POSITIVE DEFINITE ∗-SPHERICAL FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY (T), AND
C ∗ -COMPLETIONS OF GELFAND PAIRS

arXiv:1405.1540v2 [math.OA] 29 Nov 2016

NADIA S. LARSEN AND RUI PALMA
Abstract. The study of existence of a universal C ∗ -completion of the ∗ -algebra canonically
associated to a Hecke pair was initiated by Hall, who proved that the Hecke algebra associated
to (SL2 (Qp ), SL2 (Zp )) does not admit a universal C ∗ -completion. Kaliszewski, Landstad and
Quigg studied the problem by placing it in the framework of Fell-Rieffel equivalence, and
highlighted the role of other C ∗ -completions. In the case of the pair (SLn (Qp ), SLn (Zp )) for
n ≥ 3 we show, invoking property (T) of SLn (Qp ), that the C ∗ -completion of the L1 -Banach
algebra and the corner of C ∗ (SLn (Qp )) determined by the subgroup are distinct. In fact, we
prove a more general result valid for a simple algebraic group of rank at least 2 over a p-adic
field with a good choice of a maximal compact open subgroup.

1. Introduction
The work of Bost and Connes on a C ∗ -dynamical system with deep connections to class
field theory brought to attention C ∗ -algebras associated to Hecke pairs, [3]. A (discrete) Hecke
pair (G, Γ) consists of a group G with a subgroup Γ such that every double coset ΓgΓ contains
finitely many left cosets, for every g in G. The associated Hecke algebra H(G, Γ) is a convolution
∗ -algebra of complex-valued functions on the space of double cosets, see for example [11]. Hall
initiated the study of C ∗ -completions of H(G, Γ) in connection to asking whether there is a
category equivalence between the nondegenerate ∗ -representations of H(G, Γ) and the unitary
representations of G generated by their Γ-fixed vectors, [9]. The question was motivated by the
well-known fact that unitary representations of a group are in bijective correspondence with
the nondegenerate ∗ -representations of the group algebra.
While proposing a condition that would yield an affirmative answer to the question, Hall
showed at the same time that the equivalence could not hold in all generality. Indeed, she
showed that H(SL2 (Qp ), SL2 (Zp )) does not admit an enveloping C ∗ -algebra, [9]. The proof
was based on a careful description, via the Satake isomorphism, of this algebra as a polynomial
algebra in one variable. This showed that there are elements of H(SL2 (Qp ), SL2 (Zp )) which
have arbitrarily large norms with respect to ∗ -representations.
Shortly afterwards there were two related developments. In one of them Tzanev, motivated
by amenability in connection with Hecke pairs, and drawing on work of Schlichting [19], noticed
that to every discrete Hecke pair (G, Γ) one can associate in a canonical way a topological pair
(G, Γ) having isomorphic Hecke algebra, [21]. In another development, Kaliszewski, Landstad
and Quigg placed the study of Hall’s correspondence in the framework of Fell-Rieffel equivalence, [10]. Both approaches investigated C ∗ -completions of H(G, Γ) by looking at the corner
p0 Cc (G)p0 arising from the self-adjoint projection p0 given by the characteristic function of the
compact open subgroup Γ of G.
One question raised in [10] was when a certain canonical surjection from C ∗ (p0 L1 (G)p0 )
onto p0 C ∗ (G)p0 could fail to be injective. It is stated in [10, page 677] that the injectivity
fails for the pair (PSL3 (Qp ), PSL3 (Zp )), according to a personal communication by Tzanev.
Date: 11 July, 2014. Revised 12 November, 2014 and 26 May, 2015.
Research partially supported by the Research Council of Norway and the NordForsk research network “Operator Algebra and Dynamics” (grant 11580).
1

However, to our knowledge, no proof of this claim has been published. The result showing
that injectivity of the canonical map above fails for the pair (SL2 (Qp ), SL2 (Zp )) is due to the
second named author, [14].
Our contribution here is to show that the canonical surjection from C ∗ (p0 L1 (SLn (Qp ))p0 )
onto p0 C ∗ (SLn (Qp ))p0 is not injective for all n ≥ 3. Indeed, we prove the result in much greater
generality. The proof differs from the case of n = 2 in [14] in that it appeals to property (T).
After the second named author’s talk on the case n = 2 at a NordForsk conference on the Farøe
Islands in 2012, a discussion with M. Landstad revealed that the obstruction to injectivity in
the case n = 3 would be property (T).
Thus our initial investigations concentrated on property (T) for a Hecke pair (G, Γ). This
notion was already introduced in [22, page 24], where it was claimed that one could easily
show that property (T) of a Hecke pair (G, Γ) was equivalent to property (T) of the locally
compact group G, and that all other characterisations of property (T) for groups could be
translated to Hecke pairs. However, no details were given for any of these two claims. Here
we show that the first claim is valid, though the arguments require a careful analysis; this
material forms the content of appendix A. We point out that this version of property (T) for
Hecke pairs, termed co-rigidity, is also discussed in [1, §6]. Regarding Tzanev’s second claim,
we found that one characterisation is more subtle. It is known that for a locally compact
b with its natural
group G with property (T), the trivial representation of G is isolated in G
∗
Fell topology, and therefore the trivial representation of C (G) is isolated in the hull-kernel
topology. However, in taking a compact open subgroup U and forming the Hecke pair (G, U ),
we found that the trivial representation of C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) need not be isolated in the hull-kernel
topology on (C ∗ (L1 (G, U )))∧ . In fact, this is precisely what happens when (G, U ) is a Gelfand
pair formed of an algebraic group over a p-adic field together with a good choice of a compact
open subgroup, see Theorem 5.2.
As a consequence of this distinction, the trivial representation is isolated in the corner
p0 C ∗ (G)p0 with its hull-kernel topology, see Proposition 5.1, but not in (C ∗ (L1 (G, U )))∧ with
its hull-kernel topology. The crucial technical tool we use to reach this conclusion is Satake’s
description of all spherical functions for the pair (G, U ), see [18] and [13]. The spherical
functions are known to correspond to characters on the abelian Banach algebra L1 (G, U )
associated to the Gelfand pair (G, U ). Since our interest is in ∗-representations of H(G, U ), we
need to consider a particular class of spherical functions, which we call ∗-spherical functions.
We show that the distinction in isolation of the trivial representation in the natural topologies
on C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) = C ∗ (p0 L1 (G)p0 ) and p0 C ∗ (G)p0 , respectively, is due to the fact that not all
bounded ∗ -spherical functions on H(G, U ) are positive definite. Indeed, we show that for an
arbitrary Gelfand pair (G, U ), the canonical surjection from C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) onto p0 C ∗ (G)p0 is
injective precisely when all bounded ∗-spherical functions on H(G, U ) are positive definite, cf.
Theorem 3.1.
Another consequence of our investigations is that we can show that for a Gelfand pair (G, U ),
a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the universal C ∗ -completion of H(G, U )
is that all ∗-spherical functions are bounded, see Theorem 3.2. This behaviour can perhaps
be interpreted as a feature common to the group algebra in the case of abelian G, since by
taking U to be the trivial subgroup, the spherical functions are characters on G, and hence
automatically positive definite and bounded.
We thank M. Landstad for indicating that property (T) would be the right notion to consider
in order to investigate injectivity of the canonical map when n ≥ 3. We thank V. Shirbisheh
who, after a first version of this paper was circulated, pointed us to references [1] and [20].
We thank the anonymous referee for many useful comments which substantially improved the
paper and for encouraging us to adopt a more general point of view that encompasses our
2

