Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/SuppMathOperators.js

Monday, November 26, 2012

Automorphic Forms and L-functions for the group GL(n,R)

An additional list of corrections due to Ikuya Kaneko is available here.

p. 44, midpage, it is asserted that "Proposition 2.2.3 shows that the ring of differential operators Dn is a realization of the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra gl(n,R)." What proposition 2.2.3 shows is that the function αDα extends to a ring homomorphism from the universal enveloping algebra to Dn. To complete the proof that Dn is a realization, one must show that the kernel of this ring homomorphism is trivial. See Lemma 4.5.5 of Goldfeld-Hundley Vol. 1, and its correction below.

p. 44, proposition 2.2.6 is in error. In fact, right invariance by the element δ1 is not, in general, preserved by the action of the differential operators. To see this, let f be a function GL(2,R)C which is right-invariant by δ1, define h=Dαf, where α=(0100), and suppose that h is also δ1-invariant. Then h(g)=h(gδ1)=limt01t(f(gδ1tα)f(gδ1)) =limt01t(f(g(t)αδ1)f(gδ1)) =limt01t(f(g(t)α)f(g))=Dαf(g)=h(g). (We used the fact that δ1αδ1=α.) This shows that if f and Dαf are both fixed by δ1, then Dαf=0. It is shown on p. 47 that Dα is essentially yx, so there are many functions which are fixed by δ1 and not killed by Dα, including many which are fixed by GL(2,Z) on the left and by the center.

p. 50, proposition 2.3.5 is not correct. In fact, the center of the universal enveloping algebra of gl(n,C) is a polynomial algebra in n generators, not n1. Indeed, proposition 2.3.3 on p. 47 shows that a certain differential operator lies in the center of the universal enveloping algebra for 2mn. But if m=1, the proof still works. The operator corresponding to m=1 is DIn, where In is the n×n identity matrix. This operator is of degree 1, so it is clearly not in the algebra generated by the others.

On p. 105, is described as ``an endomorphism of L2cusp=L2cusp(SL(2,Z)h) whose image is purely cuspidal.'' It should be ``an endomorphism of L2=L2(SL(2,Z)h) whose image is purely cuspidal.'' (The key property of is that f is cuspidal even when f is not.)

On p. 108, it says ``it is easy to check that preserves the space L2cusp,+ (in fact, all operators in sight do).'' This may be true but it's not relevant. The key property of is that it maps L2+ into L2cusp,+.

On p. 108 it says "to show that there exist even cusp forms, we must show that is nonzero on L2cusp,+." It should be ``on L2+.''

On p. 109, the space C+(S(Y)) should be defined as C(S(Y))L2+, rather than C(S(Y))L2cusp,+.

On p. 110, in the last paragraph, the functions fjk are contained in C+(S(Y))L2+, but there is no reason to think that they are in L2cusp,+, so one should assume that they are not. Clearly 10fjk(x+iy)dx=0 for all y1, but for smaller values of y, all bets are off. Likewise W is not contained in L2cusp,+. Only the space V obtained by applying the heart operator to W lies in L2cusp,+.

CORRECTIONS FOR THE PAPERBACK EDITION

The items to be corrected are listed by page number and line number and take the following form: ITEM > CORRECTED ITEM.

Introduction, Page xii, Line -1
I would like to especially thank Dan Bump, Kevin Broughan, Sol Friedberg, Jeff Hoffstein, Alex Kontorovich, Wenzhi Luo, Carlos Moreno, Yannan Qiu, Ian Florian Sprung, C.J. Mozzochi, Peter Sarnak, Freydoon Shahidi, Meera Thillainatesan, Qiao Zhang, for clarifying and improving various proofs, definitions, and historical remarks in the book.
>
I would like to especially thank Dan Bump, Kevin Broughan, Farrel Brumley, Solomon Friedberg, Gergely Harcos, Jeffrey Hoffstein, Joseph Hundley, Alex Kontorovich, Xiaoqing Li, Min Lee, Wenzhi Luo, Carlos Moreno, Yannan Qiu, Ian Florian Sprung, C.J. Mozzochi, Peter Sarnak, Freydoon Shahidi, Nicolas Templier, Meera Thillainatesan, Qiao Zhang, for pointing out errors and clarifying and improving various proofs, definitions, and historical remarks in the book.

