A non-specialist description: the construct of a generalised and somewhat unified framework to characterise the structures that underpin numbers and their abstractions, and thus the invariants which base them, all through analytical methods.
The meaning of such a construction is nuanced, but its specific solutions and generalizations are useful. The consequence for proof of existence to such theoretical objects implies an analytical method for constructing the categoric mapping of fundamental structures for virtually any number field. As an analogue to the possible exact distribution of primes, the Langlands program allows a potential general tool for the resolution of invariance at the level of generalized algebraic structures. This in turn permits a somewhat unified analysis of arithmetic objects through their automorphic functions. The Langlands concept allows a general analysis of structuring number abstractions. This description is at once a reduction and over-generalization of the program's proper theorems, although these mathematical analogues provide its basis.
What was new in Langlands' work, besides technical depth, was the proposed connection to number theory, together with its rich organisational structure hypothesised (so-called functoriality).
Harish-Chandra's work exploited the principle that what can be done for one semisimple (or reductive) Lie group, can be done for all. Therefore, once the role of some low-dimensional Lie groups such as GL(2) in the theory of modular forms had been recognised, and with hindsight GL(1) in class field theory, the way was open to speculation about GL(n) for general n > 2.
In all these approaches technical methods were available, often inductive in nature and based on Levi decompositions amongst other matters, but the field remained demanding.[2]
The conjectures have evolved since Langlands first stated them. Langlands conjectures apply across many different groups over many different fields for which they can be stated, and each field offers several versions of the conjectures.[3] Some versions[which?] are vague, or depend on objects such as Langlands groups, whose existence is unproven, or on the L-group that has several non-equivalent definitions.
Objects for which Langlands conjectures can be stated:
Representations of reductive groups over local fields (with different subcases corresponding to archimedean local fields, p-adic local fields, and completions of function fields)
Automorphic forms on reductive groups over global fields (with subcases corresponding to number fields or function fields).
Analogues for finite fields.
More general fields, such as function fields over the complex numbers.
Conjectures
The conjectures can be stated variously in ways that are closely related but not obviously equivalent.
Langlands attached automorphic L-functions to these automorphic representations, and conjectured that every Artin L-function arising from a finite-dimensional representation of the Galois group of a number field is equal to one arising from an automorphic cuspidal representation. This is known as his reciprocity conjecture.
Roughly speaking, this conjecture gives a correspondence between automorphic representations of a reductive group and homomorphisms from a Langlands group to an L-group. This offers numerous variations, in part because the definitions of Langlands group and L-group are not fixed.
Over local fields this is expected to give a parameterization of L-packets of admissible irreducible representations of a reductive group over the local field. For example, over the real numbers, this correspondence is the Langlands classification of representations of real reductive groups. Over global fields, it should give a parameterization of automorphic forms.
Functoriality
The functoriality conjecture states that a suitable homomorphism of L-groups is expected to give a correspondence between automorphic forms (in the global case) or representations (in the local case). Roughly speaking, the Langlands reciprocity conjecture is the special case of the functoriality conjecture when one of the reductive groups is trivial.
Generalized functoriality
Langlands generalized the idea of functoriality: instead of using the general linear group GL(n), other connected reductive groups can be used. Furthermore, given such a group G, Langlands constructs the Langlands dual group LG, and then, for every automorphic cuspidal representation of G and every finite-dimensional representation of LG, he defines an L-function. One of his conjectures states that these L-functions satisfy a certain functional equation generalizing those of other known L-functions.
He then goes on to formulate a very general "Functoriality Principle". Given two reductive groups and a (well behaved) morphism between their corresponding L-groups, this conjecture relates their automorphic representations in a way that is compatible with their L-functions. This functoriality conjecture implies all the other conjectures presented so far. It is of the nature of an induced representation construction—what in the more traditional theory of automorphic forms had been called a 'lifting', known in special cases, and so is covariant (whereas a restricted representation is contravariant). Attempts to specify a direct construction have only produced some conditional results.
All these conjectures can be formulated for more general fields in place of : algebraic number fields (the original and most important case), local fields, and function fields (finite extensions of Fp(t) where p is a prime and Fp(t) is the field of rational functions over the finite field with p elements).
The geometric Langlands program, suggested by Gérard Laumon following ideas of Vladimir Drinfeld, arises from a geometric reformulation of the usual Langlands program that attempts to relate more than just irreducible representations. In simple cases, it relates l-adic representations of the étale fundamental group of an algebraic curve to objects of the derived category of l-adic sheaves on the moduli stack of vector bundles over the curve.
A 9-person collaborative project led by Dennis Gaitsgory announced a proof of the (categorical, unramified) geometric Langlands conjecture leveraging Hecke eigensheaf as part of the proof.[4][5][6][7]
Status
The Langlands conjectures for GL(1, K) follow from (and are essentially equivalent to) class field theory.
Langlands proved the Langlands conjectures for groups over the archimedean local fields (the real numbers) and (the complex numbers) by giving the Langlands classification of their irreducible representations.
Lusztig's classification of the irreducible representations of groups of Lie type over finite fields can be considered an analogue of the Langlands conjectures for finite fields.
Andrew Wiles' proof of modularity of semistable elliptic curves over rationals can be viewed as an instance of the Langlands reciprocity conjecture, since the main idea is to relate the Galois representations arising from elliptic curves to modular forms. Although Wiles' results have been substantially generalized, in many different directions, the full Langlands conjecture for remains unproved.
In 1998, Laurent Lafforgue proved Lafforgue's theorem verifying the Langlands conjectures for the general linear group GL(n, K) for function fields K. This work continued earlier investigations by Drinfeld, who proved the case GL(2, K) in the 1980s.
In 2018, Vincent Lafforgue established the global Langlands correspondence (the direction from automorphic forms to Galois representations) for connected reductive groups over global function fields.[8][9][10]
Gérard Laumon, Michael Rapoport, and Ulrich Stuhler (1993) proved the local Langlands conjectures for the general linear group GL(n, K) for positive characteristic local fields K. Their proof uses a global argument.
Michael Harris and Richard Taylor (2001) proved the local Langlands conjectures for the general linear group GL(n, K) for characteristic 0 local fields K. Guy Henniart (2000) gave another proof. Both proofs use a global argument. Peter Scholze (2013) gave another proof.
In 2008, Ngô Bảo Châu proved the "fundamental lemma", which was originally conjectured by Langlands and Shelstad in 1983 and being required in the proof of some important conjectures in the Langlands program.[11][12]
Implications
To a lay reader or even nonspecialist mathematician, abstractions within the Langlands program can be somewhat impenetrable. However, there are some strong and clear implications for proof or disproof of the fundamental Langlands conjectures.
Simply put, the Langlands project implies a deep and powerful framework of solutions, which touches the most fundamental areas of mathematics, through high-order generalizations in exact solutions of algebraic equations, with analytical functions, as embedded in geometric forms. It allows a unification of many distant mathematical fields into a formalism of powerful analytical methods.
^Frenkel, Edward (2013). Love & Math. ISBN978-0-465-05074-1. All this stuff, as my dad put it, is quite heavy: we've got Hitchin moduli spaces, mirror symmetry, A-branes, B-branes, automorphic sheaves... One can get a headache just trying to keep track of them all. Believe me, even among specialists, very few people know the nuts and bolts of all elements of this construction.
^Frenkel, Edward (2013), Love and Math: The Heart of Hidden Reality, Basic Books, p. 77, ISBN9780465069958, The Langlands Program is now a vast subject. There is a large community of people working on it in different fields: number theory, harmonic analysis, geometry, representation theory, mathematical physics. Although they work with very different objects, they are all observing similar phenomena.
^Langlands, Robert P. (1983). "Les débuts d'une formule des traces stable". U.E.R. de Mathématiques. Publications Mathématiques de l'Université Paris [Mathematical Publications of the University of Paris]. VII (13). Paris: Université de Paris. MR0697567.
^Milne, James (2015-09-02). "The Riemann Hypothesis over Finite Fields: From Weil to the Present Day". arXiv:1509.00797 [math.HO].