Timeline for A stupid question about Automorphic forms
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2011 at 3:23 | vote | accept | isildur | ||
| May 31, 2011 at 22:22 | answer | added | paul garrett | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 25, 2011 at 0:00 | history | edited | Qfwfq | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| May 24, 2011 at 23:57 | history | edited | GH from MO |
edited tags
|
|
| May 24, 2011 at 22:27 | answer | added | GH from MO | timeline score: 10 | |
| May 24, 2011 at 22:22 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | Someone will probably come along with a proper answer later on, but here's something one could think about until then: imagine the case of $GL(1)$ over the rationals. If $K$ is all of $\hat{\mathbf{Z}}$ and you demand invariance, rather than finiteness, then (a) and (b) together just give you an arbitrary ($C^\infty$) function on the positive reals. The growth condition is just "doesn't grow too fast" but if you don't put any more conditions then you have a space which is perhaps far too big to be of arithmetic interest. | |
| May 24, 2011 at 21:05 | history | asked | isildur | CC BY-SA 3.0 |