Page 44, Line 11
Proposition 2.2.3 shows that the ring of differential operators Dn is a realization of the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra gl(n,R).
>
Proposition 2.2.3 shows that the function αDα extends to a ring homomorphism from the universal enveloping algebra to Dn. To complete the proof that Dn is a realization, one must show that the kernel of this ring homomorphism is trivial. See Lemma 4.5.4 in [Goldfeld-Hundley, Vol. 1, 2011].

Page 49, Line -5
D1,2D2,1f(z)
>
D2,1D1,2f(z)

Page 50, Line 1
D2,1D1,2f(z)
>
D1,2D2,1f(z)

Page 50, Proposition 2.3.5
Every differential operator which lies in Dn (the center of the universal enveloping algebra of gl(n,R)) can be expressed as a polynomial (with coefficients in R) in the Casimir operators defined in proposition 2.3.4. Furthermore, Dn is a polynomial algebra of rank n1.
>
Let n2. Then Dn (the center of the universal enveloping algebra of gl(n,R)) is a polynomial algebra of rank n. Every differential operator which lies in Dn can be expressed as a polynomial (with coefficients in R) in the Casimir operators defined in proposition 2.3.3 and the differential operator DIn where In is the n×n identity matrix. Furthermore, DIn annihilates any smooth function which is invariant by the center.

Page 52, Line 5
Dki,jIs(z)={skniIs(z)if i=j0otherwise,
>
Dki,jIs(z)={(nik=1ksnki1k=1ksk)kIs(z)if i=j,0otherwise,

Page 52, Line -10
Di,iIs(y)=tIs(y+tyEi,i)|t=0=(yniynin1=ni+1yy)Is(y)=sniIs(y).
>
Di,iIs(y)=tIs(y+tyEi,i)|t=0=tIs((y1yn1y1ynj(1+t)1))|t=0=(nik=1ksnki1k=1ksk)Is(y).

Page 52, Line -6
Dki,iIs(y)=(t)kIs(yetEi,i)|t=0=skniIs(y).
>
Dki,iIs(y)=(nik=1ksnki1k=1ksk)kIs(y).

Page 105, Line -10
The key idea of the present approach is to construct an explicit endomorphism of L2cusp=L2cusp(SL(2,Zh2) whose image is purely cuspidal.
>
The basic idea of the present approach is to construct an explicit endomorphism of L2=L2(SL(2,Zh2) whose image is purely cuspidal. (The key property of is that f is cuspidal even when f is not.)

Page 108, Line -15
To show that there exist even cusp forms, we must show that 0 on L2cusp,+.
>
The key property of is that it maps L2+ into L2cusp,+. To show that there exist even cusp forms, we must show that 0 on L2+.

Page 109, Line -12
fC+(S(Y)):=Cc(S(Y))L2cusp,+
>
fC+(S(Y)):=Cc(S(Y))L2+

Page 110, Line -4
regarded as an element of C(S(Y))+L2cusp,+.
>
regarded as an element of C(S(Y))+L2+.

Page 117, Line -4
Cauchy-Schwartz \quad > \quad Cauchy-Schwarz

Page 118, Line -8
If ϕ satisfies conditions (1), (2), but does not satisfy condition (3) of definition 5.1.3, then the Fourier expansion takes the form ϕ(z)=γUn1(Z)SL(n1,Z)m1=m2=0mn1=0˜ϕ(m1,,mn1)((γ1)z).

PLEASE DELETE ABOVE 3 LINES ON PAGE 118 IN THE PAPERBACK EDITION

Page 137, Lemma 5.6.8
Cauchy-Schwartz \quad > \quad Cauchy-Schwarz
Please make the above change in 3 places in Lemma 5.6.8 and its proof.

Page 141, Line -7
Cauchy-Schwartz \quad > \quad Cauchy-Schwarz

Page 163, Line -8
Let Tδ=(111). \qquad > \qquad δ=(111).

