Skip to main content
Deleted a sentence fragment
Source Link
LSpice
  • 13k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

Would you accept a trace-integral as a double sum? The distribution character of a representation $\pi$ (of a, let's say semisimple, $p$-adic group $G$, although I think that most of what I say here is also true for real Lie groups) is given by $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \operatorname{tr} \int_G \pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ One would very much like to say, as in the case of $G$ compact, that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg, $$$$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ but, in almost all interesting cases. Although thisThis is not possible for $\pi$ infinite-dimensional unitary, but it is a very deep result of Harish-Chandra that there is a locally integrable function $\Theta_\pi$ with various nice properties (for example, it is locally constant on the regular semisimple locus) so that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G \Theta_\pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ The computation of this function $\Theta_\pi$ is, due to its indirect definition, quite difficult. My own research is largely concerned with the case where $\pi$ is an irreducibly compactly induced representation $\pi = \operatorname{Ind}_K^G \rho$, in which case more work of Harish-Chandra shows that $$ \Theta_\pi(\gamma) = \int_G \int_K \dot\theta_\rho(g k\gamma k^{-1}g^{-1})\mathrm dk\,\mathrm dg. $$ (The inner integral over a compact open subgroup $K$ also comes, if one digs into the details of the proof, from the failure of a double integral to be ‘switchable’.)

I believe that the (non-compact case of) the trace formula can also be viewed as a lengthy and difficult matter of dealing with the failure of Fubini, but I couldn't talk in any intelligible fashion about this (and could well be wrong). Perhaps, if I'm not completely off, someone else could discuss it.

Would you accept a trace-integral as a double sum? The distribution character of a representation $\pi$ (of a, let's say semisimple, $p$-adic group $G$, although I think that most of what I say here is also true for real Lie groups) is given by $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \operatorname{tr} \int_G \pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ One would very much like to say, as in the case of $G$ compact, that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg, $$ but, in almost all interesting cases. Although this is not possible for $\pi$ infinite-dimensional unitary, it is a very deep result of Harish-Chandra that there is a locally integrable function $\Theta_\pi$ with various nice properties (for example, it is locally constant on the regular semisimple locus) so that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G \Theta_\pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ The computation of this function $\Theta_\pi$ is, due to its indirect definition, quite difficult. My own research is largely concerned with the case where $\pi$ is an irreducibly compactly induced representation $\pi = \operatorname{Ind}_K^G \rho$, in which case more work of Harish-Chandra shows that $$ \Theta_\pi(\gamma) = \int_G \int_K \dot\theta_\rho(g k\gamma k^{-1}g^{-1})\mathrm dk\,\mathrm dg. $$ (The inner integral over a compact open subgroup $K$ also comes, if one digs into the details of the proof, from the failure of a double integral to be ‘switchable’.)

I believe that the (non-compact case of) the trace formula can also be viewed as a lengthy and difficult matter of dealing with the failure of Fubini, but I couldn't talk in any intelligible fashion about this (and could well be wrong). Perhaps, if I'm not completely off, someone else could discuss it.

Would you accept a trace-integral as a double sum? The distribution character of a representation $\pi$ (of a, let's say semisimple, $p$-adic group $G$, although I think that most of what I say here is also true for real Lie groups) is given by $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \operatorname{tr} \int_G \pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ One would very much like to say, as in the case of $G$ compact, that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ This is not possible for $\pi$ infinite-dimensional unitary, but it is a very deep result of Harish-Chandra that there is a locally integrable function $\Theta_\pi$ with various nice properties (for example, it is locally constant on the regular semisimple locus) so that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G \Theta_\pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ The computation of this function $\Theta_\pi$ is, due to its indirect definition, quite difficult. My own research is largely concerned with the case where $\pi$ is an irreducibly compactly induced representation $\pi = \operatorname{Ind}_K^G \rho$, in which case more work of Harish-Chandra shows that $$ \Theta_\pi(\gamma) = \int_G \int_K \dot\theta_\rho(g k\gamma k^{-1}g^{-1})\mathrm dk\,\mathrm dg. $$ (The inner integral over a compact open subgroup $K$ also comes, if one digs into the details of the proof, from the failure of a double integral to be ‘switchable’.)

I believe that the (non-compact case of) the trace formula can also be viewed as a lengthy and difficult matter of dealing with the failure of Fubini, but I couldn't talk in any intelligible fashion about this (and could well be wrong). Perhaps, if I'm not completely off, someone else could discuss it.

Trace formula isn't just an exercise
Source Link
LSpice
  • 13k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

Would you accept a trace-integral as a double sum? The distribution character of a representation $\pi$ (of a, let's say semisimple, $p$-adic group $G$, although I think that most of what I say here is also true for real Lie groups) is given by $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \operatorname{tr} \int_G \pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ One would very much like to say, as in the case of $G$ compact, that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg, $$ but, in almost all interesting cases. Although this is not possible for $\pi$ infinite-dimensional unitary, it is a very deep result of Harish-Chandra that there is a locally integrable function $\Theta_\pi$ with various nice properties (for example, it is locally constant on the regular semisimple locus) so that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G \Theta_\pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ The computation of this function $\Theta_\pi$ is, due to its indirect definition, quite difficult. My own research is largely concerned with the case where $\pi$ is an irreducibly compactly induced representation $\pi = \operatorname{Ind}_K^G \rho$, in which case more work of Harish-Chandra shows that $$ \Theta_\pi(\gamma) = \int_G \int_K \dot\theta_\rho(g k\gamma k^{-1}g^{-1})\mathrm dk\,\mathrm dg. $$ (The inner integral over a compact open subgroup $K$ also comes, if one digs into the details of the proof, from the failure of a double integral to be ‘switchable’.)

