Timeline for What is the strongest, most natural, conjectural form of Langlands?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Sep 7, 2011 at 3:43 | answer | added | James D. Taylor | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 12:41 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | Although this may be a negative answer, my experience is that either you stick to $GL(n)$ in which case you seem to know what is going on, or you work with an arbitrary connected reductive group, in which case, perhaps surprisingly, the stronger you get, the less natural things become ($L$-packets, $A$-packets, multiplicities greater than one, even failure of weak multiplicity one, no precise statement of local Langlands yet, endoscopy, and all sorts of other funny phenomena that don't exist for $GL(n)$). | |
| Aug 3, 2011 at 0:18 | answer | added | paul garrett | timeline score: 14 | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 23:33 | history | asked | James D. Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |