7
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a compact abelian group. Then we know, because of the Peter-Weyl theorem, that $L^2(G)$ decomposes as a Hilbert space direct sum of 1 dimensional representations of $G$.

Let $\mathbb{A}$ denote the adeles for $\mathbb{Q}$. Suppose we are given an automorphic funtion $\phi:GL_2(\mathbb{A})\to \mathbb{C}$ (I am following the book of Gelbart, Automorphic forms on adele groups, definition 3.3). In particular, $\phi(\gamma g)=\phi(g)$, for $\gamma\in G(\mathbb{Q})$.

Fix $g\in G(\mathbb{A})$, then we get a function on $\mathbb{Q}\backslash\mathbb{A}$ defined as

$$x\mapsto \phi\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}1 & x\\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right)g\right)$$ This being a smooth function on the compact abelian topological group $\mathbb{Q}\backslash \mathbb{A}$ we can write its Fourier series, and the Fourier coefficient for the character $\psi$ will be

$$W_{\phi,\psi}(g)=\int_{\mathbb{Q}\backslash \mathbb{A}}\phi\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}1 & x\\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right)g\right)\psi(x)^{-1}dx$$ Using the Fourier coefficients we may write

$$\phi(g)=\sum_{\psi}W_{\phi,\psi}(g).$$

For $GL_n$ where $n>2$ one defines analogous objects $$W_{\phi,\psi}(g)=\int_{N(\mathbb{Q})\backslash N(\mathbb{A})}\phi(xg) \psi(x)^{-1}dx$$ However, the space $N(\mathbb{Q})\backslash N(\mathbb{A})$ is no more a topological group, though it is compact. Instead of doing this, why don't we simply repeat the process for the $n=2$ case, that is, for $g\in GL_n(\mathbb{A})$ consider, for example, the inclusion of $\mathbb{A}$ in $GL_n(\mathbb{A})$ given by $x\mapsto U(x):=I+xE_{12}$ where $E_{12}$ is the matrix whose $12$ entry is 1 and all other entries are 0. The function $x\mapsto \phi(U(x)g)$ is a smooth function on $\mathbb{Q}\backslash \mathbb{A}$ and we can define the Fourier coefficients as before, that is,

$$W_{\phi,\psi}(g)=\int_{\mathbb{Q}\backslash \mathbb{A}}\phi(U(x)g)\psi(x)^{-1}dx$$ EDIT

Then one has $$\phi(U(x)g)=\sum_{\psi}W_{\phi,\psi}(g)\psi(x)$$ Once again, put $x=0$ to get $$\phi(g)=\sum_{\psi}W_{\phi,\psi}(g).$$

I have not checked this very carefully, but, I guess, as mentioned in the response below we will also have

$$ \phi(g)=\sum_{\gamma\in \mathbb{Q}} W_\phi\left(\begin{pmatrix}\gamma&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}g\right).$$

My question is why do we need to work with the more complicated object $N(\mathbb{Q})\backslash N(\mathbb{A})$. Moreover, if we have to work with this object, then is there an analogous theory of Fourier series behind this.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Rex, The first occurrence of $G$ seems inconsistent with the later occurrences of it (where it seems like it is the reductive group $\mathrm{GL}_2$). $\endgroup$ Jul 30, 2014 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Keenan, I am sorry for the bad notation. $\endgroup$
    – Rex
    Jul 31, 2014 at 8:34

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

It is indeed reasonable to wonder what's going on with "Fourier expansions" along non-abelian (sub-) groups... since, among other things, any one-dimensional representation has to factor through the maximal abelian quotient, so must lose some information.

For contrast: the unipotent radical $N$ of the standard minimal parabolic (upper-triangular matrices) in $GL_3$ is just barely not abelian. It is an example of a sort of Heisenberg group, and the representation theory of Heisenberg groups is well understood, via forms of the Stone-vonNeumann theorem (or, more generally, "Mackey imprimitivity"...) That is, there are one-dimensional repns which are trivial on the center $\pmatrix{1 & 0 & * \cr 0 & 1 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1}$, and for each non-trivial character on the center a unique isomorphism class of irreducible. But this is not what we are doing in writing "Fourier expansions" of automorphic forms.

The way to obtain the Fourier expension on $GL_n$ is iterative, and does use the fact that Fourier expansions along abelian subgroups lose no information. Thus, the literal Fourier expansion along $N^{n-1,1}(\mathbb Q)\backslash N^{n-1,1}(\mathbb A)$ loses no information (where $P^{i,n-i}$ is the standard maximal proper parabolic with diagonal blocks of sizes $i$ and $n-i$ and $N^{i,n-2}$ is its unipotent radical). For cuspforms, the $0$th Fourier coefficient is $0$. Now comes the trick: the upper $n-1$ block of the Levi component of $P^{n-1,1}$ acts transitively on non-trivial characters on $N^{n-1,1}$, and the isotropy subgroup of a suitable "base choice" is close to being the $(n-2,1)$ parabolic in that block of the Levi component. So the $n-1,1$ Fourier expansion of a cuspform is a sum of translates of a single Fourier component (note, not just "coefficient").