Page 268, Equation (9.3.5)
1Nn1/2>1N(n1)/2

Page 307, Formula 10.7.1
EP(z,s)=PΓDet(γz)s,(Re(s)>2/n),
>
EP(z,s)=PΓDet(γz)s,(Re(s)>1),

Page 308, Line 1
While it is not yet clear that (10.7.1) converges absolutely for Re(s)>2/n,
>
While it is not yet clear that (10.7.1) converges absolutely for Re(s)>1,

Page 317, Line 1
where sCn1 is such that
>
where sCr is such that

Page 317, Line 3
and λCn1 is such that
>
and λCr is such that

Page 318, Line 3
Assume that ϕ is a Hecke eigenform, and
>
Assume that ϕ is a Hecke eigenform (normalized so that the first Fourier coefficient is 1), and

Page 318, Line 7
λm(s)=1C1,C2,,CrZC1C2Cr=mA1(c1)A2(c2)Ar(cr)Cs1+η11Cs2+η22Csr+ηrr,
>
λm(s)=1C1,C2,,CrZC1C2Cr=mA1(c1)A2(c2)Ar(cr)Cs1+η1+n1n21Cs2+η2+n2n22Csr+ηr+nrn2r,

Page 318, Line 8
where η1=0 and ηi=n1+n2+ni1 for i1.
>
where η1=0,η2=n1, and ηi=n1+n2++ni1 for 3ir.

Page 319, Line 7
=mn12C1C2Cr=mri=1Ai(Ci)ϕi(mni(z))Csi+ηiiDet(mni(y))si
>
=mn12C1C2Cr=mri=1Ai(Ci)ϕi(mni(z))Csi+ηi+(ni1)2iDet(mni(y))si

Page 320, Line -2
can be expressed in the form γ=wγ where w is in the Weyl group and γBn(Z)N(Z).
>
can be expressed in the form γ=ρwη where w is in the Weyl group, ρP(Q), and ηN(Q).

Page 321, Line 2
((γ1w1P(Z)wγ)N(Z))\N(R)ri=1ϕi(mni(wγuz))Det(mni(wγuz))sidu,
>
((η1w1ρ1P(Z)ρwη)N(Z))\N(R)ri=1ϕi(mni(ρwηuz))Det(mni(ρwηuz))sidu,

Page 321, Line 3
which after changing variables uγ1uγ becomes
>
which after changing variables uη1uη becomes

Page 321, Line 4
((w1P(Z)w)N(Z))\N(R)ri=1ϕi(mni(wuγz))Det(mni(wuγz))sidu.
>
((w1ρ1P(Z)ρw)N(Z))\N(R)ri=1ϕi(mni(ρwuηz))Det(mni(ρwuηz))sidu.

Page 321, Line 6
0N=(M/A)(wNw1).
>
0N=(M/A)(ρwNw1ρ1).

Page 321, Line 8
((w1P(Z)w)N(Z))\(w1N(R)w)N(R)0N(Z)0N(R)ri=1ϕi(mni(u1wuz))Det(mni(u1wuz))sidu1du.
>
((w1ρ1P(Z)ρw)N(Z))\(w1ρ1N(R)ρw)N(R)0N(Z)0N(R)ri=1ϕi(mni(u1ρwuz))Det(mni(u1ρwuz))sidu1du.

Page 353, Line -6
Jw(z;ψM,ψvN,c)=ˉUw(R)Is(wuz)eψM(wcuz)¯ψvN(u)du,
>
Jw(z;ψM,ψvN,c)=Uw(Z)Uw(R)¯Uw(R)Is(wuz)eψM(cwuz)¯ψvN(u)du,

Page 356, Equation (11.6.8)
eψM(y,z):=Un(Z)Un(R)k(z1z)ψM(x)dx.
>
eψM(y,z):=γUn(Z)SL(n,Z)Un(R)k(z1γz)ψM(x)dx.

