ [second display of op] obtains."
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 16:43
$begingroup$
If one needs to take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$, then the $chi$ in the definition of $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is pretty redundant, no? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ in the Kirillov model is $1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$, for which $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is still 0. If I take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ and use that in a zeta integral of the form $Z(W,s,g)$, then this zeta integral equals $L(s, pi otimes chi)$, of course. Is that what Gelbart means here?
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 17:24
1
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper, I think Gelbart is actually mistaken here; what he has written is only correct if $chi$ is unramified.
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
Mar 17 at 19:28
2
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper What I meant, more precisely, is that the correct test vector is the vector in $pi$ whose image in $pi otimes chi$ is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 17 at 23:27
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Suppose $pi$ is an unramified principal series representation of ${rm GL}_2(F)$, where $F$ is a non-archimedean local field with integers $mathfrak{o}$. Let $W$ be a function in its Whittaker model. If $chi$ is a quasi-character of $F^times$ then we define its local zeta integral as
$$ Z(W, s, chi, g) = int_{F^times} W((begin{smallmatrix} y & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix})g) chi(y) |y|^{s-1/2}, d^times y,$$ see e.g. (6.28) of Gelbart's book. Then for $W= W_0$ the unique $K = {rm GL}_2(mathfrak{o})$-invariant Whittaker function with $W_0(1)=1$, we have $$Z(W_0,s,chi,1) = L(s, pi otimes chi),$$ see e.g. prop 6.17b of Gelbart.
Note that if $chi$ is ramified, then we have simply $$L(s,pi otimes chi)=1.$$ Let's write $y in F^times$ as $p^n x,$ where $x in mathfrak{o}^times$, and $p$ is a uniformizer, and $chi$ as $chi(p^nx) = |p^n|^{s'} chi^*(x),$ where $ chi^*$ is a character of $mathfrak{o}^times$. Then we have
$$Z(W,s, chi, 1) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} W((begin{smallmatrix} p^n & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix}))|p^n|^{s-1/2+s'} int_{x in mathfrak{o}^times} chi^*(x),dx,$$
which is $0$ if $chi$ is ramified. Contradiction.
Am I correct to interpret the above to mean that the $W_0$ that I have chosen above is not the correct choice of test vector for the zeta integral when $chi$ is ramified? If so, what is the correct test vector?
number-theory modular-forms automorphic-forms l-functions
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
$endgroup$
Suppose $pi$ is an unramified principal series representation of ${rm GL}_2(F)$, where $F$ is a non-archimedean local field with integers $mathfrak{o}$. Let $W$ be a function in its Whittaker model. If $chi$ is a quasi-character of $F^times$ then we define its local zeta integral as
$$ Z(W, s, chi, g) = int_{F^times} W((begin{smallmatrix} y & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix})g) chi(y) |y|^{s-1/2}, d^times y,$$ see e.g. (6.28) of Gelbart's book. Then for $W= W_0$ the unique $K = {rm GL}_2(mathfrak{o})$-invariant Whittaker function with $W_0(1)=1$, we have $$Z(W_0,s,chi,1) = L(s, pi otimes chi),$$ see e.g. prop 6.17b of Gelbart.
Note that if $chi$ is ramified, then we have simply $$L(s,pi otimes chi)=1.$$ Let's write $y in F^times$ as $p^n x,$ where $x in mathfrak{o}^times$, and $p$ is a uniformizer, and $chi$ as $chi(p^nx) = |p^n|^{s'} chi^*(x),$ where $ chi^*$ is a character of $mathfrak{o}^times$. Then we have
$$Z(W,s, chi, 1) = sum_{n in mathbb{Z}} W((begin{smallmatrix} p^n & 0 \ 0 & 1 end{smallmatrix}))|p^n|^{s-1/2+s'} int_{x in mathfrak{o}^times} chi^*(x),dx,$$
which is $0$ if $chi$ is ramified. Contradiction.
