Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Can you give a non-trivial example of an integer weight cusp form which does not lie in the old subspace and it has $a_p=0$ for all primes $p$?

If such a form cannot exist then why?

share|improve this question
1  
Naïve heuristics suggest that no such modular form exists, and surely no such eigenform exists, as you very well know. I thought one could use results about eigenform as an input to prove the general case, but I failed. The (first) difficulty I encountered is that for an arbitrary modular forms, it is not obvious how to relate a_p with the Hecke operator T_p. –  Olivier May 21 '10 at 9:27
    
Can you elaborate on your first comment? What heuristics suggest no such modular form exist? –  Idoneal May 21 '10 at 10:59
    
A common heuristic is to regard the coefficients a_n as random with respect to congruence. So a_p already has a very slight chance of being divisible by p, let alone zero. Like I said, this is very naïve and just a suggestion. Outside of eigenforms, all I seem to be able to do is give rough estimates of the proportion of non-zero coefficients. They wouldn't tell you anything about coefficients at primes. –  Olivier May 21 '10 at 11:42
    
That said, if your question has some definite purpose, perhaps it could help if you explained how such a modular forms would (or would not) help. Presumably, if you have a construction that produces a certain output specifically at primes, this construction tells you something about a_p, and this is exactly what I lack in my (very amateur) understanding of the problem. –  Olivier May 21 '10 at 11:46
    
Idoneal, please add some context to your question. –  S. Carnahan May 21 '10 at 12:49

2 Answers 2

up vote 12 down vote accepted

Write $f=\sum c_i f_i$ as a sum over new eigenforms. Your condition is thus equivalent to $\sum c_i \lambda_i(p)=0$ for all $p$. Taking the absolute value squared of this and summing over $p\leq X$ gives

$0=\sum_{i,j}c_i \overline{c_j} \sum_{p\leq X} \lambda_i(p)\overline{\lambda_j(p)}$.

By the pnt for Rankin-Selberg L-functions, the inner sum over primes is $\sim X (\log{X})^{-1}$ if $i=j$, and is $o(X (\log{X})^{-1})$ otherwise. Taking $X$ very large we obtain $0=cX(\log{X})^{-1}+o(X(\log{X})^{-1})$, so contradiction.

share|improve this answer
    
Very nice David! I wasn't thinking in this direction at all. So in fact you have proved the result for $a_p = 0$ for a set of positive density. –  Idoneal May 21 '10 at 15:42
    
I'm not sure if that's true - all I've proven is that $\sum_{p \leq X} |a_p|^2 \sim cX (\log{X})^{-1}$. It's not obvious to me how to deduce that $a_p$ can't vanish a small but positive percent of the time - all this shows, I think, is that $a_p$ can't vanish a hundred percent of the time! :) –  David Hansen May 21 '10 at 15:49
    
Yes, you are right. I wasn't careful. In fact for CM forms a_p=0 half the time. By the way, I wonder if there is a way to prove this using linear algebra and the multiplicity one principle as Olivier suggested. –  Idoneal May 21 '10 at 16:00

It is only possible to write f as a sum over Hecke eigenforms, as David does, in a space of congruence modular forms (i.e., forms on a congruence subgroup of SL2(ℤ) ). On a noncongruence subgroup, the Hecke operators send all genuinely noncongruence forms to 0. (G. Berger, Hecke operators on noncongruence subgroups)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.