7
$\begingroup$

Define function $f(x,y,t)$ as the analytic continuation of the series $$f(x,y,t)=\sum_{n,m\ge0}x^ny^mt^{nm}$$ This series definitely converges when all the arguments are small enough. I would like to understand the global properties of this function: presence of zeros, of poles or other singularities etc. In particular, I would like to locate the poles of this function w.r.t. to $y$ and find the corresponding residues.

Let us do a partial resummation $$f(x,y,t)=\sum_{n\ge0}\frac{x^n}{1-yt^n}$$ which is possible when say $|y|,|t|<1$.

Naively, from the above expression I expect that $f(x,y,t)$ has poles in $y$ for $y=t^{-n}, n\ge0$ with residues $$\operatorname{Res}_{y=t^{-n}}f(x,y,t)=-x^n/t^n$$

However, there is a problem here for me. I will first formulate is loosely and then give more accurate description.

The problem

I. Loose formulation. Locations of poles of $f(x,y,t)$ are independent of $x$. Therefore, we don't expect them to change if $x$ changes. However, one can prove formula $f(x^{-1},y,t)=f(x,y^{-1},t)$ (modulo not-so-interesting terms). In the lhs we've only changed $x$, and hence we don't expect locations of poles to change. On the other hand in the rhs we've changed $y\to y^{-1}$ which causes poles to invert!

II. More accurate description. By formally operating with the series one can deduce three following properties

  1. $f(x,y,t)=f(y,x,t)$, obvious symmetry.
  2. $f(x,y^{-1},t)=-yf(xt^{-1},y,t^{-1})$ rule to invert an argument.
  3. $f(xt,yt,t)=(xyt)^{-1}(f(x,y,t)-(1-x)^{-1}-(1-y)^{-1}+1)$ scaling rule.

    Using their combination one shows that

    $$f(x^{-1},y,t)=f(x,y^{-1},t)+(1-y)^{-1}-(1-x)^{-1}$$

    Again, as stated in the loose formulation, the poles in $y$ do not seem to agree between the lhs and rhs: in the lhs they are at the points $y=t^{-n}, n\ge0$ while at the rhs at the points $y=t^n, n\ge0$.

Summary

I understand that most likely I messed up with divergent series somewhere, but I can't exactly find where. I would be grateful if somebody explained me where, but my main question is the following: what are locations and residues of poles for function $f(x,y,t)$ wrt $y$-variable? Do they depend on $x$? If yes, how?

Appendix

Here I present formal derivation of properties 2, 3.

$$f(x, y^{-1},t)=\sum_{n\ge0}\frac{x^n}{1-y^{-1}t^n}=\sum_{n\ge0}\frac{x^nt^{-n}y}{yt^{-n}-1}=-yf(xt^{-1}, y, t^{-1})$$

And

$$f(xt, yt,t)=\sum_{n,m\ge0}{x^ny^mt^{nm+n+m}}=(xyt)^{-1}\sum_{n,m\ge0}x^{n+1}y^{m+1}t^{(n+1)(m+1)}=(xyt)^{-1}\left(\sum_{n,m\ge0}-\sum_{n\ge0,m=0}-\sum_{n=0,m\ge0}+\sum_{n=0,m=0}\right)x^{n}y^{m}t^{nm}=(xyt)^{-1}(f(x,y,t)-(1-x)^{-1}-(1-y)^{-1}+1)$$

On Dmitry Vaintrob's answer

As far as I can the the factorization procedure suggested in this answer is not actually valid since the two factors has non-overlapping region of convergence. So, I'm still looking for a solution.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There seems to be a typo: the exponent of $y$ is supposed to be $m$, right? $\endgroup$ – user1688 Feb 3 '16 at 10:43
  • $\begingroup$ Could you make precise, in which domains the formulas 2. and 3. hold? $\endgroup$ – user1688 Feb 3 '16 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ Let me present a formal derivation and leave it up to reader to judge. I am afraid to confuse things. $\endgroup$ – Weather Report Feb 3 '16 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ Here's a guess: Are you sure that formula 3 is actually valid beyond formally? Swapping $x \iff x^{-1}$ (and similarly for $y$) may result in a sum that doesn't actually converge... $\endgroup$ – Simon Rose Feb 3 '16 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that if you instead consider the sum for $n\in \mathbb Z$, then you get an easy to write elliptic function. But I am not sure what to do with $n\geq 0$. $\endgroup$ – Lev Borisov Feb 4 '16 at 0:38
6
$\begingroup$