Am I correct to interpret the above to mean that the $W_0$ that I have chosen above is not the correct choice of test vector for the zeta integral when $chi$ is ramified? If so, what is the correct test vector?
number-theory modular-forms automorphic-forms l-functions
number-theory modular-forms automorphic-forms l-functions
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
edited Mar 18 at 9:33
Sandpiper
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
asked Mar 15 at 9:30
SandpiperSandpiper
216
216
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure you have quoted Gelbart's Prop 6.17 correctly? It's clear that the local zeta integral with the spherical test vector will be 0 if $chi$ is ramified. The correct test vector is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$, which is not the same as the image in $pi otimes chi$ of the new vector of $pi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 16 at 0:08
$begingroup$
Gelbart Says: "If $pi_v$ is class one then $W(pi_v)$ contains exactly one $K_v$ invariant function $W^0_v(g)$ such that $W^0_v(e)=1$ and for this $W^0_v(g)$ [second display of op] obtains."
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 16:43
$begingroup$
If one needs to take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$, then the $chi$ in the definition of $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is pretty redundant, no? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ in the Kirillov model is $1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$, for which $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is still 0. If I take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ and use that in a zeta integral of the form $Z(W,s,g)$, then this zeta integral equals $L(s, pi otimes chi)$, of course. Is that what Gelbart means here?
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 17:24
1
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper, I think Gelbart is actually mistaken here; what he has written is only correct if $chi$ is unramified.
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
Mar 17 at 19:28
2
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper What I meant, more precisely, is that the correct test vector is the vector in $pi$ whose image in $pi otimes chi$ is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 17 at 23:27
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure you have quoted Gelbart's Prop 6.17 correctly? It's clear that the local zeta integral with the spherical test vector will be 0 if $chi$ is ramified. The correct test vector is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$, which is not the same as the image in $pi otimes chi$ of the new vector of $pi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 16 at 0:08
$begingroup$
Gelbart Says: "If $pi_v$ is class one then $W(pi_v)$ contains exactly one $K_v$ invariant function $W^0_v(g)$ such that $W^0_v(e)=1$ and for this $W^0_v(g)$ [second display of op] obtains."
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 16:43
$begingroup$
If one needs to take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$, then the $chi$ in the definition of $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is pretty redundant, no? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ in the Kirillov model is $1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$, for which $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is still 0. If I take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ and use that in a zeta integral of the form $Z(W,s,g)$, then this zeta integral equals $L(s, pi otimes chi)$, of course. Is that what Gelbart means here?
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 17:24
1
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper, I think Gelbart is actually mistaken here; what he has written is only correct if $chi$ is unramified.
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
Mar 17 at 19:28
2
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper What I meant, more precisely, is that the correct test vector is the vector in $pi$ whose image in $pi otimes chi$ is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 17 at 23:27
1
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure you have quoted Gelbart's Prop 6.17 correctly? It's clear that the local zeta integral with the spherical test vector will be 0 if $chi$ is ramified. The correct test vector is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$, which is not the same as the image in $pi otimes chi$ of the new vector of $pi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 16 at 0:08
$begingroup$
Are you sure you have quoted Gelbart's Prop 6.17 correctly? It's clear that the local zeta integral with the spherical test vector will be 0 if $chi$ is ramified. The correct test vector is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$, which is not the same as the image in $pi otimes chi$ of the new vector of $pi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 16 at 0:08
$begingroup$
Gelbart Says: "If $pi_v$ is class one then $W(pi_v)$ contains exactly one $K_v$ invariant function $W^0_v(g)$ such that $W^0_v(e)=1$ and for this $W^0_v(g)$ [second display of op] obtains."
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 16:43
$begingroup$
Gelbart Says: "If $pi_v$ is class one then $W(pi_v)$ contains exactly one $K_v$ invariant function $W^0_v(g)$ such that $W^0_v(e)=1$ and for this $W^0_v(g)$ [second display of op] obtains."
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 16:43
$begingroup$
If one needs to take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$, then the $chi$ in the definition of $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is pretty redundant, no? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ in the Kirillov model is $1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$, for which $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is still 0. If I take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ and use that in a zeta integral of the form $Z(W,s,g)$, then this zeta integral equals $L(s, pi otimes chi)$, of course. Is that what Gelbart means here?
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 17:24
$begingroup$
If one needs to take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$, then the $chi$ in the definition of $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is pretty redundant, no? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ in the Kirillov model is $1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$, for which $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is still 0. If I take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ and use that in a zeta integral of the form $Z(W,s,g)$, then this zeta integral equals $L(s, pi otimes chi)$, of course. Is that what Gelbart means here?
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 17:24
1
1
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper, I think Gelbart is actually mistaken here; what he has written is only correct if $chi$ is unramified.
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
Mar 17 at 19:28
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper, I think Gelbart is actually mistaken here; what he has written is only correct if $chi$ is unramified.
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
Mar 17 at 19:28
2
2
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper What I meant, more precisely, is that the correct test vector is the vector in $pi$ whose image in $pi otimes chi$ is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 17 at 23:27
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper What I meant, more precisely, is that the correct test vector is the vector in $pi$ whose image in $pi otimes chi$ is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 17 at 23:27
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
[Expanding my comment to an answer]
The new vector of $pi$ is not the correct test vector to use when $chi$ is ramified; and if Gelbart really claims this holds for all $chi$, then he is wrong.
You can decompose the Kirillov model of $pi$ as a (countably infinite) direct sum of eigenspaces for the action of $mathfrak{o}^times$. It's easy to check that any function that is in an eigenspace other than the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace will be sent to 0 by $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$. Conversely, a Schwartz function on $F$ which lies in the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace for $mathfrak{o}^times$ had better vanish at 0 and hence have compact support in $F^times$; so this eigenspace is precisely the linear combinations of the functions $chi^{-1} cdot 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$, for $n in mathbf{Z}$ (exercise). So the space of functions ${ Z(W, s, chi, 1) }$ for varying $W$ is exactly the space of polynomials in $q^{-s}$, and the function with Kirillov model $chi^{-1} 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$ will be a test vector for any $n$, although $n = 0$ is surely the most obvious choice. (Note that the vector with Kirillov function $chi^{-1} 1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$ maps to the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.)
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes. The issue is that $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$ is a linear functional which transforms by $chi$ on $mathfrak o^times$ (say in the Kirillov model). So if you plug in a function which is $mathfrak o^times$-invariant and $chi$ is ramified, you must get 0.
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ok, fair enough, but I shouldn't have written the question so that it could admit a yes/no answer. I've edited the original question to ask for what the right test vector should be.
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 18 at 9:35
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper You can of course do what David Loeffler suggests in the comments to get a test vector, though I'm not sure if it's the "correct" one. E.g., maybe you want a certain translate of the new vector---see my paper with File and Pitale or Vatsal's recent preprint on the arXiv for the case of ramified test vectors for toric periods.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 13:19
1
$begingroup$
@Kimball It is the correct one.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
@DavidLoeffler Are you saying that vector is of the form $pi(diag(a,1))W_0$ where $W_0$ is the newvector in $pi$? I could be misremembering, but I think this is not true.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
@Kimball No, I am not saying that, it is obviously false; I am saying something else. (The new vector of $pi times chi$ is not the twist of the new vector of $pi$.) See my detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 23:39
add a comment |
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: "69"
};
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149105%2ftest-vector-for-local-zeta-integral-with-ramified-character%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
[Expanding my comment to an answer]
The new vector of $pi$ is not the correct test vector to use when $chi$ is ramified; and if Gelbart really claims this holds for all $chi$, then he is wrong.
