5
$\begingroup$

For simplicity, let $G_n$ be $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$, $\mathfrak{g}_n$ be its Lie algebra. $K_n$ be $O(n)$. I want to know any reference about the following statement.

For any irreducible admissible $(\mathfrak{g}_n\oplus \mathfrak{g}_m,K_n\times K_m)$ module $V$, there exist an irreducible admissible $(\mathfrak{g}_n, K_n)$ module $U$, and an irreducible admissible $(\mathfrak{g}_m, K_m)$ module $W$, such that $V$ is isomorphic to $U\otimes W$. Both $U$ and $W$ are uniquely determined by $V$ up to isomorphism.

Similar of this is true for representations of finite groups, smooth representations of p-adic groups. It seems to me that this is also true for real reductive groups, and I can't find it in any standard reference. I appreciate a lot if anyone would provide some related paper or book.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the analogous statement regarding unitary irreducible representations, see Dixmier's book on $C^*$-algebras: combine Proposition 13.1.8 (every unitary irreducible rep of a product of two type I groups, decomposes as a tensor product of irreducible rep's) with Theorem 15.5.6 ($GL_n(\mathbb{R})$ is type I). $\endgroup$ – Alain Valette Sep 2 '11 at 6:40
2
$\begingroup$

Well it's slightly later than you probably would've liked, but here's a reference for exactly what you're looking for:

Gourevitch, D. and Kemarsky, A., 2012. Irreducible representations of product of real reductive groups. (arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6004)

See Theorem 1.1 and its proof. There the authors show that each irreducible Harish-Chandra $(\mathfrak{g}_1 \times \mathfrak{g}_2, K_1 \times K_2)$-module has a unique decomposition into a tensor product of irreducible Harish-Chandra $(\mathfrak{g}_i, K_i)$-modules. (Here by a Harish-Chandra $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-module we mean a $(\mathfrak{g},K)$-module that is admissible and finitely generated as a $U(\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{C})$-module.)

They also reference Aizenbud and the first author's 2009 paper wherein a converse to this is stated and proved in Appendix A. (That direction is easier, and IIRC their proof is maybe a few paragraphs in length.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I thought that Flath had proved a very general result of this type, but all I can find on MSN is Flath - Decomposition of representations into tensor products (MSN). Do you know if I am imagining the more general version? $\endgroup$ – LSpice Apr 23 '18 at 15:19

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.