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

I must confess a priori that I haven't read the proof of Taniyama-Shimura, and that my familiarity with Langlands is at best tangential.

As I understand it Langlands for $n=1$ is class field theory. Not an easy theory, but one that was known for a long time.

Langlands for $n=2$ is the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, proven recently by Andrew Wiles and others (some of whom participate in this forum).

Clearly Taniyama-Shimura required new ideas. What special property of the $n=2$ case made the proof of Taniyama-Shimura possible, that doesn't exist for Langlands with $n\geq 3$?

share|cite|improve this question
One reason is that the automorphic forms relevant to Galois representations for $n = 2$ are much easier to understand than the corresponding automorphic forms (conjecturally) associated to Galois representations when $n = 3$. See, for example, this question: – Michael Sep 4 '11 at 2:15
Dear Nicole, You should probably register, and ask the moderators (at the appropriate place on meta) to consolidate your various accounts. This will give you a unified profile for your questions and answers on MO. Regards, Matthew – Emerton Sep 4 '11 at 4:22
One could also quibble a little with the premise of the question. It's taken almost 100 years (more or less) to go from the case $n = 1$ to the case $n = 2$, and the latter <i> still </i> has some unresolved problems which seem very hard. It's not impossible that the even Artin conjecture for $n = 2$ requires tools powerful enough to do everything. – Michael Sep 4 '11 at 18:02
$SL(2) \simeq SO(2,1) \simeq Sp(2)$ (isogenies) – David Hansen Sep 4 '11 at 22:50

"Langlands for $n = 2$", to the extent that such a notion is defined, is more than just Shimura--Taniyama, and for even Galois representations/Maass forms, it is still very much open. (See here for more on this.) For odd Galois representations of dimension $2$, though, it is completely (or almost completely, depending on exactly what you mean by "Langlands") resolved at this point, with the proof of Serre's conjecture (by Khare, Wintenberger, and Kisin) playing a pivotal role.

Much is known for $n > 2$ (see the web-pages of e.g. Michael Harris, Richard Taylor, and Toby Gee). A key point is that it is hard to say anything outside the essentially self-dual case (and this is a condition which is automatic for $n = 2$). A second is that Serre's conjecture is not known in general.

If one restricts to the regular (corresponding to weight $k \geq 2$ when $n = 2$), essentially self-dual case (automatic when $n = 2$), then basically everything for $n = 2$ carries over to $n > 2$, with the exception of Serre's conjecture. (See e.g. the recent preprint of Barnet-Lamb--Gee--Geraghty--Taylor.)

So really, what is special for $n = 2$ is that Serre's conjecture was able to be resolved. And the reason that this has (so far) been possible only for $n = 2$ is that the proof depends on certain special facts about $2$-dimensional Galois representations.

More specifially:

In the particular case of Shimura--Taniyama, the Langlands--Tunnell theorem allowed Wiles to resolve a particular case of Serre's conjecture (for $p = 3$). To then get all the necessary cases of Serre's conjecture, Wiles introduced the $3$-$5$ switch.

The general proof of Serre's conjecture uses a massive generalization of the $3$-$5$ switch (along with many other techniques), and although (unlike with Wiles's argument) it doesn't build specifically on Langlands--Tunnell, it does build on a result of Tate which is a special fact about $2$-dimensional representations of $G_{\mathbb Q}$ over a finite field of characteristic $2$.

share|cite|improve this answer
what is the $3-5$ switch? Is there a layman's exposition? Can we do $p-q$ switch where $p$ and $q$ are primes? Is there a easy reading on this? – Turbo Aug 10 '13 at 23:25
@Arul: Dear Arul, You can find a discussion in the introduction to Wiles's 1994 Annals paper (the one on FLT), and a discussion of similar such prime switches in the Pacific Journal paper of Richard Taylor from around the same time. Basically, it is a method in which one has a mod $p$ Galois representation for some particular prime $p$, and one finds a compatible family of $\ell$-adic representations such that the given representation is the mod $p$ reduction of the $\ell = p$ member of the family, and one then argues at a different prime $q$ to deduce properties (e.g. modularity) of ... – Emerton Aug 11 '13 at 0:22
... the entire compatible family, and so in particular of the original mod $p$ representation. Regards, – Emerton Aug 11 '13 at 0:22

Most (if not all) results in the Langlands program use, at some point, the cohomology of Shimura varieties. The linear group gives rise to Shimura varieties when $n=2$ (modular curves), but not for $n>2$. However, unitary groups furnish Shimura varieties in any dimension and this permits to obtain the automorphy of self-dual Galois representations.

share|cite|improve this answer

One could (and sometimes would) argue the opposite of your claim/question. Namely, that "Langlands for $n = 2$" is more difficult than "Langlands for $n > 2$". Or that more specifically (since I really can't agree with my previous sentence in full generality), "Langlands for $n = 2$" is more difficult than "Langlands for $n > 2$ an odd prime". Here are two key reasons :

1) Suppose $F$ is a $p$-adic field, $n$ is prime, and $p$ doesn't divide $n$. Then the part of the local Langlands correspondence of $GL(n,F)$ dealing with supercuspidal representations (proven by Bushnell/Henniart) is given by $$Ind_{W_E}^{W_F}(\chi) \mapsto \pi(\chi \Delta_{\chi})$$ where $W_F$ is the Weil group of $F$, $E/F$ is a degree $n$ separable extension, $\chi : W_E \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$ is a certain type of character ("admissible" to be precise, see Bushnell/Henniart papers/book), $\Delta_{\chi} : W_E \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$ is a "twisting character" associated to $\chi$ (again see Bushnell/Henniart), and $\pi(\chi \Delta_{\chi})$ is the supercuspidal representation of $GL(n,F)$ attached to $\chi \Delta_{\chi}$ via the "Howe construction". If $n$ is an odd prime, then $\Delta_{\chi}$ is either trivial or the unramified quadratic character of $W_E^{ab} \cong E^*$ (note that any character of $W_E$ factors through the abelianization $W_E^{ab}$). If $n = 2$, then $\Delta_{\chi}$ is much more complicated (see page 217 of Bushnell/Henniart's recent book on $GL(2)$).

2) Let $\pi$ be a supercuspidal representation of $GL(n,F)$ (same assumptions as in the beginning of 1) above). If $n$ is an odd prime, then the distribution character $\theta_{\pi}$ of $\pi$ is much simpler to write down on elliptic tori than if $n = 2$. In particular, if $n = 2$, a non-trivial Gauss sum arises in $\theta_{\pi}$, whereas no such term arises if $n$ is an odd prime. So the theory for $GL(2,F)$ contains some nontrivial arithmetic information that just doesn't arise for $GL(n,F)$, $n$ an odd prime.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.