motivating example: indeed, we are grateful for sharing with us the proof of Theorem 5.2 in
its present generality.
2. Generalities about spherical functions
We begin by introducing some notation and recalling terminology. Suppose that (G, Γ) is a
Hecke pair, by which we mean either a discrete pair or a pair formed of a topological group with
an open subgroup such that every double coset contains finitely many left cosets. With L(g)
denoting the number of left cosets in ΓgΓ for g ∈ G, the map ∆(g) = L(g)/L(g −1 ) is a group
homomorphism of G into Q+ . A function f : G → C is Γ-biinvariant if f (xg) = f (gx) = f (g)
for all g ∈ G and x ∈ Γ. The Hecke algebra H(G, Γ) associated to (G, Γ) is the ∗ -algebra
of Γ-biinvariant complex valued functions on G which are finitely supported when viewed on
Γ\G/Γ; the convolution and involution in H(G, Γ) are defined by
X
(2.1)
(f1 ∗ f2 )(g) =
f1 (h)f2 (h−1 g), and
hΓ∈G/Γ

(2.2)

f (g)∗ = ∆(g−1 )f (g −1 ),

for f1 , f2 , f ∈ H(G, Γ), where the sum in the convolution formula is taken over representatives
for the left coset space.
One can define an L1 -norm on H(G, Γ) for any Hecke pair (G, Γ) by
X
(2.3)
kf k1 =
|f (ΓgΓ)|L(g),
ΓgΓ∈Γ\G/Γ

and take the corresponding completion L1 (G, Γ), which is a Banach ∗ -algebra.
An example of a Hecke pair arises when G is a locally compact topological group and U is
a compact open subgroup. This type of example is generic, cf. [21], see Section 3 for more
details. Given such (G, U ), the Hecke algebra can also be defined as the space of complex
valued, compactly supported functions on U \G/U which are U -biinvariant; the convolution
and the involution are defined as in (2.1) and (2.2), where ∆ is the modular function of G. Let
µ be a left Haar measure on G normalised by µ(U ) = 1, and consider the Banach ∗ -algebra
L1 (G) endowed with its convolution
Z
f1 (h)f2 (h−1 g) dµ(h)
(f1 ∗ f2 )(g) =
G

for f1 , f2 ∈ L1 (G) and involution defined as above. The subspace L1 (U \G/U ) of U -biinvariant
functions in L1 (G) becomes a closed subalgebra of L1 (G). Let p0 be the self-adjoint projection in L1 (G) (and in Cc (G)) determined by χU . Then H(G, U ) = p0 Cc (G)p0 and there are
canonical isomorphisms L1 (U \G/U ) ∼
= L1 (G, U ) ∼
= p0 L1 (G)p0 .
Recall that when G is a unimodular locally compact group and U a compact open subgroup,
then (G, U ) is a Gelfand pair if L1 (U \G/U ) is commutative. It follows from the results of [20,
§2.2] that whenever G is a locally compact group and U a compact open subgroup such that
H(G, U ) is commutative, then G must be unimodular.
The notion of a spherical function for a Gelfand pair is well-known, cf. for example [8] or
the expository article [6]. Here we follow [18, §5.2].
Definition 2.1. Let G be a unimodular locally compact group and U a compact subgroup.
A continuous function ω : G → C is a spherical function of G relative to U if the following
conditions are satisfied:
i) ω(e) = 1.
ii) ω(u
R 1 gu2 ) = ω(g) for all g ∈ G and u1 , u2 ∈ U .
iii) U ω(g1 ug2 ) dµ(u) = ω(g1 )ω(g2 ), for all g1 , g2 ∈ G.
3

If U is a compact open subgroup of G, then we call a function ω as in Definition 2.1 a spherical
function for H(G, U ). Assuming i) and ii), condition iii) is equivalent to the following:
iv) for each f ∈ H(G, U ) there exists λf ∈ C such that f ∗ ω = λf ω.
Given a spherical function ω for H(G, U ), one associates a homomorphism τω : H(G, U ) → C
defined by
Z
(2.4)
f (g)ω(g−1 ) dµ(g) .
τω (f ) :=
G

If U is moreover open, then every non-trivial homomorphism of H(G, U ) into C arises in this
way (a result attributed in [18] to T. Tamagawa). Thus ω ←→ τω establishes a bijective
correspondence between spherical functions and homomorphisms of H(G, U ) onto C. This
bijective correspondence holds for non-trivial homomorphisms of L1 (G, U ) into C when one
considers bounded spherical functions. For a proof of the next result, see for example [12,
Theorem 7, Chp. IV].
Proposition 2.2. Let (G, U ) be a Gelfand pair. Then ω ←→ τω establishes a bijective correspondence between bounded spherical functions with |ω(·)| ≤ 1 and homomorphisms of L1 (G, U )
onto C.
In the next result we identify which spherical functions give rise to ∗ -homomorphisms of
H(G, U ). We omit the routine proof.
Proposition 2.3. Let (G, U ) be a Gelfand pair and ω a spherical function. The homomorphism
τω is a ∗ -homomorphism if and only if ω(g−1 ) = ω(g) for all g ∈ G.
Definition 2.4. Let G be a unimodular locally compact group and U a compact open subgroup.
A spherical function ω for H(G, U ) that satisfies ω(g−1 ) = ω(g) for all g ∈ G will be called a
∗ -spherical function.
According to Proposition 2.3, the ∗ -spherical functions for a Gelfand pair are precisely those
for which the associated map τω is a ∗ -homomorphism.
Proposition 2.5. Suppose that {ωn }n∈N is a sequence of spherical functions and ω a spherical
function for H(G, U ) such that |ω(·)| ≤ 1 and |ωn (·)| ≤ 1 for all n ≥ 1. If ωn → ω uniformly on
compact subsets of G, then τωn → τω in the weak∗ -topology, as linear functionals of L1 (G, U ).
Proof: Note that Proposition 2.2 guarantees that τω and τωn , for each n ≥ 1, extend to
homomorphisms of L1 (G, U ) to C. Let f ∈ L1 (G, U ) and ǫ > 0. Since f can be viewed
1
as
R a function in L (G), we can choose a sufficiently large compact set K ⊆ G such that
G\K f dµ < ǫ/4. Choose n0 ∈ N such that for n ≥ n0 we have k(ωn − ω)|K −1 k∞ < ǫ/2kf k1 .
Then for n ≥ n0 we have
Z
|f (g)||ωn (g−1 ) − ω(g −1 )| dµ(g)
|τωn (f ) − τω (f )| ≤
G\K
Z
|f (g)| dµ(g) · k(ωn − ω)|K −1 k∞
+
K

