1997•Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

Automorphic Representations

Daniel Bump

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

There exists a satisfactory theory of automorphic representations of GL ( n ). One may associate an automorphic representation of GL (1) with a Dirichlet character, and one may associate an automorphic representation of GL (2) with a modular form or Maass form. Thus, automorphic representations are attached to classical objects of fundamental importance in number theory. We will discuss Tate's (1950) thesis, which is essentially the theory of automorphic representations of GL (1), before defining the general notion of an automorphic representation on GL ( n ). Insofar as we can in a brief account, we will (at least in Section 3.3) give statements that are valid for GL ( n ), but proofs that are valid only for n = 2. In places, we will give proofs that are only complete when the ground field is ℚ, though the only serious obstacle to filling these gaps is our omission in Chapter 2 of the representation theory of GL (2, ℂ). In Section 3.2, we will extend our discussion of the “classical” problem of decomposing L 2 (Γ\ PGL (2, ℝ) + ) to the case when the quotient is noncompact – for example, when Γ = SL (2, ℤ) or one of its congruence subgroups.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

There exists a satisfactory theory of automorphic representations of GL ( n ). One may associate an automorphic representation of GL (1) with a Dirichlet character, and one may associate an automorphic representation of GL (2) with a modular form or Maass form. Thus, automorphic representations are attached to classical objects of fundamental importance in number theory. We will discuss Tate's (1950) thesis, which is essentially the theory of automorphic representations of GL (1), before defining the general notion of an automorphic representation on GL ( n ). Insofar as we can in a brief account, we will (at least in Section 3.3) give statements that are valid for GL ( n ), but proofs that are valid only for n = 2. In places, we will give proofs that are only complete when the ground field is ℚ, though the only serious obstacle to filling these gaps is our omission in Chapter 2 of the representation theory of GL (2, ℂ). In Section 3.2, we will extend our discussion of the “classical” problem of decomposing L 2 (Γ\ PGL (2, ℝ) + ) to the case when the quotient is noncompact – for example, when Γ = SL (2, ℤ) or one of its congruence subgroups.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

There exists a satisfactory theory of automorphic representations of GL ( n ). One may associate an automorphic representation of GL (1) with a Dirichlet character, and one may associate an automorphic representation of GL (2) with a modular form or Maass form. Thus, automorphic representations are attached to classical objects of fundamental importance in number theory. We will discuss Tate's (1950) thesis, which is essentially the theory of automorphic representations of GL (1), before defining the general notion of an automorphic representation on GL ( n ). Insofar as we can in a brief account, we will (at least in Section 3.3) give statements that are valid for GL ( n ), but proofs that are valid only for n = 2. In places, we will give proofs that are only complete when the ground field is ℚ, though the only serious obstacle to filling these gaps is our omission in Chapter 2 of the representation theory of GL (2, ℂ). In Section 3.2, we will extend our discussion of the “classical” problem of decomposing L 2 (Γ\ PGL (2, ℝ) + ) to the case when the quotient is noncompact – for example, when Γ = SL (2, ℤ) or one of its congruence subgroups.

Key concepts: Automorphic L-function, Automorphic form, Langlands–Shahidi method, Converse theorem, Representation (politics), Mathematics, Character (mathematics), Pure mathematics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Automorphic Representations — Research Paper | ScholarLens