I know how to prove this congruence in two ways (one using basics of modular forms and the other using Hecke operators) and I will be working on proving other such congruences soon.

The congruence states that for $n\geq 1$:

$\tau(n) \equiv \sigma_{11}(n)$ mod $691$.

My main question is why this congruence is so important? I recognise it as a beautiful thing but the only reason I can come up with for it being interesting is that it links a geometrical function with a number theoretical function.

Are there any other reasons why this is interesting/useful?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The statement of the congruence or a link to it wouldn't harm anyone... $\endgroup$ – Giovanni De Gaetano Jun 6 '12 at 8:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, I am sorry about this, fixed. $\endgroup$ – fretty Jun 6 '12 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ Philosophically, you could argue that it's interesting because it shows that a cusp form (a deep sophisticated object) can be congruent mod p to an Eisenstein series (a much more explicit and tractable thing). $\endgroup$ – David Loeffler Jun 6 '12 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ Ah right, so this congruence kind of gives more precision to the fact that Eisenstein series generate the space? It tells us a more specific connection between some cusp forms and Eisenstein series? $\endgroup$ – fretty Jun 6 '12 at 9:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When viewed "locally" some highly nontrivial modular forms may become a little bit more trivial? $\endgroup$ – fretty Jun 6 '12 at 9:39

Congruences between Hecke eigenforms are outward, "physical" manifestations of corresponding relationships between the associated two-dimensional Galois representations.

In this particular case, Ramanujan's congruence is related to the fact that $691$ is an irregular prime (in the sense of Kummer). Roughly the idea is that Eisenstein series relate to reducible two-dimensional Galois representations, and cuspforms to irreducible two-dimensional Galois representations. The existence of a congruence between the two points to the existence of an object that is somewhere between reducible and irreducible: a certain reducible two-dimensional Galois representation which is, however, indecomposable. The existence of this particular reducible, but indecomposable, two-dimensional representation shows that $691$ is an irregular prime.

To see a hint of how this could be, note that $691$ being an irregular prime means, by class field theory for $\mathbb Q(\zeta_{691})$ --- especially, the theory of the Hilbert Class Field --- that there exists an unramified abelian extension of $\mathbb Q(\zeta_{691})$; so irregularity of $691$ is related to the existence of a certain abelian extension of an abelian extension of $\mathbb Q$, and the reducible but indecomposable Galois representation will have such a thing as its splitting field.

For more information on this, and related ideas, you might like to read Mazur's article on the subject; see the entry June 17, 2010: How can we construct abelian extensions on his web-page.


The congruence $$ \tau(n) \equiv \sigma_{11}(n) \pmod{691} $$ is one of several congruences that have been proven.

Now it is well known that $$ \Delta(z) = 2 \pi^2 \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \tau(n)q^n. $$

Lehmer conjectured that $\tau(n) \neq 0$ for all positive integers $n$. As far as I know this has been checked for $n < 10^{11}$. The congruences play a role in showing part of his conjecture.

As to why is it interesting to consider why $\tau(n) \neq 0$ for all positive integers $n$, see this.

  • $\begingroup$ Ah, that makes a bit more sense now. I guess the congruence tells you that $\tau(n)$ is almost always non-zero (I've never viewed it in this way before). It only remains to check $n$ such that $\sigma_{11}(n) \equiv 0$ mod $691$ to prove Lehmer's conjecture. And as your link says, this has powerful meanings in terms of analytic continuations. $\endgroup$ – fretty Jun 6 '12 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ I would recommend you to a paper of Gandhi's about the nonvanishing of $\tau(n)$ if it weren't so full of errors. $\endgroup$ – Eugene Jun 6 '12 at 12:48
  • $\begingroup$ Well to be honest I have only ever seen the importance of the $\Delta$ function in helping to study other spaces of modular forms. The significance of it by itself is not obvious either! I certainly couldn't just dream up such a function and see it as important. $\endgroup$ – fretty Jun 6 '12 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ @fretty Indeed it is very useful to study spaces of modular forms. For instance, the proof that all even weight modular forms of level $1$ is generated by Eisenstein series depends on the $\Delta$ modular form. Also you can show that the even weight modular forms on $\Gamma_0(N)$ can be generated by Dedekind $\eta$-functions using $\Delta$. $\endgroup$ – Eugene Jun 6 '12 at 13:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I know this, but is that basically the reason for inventing this function? Is there any reason why the $\Delta$ function is interesting by itself? $\endgroup$ – fretty Jun 6 '12 at 13:05

This is an extract to Manin's paper "Periods of parabolic forms and p-adic Hecke Series":

"This congruence is so far, our only clue to understanding the 11-dimensional étale cohomology of the so-called Sato variety"

Even though I don't know what he means, he gives some references to Serre's articles.


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.