Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2021 at 6:00 comment added GH from MO @reuns: Perhaps you should ask the OP about what he/she means.
Apr 12, 2021 at 23:07 comment added reuns @GHfromMO Does the OP mean an approximate value for the maximum? If so then the key should be to find the level from the ramification.
Apr 12, 2021 at 17:05 history edited GH from MO CC BY-SA 4.0
added 3 characters in body
Apr 12, 2021 at 16:43 comment added GH from MO I added the adjective "holomorphic" to the post. Note that there are Maass forms of all weights on the upper half-plane, including those that do not come from holomorphic cusp forms (cf. Henri Cohen's remark).
Apr 12, 2021 at 16:42 history edited GH from MO CC BY-SA 4.0
added 39 characters in body
Apr 12, 2021 at 16:40 comment added GH from MO @HenriCohen: In the sup-norm problem for holomorphic cusp forms, one studies $y^{k/2}|f(x+iy)|$, as you suggest. I am sure the OP had this function in mind (and so did I).
Apr 12, 2021 at 16:33 comment added Henri Cohen I am not sure I understand the question: isn't a holomorphic modular form (cuspidal or not) unbounded on the upper half-plane ? It is y^{k/2}|f(x+iy)| which is bounded.
Apr 12, 2021 at 15:46 history edited sup
edited tags
Apr 12, 2021 at 15:45 comment added sup I had holomorphic modular forms in mind.
Apr 12, 2021 at 13:45 comment added GH from MO I think you can only attach a Galois-representation to cohomological cuspidal automorphic reprepresentations (and their newforms). The maximum value of a newform is a subtle problem, even for holomorphic newforms on the upper half-plane, and I don't know of any connection with Galois-representations.
Apr 12, 2021 at 13:16 history edited sup
edited tags
Apr 12, 2021 at 10:10 review First posts
Apr 12, 2021 at 10:36
Apr 12, 2021 at 10:08 history asked sup CC BY-SA 4.0