You can decompose the Kirillov model of $pi$ as a (countably infinite) direct sum of eigenspaces for the action of $mathfrak{o}^times$. It's easy to check that any function that is in an eigenspace other than the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace will be sent to 0 by $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$. Conversely, a Schwartz function on $F$ which lies in the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace for $mathfrak{o}^times$ had better vanish at 0 and hence have compact support in $F^times$; so this eigenspace is precisely the linear combinations of the functions $chi^{-1} cdot 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$, for $n in mathbf{Z}$ (exercise). So the space of functions ${ Z(W, s, chi, 1) }$ for varying $W$ is exactly the space of polynomials in $q^{-s}$, and the function with Kirillov model $chi^{-1} 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$ will be a test vector for any $n$, although $n = 0$ is surely the most obvious choice. (Note that the vector with Kirillov function $chi^{-1} 1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$ maps to the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.)
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Expanding my comment to an answer]
The new vector of $pi$ is not the correct test vector to use when $chi$ is ramified; and if Gelbart really claims this holds for all $chi$, then he is wrong.
You can decompose the Kirillov model of $pi$ as a (countably infinite) direct sum of eigenspaces for the action of $mathfrak{o}^times$. It's easy to check that any function that is in an eigenspace other than the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace will be sent to 0 by $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$. Conversely, a Schwartz function on $F$ which lies in the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace for $mathfrak{o}^times$ had better vanish at 0 and hence have compact support in $F^times$; so this eigenspace is precisely the linear combinations of the functions $chi^{-1} cdot 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$, for $n in mathbf{Z}$ (exercise). So the space of functions ${ Z(W, s, chi, 1) }$ for varying $W$ is exactly the space of polynomials in $q^{-s}$, and the function with Kirillov model $chi^{-1} 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$ will be a test vector for any $n$, although $n = 0$ is surely the most obvious choice. (Note that the vector with Kirillov function $chi^{-1} 1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$ maps to the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.)
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Expanding my comment to an answer]
The new vector of $pi$ is not the correct test vector to use when $chi$ is ramified; and if Gelbart really claims this holds for all $chi$, then he is wrong.
You can decompose the Kirillov model of $pi$ as a (countably infinite) direct sum of eigenspaces for the action of $mathfrak{o}^times$. It's easy to check that any function that is in an eigenspace other than the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace will be sent to 0 by $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$. Conversely, a Schwartz function on $F$ which lies in the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace for $mathfrak{o}^times$ had better vanish at 0 and hence have compact support in $F^times$; so this eigenspace is precisely the linear combinations of the functions $chi^{-1} cdot 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$, for $n in mathbf{Z}$ (exercise). So the space of functions ${ Z(W, s, chi, 1) }$ for varying $W$ is exactly the space of polynomials in $q^{-s}$, and the function with Kirillov model $chi^{-1} 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$ will be a test vector for any $n$, although $n = 0$ is surely the most obvious choice. (Note that the vector with Kirillov function $chi^{-1} 1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$ maps to the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.)
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
$endgroup$
[Expanding my comment to an answer]
The new vector of $pi$ is not the correct test vector to use when $chi$ is ramified; and if Gelbart really claims this holds for all $chi$, then he is wrong.
You can decompose the Kirillov model of $pi$ as a (countably infinite) direct sum of eigenspaces for the action of $mathfrak{o}^times$. It's easy to check that any function that is in an eigenspace other than the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace will be sent to 0 by $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$. Conversely, a Schwartz function on $F$ which lies in the $chi^{-1}$-eigenspace for $mathfrak{o}^times$ had better vanish at 0 and hence have compact support in $F^times$; so this eigenspace is precisely the linear combinations of the functions $chi^{-1} cdot 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$, for $n in mathbf{Z}$ (exercise). So the space of functions ${ Z(W, s, chi, 1) }$ for varying $W$ is exactly the space of polynomials in $q^{-s}$, and the function with Kirillov model $chi^{-1} 1_{varpi^n mathfrak{o}^times}$ will be a test vector for any $n$, although $n = 0$ is surely the most obvious choice. (Note that the vector with Kirillov function $chi^{-1} 1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$ maps to the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.)
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
answered Mar 18 at 13:37
David LoefflerDavid Loeffler
7,032923
7,032923
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes. The issue is that $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$ is a linear functional which transforms by $chi$ on $mathfrak o^times$ (say in the Kirillov model). So if you plug in a function which is $mathfrak o^times$-invariant and $chi$ is ramified, you must get 0.
