Timeline for Decomposition of $L_0^2(GL_2({\mathbb{Q}}) \backslash GL_2(A), \psi)$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2012 at 12:44 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jun 8, 2011 at 7:22 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 190 characters in body
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 13:36 | comment | added | Rob Harron | I believe Matthew is referring to the fact that the $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-module (i.e. the infinite component) of the automorphic representation attached to a cusp form is a discrete series representation (if $k\geq2$, limit of discrete series for $k=1$), whereas, that for a Maass form is a principal series. These are two quite different objects from a representation theory point of view. | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 7:57 | comment | added | Marc Palm | Dear Matthew, you mean that the gamma factors look different and hence the analytic conductor is different? | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 7:52 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear pm, There are significant differences between Masss forms and modular forms from a rep'n theoretic perspective as well, namely the very different behavious of their local factors at $\infty$. Regards, Matthew | |
| Jun 7, 2011 at 7:50 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 158 characters in body; added 6 characters in body
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 7:06 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 244 characters in body; deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 7:00 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 6:51 | history | edited | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 342 characters in body; added 258 characters in body
|
| Jun 7, 2011 at 6:43 | history | answered | Marc Palm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |