Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 1, 2018 at 13:49 vote accept Desiderius Severus
Dec 18, 2016 at 9:58 comment added Desiderius Severus @JudithLudwig Could we lift a bound on the character associated to $\pi_{SL_2(\mathbf{Q}_p)}$ to a bound on the character associated to $\pi$, representation on $GL_2$?
Mar 24, 2016 at 22:54 history bounty ended Desiderius Severus
Mar 24, 2016 at 22:54 vote accept Desiderius Severus
Dec 18, 2016 at 9:58
Mar 24, 2016 at 22:54 comment added Desiderius Severus @LSpice Thanks for the references, especially leading me towards DeBacker's thesis.
Mar 24, 2016 at 22:53 comment added Desiderius Severus @JudithLudwig Thank you for those explanation, they seems to do the job for my purposes for now. The main point was the uniformly bounded number of representations in the decomposition of the restriction, and it is donne by Shelstad as mentioned in Lansky and Raghuram's article !
Mar 24, 2016 at 14:36 comment added Judith Ludwig @ L Spice: I think it holds for $p=2$. you are right, the reference I mentioned does assume $p=2$, however in Labesse and Langlands, L-Indistinguishability for SL(2), $p$ is arbitrary. Also if you believe that the size of the $L$-packet is in bijection with the component group of the centralizer of the associated projective Weil-Deligne representation it is an exercise to compute that the only possible sizes are of 1,2 or 4.
Mar 24, 2016 at 14:03 comment added LSpice Another helpful reference for decomposition is Moy and Sally, Supercuspidal representations of $\mathrm{SL}_n$ over a $p$-adic field: the tame case (MR). Are you sure that your statement that your $n$ divides $4$ is true even for $p = 2$? (I don't know that it isn't, only that I am automatically suspicious.)
Mar 24, 2016 at 13:50 history answered Judith Ludwig CC BY-SA 3.0