≤

2ǫ ǫ
+ = ǫ.
4
2

Given a Gelfand pair (G, U ), a spherical function ω : G → C is positive definite if for any
n ≥ 1, any finite subset {s1 , . . . , sm } of G and any collection {z1 , . . . , zm } of complex numbers,
one has
m
X
ω(s−1
j sk )zj zk ≥ 0,
j,k=1

4

see for example [6]. A slightly different formulation of this notion appears in [18, Appendix
II]. Positive definite spherical functions for a Gelfand pair (G, U ) appear naturally within
the context of unitary representations. In the general theory of Hecke algebras a unitary
representation of G on a Hilbert space which is generated by its U -fixed vectors always gives rise
to a nondegenerate ∗ -representation of the Hecke algebra H(G, U ). The converse, whether every
nondegenerate ∗ -representation of H(G, U ) arises in this way from a unitary representation, is
not always true. Hall proposed a positivity condition for a certain inner product as a sufficient
condition for a category equivalence of the two classes of representations, [9, Theorem 3.25].
The category equivalence holds true when certain C ∗ -completions of the Hecke algebra are the
same, see [10, Corollaries 6.11(ii) and 6.19]. In the case of Gelfand pairs, bounded positive
definite spherical functions ω are precisely those for which the associated ∗ -representation τω
arises from a unitary representation of G. Before we indicate the relation between positive
definite spherical functions and C ∗ -completions of Hecke algebras, we first recall that positive
definite spherical functions are always bounded and ∗ -spherical. The result is well-known, cf.
for example [18, Appendix II] or [12, §5, Chp. IV].
Proposition 2.6. Let (G, U ) be a Gelfand pair. Every positive definite spherical function is
necessarily bounded and ∗ -spherical.
3. The canonical surjection for a Hecke pair and ∗-spherical functions
To motivate our first result, we recall that for a (discrete) Hecke pair (G, Γ), the convolution
and involution on the associated Hecke algebra H(G, Γ) are as given in equations (2.1) and
(2.2). It was shown in [21], see also [10], that there is a unique pair (G, Γ) where G is a
totally disconnected locally compact group, Γ is a compact open subgroup, there is a canonical
embedding ι : G → G such that ι(G) is dense in G, ι(Γ) is dense in Γ, and ι−1 (Γ) = Γ (more
precisely, the uniqueness is achieved by passing to the reduction (Gr , Γr ) of (G, Γ)). We refer
to (G, Γ) as the Schlichting completion of (G, Γ).
Let p0 denote the self-adjoint projection χΓ in Cc (G). There are canonical isomorphisms
H(G, Γ) ∼
= p0 Cc (G)p0 . Upon completion with respect to the norm from (2.3), one
= H(G, Γ) ∼
obtains an isomorphism L1 (G, Γ) ∼
= p0 L1 (G)p0 .
The canonical surjection for the Hecke pair (G, Γ) alluded to in the title of the section is the
∗-homomorphism
(3.1)

Π : C ∗ (L1 (G, Γ)) −→ p0 C ∗ (G)p0 ,

see [21] and [10]. This map is known to be an isomorphism in many cases, such as when
G is Hermitian, [10], or when L1 (G) is quasi-symmetric in the terminology of [14]. The last
property is known to hold for a class of groups containing Hermitian groups and groups with
subexponential growth. For a Gelfand pair, the next result gives a necessary and sufficient
condition for the canonical surjection to be an isomorphism in terms of properties of ∗-spherical
functions.
Theorem 3.1. Let G be a unimodular locally compact group and U a compact open subgroup
such that (G, U ) is a Gelfand pair. The following are equivalent:
(a) All bounded ∗ -spherical functions for H(G, U ) are positive definite.
(b) The canonical surjection Π : C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) −→ p0 C ∗ (G)p0 is an isomorphism.
Proof: We have that p0 is the self-adjoint projection in L1 (G) equal to χU . We aim to use
[10, Corollary 6.11(ii)], according to which the Banach ∗ -algebra D := p0 L1 (G)p0 is such that
C ∗ (D) = p0 C ∗ (G)p0 if and only if every ∗ -representation π of D on a Hilbert space satisfies
(3.2)

π(hf, f iD ) ≥ 0 for all f ∈ L1 (G)p0 ,

where the D-valued inner product h·, ·iD is defined by hf1 , f2 iD = f1∗ f2 for f1 , f2 ∈ L1 (G)p0 .
5

Let us assume (a). We will establish (3.2), which therefore shows that C ∗ (D) = p0 C ∗ (G)p0 .
Claim 1: The inequality
in (3.2) is valid when π runs over the set
of characters of D. To
Pm
Pm
−1
1 (G)p ; then f ∗ =
see this, let f =
z
s
p
in
C
(G)p
⊂
L
c
0
0
j=1 j j 0
j=1 zj p0 sj . Let ω be
∗
a bounded -spherical function, which by assumption is positive definite. Then, using that
1
χU gU for every g ∈ G, it follows that
p0 gp0 = L(g)
τω (hf, f iD ) = τω (p0

m
X

zj zk s−1
j s k p0 )

j,k=1

=

=

m
X

zj zk τω (p0 s−1
j s k p0 )

j,k=1
m
X

zj zk
L(s−1
j sk )
j,k=1
m
X

zj zk
=
L(s−1
j sk )
j,k=1
(3.3)

=

m
X

Z

G

χU s−1 sk U (g)ω(g−1 )dµ(g)

Z

j

U s−1
j sk U

ω(s−1
j sk )dµ(g)

ω(s−1
j sk )zj zk .

j,k=1

Thus τω (hf, f iD ) ≥ 0 for all bounded ∗ -spherical functions ω on H(G, U ). By continuity of
τω , it follows that τω (hf, f iD ) ≥ 0 for all f ∈ L1 (G)p0 and all bounded ∗ -spherical functions
on H(G, U ). Since D ∼
= L1 (G, U ) and every character of L1 (G, U ) is of the form τω for some
∗
bounded -spherical function ω, it follows that
π(hf, f iD ) ≥ 0
L1 (G, U ).

