arXiv:1801.08719v1 [math.RT] 26 Jan 2018

ON UNIFORM ADMISSIBILITY OF UNITARY AND SMOOTH
REPRESENTATIONS
URIYA A. FIRST AND THOMAS RÜD

Let G be a reductive algebraic group over a non-Archimedean local field F , or more precisely,
its group of F -points. The study of complex representations of G often divides into investigating
two classes of representations: unitary representations, i.e. representations on Hilbert spaces
via unitary operators, and smooth representations, i.e. representation on an abstract C-vector
space such that the stabilizers of all vectors are open. Historically, the unitary representations
served as the original object of interest, and the smooth representations were introduced in as
a tool to study them. Interplay between the two types of representations is abundant and is
now part of the standard theory.
Building on the work of Harish-Chandra [7], Bernstein [2] proved that the irreducible unitary
representations of G are uniformly admissible. That is to say, for any compact open subgroup
K ≤ G, there exists an integer n = n(K, G) such that the dimension of the K-fixed vectors
in any irreducible unitary representation of G is at most n. Here, “irreducible” should be
interpreted in the category of unitary representations, namely, the irreducible unitary representations are those representations admitting no proper closed subrepresentations other than 0.
Bernstein later showed that the irreducible smooth representations of G are uniformaly admissible as well; here, “irreducible” means irreducible as a complex G-module. A standard
source for the latter result is Section II.2.2 in Bernstein’s lecture notes [4]. Both results are
fundamental in the theory of reductive p-adic Lie groups.
It was noted by Bernstein and Zelevinsky in [3] that by combining [3, §2.5, Prp. 2.12] with a
modification of results by Godement [6, Lem. 4], one can formally derive uniform admissiblity of
the irreducible unitary representations of G from uniform admissiblity of its irreducible smooth
representations. The purpose of this note is to extend this to arbitrary ℓ-groups, provide a
converse, and give self-contained proofs in the process. We show:
Theorem A. Let G be a totally disconnected locally compact group such that |G/K| < 2ℵ0 for
some compact open subgroup K ≤ G. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(a) The irreducible unitary representations of G are uniformly admissible.
(b) The irreducible smooth representations of G are uniformly admissible.
In fact, (b) implies (a) without the assumption |G/K| < 2ℵ0 .
The assumption |G/K| < 2ℵ0 is necessary in general; see Remark 2.5. The proof makes use
of polynomial identities, a technique which goes back at least as far as Kaplansky [9].
Theorem A was applied in [12, §4.2] to show that irreducible unitary representations of
quasi-reductive groups over a non-Archimedean local field are uniformly admissible.
In addition to Theorem A, we show, separately, that uniform admissibility of the irreducible
smooth representations is invariant under passing to a subgroup or an overgroup of finite index.
Theorem B. Let G be a totally disconnected locally compact group and let H ≤ G be an open
subgroup of finite index. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(a) The irreducible smooth representations of G are uniformly admissible.
(b) The irreducible smooth representations of H are uniformly admissible.
1

2

URIYA A. FIRST AND THOMAS RÜD

This statement also holds upon replacing “uniformly admissible” with “admissible”.
We do not know whether Theorem B holds under the milder assumption that H is a group
such that there exists a continuous group homomorphism H ! G with finite kernel and cokernel.
The paper is organized in three sections, the first of which is preliminary, whereas the second
and the third are concerned with proving Theorems A and B, respectively.
We thank Maarten Solleveld for encouraging us to publish this note.
1. Preliminaries
We begin with recalling some necessary facts and setting notation for the sequel. Throughout,
all vector spaces are over C, and an algebra means a unital associative C-algebra.
1.1. ℓ-Groups. Throughout this paper, G denotes a locally compact totally disconnected
group, or an ℓ-group for short, and µ is a fixed left-invariant measure on G. The modular
character of G is denoted δ : G ! R>0 ; it is determined by the identity µ(Sg) = µ(S)δ(g),
holding for any compact S ⊆ G and g ∈ G.
We write K ≤c.o. G to denote that K is a compact open subgroup of G. It is well known
that such subgroups form a basis of neighborhoods to the identity element 1G ; see, for instance,
[10, §2.3].
As usual, a unitary representation of G consists of a complex Hilbert space V endowed with
a continuous G-action G × V ! V such that hgu, gvi = hu, vi for all u, v ∈ V , g ∈ G. We
say that V is topologically irreducible, or just irreducible, if V has no proper nonzero closed
G-submodules.
A smooth representation of G is an abstract complex vector space V together with
S a G-action
G×V ! V such that the G-stabilizer of every v ∈ V is open, or equivalently, V = K≤c.o. G V K ,
where V K := {v ∈ V : gv = v for all g ∈ K}. We say that V is algebraically irreducible, or
just irreducible, if V is contains no proper nonzero G-modules.
1.2. Unital ∗-Algebras. By a (unital) ∗-algebra, we mean a unital associative C-algebra A
together with an involution ∗ : A ! A, i.e., an additive map satisfying a∗∗ = a, (ab)∗ = b∗ a∗
and (αa)∗ = αa∗ for all a ∈ A, α ∈ C.
A unitary representation of a ∗-algebra A is a Hilbert space V endowed with an A-module
structure such that hau, vi = hu, a∗ vi for all a ∈ A, u, v ∈ V . A unitary representation is
topologically irreducible, or just irreducible, if it has no proper nonzero closed A-submodules.
We shall need the following versions of Schur’s lemma.
Proposition 1.1. Let A be a ∗-algebra with dimC A < 2ℵ0 and let M be a simple left A-module.
Then EndA (M ) = C.
Proof. Fix some 0 6= m ∈ M . Then Am = M and hence any element f ∈ EndA (M ) is uniquely
determined by f (m). As a result, dimC EndA (M ) ≤ dimC M ≤ dimC A < 2ℵ0 . Thus, EndA (M )
is a division algebra over C of C-dimension < |C|. It is well known that such algebras are
algebraic over C, and hence coincide with C. We conclude that EndA (M ) = C.

