Proof
Harish-Chandra's original proof of the regularity theorem is given in a sequence of five papers (Harish-Chandra 1964a, 1964b, 1964c, 1965a, 1965b). Atiyah (1988) gave an exposition of the proof of Harish-Chandra's regularity theorem for the case of SL2(R), and sketched its generalization to higher rank groups.
Most proofs can be broken up into several steps as follows.
- Step 1. If Θ is an invariant eigendistribution then it is analytic on the regular elements of G. This follows from elliptic regularity, by showing that the center of the universal enveloping algebra has an element that is "elliptic transverse to an orbit of G" for any regular orbit.
- Step 2. If Θ is an invariant eigendistribution then its restriction to the regular elements of G is locally integrable on G. (This makes sense as the non-regular elements of G have measure zero.) This follows by showing that ΔΘ on each Cartan subalgebra is a finite sum of exponentials, where Δ is essentially the denominator of the Weyl denominator formula, with 1/Δ locally integrable.
- Step 3. By steps 1 and 2, the invariant eigendistribution Θ is a sum S+F where F is a locally integrable function and S has support on the singular elements of G. The problem is to show that S vanishes. This is done by stratifying the set of singular elements of G as a union of locally closed submanifolds of G and using induction on the codimension of the strata. While it is possible for an eigenfunction of a differential equation to be of the form S+F with F locally integrable and S having singular support on a submanifold, this is only possible if the differential operator satisfies some restrictive conditions. One can then check that the Casimir operator of G does not satisfy these conditions on the strata of the singular set, which forces S to vanish.
Read more about this topic: Harish-Chandra's Regularity Theorem
Famous quotes containing the word proof:
“The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is “what should be.” Now, if you’re taught to live up to a “what should be” that never existed—only an occult superstition, no proof of this “should be”Mthen you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!”
—Lenny Bruce (1925–1966)
“There is no better proof of a man’s being truly good than his desiring to be constantly under the observation of good men.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)
“a meek humble Man of modest sense,
Who preaching peace does practice continence;
Whose pious life’s a proof he does believe,
Mysterious truths, which no Man can conceive.”
—John Wilmot, 2d Earl Of Rochester (1647–1680)