for any character π of
This proves claim 1.
Claim 2: If (3.2) is valid when π runs over the set of characters of D, then it is valid
for arbitrary π. To show this, let π be a ∗ -representation of the commutative, unital Banach
∗ -algebra D on a Hilbert space H and fix an arbitrary state ψ of B(H ). Then ψ ◦ π is a
π
π
state on D is the sense of ∗-algebras, see for example [15, Definition 9.4.21]. Therefore, by [15,
Theorem 9.6.6], we have ψ ◦ π ∈ conv{DP }, where DP denotes the set of pure states on D.
Since D is a commutative ∗-algebra, [15, Theorem 9.6.10] says that the set DP of pure states
is the same as the set of ∗-homomorphisms of D onto C. The latter one is the character space
of D. Now, ψ ◦ π admits a barycentric decomposition
Z
(ψ ◦ π)(d) = τ ′ (d)dµ(τ ′ ),
for a unique measure µ supported on the set of pure states (which are the extremal points in
the set of states on D), see [5, §4.1]. Since τ ′ (hf, f iD ) ≥ 0 for every f ∈ L1 (G)p0 by claim 1, it
follows that (ψ ◦ π)(hf, f iD ) ≥ 0 for all f ∈ L1 (G)p0 . Since ψ was chosen arbitrarily, it follows
that π(hf, f iD ) ≥ 0, proving claim 2 and finishing the proof of one implication.
Conversely, assume (b). Let ω be a bounded ∗ -spherical function on H(G, U ). By Propositions 2.2 and 2.3, τω extends to a ∗ -homomorphism L1 (G, U ) → C. Fix aPfinite subset
{s1 , . . . , sm } of G and a finite subset {z1 , . . . , zm } of complex numbers. Let f = m
j=1 zj sj p0 ∈
1
L (G)p0 . Since
(3.2), a computation similar to the one leading to equation (3.3)
P τω satisfies
−1
shows that m
ω(s
s
)z
k j zk = τω (hf, f iD ) ≥ 0, as needed in (a).
j,k=1
j
The Hecke algebra H(G, Γ) associated to a Hecke pair (G, Γ) need not admit a universal
C ∗ -completion, [9]. When it does, the universal C ∗ -completion C ∗ (G, Γ) of H(G, Γ) admits a
6

natural surjection onto C ∗ (L1 (G, Γ)). As pointed out in [10, Questions 6.16(ii)], this map is an
isomorphism for all known classes such that C ∗ (G, Γ) exists, although a general explanation of
why this must be the case is missing. The next result gives a necessary and sufficient condition
for existence of a universal C ∗ -completion of a Gelfand pair. As in all other similar cases, the
natural surjection then becomes injective.
Theorem 3.2. Let G be a unimodular locally compact group and U a compact open subgroup
such that (G, U ) is a Gelfand pair. The following are equivalent:
(a) All ∗ -spherical functions for H(G, U ) are bounded.
(b) The universal C ∗ -completion C ∗ (G, U ) exists and the canonical surjection C ∗ (G, U ) −→
∗
C (L1 (G, U )) is an isomorphism.
Proof: Let us assume (a) is true. Since H(G, U ) is abelian, in order to prove that C ∗ (G, U )
exists it suffices to show that supφ |φ(f )| < ∞ for every f ∈ H(G, U ), where the supremum
runs over the set of ∗ -homomorphisms φ : H(G, U ) → C. We know that each ∗ -homomorphism
H(G, U ) → C is of the form τω for some ∗ -spherical function ω. By (a) every ∗ -spherical
function is bounded, and therefore τω extends to a character of L1 (G, U ). Hence
|τω (f )| ≤ kf kL1 (G,U ) ,
from which it follows immediately that supφ |φ(f )| ≤ kf kL1 (G,U ) < ∞. We conclude that
C ∗ (G, U ) exists. Moreover, since every ∗ -homomorphism H(G, U ) → C extends to a character of L1 (G, U ) it follows that the canonical surjection C ∗ (G, U ) −→ C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) is an
isomorphism.
Let us now assume (b). Let ω be a ∗ -spherical function. As we know, τω is then a ∗ homomorphism H(G, U ) → C. By (b) we must have
|τω (f )| ≤ kf kC ∗ (G,U ) = kf kC ∗ (L1 (G,U )) ≤ kf kL1 (G,U ) .
Hence, τω extends to a character of L1 (G, U ). Thus, ω must be bounded.
An immediate consequence of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 is the following:
Corollary 3.3. Let G be a unimodular locally compact group and U a compact open subgroup
such that (G, U ) is a Gelfand pair. The following are equivalent:
(a) All ∗ -spherical functions for H(G, U ) are bounded and positive definite.
(b) the universal C ∗ -completion C ∗ (G, U ) exists and the natural maps are isomorphisms:
∼
=

∼
=

C ∗ (G, U ) −→ C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) −→ p0 C ∗ (G)p0 .
4. Spherical functions for simple algebraic groups over p-adic fields
The spherical functions for the pair (SLn (Qp ), SLn (Zp )) and, more generally, reductive
algebraic groups over p-adic fields, were completely characterised by Satake, see [17] and [18].
The results in [18] are valid in greater generality, see for example [13].
We introduce some notation first: K denotes a finite extension of Qp , o is the ring of integers
in K, π is a prime element generating the unique prime ideal p of o, and q is the number of
elements in the residue class field o/p. An algebraic group over K is the group of K-rational
points of an algebraic group defined over K. Our interest is in simple algebraic groups over K
of rank ν, with ν ≥ 2.
The main objects in [18] are G, U , H, N , where G is an algebraic group over K, U is a
“good” open compact subgroup of G, H is a closed subgroup consisting of semi-simple elements
and N is a unipotent subgroup of G normalised by H such that if H u is the unique maximal
compact subgroup of H, the following condition (I) is satisfied: G = U HN and U ⊃ H u .
In addition, the Weyl group of G relative to H, WH , must satisfy a technical condition (II)
7

which depends on the existence of a fundamental domain of WH in H/H u , see [18, §3.3]. Then
(G, U ) is a Gelfand pair, and under the assumptions (I) and (II), [18, Theorem 2, §5.4] gives
a parametrisation of all the spherical functions for H(G, U ). Given a semi-simple algebraic
group G over K, subgroups U , H, N satisfying the assumptions (I) and (II) can be found in
many relevant examples, see [18, Chapter III] and [13].
We assume for the remaining of this section that G, U , H, N satisfy the assumptions (I)
and (II). We need to recall the parametrisation of spherical functions from [18, Theorem 2,
§5.4], see also [13, Theorem 1].
Following [18], we let X(H) be the set of K-morphisms of H into K∗ (this is the character
group of H). The subgroup H u = {h ∈ H | χ(h) ∈ o∗ for all χ ∈ X(H)} is the unique maximal
compact subgroup of H. Letting M ⊂ Hom(X(H), Z) be the subgroup formed of elements
lh : X(H) → Z given by lh (χ) = ordp (χ(h)) for χ ∈ X(H) and h ∈ H, the map h 7→ lh induces
an isomorphism
H/H u ∼
= M.

(4.1)

We let π m denote the preimage of m ∈ M under this isomorphism. The Weyl group W = WH
acts on M by (inner) automorphisms. There is a natural pairing
(4.2)

M × (X(H) ⊗ C) 7→ C, (m, s) 7→ m.s,

and under this pairing W acts on X(H) ⊗ C.
Remark 4.1. In the case G = SLn (K), then U = SLn (o), H is the subgroup of diagonal
matrices, H u is the subgroup of diagonal
matrices h = diag(h1 , . . . , hn ) in H such that hk ∈ o∗
P
n
for k = 1, . . . , n, M ∼
= {m ∈ Zn | k=1 mk = 0}, and the Weyl group W is the symmetric
group Sn on n letters acting on M by permutations. If m = (m1 , . . . , mn ) ∈ M , then π m :=
∼ n
diag(π m1 , . . . , π mn ) ∈ H. There is a natural identification
Pn X(H) ⊗ C = C /{(s, . . . , s) : s ∈ C}
under which the pairing (4.2) takes the form m.s = k=1 mk sk , for m = (m1 , . . . , mn ) ∈ M
and s = (s1 , . . . , sn ) ∈ Cn representing a class in X(H) ⊗ C.
c := {s ∈ X(H) ⊗ C : m.s ∈ Z for all m ∈ M }. By [18, §5.4], if α : H → C∗ is
Let M
a quasi-character (i.e. a continuous homomorphism of H into C∗ with respect to the p-adic
topology) satisfying α(H u ) = 1, then α is uniquely determined by the values of α(π m ) with
2πi c
m ∈ M . Moreover, there exists s ∈ X(H) ⊗ C, uniquely determined modulo log
q M , such that
α(π m ) = q −m.s .

