bio | website | plusepsilon.de |
---|---|---|
location | Uni Hamburg | |
age | 29 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 5 months |
seen | Jan 31 at 13:20 | |
stats | profile views | 8,458 |
Apr 29 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Apr 18 |
awarded | rt.representation-theory |
Apr 17 |
comment |
Can $T$ act trivial in a repn of SL$_2(\mathbb{Z}_N)$?
Be careful that $p$ is much easier than $p^k$. I actually don't understand your proof even for the case $p$. |
Apr 17 |
revised |
Can $T$ act trivial in a repn of SL$_2(\mathbb{Z}_N)$?
added 201 characters in body |
Apr 17 |
revised |
Can $T$ act trivial in a repn of SL$_2(\mathbb{Z}_N)$?
added 551 characters in body |
Apr 17 |
revised |
Can $T$ act trivial in a repn of SL$_2(\mathbb{Z}_N)$?
added 15 characters in body |
Apr 17 |
comment |
Phillips-Sarnak conjecture in higher dimension
What about superrigidity? Does it not contradict your claim about existence of non-arithmetic lattices in higher rank? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrigidity |
Apr 17 |
answered | Can $T$ act trivial in a repn of SL$_2(\mathbb{Z}_N)$? |
Apr 17 |
comment |
Are the only discrete groups with nontrivial p-adic Haar measure finite?
What is a tight measure? How is the isometry between $M(G)$ and $c_0(G)$? Usually $c_0(G)' = M(G)$, so there is a dual. I can't actually see why it should matter $C_p$ or $C$ valued measures here. It is more likely to see where you go wrong if you add all definitions. |
Apr 14 |
answered | Fourier series of functions on compact groups |
Apr 14 |
comment |
The sum over zeros in the explicit formula for $\zeta(s)$
If you mean the explicit formula of Weil, the test function should be bounded by $(1+|\im z|))^{2 + \epsilon}$ and we also have absolute convergence there. So I am not sure if your argument can be made rigorous, because it would imply an explicit formula with more relaxed conditions on the allowed test functions. |
Apr 12 |
comment |
What is the current status of representations of $GL_n(F)$ (and other algebraic groups)?
I also recommend Bushnell-Henniart Local Langlands for GL(2) for the Bushnell-Kutzko theory. It is more digestible for a beginner, I think. |
Apr 11 |
revised |
What is the current status of representations of $GL_n(F)$ (and other algebraic groups)?
added 17 characters in body |
Apr 11 |
comment |
What is the current status of representations of $GL_n(F)$ (and other algebraic groups)?
Thanks, that's what I meant. |
Apr 11 |
revised |
What is the current status of representations of $GL_n(F)$ (and other algebraic groups)?
added 874 characters in body |
Apr 11 |
answered | What is the current status of representations of $GL_n(F)$ (and other algebraic groups)? |
Apr 11 |
comment |
What is the current status of representations of $GL_n(F)$ (and other algebraic groups)?
When $F$ is local non-archimedean field,... |
Apr 11 |
comment |
What is the intuition behind the definition of cuspidal representations?
"some and therefore every" |
Apr 10 |
comment |
What is the intuition behind the definition of cuspidal representations?
Yes the unipotent radiacal of any Borel subgroup (defined over $F$). Note that your are allowed to conjugate by elements of $GL_2(F)$. There are may expositions on how to move between classical and adelic language, see e.g. Bump's book. |
Apr 10 |
comment |
leading-order behaviour of riemann zeta function?
$\zeta$ gets arbitrary small in $1/2 \leq \Re s <1$. I am not sure about $0< \Re s <1/2$. |