format: text

text:
# Representations of algebraic groups over a 2-dimensional local field

## Introduction

### 0.1.

Let $`𝐊`$ be a local field, and let us consider the field $`𝐅=𝐊((t))`$. In his paper , Kapranov studied a certain representation of the group $`G(𝐅)`$, where $`G`$ is a reductive group over $`𝐊`$. He introduced a pro-vector space (we will denote it by $`𝕍`$), on which the group $`G(𝐅)`$ acts in a continuous way, and which may be thought of as an analogue of a principal series representation of usual $`𝔭`$-adic groups.

Namely, $`𝕍`$ is the (pro)-vector space of locally constant functions with compact support on the set of $`𝐊`$-points on the base affine space of the loop group $`G((t))`$. (We remind that this base affine space is a principal $`T`$-bundle over the affine flag scheme corresponding to $`G`$, where $`T`$ is the Cartan subgroup.)

Kapranov wrote down a certain algebra of endomorphisms of $`𝕍`$ generated by explicit intertwining operators, and proved that this algebra is isomorphic to the (modified) double affine Hecke algebra. This double affine Hecke algebra, which was introduced and studied by Cherednik, is clearly an object of great importance, and Kapranov’s work explained that it is related to groups over a 2-dimensional field, such as $`𝐅`$, in the same way as the usual affine Hecke algebra is related to $`𝔭`$-adic groups.

### 0.2.

The present paper grew out of an attempt to put Kapranov’s ideas and results into a categorical framework. Our goal is to find a category of smooth representations, let us denote it $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, which would contain Kapranov’s representation (and its close relatives) as objects. Moreover, we want $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ to be abelian, so that the usual representation-theoretic questions, such as irreducibility, would make sense in it. We also want $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ to be as “rigid” or “constrained” as possible, and finally we want the definition of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ to resemble the definition of the category of smooth representations for usual $`𝔭`$-adic groups.

After some categorical preliminaries in Sect. 1, we propose a definition of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ in Sect. 2. A somewhat surprising feature of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ is that, unlike most abelian categories that arise in representation theory, the natural forgetful functor defined on $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ does not map to the category of vector spaces, but rather to the category $`𝕍ect`$ of pro-vector spaces. We remark that for the purposes of this paper, one could restrict to the subcategory $`𝕍ect^\mathrm{}_0`$ of projective systems indexed by countable sets.

Let us recall that $`𝕍ect`$ is an abelian category, but it is not semi-simple. In fact, the subcategory $`𝕍ect^\mathrm{}_0`$ has cohomological dimension $`1`$, and it can be visualized as follows: An object of $`𝕍ect^\mathrm{}_0`$ is called strict if it can be represented as a (filtering, countable) inverse system of vector spaces $`𝐕_i`$, such that the arrows $`𝐕_i𝐕_j`$ are surjective. Strict objects of $`𝕍ect^\mathrm{}_0`$ are the same as vector spaces endowed with a linear topology, with a countable fundamental system of neighbourhoods of zero, in which they are separated and complete. However, as is well-known, the category of such topological vector spaces is not abelian, which corresponds to the fact that strict objects of $`𝕍ect^\mathrm{}_0`$ do not form an abelian subcategory.

We do have a (left-exact) functor $`limProj:𝕍ectVect`$, but the point of view taken in this paper, and which is largely borrowed from , is that we really have to work with the abelian category $`𝕍ect`$, and avoid taking projective limits.

We justify the appearance of $`𝕍ect`$ by showing that $`G(𝐅)`$ does not have representations in any reasonable sense, unless we admit pro-vector spaces.

### 0.3.

In Sect. 3 we show, generalizing the basic construction of , how to produce non-trivial objects of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$.

Namely, let $``$ be a subgroup of $`G(𝐅)`$, contained in the group $`G[[t]](𝐊)`$ of $`𝐊`$-points of the group $`G[[t]]`$ and equal to the preimage of a closed subgroup of $`(G[[t]]/G^i)(𝐊)`$ for some congruence subgroup $`G^i`$. Then, representations of $``$ on vector spaces, as well as on pro-vector spaces, are notions that are easy to recover from the usual representation theory of $`𝔭`$-adic groups.

We define two functors $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$ and $`i_{}^𝔾`$ from $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$ to $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, such that the former is the right adjoint to the tautological restriction functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$. (In other words, $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$ should be thought of as an ordinary induction functor, whereas we think of $`i_{}^𝔾`$ as some sort of semi-infinite induction, by analogy with the theory of modules over vertex algebras, cf. .)

Kapranov’s representation $`𝕍`$ is exactly of the form $`i_{}^𝔾()`$, where $``$ is the group of $`𝐊`$-points of the unipotent radical of the Iwahori subgroup of $`G((t))`$, and $``$ is the trivial representation. In Sect. 4 we give a slight improvement of Kapranov’s main result by showing that the (modified) Cherednik’s algebra maps isomorphically onto the ring $`\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)}(𝕍)`$.

In addition, in Sect. 4 we discuss another series of examples of objects of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ by applying the functor $`i_{}^𝔾`$ for $`=G[[t]](𝐊)`$ and $`G[[t]](𝐊)`$-representations, which are restrictions of irreducible cuspidal representations of the $`𝔭`$-adic group $`G(𝐊)`$. By analogy with the corresponding result in the theory of $`𝔭`$-adic groups, we conjecture that these objects are actually irreducible in $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, and give some evidence in support of this conjecture.

### 0.4.

Finally, in Sect. 5 we formulate and prove the main result of this paper.

Suppose that the group $`G`$ acts on an algebraic variety $`S`$. In the theory of $`𝔭`$-adic groups one introduces the Schwartz space $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(S(𝐊))`$ of locally constant compactly supported functions on the set of $`𝐊`$-points of $`S`$, which is a smooth representation of the group $`G(𝐊)`$.

The question that we want to address is whether one can define an analogue of the Schwartz space, denoted in this paper by $`M(𝕊)`$, which would be related to functions and/or distributions on the set of $`𝐅`$-valued points of $`S`$. Of course, one expects that $`M(𝕊)`$ is an object of $`𝕍ect`$, underlying a $`G(𝐅)`$-representation.

It appears that the answer to this question is negative in the simplest example of $`G=SL_2`$ acting on the projective line, and the situation seems to be analogous to the problem of developing the theory of D-modules on loop spaces, cf. .

However, there are two important examples of $`G`$-varieties $`S`$, for which we can define $`M(𝕊)`$:

First, we consider the case of $`S`$ being the affine space $`A^n`$, with the natural action of $`GL_n`$. We introduce a space $`M(𝔸^n)`$ and show that it is naturally an object in the category of representations of the group $`\widehat{𝔾L}_n`$ (here $`\widehat{𝔾L}_n`$ is the group of $`𝐊`$-points of the canonical (i.e., Tate) central extension $`1G_m\widehat{GL}_nGL_n((t))1`$).

Next, we consider the case when the variety $`S`$ is isomorphic to the group $`G`$ itself, with the action by left translations, and we construct an object $`M(𝔾)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$. Now the natural question to ask is, whether the action of $`G(𝐅)`$ on itself by right translations defines on $`M(𝔾)`$ another, commuting, structure of an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$.

The answer to this question is that the right action of $`G(𝐅)`$ on $`M(𝔾)`$ develops an anomaly (compare it with the main theorem from ). Namely, $`M(𝔾)`$ does carry a commuting action, but of the group of $`𝐊`$-points of the central extension $`1G_m\widehat{G}G((t))1`$ corresponding to the adjoint action of $`G`$ on its Lie algebra.

### 0.5. Acknowledgments

We would like to thank S. Arkhipov, I. Cherednik, P. Etingof, V.Ginzburg, M. Kapranov for useful discussions and communications. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for valuable comments on the previous version of the paper, and to E. Hrushovski for reading the revised version.

The research of D.G. is supported by the long-term fellowship at the Clay Mathematics Institute. He also wants to thank the Mathematics Department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where the main part of this work was written.

## 1. Preliminaries

### 1.1.

We will work with inductive and projective limits of objects of various categories. Let $`I`$ be a set. Recall that $`I`$ is said to be filtering if it is endowed with a partial order, such that for any two elements $`i_1,i_2I`$, there exists an element $`i^{}I`$ with $`i^{}i_1,i_2`$.

Let $`I`$ be a filtering set, which we can regard as a category, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:iS_i`$ be a functor $`ISet`$. We will denote by $`\underset{}{lim}S_i`$ the inductive limit of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In other words,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Set}(\underset{}{lim}S_i,S)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Functors}}(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_S),$$

where $`\mathrm{Functors}`$ denotes the category of functors $`ISet`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_S`$ is the “constant” functor corresponding to the set $`S`$.

Let $`𝒞`$ be an arbitrary category. Recall from  that the ind-completion of $`𝒞`$, denoted $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$, is the full subcategory in the category of contravariant functors $`𝒞Set`$, which consists of objects (isomorphic to ones) of the form

$$X\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(X,X_i),$$

where $`iX_i`$ is a functor $`I𝒞`$ and $`I`$ is a filtering set; we will denote by $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i`$ the corresponding object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$, which we will call “the direct limit of the system $`X_i`$”. By definition, $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i(X)=\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Hom}(X,X_i)`$, where the inductive limit is taken in the category of sets.

For example, let $`Vect`$ (resp., $`Vect_0`$) be the category of vector spaces (resp., finite-dimensional vector spaces) over a given ground field. We have $`Vect\mathrm{Ind}(Vect_0)`$. (It is a good exercise to show $`\mathrm{Ind}(Vect)`$ is NOT equivalent to $`Vect`$.)

For a cardinal $`\mathrm{}`$, we will denote by $`\mathrm{Ind}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$ the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ obtained by imposing the condition that the sets of indices that we are considering are of cardinality $`\mathrm{}`$.

We have a canonical fully faithful embedding $`𝒞\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$. The (partially defined) left adjoint $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)𝒞`$, called the inductive limit, which we will denote by $`limInd`$, is always right-exact. We will say that $`𝒞`$ is closed under inductive limits (resp., inductive limits of cardinality $`\mathrm{}`$) if the functor $`limInd`$ is defined on the entire $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{Ind}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$). For example, it is easy to show that any category of the form $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$, (resp., $`\mathrm{Ind}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$), where $`𝒞`$ is another category, is always closed under inductive limits (resp., of cardinality $`\mathrm{}`$).

Note on the terminology: Let us emphasize that for a functor $`I𝒞:iX_i`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i`$ the corresponding object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$, and call it the direct limit of the $`X_i`$’s, following . By contrast, if the object $`limInd(\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i)𝒞`$ exists, we will call it the inductive limit of the $`X_i`$’s, and denote it also by $`\underset{}{lim}X_i`$.

The following simple assertion is useful:

###### Lemma 1.2.

Assume that $`𝒞`$ is closed under inductive limits of cardinality $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`X\mathrm{Ind}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$. Then $`X`$ belongs to $`𝒞`$ if and only if for every $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i^{}=:X^{}\mathrm{Ind}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$, the canonical arrow $`X\left(\underset{}{lim}X_i^{}\right)\underset{}{lim}\left(X(X_i^{})\right)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)}(X^{},X)`$ is an isomorphism.

The pro-completion $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{Pro}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$) and the functor $`limProj:\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)𝒞`$ are defined in the same way by inverting the arrows, i.e., $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)=\left(\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞^o)\right)^o`$, where the superscript “$`o`$” means the opposite category.

### 1.3.

Suppose now that $`𝒞`$ is an additive (resp., $``$-linear) category. Then every object $`F`$ of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$, which is a priori a contravariant functor $`𝒞Set`$, lifts in a natural way to an additive functor $`𝒞\{\text{Abelian groups}\}`$ (resp., $``$-linear functor $`𝒞Vect`$).

Indeed if for some $`X_i𝒞`$, $`X=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i`$, for the corresponding $`\mathrm{Hom}`$ sets we have: $`X(Y)=\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Hom}(Y,X_i)`$, and this inductive limit of sets has a natural structure of an abelian group (resp., $``$-vector space).

Suppose now that $`𝒞`$ is abelian. We will now give a simple criterion that establishes ind-representability of functors in this case. Together with Lemma 1.2 this provides a tool to prove representability of various functors in the framework of abelian categories.

Assume that $`𝒞`$ is such that for a given object the class if its subobjects is a set. Let $`F:𝒞\{\text{Abelian groups}\}`$ be a contravariant left exact functor. Suppose that there exists another functor $`F^{}`$ and a morphism of functors $`FF^{}`$ such that $`X𝒞`$ the map $`F(X)F^{}(X)`$ is injective.

###### Proposition 1.4.

Assume that for $`𝒞`$, $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ as above, the functor $`F^{}`$ is ind-representable. Then the functor $`F`$ is also ind-representable.

###### Proof.

(Compare , Corollary 2.8)

Let $`Z=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}Z_i`$ be the object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ ind-representing $`F^{}`$. For each index $`i`$ consider the functor $`F_i`$ equal to $`F\underset{F^{}}{\times }\mathrm{Hom}(,Z_i)`$. Each $`F_i`$ is also left exact and its map to $`\mathrm{Hom}(,Z_i)`$ is an injection. Obviously, $`F(Y)=\underset{}{lim}F_i(Y)`$, so it enough to show that each $`F_i`$ is ind-representable. In other words, we can assume that $`F^{}`$ is representable by an object $`Z𝒞`$.

Consider the category of pairs $`(X𝒞,\alpha :XZ)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is an injective morphism in $`𝒞`$ such that the corresponding element in $`F^{}(X)`$ belongs to $`F(X)`$. (Morphisms between $`(X𝒞,\alpha :XZ)`$ and $`(X^{}𝒞,\alpha ^{}:X^{}Z)`$ are maps $`XX^{}`$ in $`𝒞`$, which commute with the data of $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$.) This category is obviously discrete, and it is small due to our assumption on $`𝒞`$. This resulting poset is filtering and is endowed with a functor to $`𝒞`$, i.e., $`(X𝒞,\alpha :XZ)X`$.

Let $`W\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ be the direct limit of this system. We claim that $`W`$ ind-represents the functor $`F`$. Indeed, for $`Y𝒞`$, given an element in $`\mathrm{Hom}(Y,W)`$ we have for some $`X`$ an element in $`F(X)`$ and a map $`YX`$, which gives rise to an element of $`F(Y)`$.

And vice versa, given an element in $`a_YF(Y)`$ consider the corresponding element $`a_Y^{}F^{}(Y)`$ and the resulting map $`YZ`$. Let $`X`$ be the image of this map:

$$YXZ.$$

It is enough to show that $`a_Y`$ belongs to the image of $`F(X)`$. Since $`F`$ is left exact, it is enough to show that the image of $`a_Y`$ vanishes in $`F\left(\mathrm{ker}(YX)\right)`$. However, by assumption, the image of $`a_Y^{}`$ in $`F^{}\left(\mathrm{ker}(YX)\right)`$ is zero, which implies our assertion, since $`FF^{}`$ is injective.