(4.3)

Whenever α(H u ) = 1 and (4.3) holds, we use Satake’s notation and write α ↔ s.
Let δ be the positive quasi-character
introduced in [18, §4.1]; thus, if d is the Haar measure
R
on N normalised so that N ∩U dn = 1, then
δ(h) =

d(hnh−1 )
for h ∈ H, n ∈ N.
d(n)

1

Let now δ 2 α ↔ s. For g ∈ G of the form g = uhn with u ∈ U , h ∈ H and n ∈ N , define a
complex-valued function ψα on G by ψα (uhn) := α(h). Let du be normalised Haar measure
on U . Then, according to [18, §5.3 and §5.4], the formula
Z
(4.4)
ψα (g−1 u) du
ωs (g) :=
U

for g ∈ G determines a spherical function ωs for H(G, U ).
8

1

Before stating the next result we make the following observation: if δ 2 α ↔ s, let s be given
by αs (h) = αs (h) for all h ∈ H. Then for each g ∈ G we have
Z
Z
ψα (gu) du = ωs (g−1 ).
ωs (g −1 ) =
ψα (gu) du =
U

U

Lemma 4.2. If s = −ws for some w in W , then ωs is a ∗-spherical function.
Proof: To see this, fix s and w with s = −ws, and recall from [18, Proposition 5.2]
that ωws = ωs and ω−s (g) = ωs (g−1 ) for all g ∈ G. Then for each g ∈ G we have
ωs (g) = ωw−1s (g) = ω−s (g) = ωs (g−1 ). By the observation preceding the lemma, it then
follows that ωs (g) = ωs (g−1 ), as claimed.
Now, [18, Theorem 2, §5.4] or [13, Theorem 1] establish that every spherical function for
1
H(G, U ) arises as in (4.4) from some α (or, equivalently, from s such that δ 2 α ↔ s). Moreover,
ωs = ωs′ if and only if s′ = ws for some w ∈ W , where the action of W on M is carried over
c invariant.
to an action of W by C-linear transformations of X(H) ⊗ C which leave M
It is immediate to see that the trivial spherical function ωt ≡ 1 is attained at (the orbit of)
 2πi 
m.t for all m ∈ M .
m 21
c
t ∈ X(H) ⊗ C / log
q M satisfying that δ(π ) = q
Our initial approach to the following theorem covered the case of (SLn (K), SLn (o)) for n ≥ 3.
We are grateful to the anonymous referee who generously shared the proof in the case of an
arbitrary pair (G, U ) satisfying Satake’s conditions (I) and (II).
Theorem 4.3. Let G, U, H, N be groups satisfying conditions (I) and (II) of Satake. Let
(rn )n≥1 be a non-decreasing sequence of positive real numbers that converges to 1. Then
{ωrn t }n∈N is a sequence of bounded ∗ -spherical functions converging to 1 uniformly on compact
subsets of G. Moreover, the functions ωrn t are pairwise distinct for large enough n.
Proof: We show first that each ωrn t is ∗-spherical. Note that t = t. The assumption
δ1/2 ↔ t implies that t corresponds to half the sum of the positive roots in the reduced root
system of (G, H). Hence by [4, Chap. VI, §1, Corollary 3], there is w ∈ W such that wt = −t.
Since rt = rt for every positive real number r, it follows from Lemma 4.2 that ωrn t is ∗-spherical
for each n ≥ 1.
To see that the functions ωrn t are pairwise distinct for large n we note that the affine Weyl

2πi c
group, which is given by Wa = W. log
q M , acts properly on X(H) ⊗ C, see [4, Chap. VI, §2,
Proposition 2]. Hence, for large enough n 6= m, the elements rn t and rm t in X(H) ⊗ C belong
to different Wa orbits. Then by [18, Chap. II, §5, Theorem 2], the spherical functions ωrn t and
ωrm t are distinct.
We next turn to proving that ωrn t is bounded by 1 for each n ≥ 1. For z ∈ C, note
that δz/2 ↔ zt. We claim that |ωzt (·)| ≤ 1 when |Re(z)| ≤ 1. For a fixed g ∈ G, the function
z 7→ ωzt (g) is entire. For a given uR∈ U we write g −1 u = u′ hu n′ according to the decomposition
G = U HN . By (4.4), ωzt (g) = U δ(hu )(z−1)/2 du. Thus, |ωzt (g)| ≤ 1 whenever Re(z) = 1.
If Re(z) = −1, using that ωzt = ω−zt (g−1 ), it again follows that |ωzt (g)| ≤ 1. For a general
z ∈ C we have that
|ωzt (g)| ≤ sup |δ(hu )(z−1)/2 | = sup |δ(hu )|(Re(z)−1)/2 ,
u∈U

u∈U

and therefore there is a constant C such that |ωzt (g)| < C for any z with |Re(z)| ≤ 1. It now
follows from Hadamard’s three-lines theorem, applied to the function z 7→ ωzt (g) on the strip
|Re(z)| ≤ 1, that |ωzt (g)| ≤ 1 for any z on the strip. Since this is true for any g ∈ G, the claim
follows.
9

It remains to show that ωrn t → ωt uniformly on compact sets. Since spherical functions
are constant on the compact open sets U gU , with g ∈ G, it is enough to prove pointwise
convergence, i.e. ωrn t (g) → ωt (g) for any g ∈ G. Now, if δ1/2 αn ↔ rn t, then αn converges to
1 in the parameter space for spherical functions. Passing through the identity (4.4), the claim
follows from a routine argument using the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem.
5. Property (T) and the canonical surjection for (G, U )
Let A be a ∗ -algebra. We will denote by Prim(A) the primitive ideal space of A, i.e. the
set of kernels of topologically irreducible ∗ -representations of A, with the hull-kernel topology.
b the dual space of A, which is the set of unitary equivalence
Moreover, we will denote by A
∗
b → Prim(A) defined
classes of irreducible -representations of A. There is a canonical map A
b is the topology pulled back from Prim(A) through
by [π] 7→ Ker(π), and the topology of A
this map.
Property (T) for a topological group is known to have several equivalent formulations. For
our purposes two of these characterisations are crucial: one of them because it captures a
property (T) for Hecke pairs, as introduced by Tzanev in [22], see Appendix A and in particular
Theorem A.8. The other characterisation has our interest because it fails to pass to Hecke pairs
in the sense of Theorem 5.2. As we shall now show, this phenomenon is intimately related to
the question of whether the canonical surjection from (3.1) is injective.
Proposition 5.1. Let (G, Γ) be a Hecke pair with Schlichting completion (G, Γ). Suppose that
G has property (T) or, equivalently, by Theorem A.8 the pair (G, Γ) has property (T) for Hecke
∧
pairs. Then the trivial representation of p0 C ∗ (G)p0 is an isolated point of p0 C ∗ (G)p0 with
the hull-kernel topology.
b with
Proof: Since G has property (T), the trivial representation 1 of G is isolated in G
G

b coincides with
the Fell topology. Under the standard identifications, the Fell topology on G
the hull-kernel topology on C ∗ (G)∧ (see [7, §18] and comment on page 413 of [BdHV]), so
∧
that the trivial representation of C ∗ (G) is an isolated point of C ∗ (G) . Moreover, by [16,
Proposition A.27 (b)], we see that 1G , restricted to the ideal C ∗ (G)p0 C ∗ (G), is an isolated point

