Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Baruch's paper (Annals of Math. 158 (2003), 207-252) proves the following statement, originally claimed by Kirillov.

Theorem. Let $G=\mathrm{GL}_n(K)$ where $K$ is either $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$, and let $P=P_n(K)$ be the subgroup of matrices in $\mathrm{GL}_n(K)$ consisting of matrices whose last row is $(0,0,\dots,0,1)$. If $\pi$ is an irreducible unitary representation of $G$ on a Hilbert space $H$ then $\pi|P$ is irreducible.

Representation theory is not my expertise, so the following question might be very basic. I might add further questions here if that is acceptable.

Question 1. On page 208 the author considers an arbitrary bounded linear operator $R:H\to H$ which commutes with $\pi(p)$ for all $p\in P$. He also considers, for any $f\in C_c^\infty(G)$, the distribution $\Lambda_R(f)=\mathrm{trace}(R\pi(f))$. Then he says: "It is easy to see that $\Lambda_R$ is an eigendistribution with respect to the center of the universal enveloping algebra associated to $G$." What is the meaning of "eigendistribution" here, and why is the statement true?

share|improve this question
4  
I have not looked at the paper, but I guess an eigendistribution is justa distribution which is an eigenvalue. That is, when you act on it by a central element in the enveloping algebra, it gets multiplied by a scalar. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 12 '12 at 2:59
    
Thanks, Mariano, that would make sense. I hope someone can clarify this with proof. –  GH from MO Jan 12 '12 at 3:29
    
Let us take R=Identity. Do we agree that trace( pi(f)) is eigendistribution ? It seems it is character. Center of U(g) should act on it by scalars. –  Alexander Chervov Jan 12 '12 at 6:54
1  
And welcome to the 10k club, GH! –  David Roberts May 9 '12 at 5:46
1  
Dear David Roberts: Thank you, that was very kind of you! –  GH from MO May 9 '12 at 9:07
add comment

3 Answers

Since $\pi$ is irreducible, the center of the enveloping algebra acts by scalars (by Schur's lemma). Hence, for $X\in Z(\mathcal{U}G)$ we have $$\Lambda_R(Xf)=Tr(R\pi(Xf))=Tr(Rd\pi(X)\pi(f))=d\pi(X)Tr(R\pi(f))=d\pi(X)\Lambda_R(f)$$ where $d\pi$ is the derived representation extended to the enveloping algebra.

share|improve this answer
1  
And for this to make sense, $\pi(f)$ is trace-class, which is not obvious. –  paul garrett Jan 12 '12 at 13:44
1  
@Paul: Right, this is really not trivial. On the other hand, the OP took it for granted. –  Alain Valette Jan 12 '12 at 16:40
1  
I don't think "Schur's lemma" is completely obvious in this setting either, especially when $G = GL_n \mathbb R$ is disconnected. –  Faisal Jan 12 '12 at 18:21
    
@Alain: Thank you. At the moment I only see that $X$ commutes with $\pi(g)$ for $g\in\exp(G)$. Also, I think $\Lambda_R(Xf)=d\pi(-X)\Lambda_R(f)$. Indeed, the left hand side is the $t$-derivative at $t=0$ of the operator $\int_G f(e^{tX}g)\pi(g)\ dg$, using that $X$ commutes with $\pi(g)$, and the last integral equals $\int_G f(g)\pi(e^{-tX}g)\ dg$. Am I missing something? –  GH from MO Jan 13 '12 at 5:18
1  
@Faisal: You made a very good point: I overlooked the fact that $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$ is not connected (and connectedness is important, as GH's computation shows). If the restriction of $\pi$ to $GL_n^+(\mathbb{R})$ (=matrices with positive determinant) is still irreducible, then my argument goes through. If $n$ is odd, this will be the case (since $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$ is then a direct product). The case of even $n$ remains unclear to me. –  Alain Valette Jan 13 '12 at 8:50
show 10 more comments

The following answer to Question 1 is based on Alain Valette's response, it is too long for a comment.

For $X\in Z(\mathcal{U}\mathfrak{g})$ the actions of $X$ and $G^0=\mathrm{GL}^+_n(\mathbb{R})$ commute, hence we are done by Schur's lemma when $\pi|G^0$ is irreducible. Otherwise $\pi|G^0$ is the sum of two irreducible representations $(\rho^\pm,H^\pm)$ which are conjugates of each other by the matrix $i:=\mathrm{diag}(-1,1,\dots,1)\in P$. In particular, $\pi(i)$ interchanges $H^\pm$. By Schur's lemma, $X$ acts on $H^{\pm}$ by some scalars $c^\pm(X)\in\mathbb{C}$. We are done if $c^+(X)=c^-(X)$.

Assume that $c^+(X)\neq c^-(X)$, and let $f\in C_0^\infty(G)$ be supported in a connected component of $G$. As $R$ commutes with $\pi(i)$, we have $$\mathrm{trace}(R\pi(Xf))=\mathrm{trace}(R\pi(i)\pi(Xf)\pi(i)).$$ Note that $\pi(f)$ either leaves the spaces $H^\pm$ invariant or it maps one into the other, depending on whether $f$ is supported in $G^0$ or in $G^0i$. In either case the previous equation together with $$\Lambda_R(f)=\mathrm{trace}(R\pi(f))=\mathrm{trace}(R\pi(i)\pi(f)\pi(i))$$ yields $$c^+(X)\Lambda_R(f)=c^-(X)\Lambda_R(f).$$ This shows that $\Lambda_R(f)=0$, hence $\Lambda_R=0$ as a whole.

share|improve this answer
1  
Nice use of the extra assumption that $\pi|_P$ commutes with $R$. –  Alain Valette Jan 14 '12 at 13:00
    
@Alain: Thank you. –  GH from MO Jan 14 '12 at 18:21
add comment

Here is a complement on GH's answer, too long for a comment. Assume $n=2$, and write $GL_2^+(\mathbb{R})$ as $SL_2(\mathbb{R})\times\mathbb{R}$, so that $\mathcal{U}(G)\simeq\mathcal{U}(SL_2(\mathbb{R})\otimes\mathcal{U}(\mathbb{R})$ and $Z(\mathcal{U}(G))\simeq Z(\mathcal{U}(SL_2(\mathbb{R}))\otimes\mathcal{U}(\mathbb{R})$. Now $\mathcal{U}(\mathbb{R})=\mathbb{C}[X]$ and, as is well-known, $Z(\mathcal{U}(SL_2(\mathbb{R}))=\mathbb{C}[\Omega]$, where $\Omega$ is the Casimir operator. Now the adjoint action by the diagonal matrix $i=diag(-1,1)$ fixes $\Omega$, so that (using GH's notations) $c^+=c^-$, without appealing to the extra assumption on $\pi$. I'm not sure that this generalizes to other even $n$'s.

share|improve this answer
    
Nice observation! –  GH from MO Jan 15 '12 at 15:22
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.