2
$\begingroup$

I was reading a lemma:

Lemma. Let $G$ be a locally profinite group, and let $H$ be an open subgroup of $G$ of finite index.

  1. If $(\pi, V)$ is a smooth representation of $G$, then $V$ is $G$-semisimple if and only if it is $H$-semisimple.
  2. Let $(\sigma, W)$ be a semisimple smooth representation of $H$. The induced representation $\operatorname{Ind}_H^G \sigma$ is $G$-semisimple

Proof. Suppose that $V$ is $H$-semisimple, and let $U$ be a $G$-subspace of $V$. By hypothesis, there is an $H$-subspace $W$ of $V$ such that $V = U \oplus W$. Let $f \colon V \to U$ be the $H$-projection with kernel $W$. Consider the map $$ f^G \colon v \mapsto (G : H)^{-1} \sum_{g \in G/H} \pi(g) f( \pi(g)^{-1} v ), \quad v \in V. $$ The definition is independent of the choice of coset representatives and it follows that $f^G$ is a $G$-projection $V \to U$. We then have $V = U \oplus \ker f^G$ and $\ker f^G$ is a $G$-subspace of $V$. Thus $V$ is semisimple (cf. 2.2 Proposition).

Conversely, suppose that $V$ is $G$-semisimple. Thus $V$ is a direct sum of irreducible $G$-subspaces (2.2), and it is enough to treat the case where $V$ is irreducible over $G$. As representations of $H$, the space $V$ is finitely generated and so admits an irreducible $H$-quotient $U$. Suppose for the moment that $H$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. By Frobenius Reciprocity (2.4.2), the $H$-map $V \to U$ gives a non-trivial, hence injective, $G$-map $V \to \operatorname{Ind}_H^G U$. As representations of $H$, the induced representation $\operatorname{Ind}_H^G U = c-\operatorname{Ind}_H^G U$ is a direct sum of $G$-conjugates of $U$ (cf. 2.5 Lemma). These are all irreducible over $H$, so $\operatorname{Ind} U$ is $H$-semisimple. Proposition 2.2 then implies that $V \subset \operatorname{Ind} U$ is $H$-semisimple.

In general, we set $H_0 = \bigcap_{g \in G/H} g H g^{-1}$. This is an open normal subgroup of $G$ of finite index. We have just shown that the $G$-space $V$ is $H_0$-semisimple; the first part of the proof shows it is $H$-semisimple.

This completes the proof of 1., and 2. follows readily from the same arguments.

I don't know how $U$ is constructed (after "conversely" in the second paragraph), that is:

Given a locally profinite group $G$, an open subgroup $H$ of finite index, suppose $(\pi, V)$ is an irreducible smooth representation of $G$, we need to construct an $H$-irreducible space $U$ with a nontrivial $H$-homomorphism $V\rightarrow U$.

I had considered $U=V/W$ where $W=$ the $H$-space generated by $\{v-\pi(g_i)v;v\in V,g_i$'s are the right coset representatives of $H$ in $G\}$, but I'm not sure wether $V/W$ is non-trivial or not. Help please.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Take $W$ to be any maximal proper $H$-invariant subspace of $V$. $\endgroup$ – John M Sep 10 '17 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnM How to construct such proper $W$? I'm thinking using Zorn's lemma but it doesn't seem to remain proper. $\endgroup$ – CYC Sep 10 '17 at 14:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See here math.stackexchange.com/questions/1260096/… $\endgroup$ – John M Sep 10 '17 at 15:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The idea is to take the collection of proper submodules and find a maximal element. A maximal one will still be proper. $\endgroup$ – John M Sep 10 '17 at 15:23
2
$\begingroup$

Consider a totally ordered set $\{U_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in A}$ of proper $H$-invariant subspaces of $V$. Note that this set may be uncountable. The union $$U = \bigcup_{\alpha \in A} U_\alpha$$ is an $H$-invariant subspace of $V$, and can not be all of $V$ because that would contradict the finitely generatedness of $V$.

Therefore the conditions of Zorn's lemma are satisfied, so there is a maximal proper $H$-invariant subspace $W$ of $V$. Then the quotient $V/W$ is an an $H$-irreducible quotient of $V$.

$\endgroup$

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.