Towards a categorical analogue of Gelfand-Kazhdan Theorem

Let M = \begin{pmatrix} m_{11}&& m_{12} \\ m_{21} && m_{22} \end{pmatrix} with m_{ij}\in \mathcal{K} be a matrix representing some given element of PGL(2,\mathcal{K}).

Case 1: Suppose either m_{21}=0 or m_{22}=0. Then M lies in B(\mathcal{K}) or B(\mathcal{K})\cdot \sigma respectively. From now on we assume m_{21}\neq 0 and m_{22}\neq 0.

Case 2: Suppose that val(m_{21})>val(m_{22}) - note that this is a well defined condition for an element of PGL(2,\mathcal{K}). In this case we can assume that m_{22} \in 1+t\mathcal{O} and m_{21}\in t\mathcal{O} (recall that we can multiply all of the m_{ij} by the same element of \mathcal{K} without changing the class in PGL_2(\mathcal{K})). Consider the decomposition

One sees that since m_{22} \in 1+t\mathcal{O} and m_{21}\in t\mathcal{O} the right hand side lies in B(\mathcal{K})\cdot I^0 \subset B(\mathcal{K})\cdot A.

Case 3: Suppose that val(m_{21}) \leq val(m_{22}). In this case we can assume that m_{21} = t and m_{21}\in t\mathcal{O}. With that in mind consider the decomposition

One sees that the right hand side lies in B(\mathcal{K})\cdot (\sigma \cdot I^0) \subset B(\mathcal{K})\cdot A.

Let

Then a direct calculation shows that

therefore to have \chi(g^{-1}hg)=0 for all h \in \mathcal{O} we must have val(\frac{b}{a}) = \{ -k+1,...,-1\}.

We know from Claim 13 that in every relevant right A-coset there is a Borel matrix \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} with val(b)<val(a). Now let us provide a general form of a right I^0-coset of a Borel matrix:

Therefore, if we take m_{21}=0 and m_{22}=0 as well as

(which lies in \mathcal{O} because val(a-a_{val(a)}t^{val(a)}) \ge val(a)+1 = val(ta)) and

then we can turn \begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} with val(b)<val(a) into a matrix of the form

and since such m_{i,j} above are uniquely defined the class R of matrices of the form (14) contains a unique representative from each relevant orbit.

Under the isomorphism

the function \delta_M^{(R)} corresponds to a function \delta_M^{(B)} \in B(\mathcal{K})/(U(\mathcal{O},\chi)) given by

By definition

where

Condition xu=M\cdot s(u) \text{ with } s(u) \in A is equivalent to

Now in (?) we are given x \in \mathcal{K}^\times, a = a_nt^n \in \mathbb{F}_q^\times t^n and b=b_{n-k+1}t^{n-k+1}+...+b_{n-1}t^{n-1} \in \mathcal{K}^\times and we need to describe all u \in\mathcal{O} for which there exist \alpha \in 1+t\mathcal{O} and \beta \in \mathcal{O} such that (?) is satisfied. The conditions on all these variables coming from (?) are a \cdot \alpha=x and a\beta +b=xu. From this we see that:

• \phi_R(\delta_M^{(R)})(x)=0 unless \frac{x}{a} \in 1+t\mathcal{O}.

• If \frac{x}{a} \in 1+t\mathcal{O}, then we are forced to set \alpha = \frac{x}{a}. Then the remaining condition is a\beta +b=xu which is the same as u = \frac{a}{x}\beta+ \frac{b}{x}. That is, u is parametrized by \beta \in \mathcal{O} and in such a way that

  \chi\left( \begin{pmatrix} 1 & u(\beta) \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \right) = \left( u(\beta) \right)_0=\beta_0+\left( \frac{b}{x}\right)_0.

Therefore, the integral in (?) can be calculated as an integral over \beta \in \mathcal{O}:

and since

we have (if \frac{x}{a} \in 1+t\mathcal{O}) the following expression for \phi_R(\delta_M^{(R)})(x):

where q=vol(\mathcal{O}).

First, let us show that it is cuspidal. Consider the action of U(\mathcal{K}) \times A on PGL_2 given by the action of U(\mathcal{K}) on the left and A on the right. We will show that no orbit can support sheaves equivariant with resect to this action against a character (0,\chi) of U(\mathcal{K}) \times A. The proof of this is identical to the proof of cuspidality of V in Claim 9.

Now let us see that this representation is irreducible. As discussed above, it means that the functor of Whittaker (co)invariants provides an equivalence with the category Vect of vector spaces over \mathbb{C}. It is enough to show that there is a unique orbit that supports sheaves U(\mathcal{K}) \times A-equivariant against the character \chi-u_0. As before, it is enough to consider orbits of elements of the Borel subgroup, and from the computation above we see that the character is trivial on the stabilizer of g if and only if g is the identity matrix.

Since this morphism is injective it is enough to check the valuative criterion of closedness. The schemes in question are of finite type over an algebraically closed field \mathbb{C}, so it is enough to check the criterion for O = \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]] and \mathcal{K}=Frac(O)=\mathbb{C}((\lambda)).

So, let z \in (1+t^k\mathcal{O}), r \in R(\mathcal{K}) and w \in I^0(\mathcal{K}) be such that for their product we have z \cdot r\cdot w = m(z,r,w) \in PGL_2(O). We will show that then necessarily r \in R(O) and w \in I^0(O). Indeed, if

where a \in \mathbb{C}((\lambda)), b = b^{(n-k+1)}t^{n-k+1} + ... + b^{(n-1)}t^{n-1} \in \mathbb{C}((\lambda))((t)) and

where \alpha, \beta,\gamma,\varepsilon \in \mathbb{C}((\lambda))[[t]] and \alpha^{(i)}, \beta^{(i)},\gamma^{(i)},\varepsilon^{(i)} \in \mathbb{C}((\lambda)) are the coefficients of t^i in the corresponding element of \mathbb{C}((\lambda))[[t]]. Then

By assumption, this product lies in PGL_2(\mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]). First of all, this means that t\gamma and 1+t \varepsilon are both elements of \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]).