Page 356, Line -7
eψM(y,uz)=Un(Z)Un(R)k(z1uz)ψM(x)dx=Un(Z)Un(R)k(z1z)ψM(ux)dx=ψM(u)Un(Z)Un(R)k(z1z)ψM(x)dx=ψM(u)eψM(y,z),
>
eψM(y,uz)=Un(R)k(z1uz)ψM(x)dx=Un(R)k(z1z)ψM(ux)dx=ψM(u)Un(R)k(z1z)ψM(x)dx=ψM(u)eψM(y,z),

Page 357, Equation (11.6.10)
Jw(y,y;ψM,ψvN,c)=ˉUweψM(y,wcuy)¯ψvN(u)du=ˉUwUn(Z)Un(R)k(z1wcuy)ψM(x)¯ψvN(u)dxdu,
>
Jw(y,y;ψM,ψvN,c)=ˉUweψM(y,cwuy)¯ψvN(u)du=ˉUwUn(R)k(z1cwuy)ψM(x)¯ψvN(u)dxdu,

Page 359, Line -3
j
---->
\sum\limits_{j\geqslant 0}\hat{k} (\nu_j)\phi_j(z^{\prime})\overline{{\phi}_j(z)}

Page 360
Please change W_{\operatorname{ Jacquet}} to W^*_{\operatorname{ Jacquet}} everywhere on this page (at 6 places).

Page 361
Please change W_{\operatorname{ Jacquet}} to W^*_{\operatorname{ Jacquet}} everywhere on this page (at 6 places).

Page 361, Line -4 2\int\limits_{({\Bbb R}^{+})^{n-1}} W_{\text{Jacquet}}(y, \nu)\, W_{\text{Jacquet}}(y, {\nu}^{\prime}) \prod\limits_{j=1}^{n-1} \pi^{(n-j)s}y_j^{(n-j)(s-j)} \;\frac{dy_j}{y_j}
---->
2\int\limits_{({\Bbb R}^{+})^{n-1}} W^*_{\text{Jacquet}}(y, \nu)\, \overline{W^*_{\text{Jacquet}}(y, {\nu}^{\prime})} \; \prod\limits_{j=1}^{n-1} \pi^{(n-j)s}y_j^{(n-j)(s-j)} \;\frac{dy_j}{y_j}

Page 362, Line -2 H_w\left(\psi_N^v, c\right) = \int\limits_{(\mathbb R^+)^{n-1}} \int\limits_{U_n(\mathbb Z)\backslash U_n(\mathbb R)} \int\limits_{\bar U_w} k\left( t_M^{-1} x^{-1} w cut_N \right) \psi_M(x) \overline{\psi_N^v(u)} \, d^*u \, d^*x
---->
H_w\left(\psi_N^v, c\right) = \int\limits_{(\mathbb R^+)^{n-1}} \; \int\limits_{x\in U_n(\mathbb R)} \; \int\limits_{u\in\overline{U}_w(\mathbb R)} k\left( t_M^{-1} x^{-1} c w u t_N \right) \psi_M(x) \overline{\psi_N^v(u)} \, d^*u \, d^*x

Page 363, Line 1
where t_M = t(M^*)^{-1}, \; t_N = t(N^*)^{-1}, and
---->
where t_M = t\cdot {M^*}^{-1}, \; t_N = t\cdot {N^*}^{-1}, and

Page 363, Line 2
M^* = \left(\begin{matrix} M_1\cdots |M_{n-1}| & & &\\ & \ddots & &\\ &&&M_1\\ &&&&1 \end{matrix}\right), \quad N^* = \left(\begin{matrix} N_1\cdots |N_{n-1}| & & &\\ & \ddots & &\\ &&&N_1\\ &&&&1 \end{matrix}\right),
---->

M^* = \frac{\left(\begin{matrix} M_1\cdots |M_{n-1}| & & &\\ & \ddots & &\\ &&&M_1\\ &&&&1 \end{matrix}\right)} {\big|\text{Det}(M^*)\big|^{\frac{1}{n}} }, \qquad N^* = \frac{\left(\begin{matrix} N_1\cdots |N_{n-1}| & & &\\ & \ddots & &\\ &&&N_1\\ &&&&1 \end{matrix}\right)} {\big|\text{Det}(N^*)\big|^{\frac{1}{n}} },

