I am self studying Analytic number theory from Apostol Dirichlet series and modular functions in number theory and I have a doubt regarding defintions of modular forms and modular functions. My question is - Both in definitions of Modular functions and entire Modular forms, the function f is assumed to be meromorphic and analytic in upper half plane H respectively . Is there any specific reason that functions are assumed to behave particular in upper half plane H not any other region of complex plane? Why only upper half plane H is chosen not any other region?

  • $\begingroup$ they are only defined on $H$; moreover they usually have the real line as a natural boundary. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Jul 21 at 19:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Consider a modular form $f$ on $SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$, it satisfies $f(z) = f(z+1)$. Therefore, it has a Fourier expansion $f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n e^{2\pi inz} \ (z \in \mathcal{H})$, where there are no terms of $n <0$ because of the growth conditions we have imposed in the definiton. Note $|e^{2\pi iz}|= e^{-2 \pi Im(z)}$. What would happen if $Im(z) < 0$? $\endgroup$ – Parthiv Basu Jul 21 at 20:51

A naïve answer would be to take the sum and the RHS modulo $1$; however, a "number" $\mathfrak{a}$ modulo any number $n$ is in fact an equivalence class $$\mathfrak{a}=[a]_{n}=\{b: a\sim_n b\},$$ where $\sim_n$ is the equivalence relation defined by $a\sim_n b\iff a=b+kn$ for some $k\in \Bbb Z$. Then $$[\color{blue}{1}]_1\color{green}{+_1}[\color{red}{1}]_1\color{green}{:=}[\color{blue}{1}+\color{red}{1}]_1=[0]_1=[3]_1$$ because $1+1=0+(2\times 1)$ and $3=0+(3\times 1)$.

New contributor
Julian Tiemann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

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.