Then there's an induction, which I won't re-type here... Leading to $$ f(g) \;=\; \sum_{\gamma \in U(\mathbb Q)\backslash H(\mathbb Q)} W_{f,\psi}(\gamma g) $$ where $H$ is the upper left $n-1$ block of the Levi component of $P^{n-1,1}$ and $U$ is the unipotent radical of the standard minimal parabolic in $H$, and $$ \psi\pmatrix{1 & x_{12} & x_{13} & \ldots \cr 0 & 1 & x_{23} & \ldots \cr & & \ddots & \cr & & & 1 & x_{n-1,n} \cr & & & & 1 } \;\;=\;\; \psi(x_{12}+x_{23}+\ldots+x_{n-1,n}) $$ is a character on the unipotent radical of the minimal parabolic in $GL_n$, obviously vanishing on the derived group of the unipotent radical.

The induction/iterative procedure to obtain this expansion uses the assumption that $f$ is a cuspform repeatedly to know that no information is lost in successively dropping the zero-th Fourier component in literal Fourier expansions along various abelian unipotent radicals.

As GH noted, Jim Cogdell's various notes on $GL_n$ go through this process in some detail.

Edit: to comment on "why not expand along this abelian subgroup..." as in the edited version of the question: first, it is certainly legitimate to do so. The merit of the slightly labyrinthine version (after Shalika and P-S) is that (because of "uniqueness of (local) Whittaker models") the resulting Whittaker function _factors_over_primes_ (for cuspform $f$ generating an irreducible repn of the adele group). That is, up to a single global normalizing constant, $W_{f,\psi}$ is entirely determined by the local data attached to $f$.

This factoring-over-primes feature will not hold for arbitrary or capricious decompositions-along-subgroups, although it is very important to appreciate the situations where it does.

So, again, the virtue of the Shalika-PS version of a "Fourier expansion" is that the Fourier components are essentially products of local (Whittaker) functions.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ This is a nice response, but I am not sure it tells what the OP wants to know, namely why the Fourier-Whittaker expansion is so much better than his baby Fourier expansion (see his EDIT). I expanded my response in this regard, but surely you can explain this better. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Jul 30, 2014 at 15:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GHfromMO, ah, I hadn't noticed the edit in the question. Thanks... $\endgroup$ Jul 30, 2014 at 15:14
  • $\begingroup$ Very good point that the global Whittaker model factors into local ones due to uniqueness. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Jul 30, 2014 at 17:11
5
$\begingroup$

One needs to work with the more complicated object $N(\mathbb{Q})\backslash N(\mathbb{A})$ in order to be able to recover the automorphic form. This is called the Whittaker model for $GL_n$, and it goes as follows. Fix a nontrivial character $\psi$ on $\mathbb{Q}\backslash\mathbb{A}$, and consider the Whittaker function $$ W_{\phi}(g):=\int_{N(\mathbb{Q})\backslash N(\mathbb{A})}\phi(xg) \psi(x_{1,2}+x_{2,3}+\dots+x_{n-1,n})^{-1}dx. $$ The we have the expansion $$ \phi(g)=\sum_{\gamma\in N_{n-1}(\mathbb{Q})\backslash G_{n-1}(\mathbb{Q})} W_\phi\left(\begin{pmatrix}\gamma&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}g\right).$$ Cogdell in his lecture notes (in Lectures on automorphic $L$-functions, AMS, 2004) says on page 31: "As I said, the proof is not hard. The difficult thing, if there is one, is in recognizing that this is what one needs. This was recognized independently by Piatetski-Shapiro and Shalika."

EDIT. The OP's edit and Paul Garrett's comment show that my answer is not really sastisfactory. Perhaps the real advantage of using $N(\mathbb{Q})\backslash N(\mathbb{A})$ instead of $U(\mathbb{Q})\backslash U(\mathbb{A})$ lies in the fact that the resulting functions $W_\phi$ transform nicely with respect to all unipotent elements, namely $$ W_\phi(xg)=\psi(x_{1,2}+x_{2,3}+\dots+x_{n-1,n})W_\phi(g)\quad\text{for}\quad x\in N(\mathbb{A}). $$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe the transition from character of $\mathbb Q\backslash \mathbb A$ to "generic" character on $N$ could bear some amplification... and, as the questioner anticipates, a one-dimensional repn must factor through a quotient group, in this case $N$ by its derived group, etc. $\endgroup$ Jul 30, 2014 at 13:14
  • $\begingroup$ @paulgarrett: You know more about these things, feel free to add a more detailed answer! $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Jul 30, 2014 at 13:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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