Page 403, Line -16
We introduce the right regular representation which maps g \in GL(n, \mathbb R) to the endomorphism, F \to \rho(g) F of \mathcal V_n, and is defined by \rho : GL(n, \mathbb R) \to \text{End}(\mathcal V_n), where (\rho(g) F)(z) := F(z\cdot g) for all F \in \mathcal V_n, \; z \in \frak h^n = GL(n, \mathbb R)/O(n, \mathbb R)\cdot \mathbb R^\times, and all g \in GL(n, \mathbb R).
---->
It is possible to define certain actions on the vector space \mathcal V_n such as actions by differential operators or actions by translation. These actions determine a very big automorphic representation which decomposes into a direct sum of irreducible automorphic representations. One may think of an irreducible automorphic representation as being generated by a single Maass form \phi, i.e., it is given by the \mathbb C vector space generated by all linear combinations of the form \sum_i c_i \phi_i where c_i \in \mathbb C and \phi_i is the function determined by one of the above actions on \phi. We have given a vague and imprecise description of automorphic representations. See [Goldfeld-Hundley, 2011] for a rigorous description of this beautiful theory.

Page 403, Remark
Remark: This is a representation into the endomorphisms of an infinite dimensional vector space! The space of Maass forms (cusp forms) is invariant under this representation. It decomposes into an infinite direct sum of irreducible invariant subspaces. If \pi is the representation on one of these invariant subspaces then \pi is termed an automorphic cuspidal representation and corresponds to a Maass form. The L-function associated to \pi is then the L-function associated to the Maass form as in definition 9.4.3, i.e., it is a Godement-Jacquet L-function.
---->
Remark: This is a representation into the endomorphisms of an infinite dimensional vector space! It decomposes into an infinite direct sum of irreducible invariant subspaces. If \pi is an irreducible representation on one of these invariant subspaces then \pi is termed an automorphic cuspidal representation and corresponds to a Maass form. The L-function associated to \pi is then the L-function associated to the Maass form as in definition 9.4.3, i.e., it is a Godement-Jacquet L-function. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE
Goldfeld, D.; Hundley J.; Automorphic representations and L-functions for the general linear group, Vols. 1, 2. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics Vols. 129, 130, Cambridge University Press (2011).

Please add an extra small section at the end of the book entitled Errata as below. This also needs to be added to the table of contents.

ERRATA
Page 44, Proposition 2.2.6 Proposition 2.2.6 is in error. In fact, right invariance by the element \delta_1 is not, in general, preserved by the action of the differential operators. To see this, let f: GL(2, \mathbb R) \to \mathbb C be a function which is right invariant by \delta_1, and define h = D_a f where a = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1\\0&0\end{smallmatrix}\right). Suppose that h is also \delta_1-invariant. Then \begin{align*} h(g) & = h(g\delta_1) = \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{\big( f(g(\delta_1ta) - f(g\delta_1)\big)}{t}\\ & = \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{\big(f(g(-t) a\delta_1) - f(g\delta_1) \big)}{t}\\ & = \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{f(g(-t)a) - f(g)}{t} = D_{-a} f(g) = -h(g). \end{align*} (We used the fact that \delta_1a\delta_1 = -a.) This shows that if f and D_a f are both fixed by \delta_1 then D_a f = 0. It is shown on page 48 that D_a is essentially y\frac{\partial}{\partial x}, so there are many functions which are fixed by \delta_1 and not killed by D_a, including many which are fixed by GL(2, \mathbb Z) on the left and by the center.


Page 141, Inequality (5.8.2) The estimate (5.8.2) is not correct. It is claimed that (5.8.2) follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in Lemma 5.6.8, but this is in error. It is not possible to apply the upper-bound from Lemma 5.6.8. Indeed all the exponents involved in the I_\nu function are negative so the inequality should be reversed. Thus, a lower bound analogue of Lemma 5.6.8 would be required here (but such a lower bound is not valid in general).

No comments:

Post a Comment