1
$\begingroup$

Let $F$ be a number field and $G$ a symplectic group over $F$.

Let $P=MN$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup of $G$ and $W_M=N_G(M)/M$. Since $P$ is maximal, $W_M \simeq S_2$. Let $w$ be a non-trivial element of $W_M$.

Let $\sigma$ is a cuspidal representation of $M$.

Consider the intertwining operator $M_w(s,\sigma) : I(\sigma,s) \to I(w\cdot\sigma,-s)$ defined by $M_w(s,\sigma)(f_s)(g)=\int_{N(F)\backslash N(\mathbb{A})} f_s(wng) dn$, where $I(\sigma,s)$ is the normalized induced representation induced from $\sigma$.

For $f_s \in I(\sigma,s)$, $M_w(s,\sigma)(f_s)$ has a meromorphic continuation on $\mathbb{C}$. Let $M_{1,w}(s,\sigma)$ be an operator sending $f_s$ to the leading term of $M_w(s,\sigma)(f_s)$ in its Laurant expension. Then it is known that $M_{1,w}(s,\sigma) : I(\sigma,s) \to I(w\cdot\sigma,-s).$

It is also known that $M_{1,w}(-s,w \cdot\sigma) \circ M_{1,w}(\sigma,s)=id$. Since it holds for all $s \in \mathbb{C}$ and cuspidal $\sigma$, if we input $-s, w\cdot \sigma$ instead $s,\sigma$, then we have $M_{1,w}(s,\sigma) \circ M_{1,w}(-s,w\cdot \sigma)=id$. From these two equality, I think that we can deduce $M_{1,w}(\sigma,s)$ is isomorphism.

But in some book, the author says that the intertwing operator may have non-trivial kernel.

Which one is right?

(I am very sorry for explaining in detail the notation here. But the experts or person who are familiar with intertwining operator might easily catch the point I am confusing.

Thank you very much!

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For representations of a group $G$, the term "intertwining operator" simply means a linear map compatible with the $G$-action. Some intertwining operators are bijective, some are not. Homomorphism vs. isomorphism. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented May 17, 2020 at 6:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GHfromMO, Oh sorry. I didn't write the definition of intertwining operator. I added its definition in my question. $\endgroup$
    – Monty
    Commented May 17, 2020 at 7:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What book specifically refers to the non-trivial kernel? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented May 17, 2020 at 7:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Intertwining operators are not holomorphic. They have (typically) simple poles at the ``points of reducibility''. For instance, for $\mathrm{SL}(2)$ they appear at integer $s$ and give rise to special representations (by sub or quotient representation). $M(s,\sigma) M(-s,w\sigma)=Id$ should be interpreted as if $M(s,\sigma)$ has a pole then $M(-s,w\sigma)$ has a zero, i.e. has a non-trivial kernel. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2020 at 8:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Subhajit Jana, Right! $M_{w}(s,\sigma)$ may have a pole. That's why I introduced the operator $M_1$ in my question. Then $M_{1,w}(s,\sigma) \circ M_{1,w}(-s,w\cdot \sigma)=id$ does not hold when $M(s,\sigma)$ has a pole? I think this would have some sense in case $M_{w}(-s,w\cdot \sigma)$ has zeo. Have we only the equation $M_{w}(s,\sigma) \circ M_{w}(-s,w\cdot \sigma)=id$ where $M_{w}(s,\sigma) $ is holomorphic? $\endgroup$
    – Monty
    Commented May 17, 2020 at 8:21

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .