Question 1: Let $G$ be a connected reductive group defined over a number field $K$, and $\pi$ is an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation of $G(\mathbb{A}_K)$. Then by a theorem of Flath, we have $\pi=\otimes^{'}\pi_v$. All but finitely many $\pi_v$ are unramified and they all generic by Shalike.

I want to know whether there exists a finite place $\mu$ such that $\pi_{\mu}$ is supercuspidal for $G(K_{\mu})$ or there is no relation with cuspidal automorphic representation for $G(\mathbb{A}_K)$ and supercuspidal representation of $G(K_{\mu})$.

Question 2: Let $S$ be a finite set containing infinite places, and assume $\pi_v$ is unramified for $v \notin S$ and $\pi_{\mu}$ is generic for $\mu \in S$, then can I say $\otimes_{v}^{'}\pi_v$ is a cuspidal automorphic representation of $G(\mathbb{A}_K)$? If not, what additional condition should I add?

Question 3: I know there is a proposition below proving by Bernstein-Zelevinsky classification.

$\pi_v$ is an unramified and supercuspidal for $GL_n(K_v)$, where $v$ is a finite place if and only if $n=1$ and $\pi_v$ is an unramified quasi-character.

I want to know whether the proposition holds for general connected reductive p-adic group.

  • $\begingroup$ I think you'll get a better understanding of Question 2 if you proceed in the reverse direction, that is if you ask yourself what conditions the $\pi_{v}$ must satisfy if they are the local components of an automorphic $\pi$. Then you should realize how rare global automorphic $\pi$ are compared to local ones. Then you'll see that no list of purely local conditions on the $\pi_v$ can ensure that they are the local components of a global $\pi$ (even for $\operatorname{GL}_{2}$, how could such a list guess that some weights are globally forbidden?). $\endgroup$ – Olivier Mar 2 '18 at 9:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is not true that all of the $\pi_v$ are generic. (You claim that "they all generic by Shalike"; presumably you mean the theorem of Piatetski-Shapiro and Shalika which states that cuspidal automorphic representations of $GL(n)$ are generic, but this does not generalise to groups other than $GL(n)$.) E.g. there are well-known examples of cuspidal automorphic reps of $GSp(4)$ coming from Saito--Kurokawa lifts which are not locally generic at any finite place. $\endgroup$ – David Loeffler Mar 2 '18 at 14:29

It is not necessary that a cuspidal $\pi$ have a supercuspidal local component: for example, let $\Delta(\tau)$ be Ramanujan's delta function and let $\pi = \otimes' \pi_p$ denote the associated cupsidal automorphic representation of $\textrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{Q}})$ (see Kudla's article here). Since $\Delta$ has level 1, $\pi_p$ will be unramified for every prime $p$.

What are your assumptions for question 2? Given a random collection $\{\pi_v\}_v$ of irreducible local representations, almost all of which are unramified, the representation $\otimes' \pi_v$ will be neither cupsidal nor automorphic.

There are many ways to prove question 3. For simplicity, assume $G$ is unramified over $K_v$ (that is, quasi-split and split over an unramified extension), let $K$ denote a hyperspecial maximal compact subgroup, $I\subset K$ an Iwahori subgroup, and let $P = MN$ be a minimal parabolic subgroup. If $\pi$ were both ($K$-)unramified and supercuspidal, then Theorem 3.7 in Cartier's article in the Corvallis proceedings would give $$0\neq \pi^K \subset \pi^I \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}(\pi_N)^{K\cap M}.$$ If $N\neq 1$, then the right-hand side would be zero by supercuspidality. Therefore $G$ must be a torus.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ And/but it is worth emphasizing/recalling that if $\bigotimes \pi_v$ is automorphic and there is a supercuspidal $\pi_{v_o}$ (at some finite $v_o$) then the whole is cuspidal. And that this follows easily by direct computation. $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Mar 1 '18 at 18:35

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.