Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For an irreducible smooth (generic) representation $\pi$ of $G=GL_2(k)$ with central character $\omega$, where $k$ is a $p$-adic field, we define the conductor of a vector $v\in\pi$ as follows. Let $K_0({\mathfrak p}^N)$ be the subgroup of $K=GL_2({\mathfrak o})$ with lower left-hand entry congruent to $0$ modulo ${\mathfrak p}^N$. The conductor of $v$, $c(v)$, is the smallest $N$ such that $$\pi\bigg(\matrix{a&b\cr c&d}\bigg)v=\omega(a)v\ \ {\rm for\ all}\ \bigg(\matrix{a&b\cr c&d}\bigg)\in K_0({\mathfrak p}^N)$$ In other words, $v$ is fixed by $K_0({\mathfrak p}^N)$ up to the action of the center. The conductor of $\pi$, $c(\pi)$, is the smallest $N$ such that there is a $v$ with $c(v)=N$. The subspace of vectors with conductor $c(\pi)$ is one-dimensional and the unique vector $v_0$ that maps to a Whittaker function with $W_0(1)=1$ is called the new vector.

My question is: how can we write down a somewhat-explicit basis of $\pi$ in terms of the new vector $v_0$, indexed by the principal congruence subgroups $K({\mathfrak p}^M)=1_2+{\mathfrak p}^MM_2({\mathfrak o})$? In other words, how can we write a basis of $\pi^{K({\mathfrak p}^M)}$ in terms of $v_0$?

A simple nonexplicit version is this result, from Casselman's "The restriction of a representation of $GL_2(k)$ to $GL_2({\mathfrak o})$": the restriction of $\pi$ to $K$ decomposes as $$res_K^G\pi=\pi^{K({\mathfrak p}^{c(\pi)-1})}\oplus\sum_{n\ge c(\pi)}u_n(\omega)$$ where $u_n$ is the unique irreducible representation of $K$ which is trivial on $K({\mathfrak p}^n)$ but not on $K({\mathfrak p}^{n-1})$ and that contains a vector $v$ with conductor $n$ in the above sense.

share|improve this question
    
Try Mark Reeder's paper "Old forms on $\mathrm{GL}_n$. –  David Hansen Oct 5 '12 at 22:36
    
Thanks, David, I'll check it out. –  B R Oct 8 '12 at 14:19
    
Btw, I think there is a small mistake: if $c(\pi)$ is not zero, all $K$-reps are higher dimensional, so the $K(\pi)$-invariant vectors are not one-dimensional. But all $K$-isotypes occur with multiplicity one, which is essential for giving an easy proof for the commutativity of the (ramified) Hecke operators. –  plusepsilon.de Oct 15 '12 at 9:55
    
Hi Marc, I think you might have misread, though maybe I'm missing something: the one-dimensional space of vectors is fixed by $K_0(p^N)$ rather than $K(p^N)$ (i.e. they are newforms). –  B R Oct 22 '12 at 16:33
    
Ah, you are considering $K_0(p^N)$-types:) Correct! –  plusepsilon.de Oct 22 '12 at 16:55

1 Answer 1

I think that your asking how to map from one isotype to another, right?

Now, one way to map from one isotype to an other is convolution with a function $$\phi = \langle v_1, f v_2\rangle, \qquad f(k_1gk_2) =u_{n_1}(k_1) f(g) u_{n_2}(k_2),$$ where $g$ runs through a set of representatives of $G//K$, and $f$ is $Hom_{\mathbb{C}}(u_{n_2},u_{n_1})$-valued. $v_1$ and $v_2$ are vectors. This follows from Schur's orthogonality relations.

There is possibe a nicer way to express this, but this is essentially the only way! For what purpose do you need this?

Blomer and Harcos describe a basis in Section 2.6 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.2429.pdf.

share|improve this answer
    
Hi Marc, sorry for taking so long to respond! I am exactly trying to move through the types. In fact, Reeder's Oldforms paper does mostly what I want to do. This is related to the other question of mine you answered: I'm doing a calculation that runs through a basis of a representation and needs to be compatible with the $K$-type structure, and I'm trying to write it in a way that I can work with. –  B R Oct 22 '12 at 16:42
    
Okay, and I was suggesting a general (though not very encouraging) method. You could start with highest level with the vector $f(bk')$, where $b \in B$ and $k' \in K_0(p^N)$, and the write $\sigma_{N+1}(\mu)$ as the orthogonal difference of induced representation, compute a matrix coefficient, convolute and so forth... But I see now that you want something less messy and elaborate. I have done this one time for the Steinberg, and this is already a mess:( For the remaining principal series representation, I have kept only working with th K-types associated with fundamental type.... –  plusepsilon.de Oct 22 '12 at 17:09
    
i.e., $\sigma_N(\mu)$, since going to lower level types, e.g. $\sigma_{N+1}(\mu)$ mixes only automorphic representation with different principal series representation at $p$ (i.e. those $\mu$'s coinciding on $1+p^{N+1}$). I like to consult only principal series with varying spectral character, but the same $B$-rep. Am I still clear? –  plusepsilon.de Oct 22 '12 at 17:13

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.