Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

I don't think you can say many useful things. E.g., if you conider an embedding of a Levi $M \subset GL(2)$, then the pullback should correspond to restriction. Cuspidal automorphic representation or Eisensteries representations are infinite-dimensional, but $M$ automorphic representations are one-dimensional. On the other hand, there are positive examples where useful things can be said, e.g. Labesse-Langlands for $SL(2) \subset GL(2)$ .

Also this seems relevant: Restriction map between spaces of automorphic formsRestriction map between spaces of automorphic forms

I don't think you can say many useful things. E.g., if you conider an embedding of a Levi $M \subset GL(2)$, then the pullback should correspond to restriction. Cuspidal automorphic representation or Eisensteries representations are infinite-dimensional, but $M$ automorphic representations are one-dimensional. On the other hand, there are positive examples where useful things can be said, e.g. Labesse-Langlands for $SL(2) \subset GL(2)$ .

Also this seems relevant: Restriction map between spaces of automorphic forms

I don't think you can say many useful things. E.g., if you conider an embedding of a Levi $M \subset GL(2)$, then the pullback should correspond to restriction. Cuspidal automorphic representation or Eisensteries representations are infinite-dimensional, but $M$ automorphic representations are one-dimensional. On the other hand, there are positive examples where useful things can be said, e.g. Labesse-Langlands for $SL(2) \subset GL(2)$ .

Also this seems relevant: Restriction map between spaces of automorphic forms

added 122 characters in body
Source Link
Marc Palm
Marc Palm
  • 11.2k
  • 2
  • 35
  • 92

I don't think you can say many useful things. E.g., if you conider an embedding of a Levi $M \subset GL(2)$, then the pullback should correspond to restriction. Cuspidal automorphic representation or Eisensteries representations are infinite-dimensional, but $M$ automorphic representations are one-dimensional. On the other hand, there are positive examples where useful things can be said, e.g. Labesse-Langlands for $SL(2) \subset GL(2)$ .

Also this seems relevant: Restriction map between spaces of automorphic forms

I don't think you can say many useful things. E.g., if you conider an embedding of a Levi $M \subset GL(2)$, then the pullback should correspond to restriction. Cuspidal automorphic representation or Eisensteries representations are infinite-dimensional, but $M$ automorphic representations are one-dimensional. On the other hand, there are positive examples where useful things can be said, e.g. Labesse-Langlands for $SL(2) \subset GL(2)$ .

I don't think you can say many useful things. E.g., if you conider an embedding of a Levi $M \subset GL(2)$, then the pullback should correspond to restriction. Cuspidal automorphic representation or Eisensteries representations are infinite-dimensional, but $M$ automorphic representations are one-dimensional. On the other hand, there are positive examples where useful things can be said, e.g. Labesse-Langlands for $SL(2) \subset GL(2)$ .

Also this seems relevant: Restriction map between spaces of automorphic forms

Source Link
Marc Palm
Marc Palm
  • 11.2k
  • 2
  • 35
  • 92

I don't think you can say many useful things. E.g., if you conider an embedding of a Levi $M \subset GL(2)$, then the pullback should correspond to restriction. Cuspidal automorphic representation or Eisensteries representations are infinite-dimensional, but $M$ automorphic representations are one-dimensional. On the other hand, there are positive examples where useful things can be said, e.g. Labesse-Langlands for $SL(2) \subset GL(2)$ .