Proposition 1.2. Let A be a ∗-algebra and let V be an irreducible unitary representation.
Then all continuous A-endomorphisms of V are scalar.
Proof. See, for instance, [11, Thm. 9.6.1]



ON UNIFORM ADMISSIBILITY

3

1.3. The Relative Hecke Algebra. The most important example of a ∗-algebra that we
shall consider is the relative Hecke algebra H(G, K) associated to a compact open subgroup
K ≤c.o. G. Recall that the underlying vector space of H(G, K) consists of the bi-K-invariant
compactly supported functions f : G ! C and that its multiplication is given by convolution
Z
f (x)g(x−1 y) dµ .
(f ⋆ g)(y) :=
x∈G

The unity of H(G, K) is eK := µ(K)−1 1K , where 1K : G ! C denotes the characteristic
function of K. We make H(G, K) into a ∗-algebra by setting
f ∗ (g) = δ(g)f (g −1 )
for all f ∈ H(G, K) and g ∈ G (recall that δ is the modular character of G).
Given a unitary or smooth representation V of G, the space V K carries a left H(G, K)module structure given by
Z
f (g) · gv dµ
∀ f ∈ H(G, K), v ∈ V K
f · v :=
g∈G

P
−1
Note that in
P the smooth case, if we write f = i αi µ(K) 1gi K , then the integral is just the
finite sum i αi gi v.
When V is a unitary representation, we further have hf u, vi = hu, f ∗ vi for all u, v ∈
V and f ∈ H(G, K), and so V K becomes a unitary representation of H(G, K). We remark
that the equalityR hf u, vi = hu, f ∗ vi follows easily from the definitions and the identity
R
f
(x−1 )δ(x)dµ = x∈G f (x)dµ, which holds whenever the integrals exist.
x∈G
We shall need the following two easy propositions.

Proposition 1.3. Let V be an irreducible smooth representation of G and let K ≤c.o. G. Then
either V K = 0, or V K is a simple H(G, K)-module.
K
Proof. We need to show that H(G, K) · v = V K for all 0 6= v ∈ V K . Let
P u ∈ V . Since
V is irreducible,
there are g1 , . . . , gn ∈ G and α1 , . . . , αn ∈ C such that i αi gi v = u. Let
P
f = eK ⋆ ( i αi µ(K)−1 1gi K ) ∈ H(G, K). Then
X
X
αi gi v = eK u = u
αi µ(K)−1 1gi K ) · v = eK ·
f · v = eK · (
i

i

and we conclude that u ∈ H(G, K) · v.



Proposition 1.4. Let V be an irreducible unitary representation of G and let K ≤c.o. G. Then
either V K = 0, or V K is an irreducible unitary representation of H(G, K).
Proof. Similarly to the proof of Proposition 1.3, we need to show that V K is the closure of
H(G, K) · v for all 0 6= v ∈ V K . Since V is topologically irreducible, Span {gv | g ∈ G} is
dense in V . For all g ∈ G, we have µ−1 (K)1gK · v = gv and thus, Span {1gK · v | g ∈ G} is
dense in V . This in turn implies that Span {eK · 1gK · v | g ∈ G} is dense in eK V = V K . Since
eK ⋆ 1gK ∈ H(G, K), it follows that H(G, K) · v is dense in V .

