I would like to ask some basic question about parabolic induction.

Let $F$ be a local field and $G=GL_n(F)$ and $P=MN$ its parabolic subgroup whose Levis subgroup $M=GL_{n_1}(F) \times GL_{n_2}(F)$ where $n=n_1 +n_2$.

Write $G_1=GL_{n_1}(F)$ and let $P_1=M_1N_1$ its parabolic subgroup whose Levis subgroup $M=GL_{a}(F) \times GL_{b}(F)$ where $n_1=a+b$. Similarly, write $G_2=GL_{n_2}(F)$ and let $P_2=M_2N_2$ its parabolic subgroup whose Levis subgroup $M=GL_{c}(F) \times GL_{d}(F)$ where $n_2=c+d$.

Let $\sigma_a,\sigma_b,\sigma_c,\sigma_d$ be irreducible representation of $GL_{a},GL_{b},GL_{c},GL_{d}$ respectively.

Then I am wondering the relation between $\text{Ind}^G_P(\text{Ind}^{G_1}_{P_1} (\sigma_a \boxtimes \sigma_b) \boxtimes \text{Ind}^{G_2}_{P_2} (\sigma_c \boxtimes \sigma_d))$ and $Ind^G_{P_{a,b,c,d}}(\sigma_a \boxtimes \sigma_b \boxtimes \sigma_c \boxtimes \sigma_d )$ where $P_{a,b,c,d}$ is the parabolic subgroup of $G$ whose Levi part is $GL_a \times GL_b \times GL_c \times GL_d$.

I guess there willbe some relation between these under some ideal condition, for example irreducibility of induced representation etc.

Any comments on this will be highly appreciated.

  • 4
    The two representations are canonically isomorphic. The general statement is the following: let $P=MN$ be a parabolic of $G$ and $P'=M'N'$ be a parabolic of $M$. Then the preimage of $P^*:=P'N=M'(N'N)$ is another parabolic of $G$ with $M'$ again as its Levi, and we'd like to say $\mathrm{Ind}_{P^*}^G\sigma=\mathrm{Ind}_P^G\mathrm{Ind}_{P'}^M\sigma$ for any (nice) representation of $M'$. This can be checked from definition. To get your situation we have $P=P_{n_1,n_2}$ and $P'=P_{a,b}\times P_{c,d}$. The same statement is true for normalized induction, as the modular characters will match up. – Cheng-Chiang Tsai Jul 14 at 7:55
  • 1
    @Tsai, Thank you very much! What is the ‘nice’ do you mean? – Monty Jul 14 at 12:02
  • 1
    I think the canonical isomorphism is best understood via the associativity of tensor products (albeit over rings with many idempotents, but not units), for the non-archimedean case. This was P. Cartier's approach in his Corvallis notes. – paul garrett Jul 14 at 16:44
  • @Monty Pardon that I probably shouldn't stress the adjective; it's nothing serious. When $F$ is non-archimedean (and our representation is over a field in which $p$ is invertible), by "nice" representation we definitely like a smooth representation. When $F=\mathbb{R}$ many know which category to work on much better than me. – Cheng-Chiang Tsai Jul 15 at 0:07
  • @Tsai, Thank you very much! Your answer helped me a lot! If you don’t mind, would you please see my earlier question? I think you are the very person who can answer my question. My earlier question is below: mathoverflow.net/questions/304707/… – Monty Jul 15 at 5:13

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.