English

A generalized semi-infinite Hecke equivalence and the local geometric Langlands correspondence

Representation Theory 2021-04-09 v2

Abstract

We introduce a class of equivalences, which we call generalized semi-infinite Hecke equivalences, between certain categories of representations of graded associative algebras which appear in the setting of semi-infinite cohomology for associative algebras and categories of representations of related algebras of Hecke type which we call semi-infinite Hecke algebras. As an application we obtain an equivalence between a category of representations of a non-twisted affine Lie algebra g^\widehat{\mathfrak g} of level 2hk-2h^\vee-k, where hh^\vee is the dual Coxeter number of the underlying semisimple Lie algebra g\mathfrak g and kCk\in \mathbb{C}, and the category of finitely generated representations of the W-algebra associated to g^\widehat{\mathfrak g} of level kk. When k=hk=-h^\vee this yields an equivalence between a category of representations of g^\widehat{\mathfrak g} of central charge h-h^\vee and the category Coh(OpLG(D×)){\rm Coh}({\rm Op}_{^LG}(D^\times)) of coherent sheaves on the space OpLG(D×){\rm Op}_{^LG}(D^\times) of LG^LG-opers on the punctured disc D×D^\times, where LG^LG is the Langlands dual group to the algebraic group of adjoint type with Lie algebra g\mathfrak g. This can be regarded as a version of the local geometric Langlands correspondence. The above mentioned equivalences generalize to the case of affine Lie algebras the Skryabin equivalence between the categories of generalized Gelfand-Graev representations of g\mathfrak g and the categories of representations of the corresponding finitely generated W-algebras, and Kostant's results on the classification of Whittaker modules over g\mathfrak g.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2102.11247,
  title  = {A generalized semi-infinite Hecke equivalence and the local geometric Langlands correspondence},
  author = {Alexey Sevostyanov},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11247},
  year   = {2021}
}

Comments

A crucial mistake has been discovered in the proof of the main statement