5
$\begingroup$

Let $\rho:G_{\mathbb{Q}}\rightarrow \mathbf{Gl}_{n}(\mathbb{Q}_{p})$. I would like to understand in depth why the local Langlands correspondence for $\rho_{|\mathbb{Q}_{p}}$ must consider $p$-adic representations instead of a complex representation. As far as I know, the $p$-adic representations

  1. retrieve information that loses complex representations (like $\mathcal{L}$ invariant),
  2. also allows for local-global correspondence.

Can someone give examples of 1. and 2. in $Gl_{1}$ and $Gl_{2}$ case?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ This question seems rather confused: what on earth would it mean to say "the $\ell = p$ case" if the coefficients weren't $p$-adic? Otherwise, there aren't two primes in the problem, so it makes no sense to ask if they are equal or not... $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2022 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ Hmmm, not sure to see your point this time.. If $G$ is a linear group and $\rho$ is a $p$-adic representation of the decomposition group $G_{\mathbb{Q}_{l}}$ (i.e. $\rho$ has image in $G(\mathbb{Q_{p}})$) then local Langlands correspondance associate a cuspidal representation $\pi(\rho)$ of $G(\mathbb{Q_{p}})$ right? But in the case $l=p$ the latter have coefficient in a $p$-adic Banach space (I'm I still right??) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2022 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ In some sense for $Gl_{1}$ my question is connected to your answer of this Mo question. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2022 at 22:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear Marsault, the issue is not whether I understand the question, but whether you do. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2022 at 10:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes of course I must understand my question before asking if wether people understand it or not :) I hope it make sense know. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2022 at 11:03

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let's look at the case of representations associated to modular forms. I'm going to switch the roles of $\ell$ and $p$, because I find $\ell$-adic Hodge theory disturbing; so I'm going to look at $\rho_{f, \ell} |_{G_{\mathbb{Q}_p}}$.

For $\ell \ne p$, we can attach a Weil--Deligne representation to $\rho_{f, \ell} |_{G_{\mathbb{Q}_p}}$ via Grothendieck abstract monodromy. This WD representation has coefficients in $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$, but the definition of a WD representation doesn't depend on the topology on the coefficient field, so we can transport it along a field isomorphism $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \cong \mathbb{C}$ to get a complex-valued Weil--Deligne representation. The local-global compatibility theorem (due to Carayol in this case) tells us that this WD representation is the one associated by local Langlands to the smooth complex $GL_2(\mathbb{Q}_p)$-representation $\pi_{f, p}$ (the local factor of $f$ at $p$).

Now, there are multiple ways of extending this to cover $\ell = p$. One approach is the following: via Fontaine's functor $D_{\mathrm{pst}}$, we can attach a Weil--Deligne representation to $\rho_{f, p}|_{G_{\mathbb{Q}_p}}$; and it is known (by a theorem of Saito, IIRC) that this Weil--Deligne representation (again, transported via a field isomorphism $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p \cong \mathbb{C}$) is the one associated to $\pi_p$ by local Langlands. So that's a meaningful statement of "local-global compatibility for $\ell = p$" which doesn't involve p-adic Banach spaces.

However, this formulation isn't quite the whole story, because:

  • Fontaine's $D_{\mathrm{pst}}$ functor only applies to a subclass of $p$-adic representations of $G_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$ (the de Rham ones); this includes all the ones from modular forms, but it misses lots of other interesting objects (e.g. representations associated to non-classical overconvergent eigenforms).
  • Even when $V$ is de Rham, the Weil--Deligne representation associated to $V$ doesn't uniquely determine $V$ up to isomorphism, because it forgets the Hodge filtration, and in some cases there are multiple non-isomorphic choices of filtrations for a given $V$. (This is precisely what the $\mathcal{L}$-invariant parametrises.)

This motivates the formulation of $p$-adic Langlands in terms of Banach-space representations, which are "rich enough" to match up with the whole category of p-adic representations of $G_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$. Some Banach-space representations are completions of smooth (or locally-algebraic) representations with respect to an invariant norm, which gives the link with the classical formulation of Langlands; but many Banach-space representations aren't of this type, and more subtly, in some cases the same smooth representation can admit multiple invariant norms (giving different Banach representations as the completions), which is, again, parametrised by the $\mathcal{L}$-invariant.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this great answer David. Something I'm struggling with is local-global compatibility, in fact with your answer I know what's my problem (so thanks again for always helping on MO, it's really helpful). Here is what I am not comfortable with (I stay in the $\mathbf{Gl}_{2}$ case). Given a global Galois representation, we can associate (under assumption) a cuspidal representation. But know that there are two possibilities for the case "l=p", we can locally associate two representations, and therefore (with restricted tensor product) two global representations. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 22, 2022 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ (Sorry my comments are a bit long...) If I see things correctly then these two representations are $Hom(\rho,H)$ and $Hom(\rho,\tilde{H})$ (I think the second one as been constructed by Emerton) so how do you deal with that? And what is this second representation? I think that's why I was asking for examples, because in everyday life how do I know whether I should consider classical cohomology or completed cohomology (which is, you might know, something that gets happened in my research) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 22, 2022 at 10:53
  • $\begingroup$ Some people are never satisfied! "How do I know whether I should consider classical cohomology or completed cohomology" -- how do you know when you should use a screwdriver or a hammer? You use the tool that's appropriate to the problem you're trying to solve, that's how. (PS: You might want to look up the meaning of the word "cuspidal" in the context of smooth representation theory; it does not mean what you seem to think it means.) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 22, 2022 at 15:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .