6
$\begingroup$

Let $G = \operatorname{GL}_n(F)$ with the usual Borel subgroup $P = TU$. Let $\chi = \chi_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \chi_n$ be an unramified character of $T$. Suppose that $\chi$ is regular, which is to say that $\chi_i \neq \chi_j$ for $i \neq j$. Equivalently, $\chi \neq w.\chi$ for all $w \in W(T,G)$.

Then $I(\chi) = \operatorname{Ind}_{TU}^G \chi \delta^{1/2}$ is irreducible if and only if $\chi_i \neq \chi_j | \cdot |_F$ for all $i \neq j$. Is this true without the regularity assumption on $\chi$? This is claimed in Example 4.2 of Prasad and Raghuram's notes on representation theory for $\operatorname{GL}_n$, but I wasn't sure if they were making an underlying assumption of regularity.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Suppose $F$ is a non-archimedean local field. This regularity assumption is not needed, nor is the assumption that $\chi$ is unramified. The sufficient part for irreducibility is part of Theorem 4.2 of Bernstein and Zelevinsky - Induced representations of reductive $\mathfrak p$-adic groups. I and the other part is part of Theorem 6.1 in Zelevinsky - Induced representations of reductive $\mathfrak p$-adic groups. II. On irreducible representations of $\mathrm{GL}(n)$.

Edit: To respond to Vincent's comment, let me say what I know (very limited): Note that when $F$ is a finite field, $\delta$ and $|\cdot|_F$ are trivial and the assertion follows from Mackey theory that $$\mathrm{Hom}_G(I(\chi),I(\chi))=\bigoplus_{w\in N_G(T)/T}\mathrm{Hom}_T(\chi,{}^w\chi)$$ When one tries to adapt this to (any) local field, the normalization factor $\delta$ and $|\cdot|_F$ should naturally arise. In general $I(\chi)$ is no longer semisimple and one needs some tricks to know a bit more than the $\mathrm{Hom}$. Beyond this I know nothing about how the case $F$ archimedean has in common with the $p$-adic case.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is for $p$-adic groups right? Do you know if there is an analogous statement for $F = \mathbb{R}$? It sounds like everything should work the same there, but for different reasons, but maybe there is some subtlety that I am overlooking? $\endgroup$
    – Vincent
    Jul 13, 2018 at 7:48

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.