Skip to main content
Names of papers
Source Link
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

A question related to Level vs. conductor of a supercuspidal representation of GL2

What is the reletionrelation between level and conductor of a supercuspidal representation of $GL_2(\mathbb{Q}_p)$$\operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q}_p)$ for some prime $p$?

The propositionProposition 3.4 in this paper is referringLoeffler and Weinstein - On the computation of local components of a newform refers to thisBreuil and Mézard - Multiplicités modulaires et représentations de $\operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb Z_p)$ et de $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb Q}_p/\mathbb Q_p)$ en $\ell = p$. Appendice par Guy Henniart. Sur l'unicité des types pour $\operatorname{GL}_2$ paper, which I am unable to understand because of the language.

Can someone help me to understand this?

Thanks in advance.

A question related to supercuspidal representation of GL2

What is the reletion between level and conductor of a supercuspidal representation of $GL_2(\mathbb{Q}_p)$ for some prime $p$?

The proposition 3.4 in this paper is referring to this paper which I am unable to understand because of the language.

Can someone help me to understand this?

Thanks in advance.

Level vs. conductor of a supercuspidal representation

What is the relation between level and conductor of a supercuspidal representation of $\operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q}_p)$ for some prime $p$?

Proposition 3.4 in Loeffler and Weinstein - On the computation of local components of a newform refers to Breuil and Mézard - Multiplicités modulaires et représentations de $\operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb Z_p)$ et de $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb Q}_p/\mathbb Q_p)$ en $\ell = p$. Appendice par Guy Henniart. Sur l'unicité des types pour $\operatorname{GL}_2$, which I am unable to understand because of the language.

Source Link
user15243
  • 424
  • 1
  • 3
  • 15

A question related to supercuspidal representation of GL2

What is the reletion between level and conductor of a supercuspidal representation of $GL_2(\mathbb{Q}_p)$ for some prime $p$?

The proposition 3.4 in this paper is referring to this paper which I am unable to understand because of the language.

Can someone help me to understand this?

Thanks in advance.