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


I am trying to find the asymptotic expansion for $t_1,t_2 \to 0+$ of the function

$$ F_{w_0,\tau}(t_1,t_2) = \sum_{w \in \mathbb{Z}\tau+\mathbb{Z}} w \ \operatorname{exp}(- |w|^2t_1 - |w_0-w|^2t_2) $$

where we may assume that $w_0 \in \mathbb{Z}\tau +\mathbb{Z}$. The obvious first step would probably be to try and use the transformation properties of the theta functions, but this seems to lead to a rather complicated expression involving rational functions in the $t_i$. Hope anyone has suggestions/references/etc.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

You can use the Poisson summation formula. Your summand is essentially a Gaussian, $\sim \exp(-Q(m,n))$, where $w=m+\tau n$ and $Q$ is a quadratic polynomial in $m$ and $n$. The Poisson summation formula converts this sum into a sum with a different essentially Gaussian summand, $\sim \exp(-P(2\pi m,2\pi n))$, where $P$ is another quadratic polynomial (the Legendre transform of $Q$, which is what you get after when treating $m$ and $n$ as continuous variables and taking a Fourier transform).

Since, for small $t_1$ and $t_2$, you suppose $Q \sim O(t_1,t_2) O(m^2,n^2,mn)$, you'll also have $P \sim O(t_1^{-1},t_2^{-2}) O(m^2,n^2,mn)$. Therefore, the magnitude of the terms in the new sum will decrease as the tail of a Gaussian for successively higher values of $|m|$ and $|n|$. Essentially, the new series is itself an asymptotic expansion.

share|cite|improve this answer
The Poisson summation formula is how to prove the transformation formula for the theta functions. – Matt Young Feb 3 '12 at 16:54
Is not the answer valid for the summand $\exp(...)$ rather than $w\exp(...)$ as in the question? – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Feb 9 '14 at 9:47
Poisson summation requires the Fourier transform of the summand (with respect to $w$) in this case. Integration by parts easily changes $w \exp(\cdots)$ into $\exp(\cdots)$ under the Fourier integral. – Igor Khavkine Feb 9 '14 at 12:28

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.