I believe that the (non-compact case of) the trace formula can also be viewed as a lengthy exercise inand difficult matter of dealing with the failure of Fubini, but I couldn't talk in any intelligible fashion about this (and could well be wrong). Perhaps, if I'm not completely off, someone else could discuss it.

Would you accept a trace-integral as a double sum? The distribution character of a representation $\pi$ (of a, let's say semisimple, $p$-adic group $G$, although I think that most of what I say here is also true for real Lie groups) is given by $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \operatorname{tr} \int_G \pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ One would very much like to say, as in the case of $G$ compact, that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg, $$ but, in almost all interesting cases. Although this is not possible for $\pi$ infinite-dimensional unitary, it is a very deep result of Harish-Chandra that there is a locally integrable function $\Theta_\pi$ with various nice properties (for example, it is locally constant on the regular semisimple locus) so that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G \Theta_\pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ The computation of this function $\Theta_\pi$ is, due to its indirect definition, quite difficult. My own research is largely concerned with the case where $\pi$ is an irreducibly compactly induced representation $\pi = \operatorname{Ind}_K^G \rho$, in which case more work of Harish-Chandra shows that $$ \Theta_\pi(\gamma) = \int_G \int_K \dot\theta_\rho(g k\gamma k^{-1}g^{-1})\mathrm dk\,\mathrm dg. $$ (The inner integral over a compact open subgroup $K$ also comes, if one digs into the details of the proof, from the failure of a double integral to be ‘switchable’.)

I believe that the (non-compact case of) the trace formula can also be viewed as a lengthy exercise in dealing with the failure of Fubini, but I couldn't talk in any intelligible fashion about this (and could well be wrong). Perhaps, if I'm not completely off, someone else could discuss it.

Would you accept a trace-integral as a double sum? The distribution character of a representation $\pi$ (of a, let's say semisimple, $p$-adic group $G$, although I think that most of what I say here is also true for real Lie groups) is given by $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \operatorname{tr} \int_G \pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ One would very much like to say, as in the case of $G$ compact, that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg, $$ but, in almost all interesting cases. Although this is not possible for $\pi$ infinite-dimensional unitary, it is a very deep result of Harish-Chandra that there is a locally integrable function $\Theta_\pi$ with various nice properties (for example, it is locally constant on the regular semisimple locus) so that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G \Theta_\pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ The computation of this function $\Theta_\pi$ is, due to its indirect definition, quite difficult. My own research is largely concerned with the case where $\pi$ is an irreducibly compactly induced representation $\pi = \operatorname{Ind}_K^G \rho$, in which case more work of Harish-Chandra shows that $$ \Theta_\pi(\gamma) = \int_G \int_K \dot\theta_\rho(g k\gamma k^{-1}g^{-1})\mathrm dk\,\mathrm dg. $$ (The inner integral over a compact open subgroup $K$ also comes, if one digs into the details of the proof, from the failure of a double integral to be ‘switchable’.)

I believe that the (non-compact case of) the trace formula can also be viewed as a lengthy and difficult matter of dealing with the failure of Fubini, but I couldn't talk in any intelligible fashion about this (and could well be wrong). Perhaps, if I'm not completely off, someone else could discuss it.

Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble
Source Link
LSpice
  • 13k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

Would you accept a trace-integral as a double sum? The distribution character of a representation $\pi$ (of a, let's say semisimple, $p$-adic group $G$, although I think that most of what I say here is also true for real Lie groups) is given by $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \operatorname{tr} \int_G \pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ One would very much like to say, as in the case of $G$ compact, that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G (\operatorname{tr} \pi(g))f(g)\mathrm dg, $$ but, in almost all interesting cases. Although this is not possible for $\pi$ infinite-dimensional unitary, it is a very deep result of Harish-Chandra that there is a locally integrable function $\Theta_\pi$ with various nice properties (for example, it is locally constant on the regular semisimple locus) so that $$ \operatorname{tr} \pi(f) = \int_G \Theta_\pi(g)f(g)\mathrm dg. $$ The computation of this function $\Theta_\pi$ is, due to its indirect definition, quite difficult. My own research is largely concerned with the case where $\pi$ is an irreducibly compactly induced representation $\pi = \operatorname{Ind}_K^G \rho$, in which case more work of Harish-Chandra shows that $$ \Theta_\pi(\gamma) = \int_G \int_K \dot\theta_\rho(g k\gamma k^{-1}g^{-1})\mathrm dk\,\mathrm dg. $$ (The inner integral over a compact open subgroup $K$ also comes, if one digs into the details of the proof, from the failure of a double integral to be ‘switchable’.)

I believe that the (non-compact case of) the trace formula can also be viewed as a lengthy exercise in dealing with the failure of Fubini, but I couldn't talk in any intelligible fashion about this (and could well be wrong). Perhaps, if I'm not completely off, someone else could discuss it.