The following is also well-known (cf. , Proposition 4.5):

###### Lemma 1.5.

If $`𝒞`$ is abelian, then so is $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$. The functor $`limInd:\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞))\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ is exact.

Of course, assertions similar to the above ones hold when we replace $`\mathrm{Ind}`$ by $`\mathrm{Pro}`$.

### 1.6.

The following category will play an essential role in this paper:

$$𝕍ect:=\mathrm{Pro}(Vect)\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Ind}(Vect_0)).$$

According to Lemma 1.5, this is an abelian category.

We will also consider the categories $`𝐒et:=\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0))`$, and

$$𝕊et:=\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et))\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)))),$$

where $`Set_0`$ is the category of finite sets.

Note that the category $`\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$ is equivalent to the category of compact totally disconnected topological spaces; let us denote this equivalence by $`𝐘𝐘^{\mathrm{top}}`$. If $`𝐘=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}Y_j`$, then $`𝐘^{\mathrm{top}}𝐘=\underset{}{lim}Y_j`$, where the projective limit is taken in the category of topological spaces. For $`𝐗𝐒et`$ presented as a direct limit $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_i`$ with $`𝐗_i\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$, set $`𝐗^{\mathrm{top}}`$ to be the topological space $`\underset{}{lim}𝐗_i^{\mathrm{top}}`$ (where the inductive limit is again taken in the category of topological spaces).

We will use the following terminology. We will call an object $`𝐗𝐒et`$ compact, if it belongs to $`\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$, and a morphism $`𝐗𝐘`$ in $`𝐒et`$ proper if every base change by a compact object is compact.

We will call an object $`𝐗𝐒et`$ locally compact, if it can be represented as a direct limit $`𝐗=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_i`$, $`𝐗_i\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$, where the maps $`𝐗_i𝐗_j`$ are such that the corresponding maps of topological spaces $`𝐗_i^{\mathrm{top}}𝐗_j^{\mathrm{top}}`$ are open embeddings.

The full subcategory of $`𝐒et`$ consisting of locally compact objects is equivalent to the category $`Top^{Hlctd}`$ of Hausdorff locally compact totally disconnected topological spaces. All objects of $`𝐒et`$ that are relevant for the purposes of this paper will be locally compact. Therefore, the reader may safely replace $`𝐒et`$ by $`Top^{Hlctd}`$ and $`𝕊et`$ by $`\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Top^{Hlctd}))`$.

Similarly, we will call an object $`𝕏𝕊et`$ bounded if it actually belongs to $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$.

### 1.7.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a monoidal category, i.e., we have a functor $`:𝒜\times 𝒜𝒜`$, a unit object $`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜𝒜`$ and functorial isomorphisms

$$X(YZ)(XY)Z;X\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜X\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜X,$$

obeying the usual axioms. Note that in this case the categories $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ also possess natural monoidal structures.

If $`𝒞`$ is another category, there is a standard notion of action of $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒞`$, in which case we say that $`𝒞`$ is a module category over $`𝒜`$. Namely, a module structure is a functor $`:𝒜\times 𝒞𝒞`$, and for $`X,Y𝒜`$ and $`V𝒞`$ functorial isomorphisms

$$(XY)VX(YV);\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}_𝒜VV,$$

satisfying the natural axioms. In particular, for $`X𝒜`$, $`V,W𝒞`$ we have a well-defined Hom set $`\mathrm{Hom}(XV,W)`$.

By definition, a pseudo-action of $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒞`$ (or a structure on $`𝒞`$ of a pseudo-module over $`𝒜`$) is a functor $`𝒜^o\times 𝒞^o\times 𝒞Set`$, denoted $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(,)`$, and a morphism of functors: for $`X,Y𝒜`$, $`V,U,W𝒞`$

$$\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(YU,V)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((XY)U,W),$$

and a functorial isomorphism $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜V,W)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(V,W)`$, such that the following compatibility conditions hold:

For $`X,Y,Z𝒜`$, $`V,U,W,Q𝒞`$, the arrows

$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XW,Q)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(YV,W)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(ZU,V)`$
$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XW,Q)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((YZ)U,W)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((X(YZ))U,Q)\text{ and}`$
$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XW,Q)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(YV,W)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(ZU,V)`$
$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((XY)V,Q)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(ZU,V)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(((XY)Z)U,Q)`$
coincide under the associativity isomorphism $`(XY)ZX(YZ)`$, and for $`U,V,W𝒞`$ and $`X𝒜`$, the squares

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,U)\times \mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(W,V)& & \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,U)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜W,V)\\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XW,U)& & \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((X\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜)W,U)\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(V,W)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,V)& & \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜V,W)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,V)\\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,W)& & \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜X)U,W)\end{array}$$

are commutative.

Note that if $`𝒞`$ is a pseudo-module over $`𝒜`$, then $`𝒞^o`$ is a pseudo-module over $`𝒜^{op}`$, where the latter is the category $`𝒜`$ with the opposite monoidal structure:

$$om(XV^o,W^o):=om(XW,V).$$

When $`𝒞`$ is additive (resp., $``$-linear), we will rather use the variant of the above definition, when we require that the sets $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,V)`$ have a structure of an abelian group (resp., $``$-vector space), such that the natural transformations $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,V)\times \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(YV,W)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((XY)U,W)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜V,W)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(V,W)`$ are bilinear (resp., linear).

For example, the category $`Set`$ is a monoidal via $`XY:=X\times Y`$, and any category $`𝒞`$ has a pseudo-module structure over $`Set`$ via $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,V):=Hom(U,V)^X`$ for $`XSet`$, $`U,V𝒞`$.

Of course, when $`𝒞`$ is a module category over $`𝒜`$, it acquires a pseudo-module structure by setting

$$\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,V):=\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(XU,V).$$

In what follows we will say that an element $`\varphi \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XU,V)`$ defines an action $`X\times UV`$.

### 1.8.

Let us now analyze how pseudo-actions behave when we Ind- and Pro- complete our categories.

First, we claim that if $`𝒜`$ pseudo-acts on $`𝒞`$, then so do $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$. Indeed, if $`X\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ (resp., $`X\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$) is $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i`$), we set $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)=\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(X_iV,W)`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)=\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(X_iV,W)`$). It is easy to see that this definition is independent of the way we represent $`X`$ as a direct (resp., inverse) limit.

Also, if $`𝒞`$ has a pseudo-module structure over $`𝒜`$, so do $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ and $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)`$. Indeed, for $`V,W\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ equal to $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}V_i`$ and $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}W_j`$, (resp., $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}V_i`$ and $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}W_j`$), we set $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)`$ to be

$$(\underset{𝑖}{\underset{}{lim}})(\underset{𝑗}{\underset{}{lim}})\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV_i,W_j)\text{ and }(\underset{𝑗}{\underset{}{lim}})(\underset{𝑖}{\underset{}{lim}})\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV_i,W_j),$$

respectively. One can easily see that this definition is independent of the presentation of $`V`$ and $`W`$ as directs (resp., inverse) limits.

Now, we obtain that there are two pseudo-actions of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$. One is (which we will call ”naive”) when we first consider the pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ on $`𝒞`$ and then produce from it the corresponding pseudo-action on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$. The other is when we first consider the pseudo-action of $`𝒜`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ and then produce from it the corresponding pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$. Unless specified otherwise, in the sequel we will use the pseudo-action of the second kind. Note that we have a canonical map $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)_{naive}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)`$. In concrete terms, if $`X=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_k`$, $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}V_i`$ and $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}W_j`$, we have:

$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)_{naive}=\underset{𝑖}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑗}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑘}{(\underset{}{lim})}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(X_kV_i,W_j);`$
$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)=\underset{𝑘}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑖}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑗}{(\underset{}{lim})}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(X_kV_i,W_j).`$
For example, by taking $`𝒞=𝒜`$, the canonical action of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ on itself corresponding to the monoidal structure coincides with the pseudo-action described above coming from the action on $`𝒜`$ on itself.

Similarly, we obtain the corresponding notions concerning the pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ on $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)`$.

The situation with the pseudo-actions of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ is the opposite. The naive pseudo-module structure on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ is obtained when we first consider the pseudo-action of $`𝒜`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$, and then produce from it a pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$. The pseudo-module structure that we will normally consider is is obtained by first considering the pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ on $`𝒞`$, and then producing from it the corresponding pseudo-action on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$. As before, we have a canonical map $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)_{naive}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)`$, and for $`V=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}V_i`$, $`W=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}W_j`$ and $`X=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_k`$

$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)_{naive}=\underset{𝑘}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑖}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑗}{(\underset{}{lim})}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(X_kV_i,W_j);`$
$`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)=\underset{𝑖}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑗}{(\underset{}{lim})}\underset{𝑘}{(\underset{}{lim})}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(X_kV_i,W_j).`$
In a similar way, we obtain the two pseudo-actions of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ on $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)`$. As above, for $`𝒞=𝒜`$ this canonical pseudo-action coincides with the action corresponding to the monoidal structure on $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$.

Finally, we see that there are 3 possible pseudo-actions of $`\mathrm{Ind}\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$. The one that we will consider is ”the biggest”: we will first consider the pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ on $`𝒞`$, then produce from it the pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$, and then the pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Ind}\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$.

Explicitly, if $`X\mathrm{Ind}\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ is $`\underset{𝑘}{\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}}(\underset{𝑙}{\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_l^k})`$, $`V=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}V_i`$ and $`W=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}W_j`$, then

$$\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,W)=\underset{𝑘}{\underset{}{lim}}\underset{𝑖}{\underset{}{lim}}\underset{𝑙}{\underset{}{lim}}\underset{𝑗}{\underset{}{lim}}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(X_l^kV_i,W_j).$$

By inverting the arrows in $`𝒞`$ we obtain the corresponding pseudo-action of $`\mathrm{Ind}\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$ on $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)`$.

### 1.9.

Let us consider our main examples. Let $`𝒜=Set_0`$, and $`𝒞=Vect_0`$. Then for $`𝐗𝐒et=\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0))`$, $`𝐕,𝐖Vect=\mathrm{Ind}(Vect_0)`$, we obtain the notion of an action $`𝐗\times 𝐕𝐖`$. However, it is easy to see that such an action is the same as a continuous map $`𝐗^{\mathrm{top}}\times 𝐕𝐖`$, linear in $`𝐕`$ and $`𝐖`$, where $`𝐕`$ and $`𝐖`$ are endowed with the discrete topology, and $`𝐗^{\mathrm{top}}`$ is as in Sect. 1.6.

Now set $`𝒜=𝐒et=\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0))`$ and $`𝒞=Vect`$. We obtain a pseudo-module structure on $`𝕍ect`$ with respect to $`𝕊et`$.

Let us write down the last notion in more concrete terms. First, let $`𝕏`$ be an object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$, and $`𝕍,𝕎`$ be two objects of $`𝕍ect`$. An action $`\varphi :𝕏\times 𝕍𝕎`$ is the following data. Let $`𝕏=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_j`$, $`𝕍=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐕_i`$, $`𝕎=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐖_i^{}`$, with $`𝐗_j𝐒et`$, $`𝐕_i,𝐖_i^{}Vect`$. Then for every $`i^{}`$ there must exist $`i_0`$, $`j_0`$ and a compatible system of action maps $`\varphi _{j,i,i^{}}:𝐗_j\times 𝐕_i𝐖_i^{}`$ defined for $`ii_0`$, $`jj_0`$. Another compatibility condition is imposed: for $`i_1^{}i_2^{}`$ the corresponding diagrams

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝐗_{j_1}\times 𝐕_{i_1}& \stackrel{\varphi _{j_1,i_1,i_1^{}}}{}& 𝐖_{i_1^{}}\\ & & & & \\ 𝐗_{j_2}\times 𝐕_{i_2}& \stackrel{\varphi _{j_2,i_2,i_2^{}}}{}& 𝐖_{i_2^{}}\end{array}$$

must commute for $`i_1`$ and $`j_1`$ large enough. Two action maps $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ coincide if for every $`i^{}`$ the corresponding maps $`\varphi _{j,i,i^{}}`$ and $`\psi _{j,i,i^{}}`$ coincide for $`i`$ and $`j`$ large enough.

If now $`𝕏`$ is an object of $`𝕊et`$, equal to $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝕏^j`$ and $`𝕍,𝕎𝕍ect`$, an action $`\varphi :𝕏\times 𝕍𝕎`$ is a compatible system of actions $`\varphi ^j:𝕏^j\times 𝕍𝕎`$.

### 1.10.

The following definition will be needed in the sequel. First, note that we have an obvious functor from the category of sets (denoted $`Set`$) to $`𝐒et`$ via

$$Set\mathrm{Ind}(Set_0)\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0))𝐒et.$$

Let $`𝐗_1𝐗_2`$ be a map of objects of $`𝐒et`$. We will say that it is weakly surjective if for any $`YSet`$, the map

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝐒et}(𝐗_2,Y)\mathrm{Hom}_{𝐒et}(𝐗_1,Y)$$

is injective.

Note that if $`𝐗_1,𝐗_2`$ are locally compact, the above notion that a morphism $`𝐗_1𝐗_2`$ is weakly surjective is equivalent to the condition that the corresponding map $`𝐗_1^{\mathrm{top}}𝐗_2^{\mathrm{top}}`$ has dense image.

###### Lemma 1.11.

A map $`𝐗_1𝐗_2`$ in $`𝐒et`$ is weakly surjective if and only if for any $`𝐕,𝐖Vect`$, the map $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(𝐗_2𝐕,𝐖)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(𝐗_1𝐕,𝐖)`$ is injective.

We will call an object $`𝕏\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ weakly strict if it can be represented as $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_i`$, where the maps $`𝐗_j𝐗_i`$ are weakly surjective.

Note that if $`𝕏`$ is weakly strict and $`𝐕,𝐖Vect`$, for any element $`\varphi \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(𝕏𝐕,𝐖)`$ we have well-defined kernel and image of $`\varphi `$. By definition, $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )𝐕`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi )𝐖`$) is the maximal (resp., minimal) subspace $`𝐕^{}`$ of $`𝐕`$ (resp., $`𝐖^{}`$ of $`𝐖`$) having the property that $`\varphi `$ factors through an element $`\varphi ^{}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(𝕏𝐕/𝐕^{},𝐖^{})`$ (resp., $`\varphi ^{}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(𝕏𝐕,𝐖^{})`$).

Indeed, both $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi )`$ are clearly well-defined when $`𝐗𝐒et`$. If now $`𝕏=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_i`$, with weakly surjective maps, and $`\varphi `$ comes from an element $`\varphi _i\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(𝐗_i𝐕,𝐖)`$, then it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi _i)𝐕`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _i)𝐖`$ are the sought-for subspaces.

## 2. Categories of representations

### 2.1.

In the abstract set-up of the previous section, let us recall that an object $`X𝒜`$ is called a monoid (in the sense of the monoidal structure on $`𝒜`$) if we are given a (multiplication) map $`XXX`$ and a (unit) map $`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜X`$, which satisfy the usual associativity and unit axioms.

In our examples, the monoidal structure on $`𝒜`$ will be such that $`XY`$ is isomorphic to the categorical direct product $`X\times Y`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(X,\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜)`$ will be a one-element set $`X𝒞`$. Note that this property is inherited by both $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$.