1.4. Miscellaneous Results. We finish this section with recalling the Amistur–Levitzky theorem and two density theorems due to Jacobson and von Neumann. These will be needed in
proving Theorem A.
To state the Amitsur–Leviski theorem, let Zhx1 , . . . , xn i denote the ring of polynomials in n
non-commuting variables over Z. The n-th standard polynomial is define by
X
Sn (x1 , . . . , xn ) =
sgn(σ)xσ(1) . . . xσ(n)
σ

4

URIYA A. FIRST AND THOMAS RÜD

where σ runs over all permutations on {1, . . . , n}. Recall that a polynomial f ∈ Zhx1 , . . . , xn i
is called an identity of a ring R if f vanishes on all inputs from R.
Theorem 1.5 (Amitsur–Levitzki [1]). Let V be a C-vector space and let n ∈ N. The polynomial
Sn (x1 , . . . , xn ) is a polynomial identity of EndC (V ) if and only if n ≥ 2 dim V .
Theorem 1.6 (Jacobson density theorem). Let R be a ring, let M be a simple left R-module,
and let D be the R-endomorphism ring of M . Give M the discrete topology and EndD (M ) the
topology induced by the product topology on M M (the point-wise convergence topology). Then
the image of R in EndD (M ) under the map sending r to (m 7! rm) is dense in EndD (M ).
Proof. See, for instance, [8, Theorem 13.14].



Given a Hilbert space V , let B(V ) denote the algebra of bounded linear automorphisms of
V . For a subset S ⊆ B(V ), we let S ′ denote the commutant of S, namely, the set of elements
of B(V ) that commute with all elements in S.
Theorem 1.7 (Von Neumann density theorem). Let V be a Hilbert space and let A ⊂ B(V ) be
a unital subalgebra closed under taking adjoints. Then A is dense in A′′ in the strong operator
topology (and hence also in the weak operator topology).
Proof. See, for instance, [11, Theorem 9.3.3].



2. Proof of Theorem A
We begin with several results about C-algebras and ∗-algebras. The Jacobson radical of a
ring R is denoted Jac(R).
Proposition 2.1. Let A be a unital C-algebra. Consider the conditions:
(a) Every simple A-module has C-dimension at most n.
(b) A/ Jac(A) has S2n as a polynomial identity.
Then (a) implies (b), and the converse holds provided dimC A < 2ℵ0 .
Proof. Suppose (a) holds. Let S be a set of representative for the isomorphism classes of
simple left A-modules. By the definition of Jac(A), the map
Y
A/ Jac(A) !
EndC (M )
M∈S

sending a + Jac(A) ∈ A/ Jac(A) to (x 7! ax) ∈ EndC (M ) in the M -component, is injective.
Condition (a) and Theorem 1.5 imply that S2n is a polynomial identity of EndC (M ) for all
S ∈ S , and hence also of A/ Jac(A).
Suppose now that (b) holds and dimC A < 2ℵ0 . Let M be a simple A-module. Consider
M as a discrete topological space and make EndC (M ) into a topological ring by giving it the
topology induced from the product topology on M M . By Proposition 1.1, EndA (M ) = C, and
hence, by Theorem 1.6, the image of A in EndC (M ) is dense. Since the map A ! EndC (M )
factors through A/ Jac(A), condition (b) implies that S2n vanishes on all inputs from dense
subset of EndC (M ). Since the topology on EndC (M ) is Hausdorff, it follows that S2n is a
polynomial identity of EndC (M ). Thus, dim M ≤ n by Theorem 1.5.

Lemma 2.2. Let A be a unitary ∗-algebra and let V be a unitary representation of A. Then
Jac(A) · V = 0.
Proof. Let a ∈ Jac(A). Suppose first that a∗ = a. Then the operator Ta : V ! V given
by Ta (v) = av is self-adjoint. Since a ∈ Jac(A), the element λ − a is invertible in A for all

ON UNIFORM ADMISSIBILITY

5

0 6= λ ∈ C. As a result, Spec(Ta ) = {0}, and since T is self-adjoint, this forces T = 0 and
a · V = 0.
∗
∗
The general case follows by noting that any a ∈ Jac(A) satisfies a = a+a
+ i( a−a
) with
2
2i
a−a∗
a+a∗
and 2i being elements of Jac(A) fixed by ∗.