∧
of C ∗ (G)p0 C ∗ (G) . By the Morita equivalence between C ∗ (G)p0 C ∗ (G) and p0 C ∗ (G)p0 ,

together with [16, Corollary 3.33
(a)], we see that the trivial representation of p0 C ∗ (G)p0 is an

∧
isolated point of p0 C ∗ (G)p0 .
The above proposition shows that p0 C ∗ (G)p0 still captures the characterisation of property
(T) in terms of the isolation of the trivial representation. However, as the next result shows,
this characterisation of property (T) fails in general to pass to C ∗ (L1 (G, Γ)).

Theorem 5.2. Let (G, U ) be a Gelfand pair as in Theorem 4.3. The trivial representation of
∧
C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) is not an isolated point of the space C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) endowed with its hull-kernel
topology.
Proof: By Theorem 4.3 there is a sequence of mutually different bounded ∗ -spherical functions {ωtn }n∈N that converges uniformly on compact sets to the trivial spherical function ωt .
By Proposition 2.2, each τωtn is a ∗ -homomorphism of L1 (G, U ) onto C. Moreover, by
Proposition 2.5, the sequence {τωtn }n∈N converges to the trivial representation τωt of L1 (G, U )
in the weak∗ -topology.
Let us denote by L1 (G, U )∧ the space of non-trivial ∗ -homomorphisms of L1 (G, U ) onto C
endowed with the weak∗ -topology, which is the same as the pure state space of L1 (G, U ), since
this Banach ∗ -algebra is abelian. Since the ∗ -homomorphisms τωtn are mutually different, the
trivial representation of L1 (G, U ) is not an isolated point of L1 (G, U )∧ .
10

∧
By [15, Theorem 10.1.12 (b)] the spaces C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) and L1 (G, U )∧ are homeomorphic.
∧
Hence, the trivial representation of C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) is not an isolated point of C ∗ (L1 (G, U ))
with the weak∗ -topology. Since C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) is abelian, the weak∗ -topology and the hullkernel topologies coincide (by, for example, [16, Appendix A]), and this proves our claim.
It is known that a simple algebraic group of rank ν ≥ 2 over a p-adic field has property (T),
see for example [2, Theorem 1.6.1]. Hence by Proposition A.7, (G, U ) has property (T) for
Hecke pairs. Further, by Proposition 5.1 we have that the trivial representation of p0 C ∗ (G)p0
∧
is isolated in p0 C ∗ (G)p0 . This fact and Theorem 5.2 lead to the following corollary:

Corollary 5.3. Let (G, U ) be a Gelfand pair as in Theorem 5.2 and assume that G is simple
and of rank ν ≥ 2. Then the C ∗ -completions C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) and p0 C ∗ (G)p0 of the Hecke algebra
H(G, U ) do not coincide, i.e. the canonical surjection
C ∗ (L1 (G, U )) −→ p0 C ∗ (G)p0
is not injective.
A result of similar flavour was established in [23]; explicitly, it was shown right after [23,
Corollary 16] that the canonical ∗-homomorphism from C ∗ (L1 (G, K)) to C ∗ (G) is not surjective
for any non-compact simple Lie group G of rank ≥ 2 with maximal compact subgroup K.
Appendix A. Tzanev’s property T and relation to the Schlichting completion
In [22, Chapitre 1], Tzanev defined a property (T) for a Hecke pair (G, Γ), and claimed
without proof that a Hecke pair (G, Γ) has property (T) if and only if the Schlichting completion G has property (T) in the ordinary sense for groups. He further claimed that all other
characterisations of property (T) translate to Hecke pairs. We have already seen that the last
claim is more subtle, since isolation of the trivial representation fails when regarded at the level
of the C ∗ -completion of L1 (G, U ) for (G, U ) as in Theorem 5.2.
Tzanev’s first claim is true, but in filling out the details of the proof we have found a more
involved argument than expected. We include the proof in this appendix, in the hope that the
result could be useful elsewhere.
Recall the definition of property (T) for locally compact groups, [2]. Let G be a locally
compact group and π : G → U (H) a unitary representation on a Hilbert space H. Given
ε > 0 and Q a compact subset of G , a vector ξ ∈ H with kξk = 1 is (ε, Q)-invariant if
kπ(g)ξ − ξk < ε for all g ∈ Q. The representation π has almost G -invariant vectors if it admits
an (ε, Q)-invariant vector for any ε > 0 and Q compact subset of G . The group G has property
(T) of Kazhdan if every unitary representation of G having almost G -invariant vectors has a
nontrivial G -invariant vector.
By analogy with the above, Tzanev introduced a notion of property (T) for a Hecke pair
(G, Γ). We shall phrase the definition in terms of a topological Hecke pair (G , H ). In fact,
the definition makes sense only assuming that H is a closed subgroup of G .
Definition A.1. Let G be a topological group, H a closed subgroup and π : G → U (H) a
unitary representation of G on a Hilbert space H. Given ε > 0 and Q a compact subset of
G /H , a vector ξ in H with kξk = 1 is (ε, Q)-invariant if ξ is H -invariant and kπ(g)ξ − ξk < ε
for all [g] ∈ Q.
The representation π has H -invariant almost G -invariant vectors if for every compact
subset Q ⊆ G /H and every ε > 0 there exists a (ε, Q)-invariant vector.
The pair (G , H ) has property (T) if every unitary representation of G having H -invariant
almost G -invariant vectors has a nontrivial G -invariant vector.
11

