6
$\begingroup$

My question is the about the equivalence of two definitions of automorphic forms on a semisimple Lie group.

The most common definition of automorphic forms on a semisimple Lie group $G$ with respect to a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ is given by a smooth function $f:G\to \mathbb{C}$ with the following properties:

  1. left $\Gamma$-invariant,
  2. $K$-finite,
  3. $Z(\mathfrak{g})$-finite,
  4. slowly increasing.

Is this equivalent to the ones defined for $\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ and $\operatorname{SL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ where we have an automorphy factor $J(g,z)=cz+d$? I also find a general definition with automorphy factors as follows. [Borel, Armand. "Introduction to automorphic forms." Proc. Symp. Pure Math. Vol. 9. No. 199210. 1966.]enter image description here

I think given a classical automorphic form on $\operatorname {SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$, one could get a $\Gamma$-invariant form by multiplying an automorphy factor $j$. See page 283 of [Bump, Automorphic forms and representations]. So I guess the two definitions differs by such a automorphic factor $j:G/K\times G\to K_\mathbb{C}$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Clarify right or left invariant and finite. For a modular form $f\in M_k(\Gamma)$ with $\Gamma$ a finite index subgroup of $SL_2(\Bbb{Z})$ then $F(\gamma)=(c_\gamma i + d_\gamma)^{-k} f(\gamma . i)$ is an automorphic form $\in C^\infty( \Gamma\backslash SL_2(\Bbb{R}))$ and if $f$ is a cusp form then $F\in L^2( \Gamma\backslash SL_2(\Bbb{R}))$. The right translates of $F$ then generate an Hilbert space $V$ and the right action of $SL_2(\Bbb{R})$ on $V$ is the automorphic representation. $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Dec 2 '20 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? mathoverflow.net/q/124754/6518 $\endgroup$
    – Kimball
    Dec 2 '20 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ $SL(2)$ is ill-formated and should be $\mathrm{SL}(2)$ $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Dec 3 '20 at 9:47
3
$\begingroup$

There are two notions: automorphic (or modular) form on a domain $G/K$, which would potentially have an "automorphy factor/cocycle" $\mu:\Gamma\times G/K\to \mathbb C^\times$ (or to a larger $GL_n$ for vector-valued automorphic forms), and automorphic forms on_a_group $G$, which have no cocycle, but instead are left $\Gamma$-invariant, and right $K$-equivariant.

When the cocycle extends from $\Gamma\times G/K$ to $G\times G/K$, the procedure in Borel's Boulder article gives an automorphic form on the group attached to an automorphic form on the domain.

A meaningful instance of a cocycle not extending from the discrete subgroup $\Gamma_o(4)$ to the natural ambient Lie group $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ is the example of half-integral-weight automorphic forms "on the upper half-plane", as in G. Shimura's papers around 1973.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I think you mean that a given automorphic on the domain can NOT always extend to the one on a group. But can we get the one on a domain from the one defined on the group? I guess we can just divide it by a cocycle as $F(g)=j(g,i)f(i)$ for $G=SL_2(\mathbb{R})$ (here $i$ is just the coset $0\in G/K$). BTW: Your short notes help me quite a lot. Thank you so much! $\endgroup$
    – Jun
    Dec 4 '20 at 2:07

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.