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.










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.










    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.










      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






      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

          Popular posts from this blog

          Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

          Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

          Confectionery