bio | website | plusepsilon.de |
---|---|---|
location | Uni Hamburg | |
age | 29 | |
visits | member for | 3 years, 10 months |
seen | Jul 28 at 18:22 | |
stats | profile views | 8,218 |
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 $0< \Re s <1/2$. |
Apr 10 |
comment |
leading-order behaviour of riemann zeta function?
I am not getting it? Is your "I'm looking for something...." not stronger then LH, which is certainly not known? |
Apr 10 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on multiplication of two ergodic and stationary processes |
Apr 10 |
answered | Looking for paper: Weil's original 1952 “Sur les formules explicites de la théorie des nombres premiers” |
Apr 10 |
reviewed | Approve suggested edit on Does Cauchy continuity imply uniform continuity? [No.] |
Apr 10 |
comment |
Reference for Kronecker-Weyl theorem in full generality
Sorry, I didn't see the part: " a proof under the assumption that the θj are linearly independent over the rational numbers will not suffice for me." I deleted my answer. |
Apr 8 |
comment |
Inequality for a gamma function
The logarithmic derivative of the Selberg Zeta function grows like $CT^2$ as $\Im z = T \rightarrow \infty$, which can be seen from the Weyl law. More important for its growth is the Barnes-G-function. $\Gamma$ contributes at most $T \log(T)$ in the non-compact setting. |
Apr 8 |
answered | What is the intuition behind the definition of cuspidal representations? |
Apr 7 |
comment |
What is the logarithmic derivative of an (intertwining) operator?
Note that my computation apply only to the highest type. For the computations at the real places and the unramified complex cases, you can have a look at my PhD thesis. There is a good reason for working with highest types/smallest weights = irreducible $K$-reps as soon as you have pinned down the local conditions. |
Apr 6 |
comment |
Homeomorphisms that admit a decomposition
Okay, my mistake;) I see now that it seems to more complicated... |