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

The cuspidal representations of $GL_n(F)$ a non archimedean field $F$ with ring of integers $o$ can be classified by inducing irreducible representation from $Z GL_n(o)$.

The general question:

How does the representation theory of $GL_2(F)$ and the representation theory of $GL_2(o)$ affect each other?

Uri Onn has shown that the irreducible representations of $GL(2,o)$ will depend only upon the residue characteristic.

Does the representation theory of $GL_n(F)$ only depend upon the residue characteristic? Is there a connection to the reduction steps from local field of characteristic zero to fields of characteristic $p$ (e.g. as in the context of the Fundamental lemma)?

In Stasinki "Smooth Representations of $GL(2,o)$" the representations are partionated in to similarity classes of $2 \times 2$ matrices over the residue field (pg.4419) via applying Clifford theory.

What irreducible representations in Stasinski are important for describing the cuspidal representation of $GL(2, F)$?

A little more general, I know that the irreducible dual of $GL_n(o)$ is far from being classified, so to what extent is the irreducible dual of $GL(n,F)$ described in Bushnell-Kutzo "The admissible dual of GL(N) via compact open subgroups".

Is the classification of the irreducible dual of $GL(n,F)$ known only modulo the representation theory $GL(n, o)$ or do we know all the representations of $GL(n,o)$ needed for the dual of $GL(n,F)$?

If the description of the dual of $GL(n,F)$ is possible independently of the dual of $GL_n(o)$, there is a natural last question in the context of Silberger "$PGL_2$ over the $p$ adics", where he classifies the irreducibe of $PGL_2(o)$ via the restricting the irreducible of $PGL_2(F)$.

Can we classify the representation of $GL_n(o)$ by restricting the irreducible representation of $GL_n(F)$?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Abbreviate $G={\rm GL}(n,F)$ and $K={\rm GL}(n,{\mathfrak o})$.

The general philosophy of "type theory" is the following.

When you restrict an irreducible representation of $G$ to $K$, you get a semisimple representation whose irreducible components are of two sorts:

-- irreducible representations of $K$ occuring in "a lot" of representations of $G$ by restriction.

-- the other.

The first ones are uninteresting from the point of view of type theory. The second ones are called "typical" (say).

To construct the smooth dual of $G$, Bushnell and Kutzko construct enough typical representations. But they are very far to have constructed the whole dual of $K$.

So here are the answers to two of your questions :

"Is the classification of the irreducible dual of $G$ known only modulo the representation theory $K$? NO

"Do we know all the representations of $K$ needed for the dual of $G$? YES

share|improve this answer
    
By knowing the typical representations, can we determine, which one of them we should induce so that we obtain the representation on $G$ back? –  plusepsilon.de Feb 23 '12 at 10:19

Some of your questions have several non-equivalent interpretations so it's not so easy to give precise answers, but I will try to give at least partial answers to two of your questions.

How does the representation theory of $GL_2(F)$ and the representation theory of $GL_2(o)$ affect each other?

One possible answer is that every supercuspidal representation of $GL_2(F)$ has a unique type on $GL_2(o)$ (this is due to Henniart for $GL_2$ and Paskunas for $GL_n$). So there is an interesting one-to-one correspondence between supercuspidals and certain representations of $GL_2(o)$.

What irreducible representations of $GL_2(o)$ are important for describing the cuspidal representations of GL(2,F)?

In light of the above connection between supercuspidals and types on $GL_2(o)$, at the very least the representations of $GL_2(o)$ which are supercuspidal types are important. I think these are the ones which are cuspidal or which have an orbit with Eisenstein polynomial. Note that this does not say anything about non-supercuspidal representations and their types on $GL_2(o)$ so is certainly not an exhaustive answer.

share|improve this answer

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.