I think you can do the following (I haven't checked convergence carefully, so don't trust me too much). Write $a = \frac{m+n}{2}, b = \frac{m-n}{2}.$ Then $mn = a^2-b^2.$ Now (let's ignore indeterminacy in the square root for now), $\ x^m y^n = (xy)^a(x/y)^b$. The advantage of this sketchy manipulation is that your sum can be expressed, formally, as $$\sum_{a, b\in \frac{\mathbb{N}}{2}a\equiv b\text{ mod }1} \left((xy)^a t^{a^2}\right)\left((x/y)^b t^{-b^2}\right),$$ which is almost a product of two theta functions. A little more rigorously, if you choose square roots $\alpha^2 = xy, \beta^2 = x/y$ and a fourth root $\tau^4 = t$ and write $A = 2a, B = 2b$ then under a suitable convergence hypothesis, $$f(x,y,t) = \frac{G(\alpha,\beta,\tau)+G(-\alpha, -\beta, \tau)}{2},$$ where $$G(\alpha, \beta, \tau) = \sum_{A, B} \alpha^{A}\beta^{B}\tau^{A^2-B^2} = \left(\sum_{A} \alpha^A\tau^{A^2}\right)\left(\sum_{B}\beta^B\tau^{-B^2}\right),$$ which is actually a product of two theta functions. Of course this product cannot converge either when $|\tau|>1$ or $|\tau|<1,$ but convergence on the circle $|\tau| = 1$ with small $\alpha,\beta$ (corresponding to small $x$ compared to $y, y^{-1}$) should be enough to get your analytic continuation. From this it should not be very hard to deduce the poles. I wonder if such a formula can also be obtained from an appropriate version of the triple product identity. A little bit more context for how this problem came up could be helpful to see if this is the case.

Edit: As Lev Borisov points out, this only works when the sum is taken over $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ (equivalently, when studying $f(x,y,t) + f(x,y^{-1},t^{-1})$). As such, it is not an answer to the OP. -DV

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer! I know very little about elliptic functions and now I will try to fill this gap. Meanwhile I can mention that this problem came as a simplified version of a physics-inspired problem (modular transformations of conformal blocks in CFT). In fact, for this problem I only need the symmetric combination $f(x,y,t)+f(-x,y,t)$. As Lev Borisov suggested in the comments this could simplify things. Any comments on that? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Weather Report Feb 4 '16 at 9:20
  • $\begingroup$ Typo. I meant $f(x,y,t)+f(x^{-1},y,t)$. $\endgroup$ – Weather Report Feb 4 '16 at 9:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You seem to be missing the inequalities $m,n\geq 0$. This will lead to weird inequalities for $m+n,m-n$, and I don't see how you would get products. $\endgroup$ – Lev Borisov Feb 4 '16 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ That is a very good point. @WeatherReport, if you were interested in $f(x,y,t) + f(x^{-1}, y, t^{-1})$ then the above derivation should work (with $x$ replaced by $y$). Are you sure that what you want is $f(x,y,t) + f(x^{-1}, y, t)$? $\endgroup$ – Dmitry Vaintrob Feb 4 '16 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ @DmitryVaintrob Well, I'm not really sure how this toy example relates to my actual problem. However, I feel like this is the part of the research I should carry on myself:) Your trick to factorize series into a product and relation to elliptic functions looks very promising. I will probably soon mark this as an accepted answer, unless somebody will appear with a full solution to the problem formulated originally in the OP. Thank you very much, once again. $\endgroup$ – Weather Report Feb 4 '16 at 15:31
5
$\begingroup$

I will give an alternative expression for $f(x,y,t)$ that may be helpful for others trying to solve this problem. Initially suppose $|x|, |y|< 1$, and $0 < t < 1$. Then $t^{mn} = \exp(-mn \log(1/t))$, and so by the Mellin formula for $e^{-x}$, we have $$t^{mn} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{(\sigma)} \Gamma(s) (mn \log(1/t))^{-s} ds,$$ where $\sigma > 0$.

By a simple rearrangement, we have $$f(x,y,t) = -1 + \frac{1}{1-x} + \frac{1}{1-y} + \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} x^m y^n t^{mn}.$$ The infinite double sum above can then be expressed as $$\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \int_{(\sigma)} \Gamma(s) (\log(1/t))^{-s} Li_s(x) Li_s(y) ds,$$ where $Li_s(z) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} x^n n^{-s}$ is the polylogarithm.

I haven't thought much about if this integral representation can lead to a meromorphic continuation. The polylogarithm does have analytic continuation but the above integral may not converge absolutely if $|x| > 1$ or $|y| > 1$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You don't need absolute convergence, locally uniform convergence is sufficient. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Feb 10 '16 at 18:09
4
+50
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $|x|<1$ and $|t|<1$. Then the power series $\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac {x^n}{1-yt^n}$, considered as a function of $y$, converges uniformly on compact sets disjoint from $y=t^{-k}$. Indeed, the denominators approach $1$ uniformly as $n\to\infty$ so you can bound by the geometric series.

Moreover, the same argument shows that in a neighborhood of $y=t^{-k}$ the sum $\sum_{n\geq 1, n\neq k}\frac {x^n}{1-yt^n}$ converges uniformly. This shows that the poles are indeed simple with residues $-\frac {x^n}{t^n}$.

If you try to analytically continue beyond $|x|,|t|<1$ region, then you may run into trouble. There is still convergence if $1<|x|<|t|$, so I think that in this regime the pole locations and residues are the same. Note that you will now have an essential singularity at $y=0$.

It is less clear what happens if you try to analytically extend away from these regions. Moreover, I am not at all sure whether such extension would be possible, and whether there would be some monodromy. My guess is that you would need to avoid the $x=t^{-n}$ locations, and there may be monodromy associated to loops around these.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your arguments look reasonable. However, I remain in some confusion. Concerning my self-contradictory conclusion: I think something is wrong with the property 2 ($f(x,y^{-1},t)=-yf(xt^{-1},y,t^{-1})$). It should also work if the summation is over $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. But equation (11) from your paper does not behave in this way. However, what exactly is wrong I do not understand. It seems enough for convergence of $\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{x^n}{1-yt^n}$ that $|t|<|x|<1$, irrelevant of $y$. Not sure how can one run into trouble by replacing $y\to y^{-1}$ and making identical transformations. $\endgroup$ – Weather Report Feb 12 '16 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure what the problem is: you have poles at $y^{-1}=t^{-n}$ on one side and at $y=(t^{-1})^{-n}$ on the other side, which is the same thing (as viewed as a function of $y$, in appropriate ranges for $|x|$ and $|t|$). $\endgroup$ – Lev Borisov Feb 12 '16 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ I am saying the following: take function $\phi(x,y,t)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{x^n}{1-yt^{n}}$. Now it seems that $\phi(x,y^{-1},t)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{x^n}{1-y^{-1}t^{n}}=-y \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} \frac{(xt^{-1})^n}{1-yt^{-n}}=-y\phi(xt^{-1},y,t^{-1})$. This is in contradiction with the explicit formula from your paper. The poles do agree, but the zeros do not: $(1-xyt^{k-1})(1-x^{-1}y^{-1}t^{k})$ vs $(1-xy^{-1}t^{-k})(1-x^{-1}yt^{-k+1})$. $\endgroup$ – Weather Report Feb 13 '16 at 9:06
  • $\begingroup$ In my paper, I only consider $|t|<1$. The products would diverge, badly, if $|t|>1$. So the product formula is only valid in this regime. $\endgroup$ – Lev Borisov Feb 13 '16 at 12:42
1
$\begingroup$

I though it is worth pointing out a closely related case which appears to be solvable. The following formula is due to paper http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9904126 (formula (11) with slight relabeling and rearrangement)

$$\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{x^n}{1-yt^n}=\prod_{k\ge1}\frac{(1-xyt^{k-1})(1-x^{-1}y^{-1}t^{k})(1-t^k)^2}{(1-xt^{k-1})(1-x^{-1}t^{k})(1-yt^{k-1})(1-y^{-1}t^{k})}$$

Series in the l.h.s. converges for $|t|<|x|<1$ (probably in some other region too). If $|t|<|x|,|x|^{-1},|y|,|y|^{-1}$ it can be presented as a more symmetric double expansion

$$\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{x^n}{1-yt^n}=-1+\frac1{1-x}+\frac1{1-y}+\sum_{n,m>0}\left(x^ny^m-x^{-n}y^{-m}\right)t^{nm}$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.