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ok, fair enough, but I shouldn't have written the question so that it could admit a yes/no answer. I've edited the original question to ask for what the right test vector should be.
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 18 at 9:35
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper You can of course do what David Loeffler suggests in the comments to get a test vector, though I'm not sure if it's the "correct" one. E.g., maybe you want a certain translate of the new vector---see my paper with File and Pitale or Vatsal's recent preprint on the arXiv for the case of ramified test vectors for toric periods.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 13:19
1
$begingroup$
@Kimball It is the correct one.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
@DavidLoeffler Are you saying that vector is of the form $pi(diag(a,1))W_0$ where $W_0$ is the newvector in $pi$? I could be misremembering, but I think this is not true.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
@Kimball No, I am not saying that, it is obviously false; I am saying something else. (The new vector of $pi times chi$ is not the twist of the new vector of $pi$.) See my detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 23:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes. The issue is that $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$ is a linear functional which transforms by $chi$ on $mathfrak o^times$ (say in the Kirillov model). So if you plug in a function which is $mathfrak o^times$-invariant and $chi$ is ramified, you must get 0.
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ok, fair enough, but I shouldn't have written the question so that it could admit a yes/no answer. I've edited the original question to ask for what the right test vector should be.
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 18 at 9:35
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper You can of course do what David Loeffler suggests in the comments to get a test vector, though I'm not sure if it's the "correct" one. E.g., maybe you want a certain translate of the new vector---see my paper with File and Pitale or Vatsal's recent preprint on the arXiv for the case of ramified test vectors for toric periods.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 13:19
1
$begingroup$
@Kimball It is the correct one.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
@DavidLoeffler Are you saying that vector is of the form $pi(diag(a,1))W_0$ where $W_0$ is the newvector in $pi$? I could be misremembering, but I think this is not true.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
@Kimball No, I am not saying that, it is obviously false; I am saying something else. (The new vector of $pi times chi$ is not the twist of the new vector of $pi$.) See my detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 23:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes. The issue is that $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$ is a linear functional which transforms by $chi$ on $mathfrak o^times$ (say in the Kirillov model). So if you plug in a function which is $mathfrak o^times$-invariant and $chi$ is ramified, you must get 0.
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
$endgroup$
Yes. The issue is that $Z(-, s, chi, 1)$ is a linear functional which transforms by $chi$ on $mathfrak o^times$ (say in the Kirillov model). So if you plug in a function which is $mathfrak o^times$-invariant and $chi$ is ramified, you must get 0.
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
answered Mar 16 at 0:09
KimballKimball
2,0251029
2,0251029
$begingroup$
Ok, fair enough, but I shouldn't have written the question so that it could admit a yes/no answer. I've edited the original question to ask for what the right test vector should be.
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 18 at 9:35
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper You can of course do what David Loeffler suggests in the comments to get a test vector, though I'm not sure if it's the "correct" one. E.g., maybe you want a certain translate of the new vector---see my paper with File and Pitale or Vatsal's recent preprint on the arXiv for the case of ramified test vectors for toric periods.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 13:19
1
$begingroup$
@Kimball It is the correct one.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
@DavidLoeffler Are you saying that vector is of the form $pi(diag(a,1))W_0$ where $W_0$ is the newvector in $pi$? I could be misremembering, but I think this is not true.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
@Kimball No, I am not saying that, it is obviously false; I am saying something else. (The new vector of $pi times chi$ is not the twist of the new vector of $pi$.) See my detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 23:39
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ok, fair enough, but I shouldn't have written the question so that it could admit a yes/no answer. I've edited the original question to ask for what the right test vector should be.
