2
$\begingroup$
  1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

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

enter image description here

  1. Relevant equations

  2. The attempt at a solution

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)} \approx 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?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I don't think that the reasoning would apply to a form with a constant term.

If $f$ is cusp, we can write $|f(q)|=e^{-2\pi m v}|g(q)|$, where $0<|g(0)|<\infty$ and $m>0$. Then $v^{k/2}|f(q)|= v^{k/2} e^{-2\pi m v}|g(q)|$. Clearly the product $v^{k/2}e^{-2\pi m v}$ has zero limit at infinity, and since $|g(0)|$ is not infinity, we get that the limit of $v^{k/2}|f(q)|$ at infinity is zero.

If, on the other hand, $f$ is not a cusp form, then $|f(0)|>0$ and so the limit of $v^{k/2}|f(q)|$ at $v=\infty$ will not be dominated by anything going to zero, and so you get an infinite limit, hence $Im(z)^{k/2}f(z)$ would be unbounded on the fundamental domain.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ this sure makes sense, thank you. sorry i think i got tired by that time, it was late evening :P $\endgroup$ – yourlazyphysicist Mar 29 '18 at 11:31
1
$\begingroup$

It may be handy to have a particular non-cuspidal modular form in mind for examples like this. The prototypical non-cuspidal modular form is the Eisenstein series of weight $2k$ $$ E(\tau) = \sum_{m,n \in \mathbb{Z}^2 - \{(0,0)\}} \frac{1}{(m+n\tau)^{2k}},$$ whose Fourier expansion is $$ E(\tau) = 2\zeta(2k)\left(1 + c_{2k} \sum_{n \geq 1} \sigma_{2k-1}(n) q^n\right).$$ This expansion looks like a constant term $1$ and a lot of terms with exponential decay in the imaginary part, coming from $q^n$. Your reasoning applies to the exponential decay portion: all terms with exponentials vanish as the imaginary part goes to $\infty$.

But the constant term doesn't, and $\mathrm{Im}(\tau)^k \cdot 2 \zeta(2k)$ clearly goes to $\infty$ as the imaginary part goes to $\infty$.

$\endgroup$

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.