2
Proposition 2.3. Let A be a unital ∗-algebra. Consider the conditions:
(a′ ) Every irreducible unitary representation of A has C-dimension at most n.
(b) A/ Jac(A) has S2n as a polynomial identity.
Then (b) implies (a′ ), and the converse holds provided A/ Jac(A) admits a faithful unitary
representation.
Proof. Suppose (b) holds and let V be an irreducible unitary representation of A. We may
replace A with its image in B(V ) and hence assume that Jac(A) = 0, by Lemma 2.2. Now, by
Proposition 1.2, the commutant A′ is C, and hence A′′ = B(V ). By Theorem 1.7, A is dense in
B(V ) in the strong operator topology. Condition (b) therefore implies that S2n is a polynomial
identity of B(V ). It is easy to check that this is impossible if V is infinite-dimensional, whereas
in the finite-dimensional case, Theorem 1.5 implies that dim V ≤ n, as required.
Suppose now that (a′ ) holds and A/ Jac(A) admits a faithful unitary representation V . By
Lemma 2.2, we may replace A with its image in B(V ) and assume that Jac(A) = 0 hereafter.
Let 0 6= a ∈ A. The the operator v 7! av : V ! V is nonzero, and hence, by [5, Corollary 2.30],
there exists an irreducible unitary representation Va of A such that the image of a in B(Va ) is
nonzero. Consequently, the ring homomorphism
Y
A ֒−!
B(Va )
a6=A

is injective. By condition (a′ ) and Theorem 1.5, S2n is a polynomial identity of each of the
factors B(Va ), and a fortiori of A as well.

We finally prove Theorem A by establishing the following slightly stronger version. Notice
that if |G/K| < 2ℵ0 holds for some K ≤c.o. G, then it holds for all K ≤c.o. G.
Theorem 2.4. Let G be an ℓ-group, let K be a compact open subgroup with |G/K| < 2ℵ0 , and
let n ∈ N. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

(a) All irreducible unitary representations V of G satisfy dim V K ≤ n.
(b) All irreducible smooth representations V of G satisfy dim V K ≤ n.
In fact, the implication (b)=⇒(a) holds without assuming |G/K| < 2ℵ0 .

Proof. Let A = H(G, K). By Propositions 1.3 and 1.4, it is enough to show that every simple
A-module is of dimension ≤ n if and only if every irreducible unitary representation of A is of
dimension ≤ n. This would follow from Propositions 2.1 and 2.3 if we check that dimC A < 2ℵ0
and A admits a faithful unitary representation. The former condition holds since |G/K| < 2ℵ0 ,
whereas for the second condition one can consider the left action of A = H(G, K) on L2 (K\G)
by convolution. Indeed, if a ⋆ f = 0 for all f ∈ L2 (K\G), then a = a ⋆ eK = 0.

Remark 2.5. (i) The assumption that |G/K| < 2ℵ0 in Theorems A and 2.4 is necessary in
general. For instance, consider the function field C(t) and let G be the multiplicative group
C(t)× with the discrete topology. Since G is commutative and locally compact, any unitary
representation of G is 1-dimensional. However, C(t) with the G-action induced by the product
in C(t) is an infinite-dimensional irreducible smooth representation of G.
(ii) The assumption that dimC A < 2ℵ0 in Proposition 2.1 cannot be dropped in general. For
example, take A = C(t) and note that S2 (x1 , x2 ) = x1 x2 − x2 x1 is a polynomial identity of A,
while A itself is a simple A-module of infinite C-dimension.

6

URIYA A. FIRST AND THOMAS RÜD

(iii) The assumption that A/ Jac(A) admits a faithful unitary representation in Proposition 2.3 is necessary in general. A counterexample can be constructed as follows: Let ∗ denote
the unique involution of C(t) extending the complex conjugation and fixing t. Let A = M2 (C(t))
∗
and let ∗ : A ! A be the involution given by (fij ) 7! (fji
). Then S2 (x1 , x2 ) = x1 x2 − x2 x1
is not a polynomial identity of A, but all irreducible unitary representations of A have dimension ≤ 1. In fact, the latter holds vacuously, since A has no nonzero unitary representations.
To see this, note that if V is a Hilbert space and A ! B(V ) is a ∗-homomorphism, then the
image of [ 0t 0t ] in B(V ) is a self-adjoint operator with an empty spectrum, forcing V = 0.
3. Proof of Theorem B
Theorem B follows readily from the following theorem.
Theorem 3.1. Let H be an open subgroup of G of finite index and let K be a compact open
subgroup of H. Then there is n ∈ N and a compact open subgroup L ≤ K such that:
(i) For any irreducible smooth representation V of H, there are
P irreducible smooth representations U1 , . . . , Um (m ≤ n) of G such that dim V K ≤ i dim UiL .
(ii) For any irreducible smooth representation U of G, there are
P irreducible smooth representations V1 , . . . , Vm (m ≤ n) of H such that dim U K ≤ i dim ViL .

