2
$\begingroup$

I'm studying Modular Forms and in the notes I'm reading the author states the following result, known as the valence formula:

"Let $f$ be a non-zero weakly modular meromorphic form of weight $k$ on $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$. Then:

$v_{\infty}(f)+\frac{v_i(f)}{2}+\frac{v_{\rho(f)}}{3}+\sum_{z \in \mathbb{H} / SL_2(\mathbb{Z})}^{*} v_z(f)=\frac{k}{12}$, where $\rho$ is the primitive cubic root of unity in $\mathbb{H}$"

Then, the author uses this result to prove that the set of modular forms of weight $k$ less than zero $M_k=\{0\}$ arguing the following:

Since the left-hand side of the valence formula is non-negative, the right hand side must be non-negative too, hence $k< 0 \implies M_k=\{0\}$.

My question is: why is the LHS of the valence formula non-negative?

Thank you in advance!

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

If $f \in M_k$ then $f$ is holomorphic everywhere (by definition), so $v_z(f) \ge 0$ for all $z$ (including $z = i, \rho, \infty$). So the LHS of the valence formula is a sum of non-negative quantities.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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