MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Casselman defined the real Jacquet module for a Harish-Chandra module, if we view the Jacquet module as a module corresponding to the Levi subgroup, the question is is it still a Harish-Chandra module? In particular is it still admissible?

share|cite|improve this question

As I understand it, the Jacquet module for $(\mathfrak g, K)$-modules is defined so as to again be a $\mathfrak g$-module, and in fact it is a Harish-Chandra module, not for $({\mathfrak g},K)$, but rather for $(\mathfrak g,N)$ (where $N$ is the unipotent radical of the parabolic with respect to which we compute the Jacquet module). (I am probably assuming that the original $(\mathfrak g, K)$-module has an infinitesimal character here.)

I am using the definitions of this paper, in particular the discussion of section 2. This in turn refers to Ch. 4 of Wallach's book. So probably this latter reference will cover things in detail.

Added: I may have misunderstood the question (due in part to a confusion on my part about definitions; see the comments below), but perhaps the following remark is helpful:

If one takes the Jacquet module (say in the sense of the above referenced paper, which is also the sense of Wallach), say for a Borel, then it is a category {\mathcal O}-like object: it is a direct sum of weight spaces for a maximal Cartan in ${\mathfrak g},$ and any given weight appears only finitely many times. (See e.g. Lemma 2.3 and Prop. 2.4 in the above referenced paper; no doubt this is also in Wallach in some form; actually these results are for the geometric Jacquet functor of that paper rather than for Wallach's Jacquet module, but I think they should apply just as well to Wallach's.

Maybe they also apply with Casselman's definition; if so, doesn't this give the desired admissibility?

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank, Emerton. The definition in Wallach's book is different from Casselman's, in some sense it's the dual of Casselman's. In Casselman's definition, it becomes a (g,P)-module, and in particular a module for the corresponding Levi. – user1832 Feb 10 '10 at 18:17
Sorry, I didn't know that. Maybe ignore the above, then! – Emerton Feb 10 '10 at 18:25

Your Answer


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.