In this case, it makes sense to speak about group-objects in $`𝒜`$: a monoid $`X`$ is called a group if there exists a map $`\gamma :XX`$ (automatically unique) such that the two compositions

$$X\stackrel{\Delta }{}X\times X\stackrel{\mathrm{id}\times \gamma }{}X\times X\stackrel{mult}{}X\text{ and }$$

$$X\stackrel{\Delta }{}X\times X\stackrel{\gamma \times \mathrm{id}}{}X\times X\stackrel{mult}{}X$$

are both equal to $`X\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜X`$.

In the sequel we will only consider monoids, which are groups.

### 2.2.

If $`𝒞`$ is another category with a pseudo-action of $`𝒜`$ and $`X𝒜`$ is a monoid, a representation of $`X`$ in $`𝒞`$ is a pair $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(V,\rho )`$, where $`V𝒞`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,V)`$, such that the following two conditions hold:

Associativity: The image of $`\rho \times \rho `$ under the associativity constraint

$$\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,V)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,V)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}((XX)V,V)$$

equals the image of $`\rho `$ under the map $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XV,V)\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(XX)V,V)`$ given by the multiplication $`XXX`$.

Unit: The image of $`\rho `$ in $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜V,V)`$ under $`\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜X`$ equals the identity element in $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}(\mathrm{𝟏}_𝒜V,V)\mathrm{Hom}(V,V)`$.

Representations of $`X`$ in $`𝒞`$ form a category, which we will denote by $`\mathrm{Rep}(X,𝒞)`$. When $`𝒞`$ is additive (resp., $``$-linear), the category $`\mathrm{Rep}(X,𝒞)`$ is additive (resp., $``$-linear) as well.

Assume now that $`𝒞`$ is abelian and that for a fixed $`X𝒜`$, the functor $`𝒞^o\times 𝒞Set`$ given by $`V,Wom(XV,W)`$ is left-exact in both arguments.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Under the above circumstances the category $`\mathrm{Rep}(X,𝒞)`$ is abelian and the natural forgetful functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(X,𝒞)𝒞`$ is exact.

If $`𝒜`$ is a monoidal category with a pseudo-action on an abelian category $`𝒞`$, such that the above left-exactness condition is satisfied, then the same holds for $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒜)`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒜)`$) pseudo-acting on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝒞)`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝒞)`$), due to the fact that the functor $`limInd`$ (resp., $`limProj`$) is exact (resp., left-exact) on the category of abelian groups.

In particular, we obtain that this condition is satisfied in our examples of $`𝒜=𝐒et`$, $`𝒞=Vect`$ and $`𝒜=𝕊et`$, $`𝒞=𝕍ect`$.

### 2.4.

Set first $`𝒜=𝐒et`$, and $`𝒞=Vect`$. Thus, for a group-object $`𝐇𝐒et`$ the category $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐇,Vect)`$ is the usual category of representations of $`𝐇`$ appearing in the theory of $`𝔭`$-adic groups. In other words, if $`𝐇`$ is locally compact (cf. Sect. 1.6) and $`𝐇^{\mathrm{top}}`$ is the corresponding topological group, then an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐇,Vect)`$ is the same as a smooth representation of $`𝐇^{\mathrm{top}}`$.

If $``$ is a group-object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$, we can consider its representations on $`Vect`$ and $`𝕍ect`$, and the resulting categories will be denoted by $`\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$ and $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$, respectively.

We will say that $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ satisfies condition ($``$) if it is weakly strict as an object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$, cf. Sect. 1.10.

The following assertion will play an important role in the sequel: <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We would like to thank E. Hrushovski for pointing out the mistake in the previous version of the paper, where Proposition 2.5, was stated without the ($``$) assumption on $`H`$; in fact, he constructed a counterexample.

###### Proposition 2.5.

For $``$ satisfying ($``$), the categories $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$ and $`\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect))`$ are naturally equivalent.

Note that the proof given below is valid when $``$ is a just a monoid (not necessarily a group), satisfying condition $`()`$.

###### Proof.

The functor in one direction: $`𝖥:\mathrm{Pro}\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect))\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$ is evident; moreover, it is easy to see that it is fully faithful. Let us show that it admits a left adjoint.

For $`(𝕍,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$, let us write $`𝕍=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐕_i`$, where the index $`i`$ runs over some filtering set $`I`$. Consider the category of quadruples $`(𝐕^{},\rho ^{},i,\alpha :𝐕_i𝐕^{})`$, where $`(𝐕^{},\rho ^{})\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$, $`iI`$ and $`\alpha `$ is a map, such that its image generates $`𝐕^{}`$ as an $``$-representation and the composition $`𝕍𝐕_i𝐕^{}`$ is compatible with the $``$-actions. A morphism between $`(𝐕_1,\rho _1^{},i_1,\alpha _1:𝐕_{i_1}𝐕_1^{})`$ and $`(𝐕_2,\rho _2^{},i_2,\alpha _2:𝐕_{i_2}𝐕_2^{})`$ is by definition a relation $`i_2i_1`$ and a map of $``$-representations $`𝐕_1^{}𝐕_2^{}`$, such that the square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝐕_{i_1}& & 𝐕_{i_2}\\ \alpha _1& & \alpha _2& & \\ 𝐕_1^{}& & 𝐕_2^{}\end{array}$$

commutes. The resulting category is evidently discrete, filtering and small. By definition, we have a forgetful functor from this category to $`\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$ that sends a quadruple $`(𝐕^{},\rho ^{},i,\alpha )`$ to $`(𝐕^{},\rho ^{})`$. Let us denote by $`𝖦(𝕍,\rho )\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect))`$ the resulting inverse limit. It is easy too see that the assignment $`(𝕍,\rho )𝖦(𝕍,\rho )`$ defines a functor left adjoint to $`𝖥`$.

The fact that $`𝖥`$ was fully-faifull means that the composition $`𝖦𝖥`$ is isomorphic to the identity functor. Thus, it remains to see that for $`(𝕍,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$, the adjunction map $`(𝕍,\rho )𝖥𝖦(𝕍,\rho )`$ is an isomorphism. For that, it suffices to show that if $`𝕍=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐕_i`$, then for every $`i`$ there exists a vector space $`𝐕_i^{}`$ underlying an object $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕_i^{},\rho _i)\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$, such that the map $`𝕍𝐕_i`$ factors as $`𝕍𝐕_i^{}𝐕_i`$, with the first arrow preserving the $``$-action. Indeed, this would show that the map $`(𝕍,\rho )𝖥𝖦(𝕍,\rho )`$ is always injective, and combined with the fact that $`𝖦`$ is right-exact, this implies that this map is an isomorphism.

Let $`j`$ be an index such that the map $`\times 𝕍\stackrel{act}{}𝕍𝐕_i`$ factors as $`\times 𝕍\times 𝐕_j𝐕_i`$. Let us denote by $`p_{j,i}`$ the projection $`𝐕_j𝐕_i`$ and by $`\mathrm{act}_{j,i}`$ the map $`\times 𝐕_j𝐕_i`$.

By the definition of the action, there exists another index $`k`$ such that the map $`\times 𝕍\stackrel{act}{}𝕍𝐕_j`$ factors as

$$\times 𝕍\times 𝐕_k\stackrel{\mathrm{act}_{k,j}}{}𝐕_j,$$

and such that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\times \times 𝐕_k& \stackrel{\mathrm{mult}\times p_{k,j}}{}& \times 𝐕_j\\ \mathrm{id}\times \mathrm{act}_{k,j}& & \mathrm{act}_{j,i}& & \\ \times 𝐕_j& \stackrel{\mathrm{act}_{j,i}}{}& 𝐕_i\end{array}$$

is commutative, where $`p_{k,j}`$ denotes the projection $`𝐕_k𝐕_j`$.

Let $`𝐖^{}𝐕_j`$ be the kernel of the map $`\times 𝐕_j\stackrel{\mathrm{act}_{j,i}}{}𝐕_i`$, and let $`𝐖^{\prime \prime }𝐕_j`$ be the image of $`\times 𝐕_k\stackrel{\mathrm{act}_{k,j}}{}𝐕_j`$. The above kernel and image are well-defined due to the ($``$) assumption on $``$, cf. Sect. 1.10.

Set $`𝐕_i^{}`$ to be the image of $`𝐖^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`𝐕_j/𝐖^{}`$, and let $`\mathrm{act}^{}`$ denote the map $`\times 𝐕_k𝐕_i^{}`$. We claim that there exists a unique map $`\times 𝐕_i^{}𝐕_i^{}`$, which makes the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\times \times 𝐕_k& \stackrel{\mathrm{id}\times \mathrm{act}^{}}{}& \times 𝐕_i^{}\\ \mathrm{mult}\times \mathrm{id}& & & & \\ \times 𝐕_k& \stackrel{\mathrm{act}^{}}{}& 𝐕_i^{}\end{array}$$

commute. The commutativity of the diagram implies that the action $`\times 𝐕_i^{}𝐕_i^{}`$ is unital and associative.

To construct the sought-for map $`\times 𝐕_i^{}𝐕_i^{}`$, let us write $`=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_n`$ with weakly surjective maps. Let $`n_0`$ be an index such that the maps $`\mathrm{act}_{j,i}`$ and $`\mathrm{act}_{j,k}`$ are defined on the level of $`𝐗_{n_0}`$ (we will denote them $`\mathrm{act}_{j,i}^{n_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{act}_{k,j}^{n_0}`$, respectively).

Let $`n_1n_0`$ be an index such that the multiplication on $``$ gives rise to a map $`\mathrm{mult}_{n_1,n_1}^{n_0}:𝐗_{n_1}\times 𝐗_{n_1}𝐗_{n_0}`$, and let $`n_2n_1`$ be another index, such that we have a multiplication $`\mathrm{mult}_{n_2,n_2}^{n_1}:𝐗_{n_2}\times 𝐗_{n_2}𝐗_{n_1}`$, satisfying an obvious associativity with respect to $`\mathrm{mult}_{n_1,n_1}^{n_0}`$. For $`m=1,2`$ let us denote by $`\mathrm{act}_{j,i}^{n_m}`$, $`\mathrm{act}_{k,j}^{n_m}`$ the maps obtained by composing $`\mathrm{act}_{j,i}^{n_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{act}_{k,j}^{n_0}`$, respectively, with $`𝐗_m𝐗_0`$.

We will construct a map $`𝐗_{n_2}\times 𝐕_i^{}𝐕_i^{}`$, which amounts to a map $`𝐗_{n_2}^{\mathrm{top}}\times 𝐕_i^{}𝐕_i^{}`$. Let $`v_j`$ be an element in $`𝐖^{\prime \prime }𝐕_j`$, and $`h_{n_2}𝐗_{n_2}^{\mathrm{top}}`$. We claim that there exists an element, denoted $`v_j^{}𝐖^{\prime \prime }𝐕_j`$, which is unique modulo $`𝐖^{}`$, satisfying

(1)
$$\mathrm{act}_{j,i}^{n_2}(h_{n_2}^{},v_j^{})=\mathrm{act}_{j,i}^{n_1}(\mathrm{mult}_{n_2,n_2}^{n_1}(h_{n_2}^{},h_{n_2}),v_j)𝐕_i,$$

for any $`h_{n_2}^{}𝐗_{n_2}^{\mathrm{top}}`$.

By assumption, every element $`v_j𝐖^{\prime \prime }`$ can be written as $`\underset{𝑎}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{act}_{k,j}^{n_2}(h_{n_2}^a,v_k^a)`$ for $`h_{n_2}^a𝐗_{n_2}^{\mathrm{top}}`$, $`v_k^a𝐕_k`$. For $`h_{n_2}𝐗_{n_2}^{\mathrm{top}}`$ as above we set

$$v_j^{}=\underset{𝑎}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{act}_{k,j}^{n_1}(\mathrm{mult}_{n_2,n_2}^{n_1}(h_{n_2},h_{n_2}^a),v_k^a)𝐖^{\prime \prime }𝐕_j.$$

It is easy to see that $`v_j^{}`$ satisfies (1).

For $``$ as above we have a natural embedding $`\mathrm{triv}:𝕍ect\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$, corresponding to “trivial” representations.

###### Corollary 2.6.

For $``$ satisfying ($``$), the functor $`\mathrm{triv}`$ admits both right and left adjoints.

Note that in Proposition 2.10 a more general statement is established.

###### Proof.

First, from Sect. 1.10 it follows the the functor $`\mathrm{triv}:Vect\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$ admits right and left adjoints, denoted $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$, respectively.

Therefore, using Proposition 2.5, it is enough to show that the functor $`\mathrm{triv}:\mathrm{Pro}(Vect)\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect))`$ has left and right adjoints. But these are simply given by sending $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}(\mathrm{\Pi }_i)_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}(\mathrm{\Pi }_i)^{}`$, respectively.

As every right adjoint, the functor $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ is left-exact, and similarly, the functor $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ is right-exact.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Assume that $``$ is the inverse limit of a weakly surjective family of $`𝐇_i`$, where each $`𝐇_i`$ is a group-object in $`𝐒et`$ isomorphic to a direct limit of $`𝐇_{i,j}`$, with each $`𝐇_{i,j}`$ being a group-object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$. Then the functor of coinvariants $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)𝕍ect`$ is exact.

###### Proof.

According to Proposition 2.5 and Corollary 2.6, each $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$ is an inverse limit of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}(\mathrm{\Pi }_k)_{}`$. Therefore, it suffices to show that the functor of coinvariants is exact on $`\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$. By the definition of the latter, we can replace $``$ by one of its quotients $`𝐇_i`$, which we will denote by $`𝐇`$.

However, the fact that functor $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }_𝐇`$ is exact on the category $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐇,Vect)`$ is well-known. Indeed, if $`𝐇=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐇_j`$, $`𝐇_j\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_𝐇\underset{𝑗}{\underset{}{lim}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝐇_j},$$

but the functor $`limInd`$ is exact on $`Vect`$, and the functor $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }_{𝐇_j}`$ is exact on $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐇_j,Vect)`$, since $`𝐇_j^{\mathrm{top}}`$ is a compact group.

### 2.8.

Consider now the category $`𝕊et`$ with its pseudo-action on $`𝕍ect`$. The main object of study of this paper is the category of representations $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾,𝕍ect)`$ of a group-object $`𝔾𝕊et`$ in $`𝕍ect`$. For brevity, we will denote the category by $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, when no confusion is likely to occur.

###### Lemma 2.9.

The functor $`limProj:\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾))\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ is defined on the entire category and is exact.

###### Proof.

Recall (cf. Lemma 1.5, with Ind replaced by Pro) that the category $`𝕍ect`$ is closed under projective limits. If $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i=(𝕍_i,\rho _i)`$ is an inverse system of objects of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, we define $`𝕍𝕍ect`$ as $`\underset{}{lim}𝕍_i`$. It is easy to see from the definitions that there exists an action $`\rho :𝔾\times 𝕍𝕍`$, such that $`(𝕍,\rho )`$ represents the projective limit $`\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$. The exactness follows from the fact that the functor $`limProj:\mathrm{Pro}(𝕍ect)𝕍ect`$ is exact.

