Let ${\mathbb T}$ denote the ordinary $\Lambda$-adic Hecke algebra of say tame level $N$. If I specialize ${\mathbb T}$ to a classical weight $k \geq 2$, then it is proven by Hida that the result is the Hecke algebra of classical $p$-ordinary forms of weight $k$ and level $pN$. (Here by specialize I mean mod out by the prime ideal $p_k \subseteq \Lambda = {\mathbb Z}_p[[\Gamma]]$ generated by $[\gamma] - \gamma^{k-2}$ where $\gamma$ is a topogical generator of $\Gamma$.) I guess this is Hida's control theorem.

My question is the following: if one takes $\kappa$ to be some $p$-adic weight (but not necessarily classical), how can one describe ${\mathbb T}/ p_{\kappa} {\mathbb T}$?

I assume the answer is that the result is the Hecke algebra of the space of overconvergent modular forms of weight $\kappa$ and slope 0 -- but I don't have a proof of this nor a reference. Either would be greatly appreciated!

  • $\begingroup$ Lemma 1 of Buzzard-Taylor "Companion forms and weight 1 forms" confirms your expected answer for integral weights. Perhaps one can adapt the proof to work for general weight weight $\kappa$? $\endgroup$ – jnewton Aug 4 '12 at 22:17

I don't know if this is always true, and I don't think this is known in all cases, even after inverting $p$.

What is known and what is more or less formal to prove (it depends of your starting point, and in particular, of how you define the "$\Lambda$-adic Hecke algebra of tame level $N$) is that there is a natural surjection, whose kernel is nilpotent, from ${\mathbb T}/p_\kappa {\mathbb T}$ to the Hecke algebra of the space of overconvergent modular forms of weight $\kappa$ and slope 0. But then, the question of whether the kernel is trivial is difficult to settle without knowing more on the local structure of $\mathbb T$ near the points above $\kappa$.

Edit to answer HP's comment below : Let us consider a "toy model": imagine your base ring is $\mathbb{Z}_p$, your module of ordinary p-adic form is $M=\mathbb{Z}_p^2$, and there is only one Hecke operator around, namely $T$ acting on the canonical basis of $M$ by $T(e_1)=p e_1$, $T(e_2)=0$. Then $\mathbb{T}=\mathbb{Z}_p[T]/T(T-p)$ is free of rank $2$ over $\mathbb{Z}_p$, but on $M/pM$, $T$ acts like $0$ et the Hecke algebra on $M/pM$ is just $\mathbb{F}_p$ which is not $\mathbb{T}/p$.

Now what I say is not that this kind of examples actually happen on the eigencurve, but that without supplementary hypothesis (like level $1$, artfully restricting to new forms, etc.) no one, as far as I know, can rule this out.

  • $\begingroup$ I have tried to answer to you. Not knowing your background, I am not sure that it will make much sense. Please ask more if needed. $\endgroup$ – Joël Aug 23 '12 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Joël, I'm having trouble with the toy model. If the Hecke eigenvalues of the forms $e_1$ and $e_2$ agree modulo $p$, then the forms themselves must agree modulo $p$. But then $(e_1-e_2)/p$ has integral coefficients, so should also belong to the module $M$. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Ventullo Aug 24 '12 at 0:47
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see the problem now. In the Hida context, the analogue of $p$ need not be a principal ideal. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Ventullo Aug 24 '12 at 1:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Kevin, if you work in tame level N>1, and do not use the operators at primes dividing N in defining the Hecke algebra, then the equality of Hecke eigenvalues does not imply the equality of the forms. $\endgroup$ – Joël Aug 24 '12 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Joel: Many thanks! This clears up all of my confusions. $\endgroup$ – H P Aug 28 '12 at 21:59

I guess nothing new occurs. First of all, we know the algebraic strucutre of $\Lambda$ and we know that its non-maximal ideals are all primcipal, generated by element of the form $$ p^\mu\prod_if_i(T)^{a_i} $$ for some $\mu\geq 0$ and irreducible distinguished polynomials $f_i$. In particular, you can write $(1+T)^\kappa-1$ for $\kappa\in\mathbb{Z}_p\setminus\mathbb{Z}$ in the above form, so falling back to some classical specialization.

If you prefer a better explanation, a result of Coleman tells you that all overconvergent $p$-adic modular forms of slope $< k-1$ are classical (this is Theorem 6.1 of Coleman's "Classical and overconvergent modular forms", Inventiones 1996)

  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I understand these remarks - what do you mean by "falling back to some classical specialization"? The question is asking whether the specialisation of a Hida family at a non-classical weight is overconvergent, so I don't see the relevance of Coleman's result (which tells us about overconvergent forms of classical weight). $\endgroup$ – jnewton Aug 15 '12 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, yes, you are perfectly right. I misread your question, apologies. $\endgroup$ – Filippo Alberto Edoardo Aug 18 '12 at 22:38

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.