Proof. Since [G : H] is finite, H has only finitely many conjugates. Their intersection, N , is
an open normal subgroup of finite index. We may replace K with K ∩ N . The theorem would
now follow if we establish it for the pairs (G, N ) and (H, N ). It is therefore enough to prove
the theorem when H is normal in G. Under this extra assumption, we shall see that L = K
and n := [G : H] will suffice.
(i) Let g1 , . . . , gn be representatives for the H-cosets in G. Let Vi be the irreducible smooth
representation of H obtained by giving V the H-action (h, v) 7! (gi hgi−1 )v (note that gi hgi−1 ∈
H since H ⊳ G).
Consider the (non-normalized) induction
IndG
H (V ) := {f : G ! V | f (hg) = h · f (g) for all h ∈ H, g ∈ G} .

′
As usual, the group G acts on IndG
H (V ) by translations on the right. Let Vi denote the functions
G
′
in IndH (V ) supported on gi H = Hgi . It is easy to see that Vi is an H-subrepresention of
Ln
G
′
′
IndG
H (V ), that IndH (V ) =
i=1 Vi and that f 7! f (gi ) : Vi ! Vi defines an isomorphism of
H-modules. Thus, the length of IndG
H (V ) as a complex H-module is n, and so the length of
IndG
H (V ) as a complex G-module is at most n.
Let U1 , . . . , Um denote the composition factors of IndG
H (V ), regarded as a G-module. Then
P
K
K
(V
)
≥
dim
V
,
so
we have proved (i).
m ≤ n, and i dim UiK = dim IndG
H
(ii) Let U be an irreducible smooth representation of G, and let g1 , . . . , gn be as in (i).
Since U is a simple G-module, it is finitely generated. As [G : H] < ∞, it follows that U
is also finitely generated as a complex H-module. Thus, there exists a maximal complex Hsubmodule M0 ≤ U . Since H is normal in G, the space gM0 is a maximal H-submodule for
all g ∈ G. Let M = {gM0 | g ∈ G}. Then M consists
[G : H] = n elements, call
Lm of at mostL
them M1 , . . . , Mm . Write Vi = U/Mi and set L
V = i=1 U/Mi = LM∈M U/M . Then action
of H on V extends
L to a G-action by setting g · M∈M (vM + M ) = M∈M (gvg−1 M + M ) and
the map u 7! M∈M (u + M ) : U ! V defines a nontrivial G-homomorphism, which must be
P
K
injective since V is irreducible. It follows that dim U K ≤ dim V K = m
i=1 dim Vi , and the
proof is complete.


Remark 3.2. The proof of part (ii) also shows that any irreducible complex G-module has
finite length as a complex H-module.

ON UNIFORM ADMISSIBILITY

7

References
[1] J. Levitzki A. S. Amitsur. Minimal identities for algebras. Proceedings of the American Mathematical
Society, 1(4):449–463, 1950.
[2] I. N. Bernšteı̆n. All reductive p-adic groups are of type I. Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen., 8(2):3–6, 1974.
[3] I. N. Bernstein and A. V. Zelevinskii. Representations of the group GL(n, F ), where F is a local nonArchimedean field. Uspehi Mat. Nauk, 31(3(189)):5–70, 1976.
[4] J. Bernstein. Draft of: Reperesentations of p-adic groups. 1992. Notes taken by E. Rumelhart. The notes
can be downloaded from the author’s webpage.
[5] Uriya A. First. The ramanujan property for simplicial complexes. 2016. Preprint. Available at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02664.
[6] Roger Godement. A theory of spherical functions. I. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 73:496–556, 1952.
[7] Harish-Chandra. Harmonic analysis on reductive p-adic groups. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 162.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1970. Notes by G. van Dijk.
[8] I. Martin Isaacs. Algebra: a graduate course, volume 100 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009. Reprint of the 1994 original.
[9] Irving Kaplansky. Groups with representations of bounded degree. Canadian J. Math., 1:105–112, 1949.
[10] Deane Montgomery and Leo Zippin. Topological transformation groups. Interscience Publishers, New YorkLondon, 1955.
[11] Theodore W. Palmer. Banach algebras and the general theory of ∗-algebras. Vol. 2, volume 79 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. ∗-algebras.
[12] Maarten Solleveld. Pseudo-reductive and quasi-reductive groups over non-archimedean local fields. 2017.
Preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07644.
E-mail address: uriya.first@gmail.com
Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel 31905
E-mail address: thomas@math.ubc.ca
Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2

