Relation between Fourier coefficients and Satake parameters

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:
$$a_p^k = frac
left
$$



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



























    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:
    $$a_p^k = frac
    left
    $$



    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

























      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:
      $$a_p^k = frac
      left
      $$



      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















      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:
      $$a_p^k = frac
      left
      $$



      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




      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
            52 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
            52 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
            52 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 52 mins ago









          Desiderius Severus

          2,15121847




          2,15121847










          answered 58 mins 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
            52 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
            52 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
          52 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
          52 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
































































          Comments

          Post a Comment

          Popular posts from this blog

          What does second last employer means? [closed]

          Image
          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
          Read more

          Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

          Image
          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
          Read more

          One-line joke

          A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
          Read more