Relation between Fourier coefficients and Satake parameters

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2












Let $L(s)$ be an automorphic L-function (attached to a self contragredient automorphic representation on $GL(3)$), according to the following notations for $s$ of sufficiently large real part:
$$L(s) = sum_k=0^infty fraca_nn^s = prod_p left( 1 - alpha(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - beta(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - gamma(p)p^-s right)^-1$$



Straightforwardly developing the Euler product provides expressions of the Fourier coefficients $a_n$'s in terms of the Satake parameters $alpha(p)$, $beta(p)$ and $gamma(p)$. I am not particularly aware of others standard useful relations between them. I bumped into the following one:
$$a_p^k = frac
left
left$$



I guess this can be verified, but even the case $k=1$ seems obscure to me. I do not want to believe such a formula to be a (verifiable) accident. Despite it works computationally, am I missing something lying behind? How strongly is the self-contragredience assumption necessary?



Any insight is welcome, as well as other ways to embrace the relations between spectral parameters and coefficients.










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    Let $L(s)$ be an automorphic L-function (attached to a self contragredient automorphic representation on $GL(3)$), according to the following notations for $s$ of sufficiently large real part:
    $$L(s) = sum_k=0^infty fraca_nn^s = prod_p left( 1 - alpha(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - beta(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - gamma(p)p^-s right)^-1$$



    Straightforwardly developing the Euler product provides expressions of the Fourier coefficients $a_n$'s in terms of the Satake parameters $alpha(p)$, $beta(p)$ and $gamma(p)$. I am not particularly aware of others standard useful relations between them. I bumped into the following one:
    $$a_p^k = frac
    left
    left$$



    I guess this can be verified, but even the case $k=1$ seems obscure to me. I do not want to believe such a formula to be a (verifiable) accident. Despite it works computationally, am I missing something lying behind? How strongly is the self-contragredience assumption necessary?



    Any insight is welcome, as well as other ways to embrace the relations between spectral parameters and coefficients.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      Let $L(s)$ be an automorphic L-function (attached to a self contragredient automorphic representation on $GL(3)$), according to the following notations for $s$ of sufficiently large real part:
      $$L(s) = sum_k=0^infty fraca_nn^s = prod_p left( 1 - alpha(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - beta(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - gamma(p)p^-s right)^-1$$



      Straightforwardly developing the Euler product provides expressions of the Fourier coefficients $a_n$'s in terms of the Satake parameters $alpha(p)$, $beta(p)$ and $gamma(p)$. I am not particularly aware of others standard useful relations between them. I bumped into the following one:
      $$a_p^k = frac
      left
      left$$



      I guess this can be verified, but even the case $k=1$ seems obscure to me. I do not want to believe such a formula to be a (verifiable) accident. Despite it works computationally, am I missing something lying behind? How strongly is the self-contragredience assumption necessary?



      Any insight is welcome, as well as other ways to embrace the relations between spectral parameters and coefficients.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Let $L(s)$ be an automorphic L-function (attached to a self contragredient automorphic representation on $GL(3)$), according to the following notations for $s$ of sufficiently large real part:
      $$L(s) = sum_k=0^infty fraca_nn^s = prod_p left( 1 - alpha(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - beta(p)p^-s right)^-1 left( 1 - gamma(p)p^-s right)^-1$$



      Straightforwardly developing the Euler product provides expressions of the Fourier coefficients $a_n$'s in terms of the Satake parameters $alpha(p)$, $beta(p)$ and $gamma(p)$. I am not particularly aware of others standard useful relations between them. I bumped into the following one:
      $$a_p^k = frac
      left
      left$$



      I guess this can be verified, but even the case $k=1$ seems obscure to me. I do not want to believe such a formula to be a (verifiable) accident. Despite it works computationally, am I missing something lying behind? How strongly is the self-contragredience assumption necessary?



      Any insight is welcome, as well as other ways to embrace the relations between spectral parameters and coefficients.







      nt.number-theory automorphic-forms l-functions






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 hours ago

























      asked 2 hours ago









      Desiderius Severus

      2,15121847




      2,15121847




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          There is no coincidence, this is the Weyl character formula for the representation $operatornameSym^k$ of $GL_3$. The reason that the Langlands dual group comes up is, unsurprisingly, the Satake isomorphism.



