Abstract: The starting point of the geometric approach to the theory of automorphic forms over function fields is a beautiful observation of Weil asserting that there is a natural bijection between the two-sided quotient GL(n,F)\GL(n,A)/GL(n,O) and the set of isomorphism classes rank n vector bundles on a curve. The goal of my talk will be to explain this result and to give some applications.
Key words: adeles and ideles in the function field case, algebraic curves, line and vector bundles on curves, Picard group, Riemann-Roch theorem.

Last week we discussed what does it means for a functor to be a "sheaf" in the etale topology.
Our goal now will be to complete the definition of algebraic stacks and to give examples.
Key words: algebraic stacks, faithfully flat morphisms, faithfully flat descent, moduli spaces of vector bundles
on curves.

The main goal of this talk will be to define algebraic stacks and to give examples.
Our main example will be moduli "space" of vector bundles on a smooth projective curve.
Key words: groupoids, Grothendieck topologies, etale and smooth morphisms of schemes, G-torsors,
algebraic stacks.

Having defined the standard automorphic L-function for GL(n) in the first talk, we now proceed to the definition of L-functions for general split groups and representations of the Langlands dual group
(which will be discussed as well). I then want to discuss some results and conjectures regarding these
L-functions.
Key words: L-functions, Langlands dual group, modular forms

Abstract: The goal of this talk will be to explain what are algebraic stacks and why they naturally appear.
If time permits, we will start discussing our main example of moduli spaces of vector bundles on a smooth projective curve.
Key words: groupoids, Grothendieck topologies, etale and smooth morphisms of schemes, algebraic stacks.

Title: Local (L-, \epsilon- and \gamma-) factors, and converse theorems.
Abstract: Our first goal will be to define local (L-,\epsilon- and \gamma-) factors and to study their properties. These factors are needed to formulate the local Langlands correspondence for GL(n), which was outlined two weeks ago. We will do it first for supercuspidal representations of GL(n) and then for local Galois representations, that is, for representations of Gal(\bar{F}/F), where F is a local field.

Let F be a non-Archimedean local field. In the representation theory of GL_n(F), one of the basic problems is to characterize its irreducible representations up to isomorphism. There are many invariants (e.g., epsilon factors, L-functions, gamma factors, depth, etc) that we can attach to a representation of GL_n(F). Roughly, the local converse problem is to find the smallest subcollection of twisted local \gamma-factors which classifies the
irreducible admissible representations of GL_n(F) up to isomorphism.

First we am going to recall first basic facts about vector bundles on smooth projective curves. Then we will talk about moduli "spaces" of vector bundles on curves. If time permits, we will also talk about related "spaces" like Hecke stacks and moduli "spaces" of shtukas.
Key words: Riemann-Roth theorem for curves, vector bundles on curves, degree.

Abstract: The goal of this (and the next) talk is to introduce automorphic L-functions
for GL(n) and other split groups, and to discuss some of their properties and some conjectures.
Key words: L-functions, Langlands dual group, modular forms

Probabilistic limit theorems for (distance expanding and hyperbolic) dynamical systems is a well studied
topic. In this talk I will present conditions guaranteeing that a local central limit theorem holds true for certain families of distance
expanding random dynamical systems. If time permits, I will also discuss a version of the Berry-Esseen theorem.
Joint work with Yuri Kifer.

Randomisations, coheir sequences and NSOP1
[Joint with A Chernikov and N Ramsey]
Recall that if T is a theory, then its Keisler randomisation, T^R, is the theory of spaces of random variables which take values in a model of T .
It was show some time ago that if T has IP (e.g., simple unstable), then T^R has TP2, and in particular not simple.
In Eilat I announced the following result [with Chernikov and Ramsey] :
A. If T is NSOP1, then its randomisation T^R is NSOP1