4
$\begingroup$

Suppose $V_1$ and $V_2$ are two $(g,K)$ modules of some reductive group $G$ with maximal compact $K$. Let $P$ be the minimal parabolic of $G$, $U$ its unipotent part, and $u$ its Lie algebra. Suppose the quotients $V_1/uV_1$ and $V_2/uV_2$ are isomorphic as modules for the Levi component of $P$, then what else do we need to know to conclude that $V_1$ and $V_2$ are isomorphic as $G$ modules?

edit:Thanks for Kevin and Emerton's comments and sorry for the confusion about the base field. Here I'm assuming REAL reductive group.

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

This is a comment, mostly on terminology that I think caused some confusion, not an answer, but I don't have enough "influence" to post this as a comment.

For real reductive groups, the Jacquet functor $V\mapsto J(V)$ (Jacquet-Casselman functor, Jacquet module, etc) is defined differently from the nonarchimedean case: it is $\varinjlim (V/n^iV)^*$, which is dual to the n-adic completion of V. Thus J(V) is a p-finite g-module (n is the nilradical, p is the parabolic Lie subalgebra) and the target category of the functor J is parabolic category O for g. On the one hand, this provides more structure: we get a g-module and, for example, the infinitesimal character of V can be read off the infinitesimal character of J(V) (Casselman-Osborne); more generally, V and J(V) have the same annihilator in U(g). On the other hand, J(V) is morally a highest weight module, not a Harish-Chandra module, so some information is lost. The 0th n-homology that this problem is asking about, V/nV, is just the the top layer of J(V), so even more information is lost. By the way, unlike the p-adic Jacquet functor, n-homology is not exact (there may be higher homology), but V/nV is always non-zero (short proof was given by Beilinson and Bernstein).

I assume that the modules V1 and V2 in the formulation were presumed to be simple?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, can we test irreducibility from J(V)? $\endgroup$
    – user1832
    May 24, 2010 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think so: Jacquet module of a simple module may have multiplicities. $\endgroup$ May 25, 2010 at 4:50
  • $\begingroup$ Do Jacquet modules in the real case also kill off the discrete series (as they do cuspidals in the non-Archimedean case)? If so, then connecting irreducibility of a representation and its Jacquet module can fail "the other way": the Jacquet module of a reducible module may be irreducible. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Nov 26, 2018 at 16:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, at least not generically. For example, consider a holomorphic discrete series representation $V=V_k, k\geq 2$ for $G={\rm SL}(2,\Bbb {R})$. Choose the standard basis $\{e,h,f\}$ for $\frak {g}=\frak {sl}_2$. Then $V$ is a lowest weight module with lowest weight $k$, the subspace $e^{i}V$ is spanned by the vectors of weight at least $k+2i$, and so the Jacquet module with respect to the nilradical $\frak{n}$ of the standard (upper) Borel, as defined above, is the contragredient $V^*$. $\endgroup$ Nov 27, 2018 at 7:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ However, an analogous computation with $f$ shows that the Jacquet module with respect to the nilradical of the lower Borel is $0.$ The subtlety here is that, unlike in the $p$-adic case, the Jacquet functor depends on the choice of the parabolic: only the action of $\frak{k}$ exponentiates to the group, and so the isomorphism class of the Jacquet module is determined by the $K$-orbit of $\frak{n}$. The Beilinson-Bernstein result mentioned in my answer asserts that for an open dense orbit of $K$ on the flag variety the corresponding $\frak{n}$-homology and Jacquet module are non-zero. $\endgroup$ Nov 27, 2018 at 7:19
2
$\begingroup$

EDIT: I assumed the OP was asking about reductive groups over non-arch local fields. Emerton raises the possibility that the question is actually about groups over R or C, and he's probably right. So the answer below is probably irrelevant.

Do correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not an expert. But I thought that if $V$ was any supercuspidal representation of, say, $GL_2(\mathbf{Q}_p)$, then $V/uV=0$. So in fact you know very little about $V$ if you only know $V/uV$. Can't $V$ basically be recovered from $V/uV$ in the $GL_2$ case when it's principal series or Steinberg, and in the supercuspidal case you have nothing? Actually, even in the Steinberg case you might have trouble distinguishing $V$ from a 1-dimensional representation...

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This is very vague (but then again your question is also vague)---perhaps for GL_n on the Galois side, the Jacquet module sees something like the Frobenius action on the inertia-invariant vectors, so to see the rest of $V$ (assuming $V$ is irreducible) you'll need to know the inertia action, which somehow boils down to seeing the type of $V$. So perhaps you need to know "enough about the action of $K$". $\endgroup$ Apr 27, 2010 at 8:43
  • $\begingroup$ Kevin, This question is about Harish-Chandra modules, i.e. real groups, not p-adic groups. There are no supercuspidals ... . $\endgroup$
    – Emerton
    Apr 27, 2010 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ Hah! He didn't say what base field he was over! $\endgroup$ Apr 27, 2010 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ But the question does say $(g,K)$-module ... . $\endgroup$
    – Emerton
    Apr 27, 2010 at 13:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.