7
$\begingroup$

I found an old MOF post about representations attached to p-adic modular forms: Representations attached to p-adic modular forms and I have some follow up questions on the same topic.

If we have a classical form of weight k, it is know that the p-adic representation attached to the form is crystalline if p does not divide the level. It is de Rham in general and it has Hodge-Tate weights 0 and k-1.

My question is that if the form is not classical, then the weight is not an integer. Is this representation crystalline or de Rham? Can we say something about the Hodge-Tate weights?

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

There are two subtleties regarding how to formulate this question.

Firstly, there are several notions of "p-adic modular form". There's Hida's ordinary p-adic modular forms (a very small space); there's Coleman's overconvergent p-adic modular forms (a much bigger space); and there's Serre and Katz's space of p-adic modular forms, which is a vastly bigger space (too big to have a reasonable theory of eigenforms).

The second subtlety is that for the latter two definitions (Coleman or Serre-Katz) it is not true that a non-classical form has non-integer weight; there are non-classical forms of integer weight (lots of them).

With that out of the way: if f is in any of these spaces and its weight is non-integral, then the associated Galois representation isn't even Hodge--Tate, so it's certainly not de Rham or crystalline. The eigenvalues of its Sen operator are what they should be, i.e. 0 and $k - 1$ where $k$ is the weight (but you have to be careful what this means!).

If $f$ is of integer weight and it's ordinary, then it's classical and the local representation is de Rham. If it's overconvergent and has finite slope (i.e. defines a point on the eigencurve), then it might be non-classical, in which case then the local Galois rep is Hodge--Tate (with weights 0 and $k-1$), but it is never de Rham; this is a theorem of Kisin, from his big paper "Overconvergent modular forms and the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture". Kisin's work also shows that if $f$ is an overconvergent finite-slope non-classical eigenform, then $\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{cris}}V_p(f)$ is 1-dimensional (and this crystalline period varies analytically in families).

As for the case of infinite-slope non-classical eigenforms, or non-overconvergent eigenforms, I don't know.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Kisin proved that $\mathbb{D}_{cris} \mathrm{V}_p(f)^{\phi=a_p}$ is one dimensional, where $U_p(f)=a_p.f$. Why $\mathbb{D}_{cris} \mathrm{V}_p(f)$ is one dimensional? $\endgroup$ – Adel BETINA Apr 26 '16 at 9:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If it were two-dimensional $\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{cris}}(V_p(f)$ would be crystalline, hence de Rham, but Kisin proved that $V_p(f)$ is only de Rham when $f$ is classical. $\endgroup$ – David Loeffler Apr 26 '16 at 14:30

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.