We will say that $`𝕊et`$ satisfies condition ($``$) if, as an object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et))`$, $``$ can be represented as $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝕏_k`$, with $`𝕏_k\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ being weakly strict.

As before, we have an obvious functor $`\mathrm{triv}:𝕍ect\mathrm{Rep}()`$ corresponding to “trivial” representations.

###### Proposition 2.10.

The functor $`\mathrm{triv}:𝕍ect\mathrm{Rep}()`$ admits a left adjoint, and when $``$ satisfies ($``$), also a right adjoint.

###### Proof.

Let us first construct the left adjoint of $`\mathrm{triv}`$. Consider the covariant functor on the category $`Vect`$ that sends a vector space $`𝐕`$ to $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}()}(\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{triv}(𝐕))`$. This functor is a subfunctor of $`𝐕\mathrm{Hom}_{𝕍ect}(\mathrm{\Pi },𝐕)`$. Hence, by Proposition 1.4, it is pro-representable.

Let us denote the resulting object of $`𝕍ect`$ by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$. It is strightforward to check that for $`𝕍𝕍ect`$, we have a functorial isomorphism $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}()}(\mathrm{\Pi },\mathrm{triv}(𝕍))\mathrm{Hom}_{𝕍ect}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{},𝕍)`$.

Now let us construct the right adjoint to $`\mathrm{triv}`$. Let us write $`𝕊et`$ as $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝕏_k`$, where $`𝕏_k\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ are weakly strict.

For a weakly strict object $`𝕏\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$, $`𝕍,𝕌𝕍ect`$, and an action map $`\varphi :𝕏\times 𝕍𝕌`$, consider the kernel of $`\varphi `$ as a functor on $`𝕍ect`$:

$$\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )(𝕎)=\{\psi :𝕎𝕍|\varphi \psi =0\}.$$

We claim that this functor is representable. If this is so, it is easy to see that the sought-for right adjoint of $`\mathrm{triv}`$ is representable by

$$(𝕍,\rho )^{}=\underset{𝑘}{\underset{}{lim}}\mathrm{ker}\left(p\mathrm{act}:𝕏_k\times 𝕍𝕍\right),$$

where $`\underset{}{lim}`$ is taken in the category $`𝕍ect`$, and $`p`$ is the obvious projection map $`𝕏_k\times 𝕍𝕍`$.

To show the representability, we can assume that $`𝕌=𝐔Vect`$. Indeed, if $`𝕌=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐔_i`$, then $`\mathrm{Ker}(\varphi )=\underset{𝑖}{\underset{}{lim}}\mathrm{ker}\left(𝕏\times 𝕍𝐔_i\right)`$. In the latter case, we can assume that $`𝕍=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐕_j`$, and we have a compatible system of maps $`\varphi _j:𝕏\times 𝐕_j𝐔`$. By Sect. 1.10, $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi _j)𝐕_j`$ is well-defined, and it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}\mathrm{ker}(\varphi _j)𝕍ect`$ represents $`\mathrm{ker}(\varphi )`$.

The main source of examples of such $`𝔾`$, i.e., of group-objects in $`𝕊et`$, is provided by considering sets of points of algebraic groups with values in a two-dimensional local field.

### 2.11.

Let $`𝐊`$ be a local field, with the corresponding local ring $`𝒪_𝐊`$. We will denote by $`\pi `$ a uniformizer of $`𝐊`$. Set $`𝐅=𝐊((t))`$, $`𝒪_𝐅=𝐊[[t]]`$.

Let $`Sch^{ft}`$ denote the category of separated schemes of finite type over $`𝐊`$. If $`S`$ is an object of $`Sch^{ft}`$, we will denote by $`S(𝐊)`$ the corresponding set of $`𝐊`$-points. It is well-known that $`S(𝐊)`$ carries a natural locally compact totally disconnected topology; therefore, as a topological space, $`S(𝐊)𝐒^{\mathrm{top}}`$ for a canonically defined locally compact object $`𝐒𝐒et`$.

Hence, we obtain a functor $`S𝐒:Sch^{ft}𝐒et`$, and also the functors $`\mathrm{Pro}(Sch^{ft})\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$, and $`\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Sch^{ft}))𝕊et`$.

In particular, any affine scheme (not necessarily of finite type) over $`𝐊`$ defines an object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(Sch^{ft})`$, and hence, an object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$. In addition, for any scheme of finite type $`S`$, the corresponding scheme of arcs $`S[[t]]`$ is naturally an object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(Sch^{ft})`$:

$$S[[t]]\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}S[t]/t^i.$$

We will denote the corresponding object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ by $`𝐒[[t]]`$.

If $`S`$ is smooth, the maps in this family defining $`S[[t]]`$ are fibrations into affine spaces; therefore the corresponding maps $`𝐒[t]/t^j𝐒[t]/t^i`$ are weakly surjective. Hence, if $`S`$ is smooth, the object $`𝐒[[t]]\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ is weakly strict.

For a scheme $`S^{}`$ over $`𝐅`$, we define its ”restriction of scalars” from $`𝐅`$ to $`𝐊`$ as a functor on the category of schemes over $`𝐊`$ by $`S\mathrm{Hom}_𝐅(S\underset{𝐊}{}𝐅,S^{})`$. If $`S^{}`$ is of finite type and affine, then by embedding it into an affine space one shows that the above functor is ind-representable by an ind-scheme, which is a direct limit of affine schemes under closed embeddings. By taking $`S^{}=S\underset{𝐊}{}𝐅`$ for $`S`$ an affine scheme of finite type over $`𝐊`$, we obtain an object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Sch^{ft}))`$ that will be denoted by $`S((t))`$. The resulting object of $`𝕊et`$ will be denoted by $`𝐒((t))`$ or $`𝕊`$.

By applying the functor of iterated inductive and projective limits $`𝕊etSet`$, we obtain from $`𝕊`$ (resp., $`𝐒[[t]]`$) the set, which is tautologically identified with the set $`S(𝐅)`$ of $`𝐅`$-points of $`S`$ (resp., $`S(𝒪_𝐅)`$–the set of $`𝒪_𝐅`$-points of $`S`$).

### 2.12.

If $`G`$ is a smooth linear algebraic group over $`𝐊`$, by applying the functor $`G𝐆`$ we obtain the corresponding group-object in $`𝐒et`$. In particular, we can consider the category of representations $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)`$, which is tautologically equivalent to the category of smooth representations of the locally compact group $`G(𝐊)`$.

For a non-negative integer $`i`$, let us denote by $`G^i`$ the congruence subgroup of $`G[[t]]`$, i.e., the kernel of $`G[[t]]G[[t]]/t^i`$; in particular, $`G^0=G[[t]]`$. Let $`𝐆^i`$ be the corresponding object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$. A subgroup $``$ of $`𝐆[[t]]`$ will be called thick if it contains $`𝐆^i`$ for some $`i`$ and equals the preimage of a closed subgroup of $`𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i`$ (we are slightly abusing the terminology by identifying $`𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i`$ with the corresponding locally compact group).

For a thick $`𝐆[[t]]`$ we can consider the corresponding categories $`\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)`$ and $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$. As was remarked above, $`𝐆[[t]]\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ is weakly strict, and so are the groups $`𝐆^i`$. From this it is easy to see that any thick subgroup $`𝐆[[t]]`$ satisfies condition ($``$) of Sect. 2.4.

Finally, for an algebraic group $`G`$ as above, we can consider $`𝔾`$ (sometimes also denoted $`𝐆((t))`$), which is a group-object in $`𝕊et`$ and the corresponding category $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾,𝕍ect)`$, which we will denote for brevity by $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$.

It is well-known that the ind-scheme $`G((t))`$ can be represented as a direct limit under closed embeddings of subschemes, each of which is stable under (both left and right) multiplication by $`G[[t]]`$, and is a principal $`G[[t]]`$-bundle over a scheme of finite type. (In fact, the above family of subschemes is obtained by taking the preimages of finite-dimensional subschemes of the affine Grassmannian of $`G`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{Gr}_G=G((t))/G[[t]]`$.) This implies, in particular, that $`𝔾`$ satisfies condition ($``$), cf. Sect. 2.8.

Let us denote by $`𝕍ect^{G(𝐅)}`$ the category consisting of objects of $`𝕍ect`$ with an action of the abstract group $`G(𝐅)`$.

###### Lemma 2.13.

The natural forgetful functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)𝕍ect^{G(𝐅)}`$ is fully faithful.

###### Proof.

We have to show that if $`(𝕍_1,\rho _1)`$ and $`(𝕍_2,\rho _2)`$ are two objects of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, and $`𝕍_1𝕍_2`$ is a map preserving the action of $`G(𝐅)`$, then it is compatible with the $`𝔾`$-action.

This can be shown in the following general set-up: Let $`𝐕_1,𝐕_2,𝐖_1,𝐖_2`$ be vector spaces, and let $`𝕏`$ be an object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ endowed with action maps $`𝕏\times 𝐕_k𝐖_k`$, $`k=1,2`$. Let $`𝐕_1𝐕_2`$, $`𝐖_1𝐖_2`$ be maps, such that the square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝕏^{\mathrm{top}}\times 𝐕_1& & 𝕏^{\mathrm{top}}\times 𝐕_2\\ & & & & \\ 𝐖_1& & 𝐖_2\end{array}$$

commutes, where $`𝕏^{\mathrm{top}}`$ is the topological space obtained from the corresponding object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(Top^{Hlctd})`$ by taking the projective limit.

Assume now that $`𝕏`$ can be presented as $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_i`$, where the maps $`𝐗_j𝐗_i`$ are such that the corresponding maps $`𝐗_j^{\mathrm{top}}𝐗_i^{\mathrm{top}}`$ are surjective. Then it is easy to see that the square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝕏\times 𝐕_1& & 𝕏\times 𝐕_2\\ & & & & \\ 𝐖_1& & 𝐖_2\end{array}$$

commutes as well.

The above assumption is satisfied in our situation for $`𝕏`$ being the object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ corresponding to a subscheme of $`G((t))`$, obtained as a preimage of a closed subscheme in $`G((t))/G[[t]]`$. The required surjectivity follows from the fact that the groups $`G^i`$ for $`i>0`$ are pro-unipotent.

### 2.14. Central extensions

Suppose now that $`\widehat{G}`$ is a group-indscheme, which is a central extension of $`G((t))`$ by the multiplicative group $`G_m`$, i.e.,

$$1G_m\widehat{G}G((t))1.$$

In other words, $`\widehat{G}`$ is a group-object in the category of ind-schemes, such that if $`G((t))=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_k`$, and $`X_k=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_{k,l}`$ with $`X_{k,l}Sch^{ft}`$, then each $`\widehat{G}\underset{G((t))}{\times }X_k`$ is a total space of a $`G_m`$-torsor over $`X_k`$, and this torsor is pulled back from $`X_{k,l}`$ for some index $`l`$. In what follows we will assume that we have a splitting $`G[[t]]\widehat{G}`$.

We will denote by $`\widehat{𝔾}`$ the corresponding group-object in $`𝕊et`$, which is an extension of $`𝔾`$ by $`𝐆_m`$.

Let $`c`$ be a character $`G_m(𝐊)^{}`$. We will denote by $`\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$ the category of representations of $`\widehat{𝔾}`$ with central character $`c`$. In other words, the objects of this category are pairs $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝕍,\rho )`$, where $`𝕍𝕍ect`$, and $`\rho `$ is an action map $`\widehat{𝔾}\times 𝕍𝕍`$, satisfying the associativity and the unit axioms as above, and such that the composite action

$$𝐆_m\times 𝕍\widehat{𝔾}\times 𝕍𝕍$$

(where $`𝐆_m`$ is viewed as an object of $`𝐒et𝕊et`$) corresponds to the above character.

### 2.15.

We propose the category $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)=\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾,𝕍ect)`$ as a framework for the study of representations of the group $`G(𝐅)`$. Let us explain why introducing pro-objects of $`Vect`$ appears to be necessary. For the remainder of this section, let us assume that $`G`$ is semi-simple, simply-connected and split.

The first question to ask is whether the category $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ contains any objects $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )`$, where $`𝐕`$ belongs to $`Vect`$. The answer is that such representations are necessarily trivial (i.e., they lie in the image of the functor $`Vect𝕍ect\stackrel{triv}{}\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$), for the same reason as why $`𝔭`$-adic groups usually have no finite-dimensional representations.

Indeed, suppose that $`(𝐕,\rho )`$ is such a representation. By Lemma 2.13, it is sufficient to prove that the corresponding representation of the abstract group $`G(𝐅)`$ on $`𝐕`$ is trivial.

Consider the kernel $`K`$ of the action $`G(𝐅)\times 𝐕𝐕`$. This is a normal subgroup, and by definition, there exists an $`i`$ such that $`KG^i(𝐊)`$. But then we claim that $`K`$ must coincide with $`G(𝐅)`$. Let $`N`$ be the maximal unipotent subgroup of $`G`$, and let $`N^i(𝐊):=N(𝐅)G^i(𝐊)`$ be the corresponding congruence subgroup. Then $`N^i(𝐊)K`$, but using the torus action and the normality of $`K`$, we obtain that the entire $`N(𝐅)`$ is contained in $`K`$. Again, by normality, we obtain that all unipotent elements in $`G(𝐅)`$ are contained in $`K`$. However, it is known that for a split simply-connected group, its set of field-valued points is generated by the subset of unipotent elements.

Another sense in which one may seek an alternative definition of $`G(𝐅)`$-representations is to consider the pseudo-action of $`𝕊et`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(Vect)=\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Ind}(Vect_0))`$. We claim that (under the same assumption on $`G`$) all objects of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾,\mathrm{Ind}(Vect))`$ are again trivial.

###### Proof.

As before, we have a fully faithful functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾,\mathrm{Ind}(Vect))\mathrm{Ind}(Vect)^{G(𝐅)}`$, and it suffices to show that for any object $`(𝐕,\rho )`$, $`𝐕\mathrm{Ind}(Vect)`$, the action of the maximal unipotent group $`N(𝐅)`$ on $`𝐕`$ is trivial. Obviously, we can replace $`G`$ by an $`SL_2`$ corresponding to some simple root; let $`BG`$ be the corresponding Borel subgroup, i.e., $`NG_a`$, and $`B:=G_aG_m`$, where $`G_m`$ acts on $`G_a`$ by the square of the standard character.

Our $`𝐕`$ is a direct limit $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐕_l`$, with $`𝐕_lVect`$. Fix an index $`l`$, and it suffices to show that the action map $`B(𝐅)\times 𝐕_l𝐕`$ is trivial.

For a (not necessarily positive) integer $`i`$, let us denote by $`N^i(𝐊)`$ the subgroup of $`N(𝐅)𝐊((t))`$ equal to $`t^i𝐊[[t]]`$. If the action of $`N(𝐅)`$ on $`𝐕_l`$ is non-trivial, let $`i`$ be the minimal integer such that the restriction of this action to $`N^i(𝐊)`$ is trivial. By assumption we have a non-trivial action map $`(N^{i1}(𝐊)/N^i(𝐊)𝐊)\times 𝐕_l𝐕`$.