          The general statement is: For an automorphic representation associated to a group $G$ with dual group $hatG$, the coefficient of $p^k$ in the $L$-function associated to a representation $rho$ of $hatG$ is equal to the trace of the Satake parameter (a conjugacy class on $hatG$) acting on $Sym^k rho$.



          No assumption beyond unramifiedness should be necessary.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thanks for your great and enlightening answer. Do you have any reference with some more details on why this statement is true?
            – Desiderius Severus
            58 mins ago










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f312863%2frelation-between-fourier-coefficients-and-satake-parameters%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote













          There is no coincidence, this is the Weyl character formula for the representation $operatornameSym^k$ of $GL_3$. The reason that the Langlands dual group comes up is, unsurprisingly, the Satake isomorphism.



          The general statement is: For an automorphic representation associated to a group $G$ with dual group $hatG$, the coefficient of $p^k$ in the $L$-function associated to a representation $rho$ of $hatG$ is equal to the trace of the Satake parameter (a conjugacy class on $hatG$) acting on $Sym^k rho$.



          No assumption beyond unramifiedness should be necessary.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thanks for your great and enlightening answer. Do you have any reference with some more details on why this statement is true?
            – Desiderius Severus
            58 mins ago














          up vote
          2
          down vote













          There is no coincidence, this is the Weyl character formula for the representation $operatornameSym^k$ of $GL_3$. The reason that the Langlands dual group comes up is, unsurprisingly, the Satake isomorphism.



          The general statement is: For an automorphic representation associated to a group $G$ with dual group $hatG$, the coefficient of $p^k$ in the $L$-function associated to a representation $rho$ of $hatG$ is equal to the trace of the Satake parameter (a conjugacy class on $hatG$) acting on $Sym^k rho$.



          No assumption beyond unramifiedness should be necessary.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thanks for your great and enlightening answer. Do you have any reference with some more details on why this statement is true?
            – Desiderius Severus
            58 mins ago












          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          There is no coincidence, this is the Weyl character formula for the representation $operatornameSym^k$ of $GL_3$. The reason that the Langlands dual group comes up is, unsurprisingly, the Satake isomorphism.



          The general statement is: For an automorphic representation associated to a group $G$ with dual group $hatG$, the coefficient of $p^k$ in the $L$-function associated to a representation $rho$ of $hatG$ is equal to the trace of the Satake parameter (a conjugacy class on $hatG$) acting on $Sym^k rho$.



          No assumption beyond unramifiedness should be necessary.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          There is no coincidence, this is the Weyl character formula for the representation $operatornameSym^k$ of $GL_3$. The reason that the Langlands dual group comes up is, unsurprisingly, the Satake isomorphism.



          The general statement is: For an automorphic representation associated to a group $G$ with dual group $hatG$, the coefficient of $p^k$ in the $L$-function associated to a representation $rho$ of $hatG$ is equal to the trace of the Satake parameter (a conjugacy class on $hatG$) acting on $Sym^k rho$.



          No assumption beyond unramifiedness should be necessary.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 58 mins ago









          Desiderius Severus

          2,15121847




          2,15121847










          answered 1 hour ago









          Will Sawin

          65.2k6131273




          65.2k6131273











          • Thanks for your great and enlightening answer. Do you have any reference with some more details on why this statement is true?
            – Desiderius Severus
            58 mins ago
















          • Thanks for your great and enlightening answer. Do you have any reference with some more details on why this statement is true?
            – Desiderius Severus
            58 mins ago















          Thanks for your great and enlightening answer. Do you have any reference with some more details on why this statement is true?
          – Desiderius Severus
          58 mins ago




          Thanks for your great and enlightening answer. Do you have any reference with some more details on why this statement is true?
          – Desiderius Severus
          58 mins ago

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f312863%2frelation-between-fourier-coefficients-and-satake-parameters%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          yFL 1IVazAawLDxPs3i,soxPuIhIRm632ZhS9sw2 U8TblPOG0Q3z81M4EY
          qQ8bmiWcmalp87K,t7ZC6mDx,uEMw,frYSDspw9sllO6cx6 xo,M B1RrwPWWZ o,0raBGoc79Z

          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS