Hecke Bound for Cusp - Modular Forms

  • Thread starter Thread starter binbagsss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound Forms
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the Hecke bound for cusp forms in the context of modular forms, specifically addressing Proposition 2.12 from lecture notes. The participant expresses confusion regarding the reasoning behind the dependence of the bound on the cusp nature of the function. They assert that their reasoning holds for the modular form space ##M_k##, but they recognize a flaw in their logic when considering the exponential decay of the term ##q=e^{2\pi i n (u+iv)}## as ##v## approaches infinity. The conclusion emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of the implications of cusp forms on the Hecke bound.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of modular forms, specifically the space ##M_k##.
  • Familiarity with Hecke operators and their properties.
  • Knowledge of exponential functions and their behavior in complex analysis.
  • Proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical notation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Hecke operators in the context of modular forms.
  • Learn about the implications of cusp forms on the behavior of modular forms.
  • Explore the concept of exponential decay in complex analysis.
  • Review Proposition 2.12 in the context of the provided lecture notes for deeper insights.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in number theory and modular forms, as well as students tackling advanced topics in complex analysis and modular form theory.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



i have a questions on the piece of lecture notes attached:

whatthehecke.png

2. Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]

I agree 2) of proposition 2.12 holds once we have 1). I thought I understood the general idea of 1), however, my reasoning would hold for ##M_k## it does not depend on ##f(t)## being a cusp and so it must be wrong. This was what I thought was happening:

##q=e^{2\pi i n (u+iv)} ~ e^{-v} ## for large v, and exponential dominates over ##v ^ {x}## ( v>0 as on upper plane )

This would ofc still hold if I included some constant term, I would still get the same quantity is bounded.

can someone please tel me where I have gone wrong with the above reasoning?

 

Attachments

  • whatthehecke.png
    whatthehecke.png
    30.7 KB · Views: 822
Physics news on Phys.org
binbagsss said:
##q=e^{2\pi i n (u+iv)} \approx e^{-v} ## for large v, and exponential dominates over ##v ^ {x}## ( v>0 as on upper plane )



edited apologies latex error
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K