In the case of a discrete Hecke pair (G, Γ), the above recovers Tzanev’s definition upon
replacing Q with a finite subset K/Γ of G/Γ for K a subset of G.
Remark A.2. The above notion of property (T) is not the same as the relative property (T)
for pairs. On one hand, (G , G ) always has property (T) in the sense of Definition A.1, but only
has the relative property (T) when G has property (T). On the other hand, (G , {e}) always
has the relative property (T), but only has property (T) in the sense of Definition A.1 when G
has property (T).
Remark A.3. The referee has suggested to us a (natural) equivalent formulation of property
(T) for a topological pair (G , H ): the trivial representation 1G is isolated in R ∪ {1G }, where
R is any set of equivalence classes of unitary representations of G that have nontrivial H invariant vectors but do not have nontrivial G -invariant vectors. Here R is endowed with its
Fell topology, see [2, Definition F.2.1]. Since all representations in R have H -invariant vectors,
the open basic sets for the topology may be characterised by compact subsets Q of G /H . Then
the claimed equivalence can be proved similar to [2, Proposition 1.2.3].
Proposition A.4. Let G be a topological group and N ⊆ H ⊆ G closed subgroups, with N
a normal subgroup of G . The pair (G , H ) has property (T) if and only if (G /N , H /N ) has
property (T).
In particular, for a topological group G and a closed normal subgroup N E G , we have that
(G , N ) has property (T) if and only if G /N has property (T).
Proof: (=⇒) Suppose (G , H ) has property (T). Let π : G /N → U (H) be a unitary
representation that has H /N -invariant almost G /N -invariant vectors. We want to show
that π has a nontrivial G /N -invariant vector. Let π
e := π ◦ q be the lifting of π to G through
the quotient map q : G → G /N . Let Q ⊆ G /H be a compact set and ε > 0. Under the
canonical homeomorphism between G /H and (G /N )/(H /N ) we can naturally identify Q
with a compact subset Q ′ ⊆ (G /N )/(H /N ). Thus, there exists a H /N -invariant vector
ξ ∈ H of norm one such that
(A.1)

kπ(gN )ξ − ξk < ε

for every gN such that [gN ] ∈ Q′ ⊆ (G /N )/(H /N ). The following diagram of canonical
maps commutes:
(A.2)

/ G /N

G



G /H

∼
=


/

G /N
H /N

Therefore the set of elements g ∈ G such that [gN ] ∈ Q ′ is the same as the set of elements
g ∈ G such that gH ∈ Q. Thus, condition (A.1) simply says that ke
π (g)ξ − ξk < ε for all
g ∈ G such that gH ∈ Q. It is moreover clear that ξ is H -invariant for π
e. Hence, π
e has
H -invariant almost G -invariant vectors. From property (T) it then follows that π
e has a true
G -invariant vector, say ξ0 ∈ H. It is clear that ξ0 is then a G /N -invariant vector for π.
(⇐=) Suppose (G /N , H /N ) has property (T). Let π : G → U (H) be a unitary representation that has H -invariant almost G -invariant vectors. We want to show that π has
a true G -invariant vector. Let us consider the subspace H N of N -invariant vectors, i.e.
H N := {η ∈ H : π(h)η = η , ∀h ∈ N }, which is nontrivial because π has H -invariant (hence
also N -invariant) vectors. Consider now the unitary representation σ : G /N → U (H N )
defined by σ([g])η := π(g)η. Note that this is a representation on H N , i.e. π(g)η ∈ H N
12

whenever η ∈ H N , because normality of N in G yields that
π(h)π(g)η = π(g)π(g −1 hg)η = π(g)η .
We claim that σ has H /N -invariant almost G /N -invariant vectors. Let Q ⊆ (G /N )/(H /N )
be a compact set and ε > 0. Under the homeomorphism between G /H and (G /N )/(H /N )
we can identify Q with a compact subset Q ′ ⊆ G /H . Thus, there exists an H -invariant
vector ξ ∈ H such that
(A.3)

kπ(g)ξ − ξk < ε

for all g ∈ G such that gH ∈ Q′ . Being H -invariant (hence N -invariant) for π means that
ξ ∈ H N and moreover it implies that ξ is H /N -invariant for σ. Condition (A.3) simply says
that kσ([g])ξ − ξk < ε for all g ∈ G such that gH ∈ Q′ . By commutativity of the diagram
(A.2), it follows that kσ([g])ξ − ξk < ε for all g ∈ G such that [gN ] ∈ Q. Thus, σ has
H /N -invariant almost G /N -invariant vectors and therefore, by property (T) for the pair
(G /N , H /N ), it must have a nontrivial G /N -invariant vector ξ0 ∈ H N . It is clear that ξ0
is then a G -invariant vector for π.
The second claim of this proposition, that (G , N ) has property (T) if and only if G /N has
Property (T), follows directly from the first claim of the proposition by taking H = N .
The following result generalises the known fact that Property (T) passes to quotients.
Proposition A.5. Let G be a topological group and K ⊆ H ⊆ G closed subgroups. If (G , K )
has property (T), then (G , H ) has property (T).
In particular, if G has property (T), then (G , H ) has property (T) for any closed subgroup
H ⊆ G.
We shall need the following result, whose routine proof we omit.
Lemma A.6. Let G be a topological group and K ⊆ H ⊆ G closed subgroups. The natural
map ψ : G /K → G /H defined by ψ(gK ) := gH is continuous.
Proof of Proposition A.5: We assume first that (G , K ) has property (T). Let π : G →
U (H) be a unitary representation with H -invariant almost G -invariant vectors. We must show
that π has a true nonzero G -invariant vector. That will follow immediately from property (T)
of (G , K ) if we prove that π has K -invariant almost G -invariant vectors, which we will now
show.
Let Q ⊆ G /K be any compact set and let ε > 0. Then ψ(Q) is a compact set of G /H
by Lemma A.6. Therefore, there exists a H -invariant vector ξ ∈ H of norm one such that
kπ(g)ξ − ξk < ε for all [g] ∈ ψ(Q). Since ξ is H -invariant, it is also K -invariant. Moreover, by
definition of the map ψ, we have that kπ(g)ξ − ξk < ε for all [g] ∈ Q. Thus, π has K -invariant
almost G -invariant vectors.
The second claim of the proposition follows by taking K := {e}.
Proposition A.7. Let G be a topological group and H a compact subgroup. Then G has
property (T) if and only if the pair (G , H ) has property (T).
Proof: The left to right direction follows directly from Proposition A.5.
For the other implication, assume that the pair (G , H ) has property (T). Let π : G → U (H)
be a unitary representation that has almost G -invariant vectors. We must prove that π has
nontrivial G -invariant vectors. This will follow immediately from property (T) of (G , H ) if we
prove that π has H -invariant almost G -invariant vectors. However, this can be achieved using
the compactness of H . Wo leave the details to the reader.
The previous result can also be proved using Remark A.3 (we thank the referee for suggesting this argument). Since H is compact, integration over H with respect to Haar measure
13

gives rise to an idempotent element P in the multiplier algebra of C ∗ (G ). Therefore the set of
equivalence classes of unitary representations of G having H -invariant vectors is characterised
by π(P ) 6= 0, thus this set is open in the set of unitary representations of G . Hence isolation
of 1G in either one of these sets happens simultaneously.
We are finally ready to verify Tzanev’s claim that for a discrete Hecke pair (G, Γ), property (T) from Definition A.1 is equivalent to property (T) for the topological group G in the
Schlichting completion (G, Γ). Recall that (G, Γ) is reduced if RΓ = ∩g∈G gΓg −1 is the trivial
subgroup {e}. For an arbitrary Hecke pair (G, Γ), the reduction (Gr , Γr ) := (G/RΓ , Γ/RΓ ) is
a reduced Hecke pair, and there are canonical isomorphisms between H(G, Γ), H(Gr , Γr ) and
H(G, Γ), see [21] and [10]. A different proof of the equivalence of i) and iv) in the next theorem
can be found in [1, Proposition 6.4].
Theorem A.8. Let (G, Γ) be a Hecke pair. The following are equivalent:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

the
the
the
the

pair (G, Γ) has property (T);
pair (Gr , Γr ) has property (T);
pair (G, Γ) has property (T);
group G has property (T).

