$\newcommand{\GL}{\operatorname{GL}} \newcommand{\diag}{\operatorname{diag}} \newcommand{\val}{\mathit{val}}$Let $F$ be a local non-Archimedean field with valuation $\val$ and $G$ be (the $F$-points of) a split connected reductive group over $F$. Let $T$ be a split maximal torus and $B$ a Borel containing $T$ with unipotent radical $U$. Let $K$ be a special parahoric subgroup of $G$ in good position relative to $(T,U)$. Let $X^*(T)$ be the lattice of $F$-characters of $T$, which contains the root system $\Phi = \Phi(G,T)$; let $X_*(T)$ be the $F$-cocharacters of $T$. The choice of $B$ defines a choice of positive roots $\Phi^+$. Let $X_*(T)^+ = \{ \lambda\in X_*(T)\mid \langle \alpha, \lambda\rangle \ge 0\text{ for all $\alpha\in \Phi^+$}\}$ be the cocharacters contained in the dominant Weyl chamber.

The Cartan decomposition gives a bijective map $$ X_*(T)^+\cong K\backslash G/K $$ given by $\lambda \mapsto K\lambda(\pi^{-1}) K$, where $\pi$ is a uniformizer in $F$. The Iwasawa decomposition gives a bijective map $$ X_*(T)\cong U\backslash G/K $$ given by $\mu\mapsto U\mu(\pi^{-1})K$.

I am interested in what happens when $K\lambda(\pi^{-1})K\cap U\mu(\pi^{-1})K \neq \varnothing$. What is well-known is that $\lambda -\mu$ is a sum of positive coroots.

My question is: What can be said about the $u\in U$ with $u\mu(\pi^{-1}) \in K \lambda(\pi^{-1})K$?

More precisely, the root groups $U_\alpha$, associated to $\alpha\in \Phi$, carry a valuation $\varphi_\alpha\colon U_\alpha\setminus\{1\} \to \mathbb R$ such that $\varphi = (\varphi_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\Phi}$ is a discrete and special valuation (in the sense of Bruhat–Tits) on the root group datum $(T,(U_\alpha)_{\alpha\in \Phi})$ on $G$ that is compatible with the valuation on $F$. Writing $u = u_{\alpha_1}\dotsm u_{\alpha_r}$ with $\alpha_i\in \Phi^+$, do we get a lower bound for $\varphi_{\alpha_i}(u_{\alpha_i})$?


Here are my thoughts on this problem, so far:

If $\Phi$ is irreducible and $\alpha_0$ is its highest root (with respect to $\Phi^+$), I suspect that $$ \varphi_{\alpha_i}(u_{\alpha_i}) \ge -\langle \alpha_0, \lambda\rangle, \quad \text{for all $i$.} $$ This is not too hard to verify for $\GL_n(F)$. [There, in fact, we even have $\val(u_{\alpha_{ij}}) \ge -m_j$, where $\mu(\pi^{-1}) = \diag(\pi^{m_1},\dotsc, \pi^{m_n})$, where we identify the root group $U_{\alpha_{ij}}$, sitting in the $(i,j)$-th spot, with $F$.]

One can get a more precise estimate in the case $u\in U_\alpha$ as follows: We may assume $\varphi_\alpha(u) < \min\{0, -\langle \alpha,\mu\rangle\}$ for otherwise we would have $u\in K$ or $\mu(\pi^{-1})^{-1}u\mu(\pi^{-1}) \in K$ in which case $\mu$ lies in the $W$-orbit of $\lambda$. There exist (unique) $u',u''\in U_{-\alpha}$ such that $u'uu''$ normalizes $T$. [Geometrically, $u'uu''$ is the reflection (in the apartment corresponding to $T$) in the hyperplane bounding the half-apartment fixed by $u$.] We have $\varphi_{-\alpha}(u') = \varphi_{-\alpha}(u'') = -\varphi_{\alpha}(u)$ and hence $\mu(\pi^{-1})^{-1}u''\mu(\pi^{-1}) \in K$. Thus, we may replace $u\mu(\pi^{-1})$ by $u'uu'' \mu(\pi^{-1})$ without changing either of the double cosets. Computing inside the apartment (with the valuation $\varphi$ taken as the origin), we see that $$ u'uu''\mu(\pi^{-1})(\varphi) = \varphi + \mu(\pi^{-1}) - (\langle \alpha, \mu\rangle + \varphi_\alpha(u))\alpha^\vee $$ lies inside the convex hull of the $W$-orbit of $\lambda(\pi^{-1})(\varphi)$. From this, we deduce $-\langle \alpha,\mu\rangle -2\varphi_\alpha(u) = \langle \alpha, \mu(\pi^{-1}) - (\langle \alpha,\mu\rangle + \varphi_\alpha(u)) \alpha^\vee\rangle \le \langle \alpha_0,\lambda\rangle$ and hence $$ \varphi_\alpha(u) \ge -\frac{\langle \alpha_0,\lambda\rangle + \langle \alpha, \mu\rangle}{2}. $$ Unfortunately, I was unable to generalize this argument to arbitrary $u\in U$, because the occuring commutators (possibly) destroy any information of the $u_{\alpha}$'s.

  • Although I'm not up to these computations right now, this seems like an interesting question. I fixed the spurious line break at the beginning; although it seems like good TeX style, you shouldn't leave a blank line between the $ ending your definitions and the start of your question body. I think you mean to identify $U_{\alpha_{ij}}$ for $\operatorname{GL}_n(F)$ with $F$, not $F^\times$, but didn't change it in case I was missing your point. – LSpice Aug 10 at 11:21
  • Oh, thanks for pointing this out. I indeed meant to identify $U_{\alpha_{ij}}$ with $F$. – Claudius Aug 10 at 11:29

Your Answer

 
discard

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.