Let now $`j`$ be a sufficiently large integer, so that the corresponding congruence subgroup $`(G_m)^j(𝐊)`$ acts trivially on $`𝐕_l`$. Take $`i^{}=(i1)2j`$ and consider now the action of $`N^i^{}(𝐊)`$ on $`𝐕_l`$. Let $`l^{}`$ be a sufficiently large index such that the iteration of actions

$$N^i^{}(𝐊)\times (G_m)^j(𝐊)\times N^i^{}(𝐊)\times (G_m)^j(𝐊)\times 𝐕_l𝐕_l^{}$$

is well-defined. We will show that the action $`N^{i1}(𝐊)/N^i(𝐊)\times 𝐕_l𝐕_l^{}`$ is necessarily trivial, which would be a contradiction. For that, it suffices to show that it is trivial on every element $`v𝐕_l`$. For every such $`v`$ there exists an integer $`k`$ such that the action of $`t^i^{}\pi ^k𝒪_𝐊[[t]]N^i^{}(𝐊)`$ on $`v`$ is trivial. Hence, for $`g(G_m)^j(𝐊)`$ and $`nt^i^{}\pi ^k𝒪_𝐊[[t]]`$

$$(ngn^1g^1)v=v𝐕_l^{}.$$

However, since $`(G_m)^j(𝐊)=1+t^j𝐊[[t]]`$, the subset of $`N(𝐊)`$ consisting of elements of the form $`(ngn^1g^1)`$, with $`g`$ and $`n`$ as above, equals the entire $`t^i𝐊[[t]]`$, in particular, it projects surjectively onto $`N^{i1}(𝐊)/N^i(𝐊)`$. Therefore, for $`n^{}N^{i1}(𝐊)`$, we have $`n^{}v=v𝐕_l^{}`$, which is what we had to show.

## 3. The induction functor

### 3.1.

Let $`G`$ be a split reductive group over $`𝐊`$, and let $``$ be a thick subgroup of $`𝐆[[t]]`$. We have an obvious restriction functor $`r_{}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$.

Our goal in this section is define the functors $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾,i_{}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$ will be the right adjoint of $`r_{}^𝔾`$.

We will have an injective functorial map $`i_{}^𝔾(\mathrm{\Pi })\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾(\mathrm{\Pi })`$, and there is a certain analogy between the functors $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$ and $`i_{}^𝔾`$ and the functors of induction and compact induction in the theory of $`𝔭`$-adic groups. When $``$ corresponds to a parahoric subgroup of $`G[[t]]`$, we will have an isomorphism $`i_{}^𝔾\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$.

The construction of the functor $`i_{}^𝔾`$ makes sense for any algebraic group $`G`$, but the construction of the functor $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$ given below uses the fact that $`G`$ is reductive. However, we expect that the right adjoint to $`r_{}^𝔾`$ exists for any $`G`$.

### 3.2.

To an object $`𝐗\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$ we can attach the vector space of locally constant $``$-valued functions, denoted $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗)`$. Namely, if $`𝐗=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}X_i`$,

$$\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗)=\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Funct}(X_i),$$

where the direct system is taken with respect to the pull-back maps between the spaces of functions. Of course, $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗)`$ identifies with the space of locally constant functions on the topological space $`𝐗^{\mathrm{top}}`$.

For any $`𝐗𝐒et`$ we define $`𝔽unct^{lc}(𝐗)𝕍ect`$ by setting for $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_j`$, $`𝐗_j\mathrm{Pro}(Set_0)`$

$$𝔽unct^{lc}(𝐗)=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗_j),$$

with respect to the restriction maps. We define the space $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗)Vect`$ of locally constant functions on $`𝐗`$ as $`limProj(𝔽unct^{lc}(𝐗))`$.

If $`𝐗𝐒et`$ is locally compact (cf. Sect. 1.6), we can introduce the vector space $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐗)`$, which can be called the space of locally constant functions with compact support. One way to introduce it is as the space of locally-constant compactly supported functions on $`𝐗^{\mathrm{top}}`$. Equivalently, if $`𝐗`$ is represented as a direct limit as in Sect. 1.6, we have the natural “extension by zero” maps $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗_i)\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗_j)`$, and we set $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐗)=\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗_i)`$. Note that we always have an inclusion $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐗)\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗)`$.

Let $`𝐗`$ be again locally compact, presented as a direct limit as in Sect. 1.6. If $`𝐗^{}𝐗`$ is map between objects of $`𝐒et`$, we define the vector space $`\mathrm{Funct}_{c,rel}^{lc}(𝐗^{})`$ as the inductive limit $`\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗^{}\underset{𝐗}{\times }𝐗_i)`$.

If $`𝐗𝐘`$ is a map in $`𝐒et`$, we have the pull-back morphism $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐘)\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗)`$, and if this is a proper map between locally compact objects, we also have the morphism $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘)\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐗)`$.

Suppose now that $`𝐘^1,𝐘^2𝐒et`$ are locally compact, and we have an action $`𝐗\times 𝐘^1𝐘^2`$ (in the sense of the canonical tensor structure on $`𝐒et`$), such that the map $`𝐗\times 𝐘^1𝐗\times 𝐘^2`$ is proper. Then we obtain an action map $`𝐗\times \mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘^2)\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘^1)`$ (in the sense of the pseudo-action of $`𝐒et`$ on $`Vect`$).

For example, the above properness condition is always satisfied if $`𝐗`$ is a group-object acting on $`𝐘^1=𝐘^2`$.

Note that the above action does not always extend onto $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐘)`$.

Let now $`𝐘`$ be an object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$. We will say that $`𝐘`$ is “tame” if it can be represented as $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐘_i`$ such that $`𝐘_i𝐒et`$ are locally compact, and the corresponding maps $`𝐘_i𝐘_j`$ are proper. If $`𝐘`$ is “tame”, we can attach to it the object $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘)𝕍ect`$ as $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘)=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘_i)`$, where the maps are again given by restriction.

Suppose now that $`𝐘^1,𝐘^2\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$ are both “tame”, $`𝐘_i^j=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐘_i^j`$ for $`j=1,2`$, and let $`𝕏\times 𝐘^1𝐘^2`$ be an action of $`𝕏𝕊et`$ in the sense of the pseudo-action of $`𝕊et`$ on $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$. That is $`𝕏=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝕏_l`$, $`𝕏_l=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐗_{l,k}`$ and the action is given by the maps $`𝐗_{l,k}\times 𝐘_i^1𝐘_i^{}^2`$. We say that this action is proper if the above presentations can be chosen so that the maps $`𝐗_{l,k}\times 𝐘_i^1𝐗_{l,k}\times 𝐘_i^{}^2`$ are proper. (This condition is satisfied if $``$ is a group-object in $`𝕊et`$ acting on $`𝐘=𝐘^1=𝐘^2`$.)

If the action $`𝕏\times 𝐘^1𝐘^2`$ is proper we obtain an action map $`𝕏\times \mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘_2)\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐘_1)`$ in the sense of the canonical pseudo-action of $`𝕊et`$ on $`𝕍ect`$.

A little more generally, if $`𝐕`$ is a vector space, instead of complex-valued functions, we can consider spaces of functions with values in $`𝐕`$, denoted $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐗,𝐕)`$ and $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐗,𝐕)`$, respectively.

### 3.3.

Let $`i0`$ be such that $`𝐆^i`$. Consider the full subcategory of $`\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$; we will first define the restrictions of the functors $`i_{}^𝔾,\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$ to this subcategory.

Recall that there exists a strict ind-scheme of ind-finite-type $`G((t))/G^i`$ (”strict” means that it can be presented as a direct limit of schemes with transition maps being closed embedding). Its existence, i.e., the ind-representability of the corresponding functor, follows easily from the corresponding fact for $`\mathrm{Gr}_G=G((t))/G[[t]]`$ (see, for example, the Appendix to ). As an object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(Sch^{ft})`$ it carries an action of $`G((t))\mathrm{Ind}(\mathrm{Pro}(Sch^{ft}))`$ “on the left” and a commuting action of $`G([[t]]/t^i)Sch^{ft}`$ “on the right”.

Therefore, by applying the functor $`S𝐒:Sch^{ft}𝐒et`$, we obtain a “tame” object, denoted $`𝔾/𝐆^i`$ in $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$, which carries the actions of $`𝔾`$ and $`𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i`$.

For an object $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)`$, we obtain that $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝔾((t))/𝐆^i,𝐕)𝕍ect`$ carries a natural $`𝔾`$-action and a commuting $`/𝐆^i`$-action.

The object of $`𝕍ect`$ underlying $`i_{}^𝔾(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ is set to be

(2)
$$\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝔾/𝐆^i,𝐕)\mu (/𝐆^i)\right)_{/𝐆^i},$$

where $`\mu (/𝐆^i)`$ is the $`1`$-dimensional vector space of left-invariant measures on the locally compact group $`(/𝐆^i)^{\mathrm{top}}`$ (acted on naturally by $`/𝐆^i`$, being a subspace of all measures on $`(/𝐆^i)^{\mathrm{top}}`$). The $`𝔾`$-action on $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝔾/𝐆^i,𝐕)`$ defines on $`i_{}^𝔾(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ a structure of an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$.

This definition of $`i_{}^𝔾(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ can be rewritten as follows. First, let us introduce the object $`𝔾/\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$. Let us write $`G((t))/G[[t]]`$ as $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}S_k`$, $`S_kSch^{ft}`$, and let $`S_k^i`$ be the preimage of $`S_k`$ in $`G((t))/G^i`$. Let $`𝐒_k`$, $`𝐒_k^i`$ be the corresponding objects of $`𝐒et`$. By construction $`𝐒_k^i`$ carries an action of the groups $`𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i`$, and we claim that the categorical quotient $`𝐒_k^{}:=(𝐒_k^i)/(/𝐆^i)𝐒et`$ is well-defined and is locally compact. This follows for example from the fact that $`S_k^iS_k`$ is a fibration locally trivial in the Zariski toplogy. Let $`𝔾/=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐒_k^{}`$ be the corresponding object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$; this object is “tame” and it evidently does not depend on the way we presented $`G((t))/G[[t]]\mathrm{Ind}(Sch^{ft})`$ as a direct limit.

For $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)`$, let $`\mathrm{Funct}_{c,rel}^{lc}(𝐒_k^i,𝐕)`$ be the space of locally-constant $`𝐕`$-valued functions on $`𝐒_k^i`$, whose support is contained in the preimage of a compact subset of $`𝐒_k^{}`$ (see Sect. 3.2).

We have:

(3)
$$\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐒_k^i,𝐕)\mu (/𝐆^i)\right)_{/𝐆^i}\left(\mathrm{Funct}_{c,rel}^{lc}(𝐒_k^i,𝐕)\right)^{/𝐆^i},$$

where the isomorphism is given by integration along the fibers of $`𝐒_k^i𝐒_k^{}`$.

The above isomorphism makes it clear that $`i_{}^𝔾(\mathrm{\Pi })`$, as an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, is independent of the choice of the congruence subgroup $`𝐆^i`$ contained in $``$. In particular, we obtain a well-defined functor $`i_{}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$. From (2) we infer that $`i_{}^𝔾`$ is right-exact, and from (3) that it is also left-exact.

Using Proposition 2.5 we extend the above functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ to a functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect))\mathrm{Pro}(\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾))`$, which is also exact. We extend it further to an exact functor $`i_{}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, using Lemma 2.9.

It is easy to see that our functor $`i_{}^𝔾`$ is isomorphic to the composition of two functors: $`i_{𝐆[[t]]}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ and $`i_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)`$, where the latter functor is defined by a similar induction procedure.

### 3.4.

Let us now define the functor $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$. First, let us assume that $``$ is such that $`𝔾/\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$ is ind-compact, i.e., is a direct limit of compact objects of $`𝐒et`$. (E.g., this condition is verified for $`𝐆[[t]]`$, or more generally for any $``$ containing $`𝐈`$, where $`IG[[t]]`$ is the Iwahori subgroup. This follows from the fact that the affine flag variety $`G((t))/I`$ is ind-proper, i.e., is a direct limit of proper schemes of finite type.)

In this case we set $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾=i_{}^𝔾`$.

###### Proposition 3.5.

If $`𝔾/`$ is ind-compact, the functor $`i_{}^𝔾`$ is the right adjoint to the restriction functor $`r_{}^𝔾`$.

###### Proof.

The proof mimics the proof of the usual adjunction property for $`𝔭`$-adic groups.

Let us first construct the adjunction map $`r_{}^𝔾i_{}^𝔾\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)}`$. By the definition of $`i_{}^𝔾`$, it is enough to construct a morphism $`r_{}^𝔾i_{}^𝔾(\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)`$ for some $`i`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)`$, consider the canonical restriction map

$$\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝔾/𝐆^i,𝐕)\mu (/𝐆^i)\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(/𝐆^i,𝐕)\mu (/𝐆^i),$$

which is bi-$`/𝐆^i`$-equivariant by construction.

Since $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(/𝐆^i)\mu (/𝐆^i)`$ identifies as a bi-module over $`(/𝐆^i)^{\mathrm{top}}`$ with the Hecke algebra of (compactly supported, locally constant) measures on this group, we obtain a bi-$`/𝐆^i`$-equivariant map $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(/𝐆^i,𝐕)\mu (/𝐆^i)𝐕`$. By the $`/𝐆^i`$-equivariance on the right, we thus obtain a map $`\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝔾/𝐆^i,𝐕)\mu (/𝐆^i)\right)_{/𝐆^i}𝐕`$, as required.

Let us now construct the second adjunction map $`(𝕎,\rho ^{})i_{}^𝔾r_{}^𝔾(𝕎,\rho ^{})`$ for $`(𝕎,\rho ^{})\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$. Using Proposition 2.5, we can represent $`r_{}^𝔾(𝕎)`$ as an inverse limit of $`𝐖_i`$, where each $`𝐖_i`$ is a vector space underlying an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^{n_i},Vect)`$ for some $`n_i`$. Let $`𝔾/=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐒_k^{}`$ be as before, and let $`𝐒_k^{n_i}`$ be the preimage of $`𝐒_k^{}`$ in $`𝔾/𝐆^{n_i}`$.

Then the object of $`𝕍ect`$ underlying $`i_{}^𝔾r_{}^𝔾(𝕎,\rho ^{})`$ is

$$\underset{\underset{k,i}{}}{\mathrm{"}lim\mathrm{"}}\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐒_k^{n_i},𝐖_i)\mu (/𝐆^{n_i})\right)_{/𝐆^{n_i}}.$$

For every fixed $`k`$ and $`i`$, let an index $`j`$ be such that the $`𝔾`$-action on $`𝕎`$ gives a map $`\mathrm{act}_{j,i}:𝐒_k^{n_j}\times 𝐖_j𝐖_i`$. By further enlarging $`j`$, we may assume that this map is compatible with the $``$-action.

