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!


  • $\begingroup$ This just follows from the characteristic polynomial. $\endgroup$ – 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.


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.