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 18 at 9:35
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper You can of course do what David Loeffler suggests in the comments to get a test vector, though I'm not sure if it's the "correct" one. E.g., maybe you want a certain translate of the new vector---see my paper with File and Pitale or Vatsal's recent preprint on the arXiv for the case of ramified test vectors for toric periods.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 13:19
1
$begingroup$
@Kimball It is the correct one.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
@DavidLoeffler Are you saying that vector is of the form $pi(diag(a,1))W_0$ where $W_0$ is the newvector in $pi$? I could be misremembering, but I think this is not true.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
@Kimball No, I am not saying that, it is obviously false; I am saying something else. (The new vector of $pi times chi$ is not the twist of the new vector of $pi$.) See my detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 23:39
$begingroup$
Ok, fair enough, but I shouldn't have written the question so that it could admit a yes/no answer. I've edited the original question to ask for what the right test vector should be.
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 18 at 9:35
$begingroup$
Ok, fair enough, but I shouldn't have written the question so that it could admit a yes/no answer. I've edited the original question to ask for what the right test vector should be.
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 18 at 9:35
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper You can of course do what David Loeffler suggests in the comments to get a test vector, though I'm not sure if it's the "correct" one. E.g., maybe you want a certain translate of the new vector---see my paper with File and Pitale or Vatsal's recent preprint on the arXiv for the case of ramified test vectors for toric periods.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 13:19
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper You can of course do what David Loeffler suggests in the comments to get a test vector, though I'm not sure if it's the "correct" one. E.g., maybe you want a certain translate of the new vector---see my paper with File and Pitale or Vatsal's recent preprint on the arXiv for the case of ramified test vectors for toric periods.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 13:19
1
1
$begingroup$
@Kimball It is the correct one.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
@Kimball It is the correct one.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 13:40
$begingroup$
@DavidLoeffler Are you saying that vector is of the form $pi(diag(a,1))W_0$ where $W_0$ is the newvector in $pi$? I could be misremembering, but I think this is not true.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
@DavidLoeffler Are you saying that vector is of the form $pi(diag(a,1))W_0$ where $W_0$ is the newvector in $pi$? I could be misremembering, but I think this is not true.
$endgroup$
– Kimball
Mar 18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
@Kimball No, I am not saying that, it is obviously false; I am saying something else. (The new vector of $pi times chi$ is not the twist of the new vector of $pi$.) See my detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 23:39
$begingroup$
@Kimball No, I am not saying that, it is obviously false; I am saying something else. (The new vector of $pi times chi$ is not the twist of the new vector of $pi$.) See my detailed answer.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 18 at 23:39
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3149105%2ftest-vector-for-local-zeta-integral-with-ramified-character%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
$begingroup$
Are you sure you have quoted Gelbart's Prop 6.17 correctly? It's clear that the local zeta integral with the spherical test vector will be 0 if $chi$ is ramified. The correct test vector is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$, which is not the same as the image in $pi otimes chi$ of the new vector of $pi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 16 at 0:08
$begingroup$
Gelbart Says: "If $pi_v$ is class one then $W(pi_v)$ contains exactly one $K_v$ invariant function $W^0_v(g)$ such that $W^0_v(e)=1$ and for this $W^0_v(g)$ [second display of op] obtains."
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 16:43
$begingroup$
If one needs to take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$, then the $chi$ in the definition of $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is pretty redundant, no? Also, if I'm not mistaken, the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ in the Kirillov model is $1_{mathfrak{o}^times}$, for which $Z(W, chi, s, 1)$ is still 0. If I take the new vector for $pi otimes chi$ and use that in a zeta integral of the form $Z(W,s,g)$, then this zeta integral equals $L(s, pi otimes chi)$, of course. Is that what Gelbart means here?
$endgroup$
– Sandpiper
Mar 17 at 17:24
1
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper, I think Gelbart is actually mistaken here; what he has written is only correct if $chi$ is unramified.
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
Mar 17 at 19:28
2
$begingroup$
@Sandpiper What I meant, more precisely, is that the correct test vector is the vector in $pi$ whose image in $pi otimes chi$ is the new vector of $pi otimes chi$.
$endgroup$
– David Loeffler
Mar 17 at 23:27