3
$\begingroup$

Let $F$ be a locally compact non-archimedean field and $G_{n}$ the locally profinite group $GL(n,F)$. Let $\Gamma_{n,k}$ be the subgroup of $G_{n}$ whose elements are the matrices of the form $$ \begin{pmatrix} A_{1,1} & A_{1,2} \\ \\ A_{2,1} & A_{2,2} \\ \end{pmatrix} $$ where $A_{1,1}\in GL(n-1,O_{F})$, $A_{1,2}\in M_{n-1,1}(O_{F})$, $A_{2,1}\in M_{1,n-1}(p_{F}^{k})$ and $A_{2,2}\in 1+p_{F}^{k}$. Here, $p_F$ denotes the maximal ideal in the ring of integers $O_F$ of $F$.

Let $(\pi,V)$ be a generic representation of $G_{n}$. We know that the space $V^{\Gamma_{n,k}}$ of fixed vectors is non-zero for $k$ large enough. Moreover, if $c(\pi) = \min\{ k\in\mathbb{N} : V^{\Gamma_{n,k}}\neq 0 \}$ ($c(\pi)$ is the conductor of $\pi$) then $\dim(V^{\Gamma_{n,c(\pi)}})=1$. Reference: Jacquet, Piatetski-Shapiro, Shalika, "Conducteur des représentations du groupe linéaire", Math. Ann. 256 (1981).

My question concerns replacing the subgroups $\Gamma_{n,k}$ by small subgroups $P_{n,k}$ whose elements are the upper-triangular matrices mod $p_{F}^{k}$. More precisely, if $\varphi:GL(n,O_{F})\longrightarrow GL(n,O_{F}/p_{F}^{k})$ is the morphism of reduction mod $p_{F}^{k}$, define $P_{n,k}=\varphi^{-1}(B)$, where $B$ is the standard Borel subgroup of $GL(n,O_{F}/p_{F}^{k})$.

It is clear that $V^{P_{n,k}}\neq 0$ for $k$ large enough. Denote $u(\pi) = \min\{ k\in\mathbb{N} : V^{P_{n,k}}\neq 0 \}$.

Question 1: Is it true that $\dim(V^{P_{n,u(\pi)}})=1$?

Question 2: If that is false for a generic representation, does it hold for only a supercuspidal representation of $GL(n,F)$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

To my knowledge, it is not known whether $Ind_{P_{n,k}}^{GL_n(o)} 1$ decomposes with single multiplicity.

This is certainly necessary by Frobenius reciprocity $$ dim Hom_{P_{n,k}}( 1 , Res_{P_{n,k}} \pi) = dim Hom_{GL_n(F)}( Ind^{GL_n(F)} Ind_{P_{n,k}}^{GL_n(o)} 1, \pi).$$

For more information, see Parabolic induction GL(n,Zp)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your answer and also for the link. $\endgroup$ – Rajkarov Jun 13 '13 at 20:12
0
$\begingroup$

The group $P_{n,k}$ is not "smaller" than $\Gamma_{n,k}$ as claimed in the question. The $A_{n,n}$ for $\Gamma_{n,k}$ must be in $1+\mathfrak{p}^k$ whereas for $P_{n,k}$ it can be arbitrary element of $\mathcal{O}^\times$. Regardless, the question makes sense. The case $n=2$ is treated in Casselman's paper on the method of Atkin and Lehner. He shows that the answer to Question 1 is positive, and he defines the conductor that way.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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