MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A Celebrated theorem of Coleman says that any overconvergent eigenform of weight $k$ and slope $< k-1$ is classical (here $k \geq 2$ and the level is $\Gamma_1(N) \cap \Gamma_0(p)$). This result is almost optimal as the slope of a classical eigenform of weight $k$ is $\leq k-1$. This seems to be well known and probably easy, but I cannot find a proof. So the question is:

why is the slope of a classical modular eigenform of weight $k$ less or equal to $k-1$?

Thank you very much!


share|cite|improve this question
This just follows from the characteristic polynomial. – Arijit Apr 18 '13 at 13:50

There are several ways to see it, some low-level and some more conceptual. I assume that you are talking of an eigenform $g$ for $U_p$ of level $\Gamma_1(N) \cap \Gamma_0(p)$, with $p$ prime to $N$ (otherwise the result may be false: the slope may be infinite).

For a low-level proof, there are two cases to consider. The most important (because it is generic in a $p$-adic family sense) is when $g$ is old at $p$. That is, when $g$ is a linear combination of the form $f(z)$, $f(pz)$, for $f$ a form of level $\Gamma_1(N)$, eigenform for $T_p$, say with eigenvalue $a_p$. Then one can compute the matrix of $U_p$ in the basis $f(z)$, $f(pz)$. This is not hard since $T_p h$ is $U_p h $ plus an explicit scalar times $h(pz)$, by the very definitions of the Hecke operators $T_p$ and $U_p$, and one find that that the characteristic polynomial of $U_p$ is $X^2 - a_pX + p^{k-1} \epsilon(p)$, where $\epsilon$ is the nebentypus of $f$. (you can remove this term if $f$ is of level $\Gamma_0(N)$, say). Then the eigenvalue of $U_p$ on $G$ has to be a root $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of this polynomial, but since $a_p$ is an algebraic integer, so are the roots $\alpha$ and $\beta$; in particular $v_p(\alpha) \geq 0$ and $v_p(\beta) \geq 0$. Since $\alpha \beta = p^{k-1} \epsilon(p)$, and $\epsilon(p)$ is a root of unity, $v_p(\alpha)+v_p(\beta)=k-1$, and this implies $v_p(\alpha), v_p(\beta) \leq k-1$. (with possible equality only when one of those two slope is $0$, which is equivalent to $v_p(a_p)=0$.) For the case of a new form, a computation shows that the slope is always $(k-2)/2$.

Now for a more conceptual proof, in term of the geometric interpretation of $U_p$, I recommend reading carefully Kevin's Buzzard second paper (that is the one written by him alone, not him and Taylor) on the Artin conjecture.

share|cite|improve this answer
Sorry a trivial typo, you meant to write the characteristic polynomial as $X^2 - a_{p}X + p^{k-1}\epsilon(p)$ – Arijit Apr 18 '13 at 14:11
Thanks Arijit. Corrected. – Joël Apr 18 '13 at 14:12
@Joël: can you precise which Buzzard's paper are you talking about? Looking at the titles of his papers the word "Artin" appears just in one paper... – Ricky Apr 18 '13 at 15:15
I think the discussions are in these papers Even if they are not the right papers, they are extremely well written and a pleasure to read. – Arijit Apr 18 '13 at 15:39
I think the other paper on Artin's conjecture is But I may be totally off. – Arijit Apr 18 '13 at 15:52

Your Answer


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.