Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There is an argument saying that because $\Delta(\tau)\in\mathcal{S}_{12}(\text{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z}))$, then we have $\Delta(N\tau)\in\mathcal{S}_{12}(\Gamma_0(N))$.

I don't understand the logic here.

If I let $\gamma\in\Gamma_0(N)$, then I can say nothing about $\Delta(N\gamma(\tau))$ because $\tau\mapsto N\gamma(\tau)$ is not in $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$.

Can anyone help?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In your other questions I see that you know about the operator $[\gamma]$ acting on functions on upper half plane for $\gamma \in SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$. This operator can be generalized to $GL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ with $(det \gamma)^{k/2}$ in front, with $k$ being the weight. (The exponent is either $k/2$ or $-k/2$ - I don't remember it right now)

One can show that this still defines a right action. Thus up to a scalar factor, your $\Delta (N\tau)$ is really $\Delta [\gamma]$, with $\gamma = \begin{bmatrix} N & \\ & 1 \end{bmatrix}$. Your question then follows from the identity $$\begin{bmatrix}N & \\ & 1 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} N^{-1} \\ & 1 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} a & Nb \\ c/N & d\end{bmatrix}$$ which shows that if $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix}a & b \\ c& d\end{bmatrix} \in \Gamma_0(N)$, then $\sigma' = \begin{bmatrix} a & Nb \\ c/N & d\end{bmatrix} \in SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ and $$\Delta [\gamma][\sigma] = \Delta [\sigma'][\gamma] = \Delta [\gamma]$$ since $\Delta$ is modular with respect to $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$.

share|improve this answer
    
You mean we can define an weight-$k$ operator $[\gamma]$ on functions on upper half plane for $\gamma\in GL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ such that $f[\gamma](\tau)=f(\gamma(\tau))\cdot j(\gamma,\tau)^{-k}\cdot |\gamma|^{k/2}$(or $-k/2$)? –  hxhxhx88 Jan 10 '13 at 9:36
    
I don't know why do we need to add a factor $\det{\gamma}^{k/2}$ in front? I can verify that without such factor, we still have $[\gamma_1][\gamma_2]=[\gamma_1\gamma_2]$ for any $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in\text{GL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$, so isn't it enough for well-definition? –  hxhxhx88 Jan 10 '13 at 9:44
    
One can define the action of $SL_2(\mathbb{R})$ similar to $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$. The reason for adding determinant factor is for consistency. For example, $\begin{bmatrix}N & \\ & 1\end{bmatrix}$ should have the same action as $\begin{bmatrix} \sqrt{N} & \\ & 1/\sqrt{N}\end{bmatrix}$. –  user27126 Jan 10 '13 at 16:45
    
OK, thank you!. –  hxhxhx88 Jan 11 '13 at 1:12
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.