We define a map $`𝐖_j\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐒_k^{n_i},𝐖_i)\mu (/𝐆^{n_i})\right)_{/𝐆^{n_i}}`$ as follows. First, the above action map gives rise to a map

$$𝐖_j\left(\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐒_k^{n_j},𝐖_i)\right)^{/𝐆^{n_j}}.$$

Now, from the fact that $`𝐒_k^{}`$ is compact and isomorphism (3), we obtain

$$\left(\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐒_k^{n_j},𝐖_i)\right)^{/𝐆^{n_j}}\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐒_k^{n_i},𝐖_i)\mu (/𝐆^{n_i})\right)_{/𝐆^{n_i}}.$$

By composing, we obtain the required morphism.

It is easy to check that the constructed map from $`𝕎`$ to the object of $`𝕍ect`$ underlying $`i_{}^𝔾r_{}^𝔾(𝕎)`$ respects the $`𝔾`$-action. It is equally straightforward to see that the two adjunction maps indeed give rise to the adjointness of functors.

Thus, to define the functor $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾`$ in general, it suffices to define the functor $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}`$, which is the right adjoint to the restriction functor $`r_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$.

Let $`𝐆^i`$ be a congruence subgroup contained in $``$. We define the functor

$$\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}:\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i,Vect)$$

to equal the corresponding functor defined for locally compact groups.

Explicitly, for $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}\left(\mathrm{Funct}^{sm}(𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i,𝐕)\right)^{/𝐆^i},$$

where $`\mathrm{Funct}^{sm}(𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i)`$ is the space of functions on $`𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i`$, smooth with respect to the action of this group by left translations.

Note that for $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)`$ as above, the object of $`𝕍ect`$ underlying $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ is $`\underset{\underset{𝑘}{}}{lim}(𝐖_k)^{/𝐆^i}`$, where each $`𝐖_k`$ is a certain subspace of $`\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(𝐒_k^i,𝐕)`$, and $`𝐒_k^i`$ is as in (2).

The above functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(/𝐆^i,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i,Vect)`$ extends to a functor $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}:\mathrm{Rep}(,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],Vect)`$. Using Proposition 2.5, from it we obtain the functor $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)`$, which is the right adjoint to $`r_{}^{𝐆[[t]]}:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$; and hence also the functor $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ with the desired adjointness property.

### 3.6.

Consider the functor $`r_𝐆^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,𝕍ect)`$ equal to the composition of $`r_{𝐆[[t]]}^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)`$ and the functor $`𝕍𝕍_{𝐆^1}:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,𝕍ect)`$. Note that by Lemma 2.7, $`r_𝐆^𝔾`$ is exact. Its right adjoint, which we will denote by $`i_𝐆^𝔾`$ is the composition of the “obvious” functor $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)`$ coming from the homomorphism $`𝐆[[t]]𝐆`$ and the functor $`i_{𝐆[[t]]}^𝔾`$ studied above.

More generally, let $`PG`$ be a parabolic, with the Levi quotient $`M`$, and let $`I_P𝐆[[t]]`$ be the corresponding parahoric subgroup. (For $`P=B`$ we will denote $`I_B`$ simply by $`I`$, and $`M`$ by $`T`$). Let $`𝐈_P`$ (resp., $`𝐏`$, $`𝐌`$) be the corresponding group-objects of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ (resp., $`𝐒et`$).

In a similar fashion we obtain a pair of mutually adjoint functors $`r_𝐌^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐌,𝕍ect)`$ and $`i_𝐌^𝔾:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐌,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$.

Let now $`\widehat{G}`$ be a central extension of $`G((t))`$ by means of $`G_m`$ (cf. Sect. 2.14), and let $`\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$ be the corresponding category of representations. Since we are given a splitting of $`\widehat{𝔾}`$ over $`𝐆[[t]]`$, and hence, over $``$, we have an obvious restriction functor $`r_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}:\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$.

By repeating the construction of the previous subsections, we obtain the functors $`i_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}:\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$ is the right adjoint of $`r_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$, and $`i_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}\stackrel{~}{i}_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$ when $``$ contains $`𝐈`$.

We will denote by $`r_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$, $`i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$ (resp., $`r_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$, $`i_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$) the corresponding functors between $`\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$ and $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,𝕍ect)`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐓,𝕍ect)`$).

### 3.7.

Next we will establish an analogue of Bernstein’s geometric lemma, which describes the composition of the functors $`i_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$ and $`r_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$, cf. .

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the lattice of co-weights of the maximal torus $`T`$ of $`G`$, and $`W`$–the Weyl group. When we restrict $`\widehat{G}`$ to $`T((t))G((t))`$, the commutator defines a map

$$T((t))/T[[t]]\times T[[t]]G_m,$$

which factors through $`T((t))/T[[t]]\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`T[[t]]T`$. In other words, we have a map

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\times TG_m,$$

which defines a pairing $`Q:\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This pairing is $`W`$-invariant, since the central extension of $`T((t))`$ was induced from that of $`G((t))`$. For $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we will denote by $`\varphi _{cQ}(\lambda )`$ the character $`𝐓^{}`$ equal to

$$𝐓\stackrel{Q(\lambda ,)}{}𝐆_m\stackrel{𝑐}{}^{}.$$

Recall now the affine flag scheme of $`G`$, which is a strict ind-scheme, equal by definition to $`G((t))/I`$ (where $`I`$ is the Iwahori subgroup), and denoted $`\mathrm{Fl}_G`$. Its existence, i.e., the ind-representability of the corresponding functor, follows easily from the case of $`\mathrm{Gr}_G`$, cf. .

Recall also that the set of $`I`$-orbits on $`\mathrm{Fl}_G`$ identifies naturally with $`W_{aff}\mathrm{\Lambda }W`$–the extended affine Weyl group of $`G`$. For $`wW_{aff}`$, let us denote by $`\mathrm{Fl}_G^w`$ the corresponding orbit and by $`\overline{\mathrm{Fl}}_G^w`$ its closure. Note that $`W_{aff}`$ is naturally partially ordered and $`\overline{\mathrm{Fl}}{}_{G}{}^{w}=\underset{w^{}w}{}\mathrm{Fl}_G^w`$.

Let $`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}`$ be the Langlands dual torus of $`T`$ (over $``$), which identifies with the set of unramified characters of $`𝐓`$. For $`wW_{aff}`$ let us denote by $`w(\rho _{aff})\rho _{aff}`$ the character of $`T`$ equal to the projection on $`T`$ of the sum of negative affine roots which are turned positive by the action of $`w^1`$. Let $`\mu _w`$ denote the element in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}`$ equal to the value of $`w(\rho _{aff})\rho _{aff}:G_m\stackrel{ˇ}{T}`$ on $`q^{}`$, where $`q`$ is the order of the residue field of our local field $`𝐊`$.

For $`wW_{aff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{Rep}(𝐓,Vect)`$ we define a new representation $`w\mathrm{\Pi }`$ by setting

$$w\mathrm{\Pi }:=\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{w}}\varphi _{cQ}(\lambda )\mu _w,$$

where $`w=\lambda \overline{w}`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{w}W`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^w`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ by twisting the $`𝐓`$-action using $`w`$ viewed as an automorphism of $`T`$.

###### Proposition 3.8.

For a representation $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(𝐓,Vect)`$, the object $`r_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ can be canonically written as $`\underset{\underset{wW_{aff}}{}}{\mathrm{"}lim\mathrm{"}}𝐕_w`$, $`𝐕_w\mathrm{Rep}(𝐓,Vect)`$ in such a way that for for $`w^{}w`$ the map $`𝐕_w𝐕_w^{}`$ is a surjection, and the kernel $`𝐕^w:=\mathrm{ker}\left(𝐕_w\underset{w^{}<w}{}𝐕_w^{}\right)`$ is isomorphic to $`w\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝐅l_G`$ be the object of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$ corresponding to the ind-scheme $`\mathrm{Fl}_G`$. Let us denote by $`𝐅l_G^w`$ and $`\overline{𝐅l}_G^w`$ the corresponding objects of $`𝐒et`$.

Let $`𝐈^0`$ denote the kernel of the map $`𝐈𝐓`$. Let $`𝐒^w`$ (resp., $`\overline{𝐒}^w`$) be the preimage of $`𝐅l_G^w`$ (resp., $`\overline{𝐅l}_G^w`$) in $`\widehat{𝔾}/𝐈^0`$. By construction, $`r_𝐈^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ is the inverse limit of

$$𝐖_w:=\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(\overline{𝐒}^w,𝐕)\right)_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}\left(\mathrm{Funct}^{lc}(\overline{𝐒}^w,𝐕)\right)^{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}.$$

Set $`𝐕_w:=\left(𝐖_w\right)_{𝐈^0}`$. Since for $`w^{}w`$, the restriction map $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(\overline{𝐒}^w,𝐕)\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(\overline{𝐒}^w^{},𝐕)`$ is surjective, we obtain that $`𝐕_w𝐕_w^{}`$ are indeed surjective, by the right-exactness of the functors $`()_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}`$ and $`()_{𝐈^0}`$.

Using Lemma 2.7, we obtain that

$$𝐕^w:=\mathrm{ker}(𝐕_w\underset{w^{}<w}{}𝐕_w^{})\left(\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐒^w,𝐕)\right)_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}\right)_{𝐈^0}.$$

Let us choose a splitting $`𝐓𝐁`$, by means of which $`𝐓`$ becomes a subgroup of $`𝐈`$; let $`g\mathrm{Fl}_G^w(𝐊)`$ be the $`𝐓`$-stable point, and let $`St(g)_𝐈`$ be the stabilizer of $`g`$ in $`𝐈`$. We obtain a homomorphism $`St(g)_𝐈𝐓\times 𝐆_m`$ and we have:

$$\left(\left(\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐒^w,𝐕)\right)_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}\right)_{𝐈^0}\left(i_{St(g)_𝐈}^𝐈r_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}^{St(g)_𝐈}(\mathrm{\Pi })\right)_{𝐈^0}.$$

Observe that the character of $`𝐓`$, corresponding to measures on the homogeneous space $`\mathrm{Fl}_G^w(𝐊)𝐈/St(g)_𝐈`$, equals $`\mu _w`$.

Write $`w=\lambda \overline{w}`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{w}W`$. Observe now that the pull-back of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ under the composition

$$𝐓St(g)_𝐈𝐈\times 𝐆_m𝐈𝐓$$

is naturally isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{w}}`$, and the pull-back of the character $`c:𝐆_m^{}`$ under $`𝐓St(g)_𝐈𝐈\times 𝐆_m𝐆_m`$ is $`\varphi _{cQ}(\lambda )`$.

This implies that $`𝐕^ww\mathrm{\Pi }`$ as $`𝐓`$-representations.

### 3.9.

One can formulate an analog of Proposition 3.8 describing the composition of the functors $`r_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,𝕍ect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,𝕍ect)`$:

Set $`\mathrm{Gr}_G:=G((t))/G[[t]]`$, and recall that $`G[[t]]`$-orbits on $`\mathrm{Gr}_G`$ are in a natural bijection with the partially ordered set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ of dominant weights.

For every $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$, let $`g\mathrm{Gr}_G^\lambda `$ be a $`T`$-stable point, and let $`St(g)_{G[[t]]}`$ be its stabilizer in $`G[[t]]`$, so that $`\mathrm{Gr}_G^\lambda G[[t]]/St(g)_{G[[t]]}`$. Note that since $`G^1`$ is normal in $`G[[t]]`$, the quotient $`G^1\backslash \mathrm{Gr}_G^\lambda `$ is a $`G`$-homogeneous space isomorphic to $`G/P^\lambda `$ for a parabolic $`P^\lambda G`$. Let $`M^\lambda `$ be the Levi quotient of $`P^\lambda `$, and let $`\mu _\lambda `$ be the character of $`M^\lambda `$ corresponding to measures on the homogeneous space $`I_P/St(g)_{G[[t]]}(𝐊)`$. Note also that for $`\lambda `$ as above, the character $`\varphi _{cQ}(\lambda )`$ of $`𝐓`$ is in fact well-defined as a character of $`𝐌^\lambda `$.

Recall from the theory of $`𝔭`$-adic groups that for a parabolic $`P`$ with a Levi quotient $`M`$ we have a pair of mutually adjoint functors $`r_𝐌^𝐆:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐌,Vect)`$ and $`i_𝐌^𝐆:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐌,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)`$.

###### Proposition 3.10.

For a representation $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)`$, the object $`r_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ can be canonically written as $`\underset{\underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+}{}}{\mathrm{"}lim\mathrm{"}}𝐕_\lambda `$, $`𝐕_\lambda \mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)`$ in such a way that for $`\lambda ^{}\lambda `$ the map $`𝐕_\lambda 𝐕_\lambda ^{}`$ is a surjection, and the kernel $`𝐕^\lambda :=\mathrm{ker}(𝐕_\lambda \underset{\lambda ^{}<\lambda }{}𝐕_\lambda ^{})`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`i_{𝐌^\lambda }^𝐆\left(r_{𝐌^\lambda }^𝐆(\mathrm{\Pi })\mu _\lambda \varphi _{cQ}(\lambda )\right)`$.

The proof of this proposition is parallel to that of Proposition 3.8.

## 4. Examples

### 4.1.

Assume now that the group $`G`$ is split, simple and simply-connected. In this case, a data of an extension $`\widehat{G}`$ is equivalent to that of a $`W`$-invariant even symmetric bilinear form $`Q:\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (cf. Sect. 4 of ), and we fix this form to be the minimal one, i.e., $`\frac{1}{2\stackrel{ˇ}{h}}Q_0`$, where $`Q_0`$ corresponds to the Killing form, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{h}`$ is the dual Coxeter number.

We have previously worked with a fixed character $`𝐆_m^{}`$, but now we will consider all representations of the group $`\widehat{𝔾}`$. For a thick subgroup $`𝐆[[t]]`$ we have the corresponding functors $`i_{\times 𝐆_m}^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$, $`r_{\times 𝐆_m}^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$ between $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ and $`\mathrm{Rep}(\times 𝐆_m,𝕍ect)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}`$ be the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; which identifies with the quotient of $`𝐓\times 𝐆_m`$ by its maximal compact subgroup, and let $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}]`$ be its group-algebra, viewed as a representation of $`𝐓\times 𝐆_m`$.

Consider the object $`𝕍:=i_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}^{\widehat{𝔾}}([\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}])\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})`$, studied by Kapranov in . Let $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_q`$ be the modified Cherednik algebra of loc.cit. 2.3.3. In  it was shown that $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_q`$ injects into $`\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}([\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}])`$.

By combining the results of  and Proposition 3.5 we will establish the following result:

###### Proposition 4.2.

The map $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_q\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝕍^{rat}`$ be the object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})`$ equal to $`i_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}^{\widehat{𝔾}}((\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m))`$, where $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m)`$ is the field of rational functions on the torus $`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m`$, viewed as a $`𝐓\times 𝐆_m`$-representation. Note that by construction, both $`𝕍`$ and $`𝕍^{rat}`$ carry an action of the algebra $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}]`$ by endomorphisms.