Here G and Gr are assumed to have the discrete topology and G is assumed to have its locally
compact totally disconnected topology.
Proof: i) ⇐⇒ ii) Follows directly from Proposition A.4 since RΓ is a normal subgroup of
G contained in Γ.
iii) ⇐⇒ iv) Follows directly from Proposition A.7.
ii) =⇒ iii) Suppose that (Gr , Γr ) has property (T). Let π : G → U (H) be a unitary
representation that has Γ-invariant almost G-invariant vectors. We claim that π has a true
nontrivial G-invariant vector.
Let ǫ > 0 and Q ⊆ Gr /Γr a finite set, say Q = {g1 Γr , . . . , gn Γr }. Since π has Γ-invariant
almost G-invariant vectors, there is a Γ-invariant vector ξ ∈ H of norm one such that
kπ(g)ξ − ξk < ǫ ,
for all [g] ∈ {g1 Γ, . . . , gn Γ}. By restriction, the same holds for all [g] ∈ {g1 Γr , . . . , gn Γr }.
Moreover, being Γ-invariant, the vector ξ is Γr -invariant. Hence, we showed that the restriction
of π to Gr has Γr -invariant almost Gr -invariant vectors. By property (T) for (Gr , Γr ) it follows
that there exists a nontrivial Gr -invariant vector. By continuity of π, this vector must be
G-invariant.
iii) =⇒ ii) Suppose (G, Γ) has property (T). Let π : Gr → U (H) be a unitary representation
that has Γr -invariant almost Gr -invariant vectors. We must show that it has a nontrivial Gr invariant vector.
Let V := π(Gr )H Γr , where H Γr is the subspace of Γr -fixed vectors, which is nontrivial
because π is assumed to have nontrivial Γr -invariant vectors. It is clear that V is an invariant
subspace for π, so the restriction of π to this subspace gives rise to a unitary representation
π| of Gr on V . Moreover, π| is clearly generated by the Γr -fixed vectors. By [10, Proposition
6.17], the representation π| is continuous with respect to the Hecke topology, and therefore
e of G on V , which is generated by its Γ-fixed vectors.
extends uniquely to a representation π|
Let ε > 0 and Q ⊆ G/Γ be a compact set. Since G/Γ is discrete, Q is in fact a finite set
Q = {g1 Γ, . . . , gn Γ}, where we can assume without loss of generality that the representatives
g1 , . . . , gn are elements of Gr , because of the canonical bijection between G/Γ and Gr /Γr . For
e := {g1 Γr , . . . , gn Γr }, there exists a Γr -invariant unit vector
this chosen ε and the finite set Q
14

ξ ∈ V such that
kπ|(g)ξ − ξk < ε ,
e and we have that
e ⊆ Gr /Γr . By continuity, the vector ξ is Γ-invariant for π|
for every [g] ∈ Q
e
e has Γ-invariant almost G-invariant vectors. By
kπ|(g)ξ
− ξk < ε for every [g] ∈ Q. Hence, π|
e has a nontrivial G-invariant vector. Thus, by
property (T) for (G, Γ), the representation π|
e to Gr , it follows that π has a nontrivial Gr -invariant vector.
restricting π|
References

[1] C. Anantharaman-Delaroche, Approximation properties for coset spaces and their operator algebras,
preprint, http://www.univ-orleans.fr/mapmo/membres/anantharaman/Almost− normal− v2.pdf.
[2] B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe, A. Valette, Kazhdan’s property (T), New Mathematical Monographs, 11, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2008).
[3] J.-B. Bost and A. Connes, Hecke algebras, type III factors and phase transitions with spontaneous symmetry breaking in number theory, Selecta Math. (New Series) 1 (1995), 411–457.
[4] N. Bourbaki, Elements of Mathematics, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras, Chapters 4-6, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
2002.
[5] O. Bratteli and D. Robinson, Operator algebras and quantum statistical mechanics 1, 2nd edition, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1987.
[6] J. Dieudonné, Gelfand pairs and spherical functions, Internat. J. Math. & Math. Sci. 2 no. 2 (1979),
153–162.
[7] J. Dixmier, Les algèbres d’opérateurs dans l’espace hilbertiens, 2(eme) èdition, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1969.
[8] R. Godement, A theory of spherical functions, I, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 73 (1952), 496–556.
[9] R. W. Hall, Hecke C ∗ -algebras, PhD. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1999.
[10] S. Kaliszewski, M. B. Landstad and J. Quigg, Hecke C ∗ -algebras, Schlichting completions, and Morita
equivalence, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) 51 no. 3 (2008), 657–695.
[11] A. Krieg, Hecke Algebras, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 87 (1990), No. 435.
[12] S. Lang, SL2 (R), Addison-Wesley, 1975.
[13] I. G. Macdonald, Harmonic analysis on semi-simple groups, Actes, 2, Congrés intern. Math. (1970), 331–
335.
[14] R. Palma, Quasi-symmetric group algebras and C ∗ -completions of Hecke algebras, Operator Algebra and
Dynamics, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, Vol. 58, 2013, pages 253–271.
[15] T. W. Palmer, Banach algebras and the general theory of ∗ -algebras. Vol. II ∗ -Algebras, Encyclopedia of
Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 79. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001).
[16] I. Raeburn, D. P. Williams, Morita equivalence and continuous-trace C*-algebras, Mathematical Surveys
and Monographs, 60, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (1998).
[17] I. Satake, On spherical functions over p-adic fields, Proc. Japan Acad. 38 (1962), 422–425.
[18] I. Satake, Theory of spherical functions on reductive algebraic groups over p-adic fields, Inst. Hautes Études
Sci. Publ. Math. (1963), no. 18, 5-69.
[19] G. Schlichting, Polynomidentitäten und Permutationsdarstellungen lokalkompakter Gruppen, Invent.
Math. 55 (1979), 97–106.
[20] V. Shirbisheh, Locally compact Hecke pairs and property (RD), preprint, arXiv:1402.2529v2[].
[21] K. Tzanev, Hecke C ∗ -algebras and amenability, J. Operator Theory 50 no. 1 (2003), 169–178.
[22] K. Tzanev, C ∗ -algèbre de Hecke et K-theorie, thèse Univ. Paris VII, 2000.
[23] A. Valette, A global approach to spherical functions on rank 1 symmetric spaces, Nieuw. Arch. Wisk. (4)
5 (1987) (1), 33–52.
Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo, PO BOX 1053 Blindern, Norway
E-mail address: nadiasl@math.uio.no
E-mail address: ruip@math.uio.no

15

