Hecke Bound for Cusp - Modular Forms

  • Thread starter binbagsss
  • Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound Forms
1 reply · 1K views · last reply
binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



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

Lecture notes page titled 2.2 The Hecke Bound, with Lemma 2.11 stating Im(tau)^(k/2)|f(tau)| is Gamma-invariant, its proof, Proposition 2.12 with bounds |a_n| <= C n^(k/2), and a proof using the fundamental domain and integral estimates.

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
  • Lecture notes page titled 2.2 The Hecke Bound, with Lemma 2.11 stating Im(tau)^(k/2)|f(tau)| is Gamma-invariant, its proof, Proposition 2.12 with bounds |a_n| <= C n^(k/2), and a proof using the fundamental domain and integral estimates.
    whatthehecke.png
    30.7 KB · Views: 848
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