Using Proposition 3.8 and Proposition 3.5 we obtain that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍,𝕍^{rat})\underset{\underset{wW_{aff}}{}}{lim}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}\mathrm{mod}}(𝐕_w,(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m)),$$

where $`𝐕^w:=\mathrm{ker}\left(𝐕_w\underset{w^{}<w}{}𝐕_w^{}\right)`$ is isomorphic to $`w[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}]`$. In particular, we see that the restriction map $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍^{rat},𝕍^{rat})\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍,𝕍^{rat})`$ is an isomorphism.

The subquotients $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}\mathrm{mod}}(𝐕^w,(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m))`$ are all identified with $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m)`$ as left $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}`$-modules, with the right $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}`$-module structure twisted by $`w`$ (see Proposition 3.8). Hence, we obtain a canonical direct sum decomposition

(4)
$$\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍^{rat})\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍,𝕍^{rat})(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m)W_{aff}.$$

Therefore, using the main Theorem 3.3.8 of , it suffices to check that the isomorphism (4) coincides with the map

$$\stackrel{}{𝖧}_q{}_{}{}^{rat}(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m)W_{aff}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍,𝕍^{rat})\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍^{rat})$$

of , Equation 3.3.7.

Since both isomorphisms preserve the ring structure, it suffices to check that the generators of $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m)W_{aff}`$ over $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m)`$, corresponding to the simple reflections under the two homomorphisms, act on $`𝕍^{rat}`$ in the same way.

If $`s`$ is a simple reflection in $`W_{aff}`$, there exists a parahoric $`I_sG((t))`$ such that the corresponding Levi quotient $`M_s`$ is a reductive group of semi-simple rank $`1`$. As in Sect. 3.6 we have an induction functor $`i_{𝐌_s}^{\widehat{𝔾}}:\mathrm{Rep}(𝐌_s,Vect)\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$, and $`𝕍^{rat}i_{𝐌_s}^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}^{𝐌_s}((\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m))`$, so that the endomorphism of $`𝕍^{rat}`$ corresponding to $`s`$ via both (4) and the integral operator $`\tau _s`$ of  come from the corresponding endomorphisms of $`i_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}^{𝐌_s}((\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m))`$.

Therefore, we have reduced the question about the equality of two endomorphisms of $`𝕍^{rat}`$ to a similar question about endomorphisms of $`i_{𝐓\times 𝐆_m}^{𝐌_s}((\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\times G_m))`$ in the theory of $`𝔭`$-adic groups. This reduces to the following (well-known) calculation:

Let $`G`$ be a split reductive group of semi-simple rank $`1`$, and consider the $`G(𝐊)`$-representation $`𝐕:=i_𝐓^𝐆([\mathrm{\Lambda }])`$, which identifies with the space of locally-constant compactly supported functions on the quotient $`G(𝐊)/N(𝐊)`$, where $`N`$ is the maximal unipotent subgroup of $`G`$. We can view $`𝐕`$ as a $`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}`$-family of principal series representations, denoted $`𝐕_t,t\stackrel{ˇ}{T}`$. Let $`𝐕^{rat}`$ be the $`𝐆`$-representation $`i_𝐓^𝐆((\stackrel{ˇ}{T}))`$. As above, we have

$$(\stackrel{ˇ}{T})W\mathrm{End}_{G(𝐊)}(𝐕^{rat})\mathrm{Hom}_{G(𝐊)}(𝐕,𝐕^{rat}).$$

Consider the element $`\tau _s`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝐆(𝐕,𝐕^{rat})`$ corresponding to the (unique) simple reflection in $`W(\stackrel{ˇ}{T})W`$. Then $`\tau _s`$ gives rise to a map $`𝐕_t𝐕_{st}`$ defined for $`t`$ belonging to an open subset of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}`$, and the claim is that this map is given by the meromorphic integral operator $`ff^{\tau _s}`$ with

$$f^{\tau _s}(g)=\underset{nN(𝐊)}{}f(gns).$$

### 4.3.

Let us go back to the situation, when the parameter $`c`$ is fixed and unramified. Let $`𝕍_c:=i_𝐓^{\widehat{𝔾}}([\mathrm{\Lambda }])\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$ and let $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_{q,c}`$ be the specialization of $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_q`$ at $`c`$.

###### Corollary 4.4.

We have an isomorphism $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_{q,c}\mathrm{End}(𝕍_c)`$.

###### Proof.

By applying Proposition 3.5 and Proposition 3.8 to $`𝕍`$ and $`𝕍_c`$, we obtain that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾})}(𝕍,𝕍)`$ is a flat module over $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{aff}]`$, and hence over $`[]`$, whose fiber at $`c\mathrm{Spec}([])`$ identifies with $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}_c(𝔾)}(𝕍_c,𝕍_c)`$.

In other words, $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}_c(𝔾)}(𝕍_c,𝕍_c)`$ is isomorphic to the fiber of $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_q`$ at $`c`$, which is the same as $`\stackrel{}{𝖧}_{q,c}`$.

### 4.5.

The representation $`𝕍_c`$ studied above is an analogue of principal series representations. We will now introduce an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$ which should be thought of as a cuspidal representation of $`𝔾`$, although at the moment we do not have a definition of cuspidality.

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be an irreducible cuspidal representation of $`𝐆`$; and consider $`i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$.

###### Lemma 4.6.

$`\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})}(i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi }))`$.

###### Proof.

Using Proposition 3.5 we have $`\mathrm{End}_{\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})}(i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi }))\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,𝕍ect)}(r_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi }),\mathrm{\Pi })`$.

We claim that the natural map $`r_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is an isomorphism, which would imply the assertion of the lemma. In fact, we claim that all the subquotients $`𝐕^\lambda `$ of Proposition 3.10 vanish except for $`\lambda =0`$.

Indeed, by Proposition 3.10 each such subquotient involves the functor $`r_{𝐌^\lambda }^𝐆`$ applied to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, which vanishes, since $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ was assumed to be cuspidal.

###### Conjecture 4.7.

The objects $`i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$, for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ being a cuspidal representation of $`𝐆`$, are irreducible.

### 4.8.

Recall that an object $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)`$ is called admissible if for every open compact subgroup $`𝐇𝐆`$, the vector space $`\mathrm{\Pi }^𝐇\mathrm{\Pi }_𝐇`$ is finite-dimensional, i.e., belongs to $`Vect_0`$.

We can give an analogous definition in the case of $`\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$:

###### Definition 4.9.

An object $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$ is called admissible if for every thick subgroup $`𝐆[[t]]`$ the object $`(\mathrm{\Pi })_{}𝕍ect`$ belongs, in fact, to $`Vect`$.

It is easy to see that the principal series representations $`𝕍_c`$ are not admissible. However, we have the following assertion:

###### Proposition 4.10.

The representation $`i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$, for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ being a cuspidal representation of $`𝐆`$, is admissible.

###### Proof.

First, we can replace $``$ by a congruence subgroup $`𝐆^i`$: indeed, if $`𝐆^i`$, then the statement for $`𝐆^i`$ would imply that for $``$.

Let $`𝐆r_G`$ (resp., $`𝐆r_G^\lambda `$, $`\overline{𝐆r}_G^\lambda `$) be the objects of $`\mathrm{Ind}(𝐒et)`$ and $`𝐒et`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{Gr}_G`$, $`\mathrm{Gr}_G^\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{Gr}}_G^\lambda `$, respectively.

Let $`𝐒^\lambda `$ (resp., $`\overline{𝐒}^\lambda `$) be the preimage of $`𝐆r_G^\lambda `$ (resp., $`\overline{𝐆r}_G^\lambda `$) in $`\widehat{𝔾}/𝐆^1`$. As in Proposition 3.8, the object $`r_{𝐆[[t]]}^{\widehat{𝔾}}i_𝐆^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆[[t]],𝕍ect)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝐕,\rho )\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)`$ is the inverse limit over $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ of $`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}\left(\overline{𝐒}{}_{}{}^{\lambda },𝐕\right)_{𝐆\times 𝐆_m}`$.

Set $`𝐖^\lambda :=\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐒^\lambda ,𝐕)_{𝐆\times 𝐆_m}`$, and we have to show that $`\left(𝐖^\lambda \right)_{𝐆^i}0`$ for all but finitely many $`\lambda `$’s.

Let $`g\mathrm{Gr}_G^\lambda (𝐊)`$ be a $`𝐓`$-stable point and $`𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}`$ its stabilizer in $`𝐆[[t]]`$. By definition, we have a homomorphism $`𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}𝐆[[t]]\times 𝐆_m`$ and

$$𝐖^\lambda i_{𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}}^{𝐆[[t]]}r_{𝐆\times 𝐆_m}^{𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}}(\mathrm{\Pi }).$$

Therefore, as representations of $`𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i`$,

$$\left(𝐖^\lambda \right)_{𝐆^i}i_{𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}/𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}𝐆^i}^{𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i}\left(\left(r_{𝐆\times 𝐆_m}^{𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}}(\mathrm{\Pi })\right)_{𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}𝐆^i}\mu \right),$$

where $`\mu `$ is a character.

Note that as an object of $`Vect`$, $`\left(r_{𝐆\times 𝐆_m}^{𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}}(\mathrm{\Pi })\right)_{𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}𝐆^i}`$ is isomorphic to $`(\mathrm{\Pi })_{𝐇^i}`$, where $`𝐇^i`$ is the image of $`𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}𝐆^i`$ under the homomorphism $`𝐒t(g)_{G[[t]]}𝐆[[t]]𝐆`$. Therefore, the assertion of the proposition follows from the fact that for all but finitely many $`\lambda `$’s, the subgroup $`𝐇^i𝐆`$ contains the unipotent radical of a non-trivial parabolic.

## 5. The Schwartz space on $`𝔾`$

### 5.1.

Suppose now that $`𝐒`$ is an object of $`𝐒et`$, corresponding to a smooth scheme of finite type $`S`$ over $`𝐊`$. Then it makes sense to consider the space of locally constant compactly supported measures on $`S(𝐊)`$, denoted $`M(𝐒)`$. To define it, we choose locally a top degree nowhere vanishing differential form $`\omega `$ on $`S`$, which defines a measure $`\mu (\omega )`$ on $`S(𝐊)`$. We say that a measure is locally constant if it can be obtained from $`\mu (\omega )`$ by multiplication by a locally constant function. One readily checks that this definition is independent of the choice of $`\omega `$.

Suppose now that $`\varphi :S_1S_2`$ is a smooth map between smooth schemes. In this case, the operation of push-forward of constantly supported measures preserves the subspaces of locally constant ones, i.e., it defines a map $`\varphi _!:M(𝐒_1)M(𝐒_2)`$.

In particular, if an algebraic group $`G`$ acts on $`S`$, we obtain that $`M(𝐒)`$ is naturally on object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝐆,Vect)`$.

For $`S`$ as above, consider now the object $`𝕊𝕊et`$. It appears that there is no invariant way to assign to $`𝕊`$ an object of $`𝕍ect`$, which would be a replacement of locally constant compactly supported measures, and this is similar to the absence of a notion of D-module on $`S((t))`$, cf. .

In this section we will study this phenomenon first when $`S`$ is the affine space $`A^n`$, and then when $`S`$ is an affine algebraic group $`G`$.

### 5.2.

For any scheme $`S`$ which is isomorphic to a projective limit of smooth schemes of finite type $`S_i`$ with smooth transition maps $`S_iS_j`$, we have $`𝐒\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$, and we define $`M(𝐒)𝕍ect`$ as $`M(𝐒):=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}M(𝐒_i)`$, where the maps $`M(𝐒_j)M(𝐒_i)`$ for $`ji`$ are the push-forwards of measures.

Recall that a lattice $`L𝐊((t))^n`$ is a finitely generated $`𝐊[[t]]`$-submodule, which contains $`t^i𝐊[[t]]`$ for some $`i`$. The “standard” lattice is by definition $`L_0=𝐊[[t]]`$. By abuse of notation, we will denote by the same character $`L`$ the group-subscheme of $`A^n((t))`$ corresponding to a lattice $`L`$, and by $`𝐋`$ the corresponding object of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$. Since $`L=\underset{𝑖}{\underset{}{lim}}(L/t^iL)`$, we have a well-defined object $`M(𝐋)𝕍ect`$.

### 5.3.

For a finite-dimensional vector space $`H`$ over $`𝐊`$ let $`\mathrm{det}(H)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{top}}(H)`$ denote its determant line. Let $`𝐇`$ and $`\mathrm{det}(𝐇)`$ be the corresponding objects of $`𝐒et`$, and let $`\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐇))`$ denote the $`1`$-dimensional $``$-vector space of Haar measures on $`\mathrm{det}(𝐇)`$. <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Properly speaking, $`\mathrm{det}(H)`$ is a super-vector space; however, in this paper it will appear only via $`\mu (\mathrm{det}(H))`$, so the difficulties associated with the sign are irrelevant. Of course, an element of $`\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐇))`$ determines also a Haar measure on $`𝐇`$.

Recall that for two lattices $`L,L^{}𝐊((t))^n`$ we can assign their relative determinant line $`\mathrm{det}(L,L^{})`$ so that $`\mathrm{det}(L,L^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{det}(L,L^{})\mathrm{det}(L^{},L^{\prime \prime })`$ and for $`LL^{}`$, $`\mathrm{det}(L,L^{})=\mathrm{det}(L^{}/L)`$, where the vector space $`L^{}/L`$ is, by definition, finite-dimensional. Let $`\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋,𝐋^{}))`$ be the corresponding line of Haar measures.

###### Lemma 5.4.

For $`LL^{}`$ we have a canonical morphism $`M(𝐋^{})M(𝐋)\mu (\mathrm{det}(L,L^{}))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`L^{\prime \prime }`$ be a sublattice in $`L`$. By definition, for every such $`L^{\prime \prime }`$ we must construct a morphism $`M(𝐋^{}/𝐋^{\prime \prime })M(𝐋/𝐋^{\prime \prime })\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋,𝐋^{}))`$. The required map is defined as a composition:

$`M(𝐋^{}/𝐋^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐋^{}/𝐋^{\prime \prime })\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋^{\prime \prime },𝐋^{}))\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐋/𝐋^{\prime \prime })\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋^{\prime \prime },𝐋^{}))`$
$`\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐋/𝐋^{\prime \prime })\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋^{\prime \prime },𝐋))\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋,𝐋^{}))M(𝐋/𝐋^{\prime \prime })\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋,𝐋^{})),`$
where the arrow corresponds to the ordinary restriction of functions.

Finally, we are ready to define the object $`M(𝔸^n)𝕍ect`$, which we propose as a candidate for the Schwartz space of functions on $`A^n(𝐅)`$:

$$M(𝔸^n):=\underset{𝐿}{\underset{}{lim}}M(𝐋)\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋,𝐋_0)),$$

where $`\underset{}{lim}`$ is taken in the category $`𝕍ect`$, and the arrows are given by the lemma above.

It is easy to see that the action of $`A^n((t))`$ on itself by translations makes $`M(𝔸^n)`$ an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔸^n)`$.

Recall also that the group-indscheme $`GL_n((t))`$, which acts naturally on $`A^n((t))`$, has a canonical central extension $`\widehat{GL}_n`$ by means of $`G_m`$, whose $`S`$-points for a test-scheme $`S`$ are pairs $`g\mathrm{Hom}(S,GL_n((t)))`$ and a trivialization of the line bundle $`\mathrm{det}(gL_0,L_0)`$ on $`S`$.

