2
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be an algebraic group (like $\operatorname{GL}_2$ or $\operatorname{GL}_2 \times\operatorname{GL}_2$ for example). Assume that there exists an eigenvariety $\mathcal{E}^G$ parameterizing overconvergent eigenforms for the group $G$ with a corresponding weight space $\mathcal{W}^G$ (this could be for modular forms, Hilbert modular forms or whatever). The eigenvariety data includes a weight map from the eigenvariety $\mathcal{E}^G$ to $\mathcal{W}^G$.

Say we have a larger weight space $\mathcal{W} \supset \mathcal{W}^G$ with some homomorphism going from $\mathcal{W}^G$ to $\mathcal{W}$. Are there conditions on this homomorphism (and maybe further conditions) that would allow one to obtain an eigenvariety over $\mathcal{W}$?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe to be more precise, are there conditions which would allow one to construct an eigenvariety $\mathcal{E}$ over $\mathcal{W}$ from the eigenvariety data for $\mathcal{E}^G$, such that the corresponding weight map to $\mathcal{W}$ is again surjective (and has possibly other nice properties...)? $\endgroup$
    – BanAna
    Commented Nov 26 at 18:35

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I think this question is based on a misconception. “Being an eigenvariety” isn’t a rigorously defined property of a space (or map of spaces) which you could prove to hold or to not hold. It’s more like an umbrella term for a collection of constructions which all do roughly the same kind of thing, and which spaces are covered by that term is a matter of convention. (If I say that some rigid variety is proper, and my colleague says it isn’t, then one of us is wrong; but if I say it is an eigenvariety and he says it isn’t, then that is just a difference of interpretation, about which we can agree to disagree.)

It’s certainly an interesting and rewarding question to ask what other spaces eigenvarieties have natural maps to (e.g. various kinds of local or global Galois deformation spaces). But debating whether or not the space with the new map “is an eigenvariety or not” doesn’t really make sense.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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