Then consider the upper-right coefficient m_{12} of the product. Recall that val(a)=n, val(\beta) \ge 0 and val ( 1+t\varepsilon) =0, while b = b^{(n-k+1)}t^{n-k+1} + ... + b^{(n-1)}t^{n-1} and z \in (1+t^k\mathcal{O}). One easily sees that it implies that b \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]. Indeed, suppose there is j \in \mathbb{Z} which is the minimal integer such that b^{(i)} \notin \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]]. Then the coefficient of t^j in m_{12} is equal to

but we already know that \varepsilon \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]), by assumption m_{12} \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]) and all of the b^{(i)} \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]) for i<j due to our choice of j. This is a contradiction, therefore b \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]].

Finally, consider m_{11} = a(1+t\alpha)z+b\cdot (t\gamma)\cdot z which by assumption lies in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]. We also already know that b and \gamma are elements of \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]]. Therefore a(1+t\alpha)z = m_{11}- b\cdot(t\gamma)z \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]] so a \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]].

Since a \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]] and b \in \mathbb{C}[[\lambda]][[t]], we see that r actually lies in PGL_2(\mathbb{C}[[\lambda]]). By assumption, so does r\cdot w therefore so does w.

Denote by \mathcal{L}_\chi the exponential D-module on \mathbb{A}^1 defined by the character \chi.

By definition,

Due to the Corollary 28 and Remark 26 it is actually enough to show that P provides an equivalence between the subcategories of (1+t^k\mathcal{O})-equivariant objects supported on the subvarieties R_{n}\cdot A \subset PGL_2(\mathcal{K}) and \mathcal{K}_n := t^n\mathcal{O}^\times \subset \mathcal{K} respectively. There is a natural equvalence between the category of (1+t^k\mathcal{O})-equivariant D-modules on \mathcal{K}_n and the category D(\mathcal{K}_{n,k}) on \mathcal{K}_{n,k}. Also, every (1+t^k\mathcal{O})-equivariant object the category D(PGL_2(\mathcal{K}))_{/(A,\chi)} supported on the subvariety R_{n}\cdot A \subset PGL_2(\mathcal{K}) comes as an image of a D-module on R_{n,k} under the functor

so it is enough to show that the functor D(R_{n,k}) \to D(\mathcal{K}_{n,k}) which sends \mathcal{F} \in D(R_{n,k}) to

is an equivalence.

Tracing these functors on the diagram ? one sees that due to "closed base change" we have

which in turn is isomorphic to

Where K is given by the formula (20).

Now note that:

1. The map

   p_1= pr_R \circ \phi_{1}: \mathbb{G}_m\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathcal{O} \to R_{n,k} \simeq \mathbb{G}_m\times \mathbb{A}^1

   sends the tuple (a,b,[\frac{x}{a}]_{1+t^k\mathcal{O}},\beta) to \begin{pmatrix} a && b \\ 0 && 1 \end{pmatrix}

2. The map

   p_2 = pr_1 \circ \phi_2: \mathbb{G}_m\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathcal{O} \to \mathcal{K}_{n,k} \simeq \mathbb{G}_m\times \mathbb{A}^1

   sends the tuple (a,b,[\frac{x}{a}]_{1+t^k\mathcal{O}},\beta) to [x]_{1+t^k\mathcal{O}}= a\cdot [\frac{x}{a}]_{1+t^k\mathcal{O}}

3. K(a,b,[x])_{1+t^k\mathcal{O}} defines a morphism \mathbb{G}_m\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1} \to \mathbb{A}^1 which is nonzero if and only if \frac{x}{a} \in, in which case is K(a,b,[x])= (\frac{b}{x})_0.

4. From the expressions above one sees that the maps p_1 and p_2 commute with projections to the \mathbb{G}_m, so the diagram

   \begin{tikzcd} {\mathbb{G}_m \times \mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathcal{O}} && {\mathbb{G}_m \times \mathbb{A}^{k-1}_b} \\ \\ {\mathbb{G}_m \times \mathbb{A}^{k-1}_{[\frac{x}{a}]}} \arrow["{p_1}"', from=1-1, to=1-3] \arrow["{p_2}", from=1-1, to=3-1] \end{tikzcd}

   can be viewed as a diagram of (trivial) vector bundles over \mathbb{G}_m. The factor of \mathcal{O} can be ignored because from the expression for p_2 above we see that the only effect it has is multiplication by the cohomology of the pushforward of the structure sheaf of \mathcal{O}, which is a one-dimensional vector space since \mathcal{O} is contractible.

5. The map K: \mathbb{G}_m\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1}\times\mathbb{A}^{k-1} \to \mathbb{A}^1 (note that this is well-defined since K ignores the factor of \mathcal{O}) then induces a fiberwise nondegenerate pairing which identifies fibers of the upper-right bundle with duals to the fibers of the bottom bundle. Indeed, a change of coordinate z=\frac{1}{x} takes the form K(b,z)=(b,z)_0, which with our assumptions on b and z (recall that x\in at^n\mathcal{O}^\times/(1+t^k\mathcal{O}) and b= b_{n-k+1}t^{n-k+1}+ ... + b_{n-1}t^{n-1}) is easily seen to be a nondegenerate pairing.

6. Therefore we see that our functor is just a Fourier-Deligne transform between vector bundles over \mathbb{G}_m with respect to the kernel given by K, hence it is an equivalence.