###### Theorem 5.5.

The action of $`GL_n((t))`$ on $`A^n((t))`$ makes $`M(𝔸^n)`$ an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(\widehat{𝔾L}_n)`$, where $`𝐆_m\widehat{𝔾L}_n`$ acts via the character $`𝐆_m\stackrel{1q}{}^{}`$.

###### Proof.

By construction, as an object of $`𝕍ect`$,

$$M(𝔸^n)\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}M(𝐋/𝐋^{})\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋,𝐋_0)),$$

where the inverse limit is taken over the partially ordered set of pairs of lattices $`L^{}L`$ with $`(L_1^{}L_1)(L_2^{}L_2)`$ if and only if $`L_1L_2`$ and $`L_1^{}L_2^{}`$.

For clarity, let us first define an action of the abstract group $`\widehat{GL}_n(𝐊)`$ on $`M(𝔸^n)`$. For a pair of lattices $`L^{}L`$ and $`gGL_n((t))(𝐊)`$, the action of $`g`$ defines an isomorphism $`M(𝐋/𝐋^{})M(g𝐋/g𝐋^{})`$ and an isomorphism $`\mathrm{det}(L,L_0)\mathrm{det}(gL,gL_0)\mathrm{det}(gL,L_0)\mathrm{det}(L_0,gL_0)`$. Hence, if we lift $`g`$ to an element of $`\widehat{GL}_n(𝐊)`$, we obtain an isomorphism $`\mathrm{det}(L,L_0)\mathrm{det}(gL,L_0)`$, i.e., we obtain a desired action.

Let us now repeat this construction in order to obtain an action map $`\widehat{𝔾L}_n\times M(𝔸^n)M(𝔸^n)`$. Let us write $`\widehat{GL}_n`$ as $`\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}S_k`$, and $`S_k=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}S_{k,l}`$ with $`S_{k,l}Sch^{ft}`$. Set $`𝕊_k`$ (resp., $`𝐒_{k,l}`$) to be the corresponding objects of $`\mathrm{Pro}(𝐒et)`$ (resp., $`𝐒et`$).

Recall that if $`S`$ is a scheme, there is a notion of an $`S`$-family of lattices in $`𝐊((t))^n`$, which is in fact the same as an $`S`$-point of the affine Grassmannian of $`GL_n`$. If $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are two $`S`$-families of lattices with $`L^{}L`$, then the quotient $`L/L^{}`$ is a vector bundle on $`S`$.

For a pair of lattices $`L^{}L𝐊((t))^n`$ and an index $`k`$, using the action of $`GL_n((t))`$ on $`\mathrm{Gr}_{GL_n}`$, we obtain the $`S_k`$-families of lattices that we will denote by $`S_kL^{}S_kL`$. Moreover, there exists another pair of lattices $`L_1^{}L_1`$, thought of as constant $`S_k`$-families, such that $`L_1^{}S_kL^{}`$ and $`S_kLL_1`$. Consider the quotients

$$H_{S_k}:=S_kL^{}/L_1^{}H_{S_k}^{}:=S_kL/L_1^{}H_{S_k}^{\prime \prime }:=L_1/L_1^{}$$

as vector bundles on $`S_k`$. Note that both $`H_{S_k}^{}/H_{S_k}`$ and $`H_{S_k}^{\prime \prime }`$ are trivial bundles with fibers $`L/L^{}`$ and $`L_1/L_1^{}`$, respectively. By the definition of $`\widehat{GL}_n`$, the line bundle $`\mathrm{det}(H_{S_k}^{\prime \prime }/H_{S_k}^{})`$ is identified with the trivial line bundle with fiber $`\mathrm{det}(L,L_1)`$. Finally, there exists an index $`l`$, so that $`H_{S_k}`$ and $`H_{S_k}^{}`$, together with their embeddings into $`H_{S_k}^{\prime \prime }`$, come from vector bundles on $`S_{k,l}`$, which we will denote by $`H_{S_{k,l}}`$ and $`H_{S_{k,l}}^{}`$, respectively.

We need to construct an action map $`𝐒_{k,l}\times \left(M(𝐋_1/𝐋_1^{})\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋_1,𝐋))\right)M(𝐋/𝐋^{})`$, which on the level of $`𝐊`$-points amounts to the one constructed above. For that, by Zariski localizing $`S_{l,k}`$, we may assume that the vector bundle $`H_{S_{k,l}}^{}`$ on $`S_{k,l}`$ can be trivialized, i.e., $`H_{S_{k,l}}^{}H^{}\times S_{k,l}`$.

Thus, we have a map $`𝐒_{k,l}\times 𝐇^{}𝐋_1/𝐋_1^{}`$, such that the corresponding map $`𝐒_{k,l}\times 𝐇^{}𝐒_{k,l}\times 𝐋_1/𝐋_1^{}`$ is proper (cf. Sect. 3.2). Therefore, it defines an action map

$$𝐒_{k,l}\times \mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐋_1/𝐋_1^{})\mathrm{Funct}_c^{lc}(𝐇^{}).$$

By tensoring with $`\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐇^{}))`$ we obtain an action map $`𝐒_{k,l}\times (M(𝐋_1/𝐋_1^{})\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝐋_1,𝐋)))M(𝐇^{})`$.

Similarly, we have a map $`𝐒_{k,l}\times 𝐇^{}𝐋/𝐋^{}`$, and by integration we obtain an action map $`𝐒_{k,l}\times M(𝐇^{})M(𝐋/𝐋^{})`$. The composition

$`\mathrm{Hom}(𝐒_{k,l}M(𝐇^{}),M(𝐋/𝐋^{}))\times \mathrm{Hom}(𝐒_{k,l}M(𝐋_1/𝐋_1^{}),M(𝐇^{}))`$
$`\mathrm{Hom}((𝐒_{k,l}\times 𝐒_{k,l})M(𝐋_1/𝐋_1^{}),M(𝐋/𝐋^{}))\mathrm{Hom}(𝐒_{k,l}M(𝐋/𝐋^{}),M(𝐇))`$
yields the desired action.

### 5.6.

Let now $`G`$ be an algebraic group over $`𝐊`$. Let $`G((t))`$ be the corresponding loop group and $`\widehat{G}`$ its central extension $`1G_m\widehat{G}G((t))1`$, as in Sect. 2.14. Let us fix a character $`c:𝐆_m^{}`$. We will now define an object $`M_c(𝔾)𝕍ect`$, which will underly an object $`(M_c(𝔾),\rho )\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$.

For every integer $`i`$ consider the trivial representation $``$ of the corresponding congruence subgroup $`𝐆^i`$ and consider $`i_{𝐆^i}^{\widehat{𝔾}}()\mu (𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i)\mathrm{Rep}_c(\widehat{𝔾})`$, where $`\mu (𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i)`$ is the $`1`$-dimensional space of left-invariant Haar measures on the group $`(𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i)^{\mathrm{top}}`$.

By the construction of the functor $`i_{𝐆^i}^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$ via compactly supported functions on $`\widehat{𝔾}/𝐆^i`$, for $`ji`$ we have the morphisms

$$i_{𝐆^j}^{\widehat{𝔾}}()\mu (𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^j)i_{𝐆^i}^{\widehat{𝔾}}()\mu (𝐆[[t]]/𝐆^i)$$

given by fiber-wise integration. Set $`M_c(𝔾):=\underset{}{lim}i_{𝐆^j}^𝔾()`$, where $`\underset{}{lim}`$ is taken in $`𝕍ect`$.

For example, it is easy to see that when $`GA^n`$ (and the central extension is trivial), the space $`M(𝔾)`$ obtained in this way identifies canonically with $`M(𝔸^n)`$ considered above.

### 5.7.

Since each $`𝐆^i`$ is a normal subgroup in $`𝐆[[t]]`$, the terms of the inverse system defining $`M_c(𝔾)`$ carry a commuting $`𝐆[[t]]`$-action on the right, which is respected by the arrows. Hence, $`M_c(𝔾)`$ carries an additional $`𝐆[[t]]`$-action “on the right”, which commutes with the action of $`\widehat{𝔾}`$ “on the left”.

This $`\widehat{𝔾}𝐆[[t]]`$-module structure on $`M_c(𝔾)`$ allows to reinterpret the functor $`i_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}`$ introduced earlier:

Recall that the functor of tensor product $`Vect\times VectVect`$ extends naturally to $`𝕍ect`$:

$$(\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐕_i)(\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}𝐖_j):=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}(𝐕_i𝐖_j).$$

Let $`𝐆[[t]]`$ be a thick subgroup, and let $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(𝕍,\rho )`$ be an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$. Consider the tensor product $`M_c(𝔾)𝕍𝕍ect`$. The diagonal action of $``$ makes it into an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(,𝕍ect)`$, which carries a commuting $`\widehat{𝔾}`$-action. Hence, $`\left(M_c(𝔾)𝕍\right)_{}`$ is naturally an object of $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$.

The following is straightforward from the definitions:

###### Lemma 5.8.

We have a natural isomorphism in $`\mathrm{Rep}(𝔾)`$: $`i_{}^{\widehat{𝔾}}(\mathrm{\Pi })\left(M_c(𝔾)𝕍\right)_{}`$.

### 5.9.

Since we think of $`M_c(𝔾)`$ as the space of functions on the group $`𝔾`$, it is natural to expect that the $`𝐆[[t]]`$-action on $`M_c(𝔾)`$ considered above extends to an action “on the right” of the entire group $`𝔾=𝐆((t))`$, corresponding to right translations. The existence of such an action is given by the theorem below.

Let $`𝔤`$ be the Lie algebra of $`G`$, let $`GL_𝔤((t))`$ be the corresponding loop group, and let $`\widehat{GL}_𝔤`$ be its canonical central extension as in Theorem 5.5. Let $`\widehat{G}_0`$ be the central extension of $`G((t))`$ induced from $`\widehat{GL}_𝔤`$ by means of the adjoint action. For example, if $`G`$ is simple and simply-connected, the extension $`\widehat{G}_0`$ corresponds to the pairing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by the Killing form.

Let $`\widehat{G}^{}`$ be the central extension of $`G((t))`$ equal to the Baer sum of $`\widehat{G}_0`$ and the original extension $`\widehat{G}`$. Let $`c^{}`$ be the character of $`𝐆_m\widehat{𝔾}^{}`$ equal to the inverse of the product of $`c`$ and $`c_0`$, where $`c_0`$ is the character $`𝐆_m\stackrel{1q}{}^{}`$.

###### Theorem 5.10.

We have a canonical action of $`\widehat{𝔾}^{}`$ on $`M_c(𝔾)`$, with $`𝐆_m\widehat{𝔾}^{}`$ acting by the character $`c^{}`$. This action extends the natural action of $`𝐆[[t]]`$ on $`M_c(𝔾)`$ “on the right” and commutes with the action of $`\widehat{𝔾}`$ “on the left”.

### 5.11. Proof of Theorem 5.10

Let us first construct an action of the abstract group $`\widehat{G}{}_{}{}^{}(𝐊)`$ on $`M_c(𝔾)`$. For an integer $`i`$ and a point $`gG((t))(𝐊)`$, there exists an integer $`j`$ such that $`g^1(𝐆^j)g`$ is contained in $`𝐆^i`$; therefore, the right multiplication map $`𝐆((t))\times g𝐆((t))`$ descends to a well-defined map $`𝐆((t))/𝐆^j\times g𝐆((t))/𝐆^i`$.

In particular, if we lift $`g`$ to an element of $`\widehat{G}(𝐊)`$, we obtain a map

$$i_{𝐆^j}^{\widehat{𝔾}}()\mu (𝐆^i/g^1(𝐆^j)g)i_{𝐆^i}^{\widehat{𝔾}}(),$$

which commutes with the left $`\widehat{𝔾}`$-action.

We claim now that a lift of $`g`$ to an element of $`\widehat{G}_0(𝐊)`$ define an identification of the line $`\mu (𝐆^i/g^1(𝐆^j)g)`$ with $`\mu (𝐆^i/𝐆^j)`$. Indeed, let $`𝔤^i`$ be the Lie subalgebra in $`𝔤((t))`$ corresponding to the congruence subgroup $`𝐆^i`$, then

$$\mu (𝐆^i/𝐆^j)\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝔤^i/𝔤^j));\mu (𝐆^i/g^1(𝐆^j)g)\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝔤^i/g^1𝔤^j)),$$

and

$$\mathrm{det}(𝔤^i/𝔤^j)\mathrm{det}(𝔤^i/g^1𝔤^j)\mathrm{det}(g𝔤^j,𝔤^j)\mathrm{det}(𝔤^i/g^1𝔤^j)\mathrm{det}(g𝔤^0,𝔤^0).$$

Therefore, if we take the Baer product of the extensions $`\widehat{𝔾}`$ and $`\widehat{𝔾}_0`$ we obtain an action of the group of $`𝐊`$-points of $`\widehat{𝔾}^{}`$ on $`M_c(𝔾)`$. Therefore, by passing to inverses, we obtain on $`M_c(𝔾)`$ an action of $`\widehat{G}{}_{}{}^{}(𝐊)`$, commuting with the left action of $`\widehat{𝔾}`$ and the prescribed value of the central character.

The fact the constructed point-wise action gives rise to a well-defined action map $`\widehat{𝔾}{}_{}{}^{}\times M_c(𝔾)M_c(𝔾)`$ follows by considering families, as in the proof of Theorem 5.5.

Namely, if $`\widehat{G}\underset{G((t))}{\times }\widehat{G}_0=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}S_k`$, $`S_k=\mathrm{"}\underset{}{lim}\mathrm{"}S_{k,l}`$ with $`S_{k,l}Sch^{ft}`$, for every pair of indices $`i,k`$ there exists a large enough index $`j`$, such that the group-subscheme $`\mathrm{Ad}_{S_k}(G^j)G((t))\times S_k`$ is contained in $`G^i\times S_k`$. Moreover, the relative determinant line $`\mathrm{det}(𝔤^i/\mathrm{Ad}_{S_k}(𝔤^j))`$ is identified with the constant line bundle with fiber $`\mathrm{det}(𝔤^j,𝔤^i)`$.

We have the map

$$(\widehat{G}/G^j)\times S_k(\widehat{G}\times S_k)/\mathrm{Ad}_{S_k}(G^j)\widehat{G}/G^i,$$

which comes from a map $`\widehat{G}/G^j\times S_{k,l}\widehat{G}/G^i`$ defined for a sufficiently large index $`l`$. The resulting map $`\widehat{G}/G^j\times S_{k,l}\widehat{G}/G^i\times S_{k,l}`$ is smooth over every finite-dimensional subscheme of $`\widehat{G}/G^i`$.

Integration along the fiber defines the desired map

$$𝐒_{k,l}\times \left(i_{𝐆^j}^{\widehat{G}}()\mu (\mathrm{det}(𝔤^j,𝔤^i))\right)i_{𝐆^i}^{\widehat{G}}().$$