3
$\begingroup$

Let $\Gamma\le SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ be a congruence subgroup of level $N$. Let $R$ be a $\mathbb{Z}[1/N]$-algebra.

Let $\mathcal{Y}(\Gamma)_R$ denote the moduli stack over $R$ of elliptic curves equipped with a $\Gamma$-structure. For an integer $k$, let $\mathcal{Y}(\Gamma,\Omega^k)_R$ denote the moduli stack of triples $(E/S,\alpha,\omega)$, where $f : E\rightarrow S$ is an elliptic curve over an $R$-scheme $S$, $\alpha$ a $\Gamma$-structure on $E/S$, and $\omega$ is a basis of the $\mathcal{O}_S$-module $(f_*\Omega^1_{E/S})^{\otimes k}$.

There is a natural map $p_k : \mathcal{Y}(\Gamma,\Omega^k)_R\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}(\Gamma)_R$ given by forgetting the differential $\omega$. My understanding is that a Katz modular form of weight $k$ is just a section of $p_k$ (perhaps up to 2-isomorphism?). Is this correct? (Here I want to consider weakly holomorphic modular forms - that is, modular forms "holomorphic on the upper half plane, meromorphic at the cusps")

The set of such sections ("weakly holomorphic" Katz modular forms of weight $k$) form an $R$-module $KM^k(\Gamma,R)$. My question is, if we pick an embedding $R\hookrightarrow\mathbb{C}$, any section of $p_k$ can be pulled back to a section of $p_{k,\mathbb{C}} : \mathcal{Y}(\Gamma,\Omega^k)_\mathbb{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}(\Gamma)_{\mathbb{C}}$, and over $\mathbb{C}$, I can more or less see that the $\mathbb{C}$-vector space $KM^k(\Gamma,\mathbb{C})$ is the "same" as the space of weakly holomorphic modular forms for $\Gamma$ defined classically.

My question is - is $KM^k(\Gamma,R)\otimes_R\mathbb{C}\cong KM^k(\Gamma,\mathbb{C})$?

If this is not always true, then under what circumstances will it be true? (perhaps some condition like the Tate curve over $\mathbb{Z}((q))\otimes_\mathbb{Z} R$ admitting "all $\Gamma$-structures"?)

Also, if $\Gamma$ is torsion free, so that $\mathcal{Y}(\Gamma)_R$ is a scheme, then does $p_k$ (over $R$) always admit a section? Equivalently, if $f : E\rightarrow S$ is an elliptic curve equipped with a "fine level structure" (e.g. a $\Gamma(N)$-structure for $N\ge 3$, a $\Gamma_1(N)$-structure for $N\ge 4$,...etc), then is $f_*\Omega^1_{E/S}\cong \mathcal{O}_S$?

I apologize if this is obvious.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

I do not think that your definition of Katz modular form is exactly correct. A (Katz) weight-$k$ modular form for $\Gamma$ is a section of the line bundle on $\mathcal{Y}(\Gamma)_R$ that evaluates on every scheme $S$ classifying an elliptic curve $f\colon E\to S$ with $\Gamma$-level structure as $(f_*\Omega^1_{E/S})^{\otimes k}$. Your definition looks similar, but you seem only to allow nowhere vanishing sections. I will use $KM^k(\Gamma,R)$ in the following in my sense (which is, I think, also Katz's sense).

Sections of lines bundles commute with flat base change (as global sections are computed as a kernel). Thus $KM^k(\Gamma, R) \cong KM^k(\Gamma, \mathbb{Z}[\frac1n]) \otimes R$ for every torsionfree $\mathbb{Z}[\frac1n]$-algebra $R$ and your first question has a positive answer.

The answer to your second question is also positive, at least for $\Gamma_1(n)$. See e.g. Lemma 4.10 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09264

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused - is it really possible that $KM^k(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z}[1/n])\otimes\mathbb{C}$ is always equal to $KM^k(\Gamma,\mathbb{C})$? Isn't $KM^k(\Gamma,\mathbb{Z}[1/n])$ essentially the ring of weight $k$ modular forms which have Fourier coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}[1/n]$? For example, I know there are definitely modular curves which don't admit models over $\mathbb{Q}$, so when you take $k = 0$, for these curves I don't think it's possible that $KM^0(\Gamma,\mathbb{Q})\otimes_\mathbb{Q}\mathbb{C} = KM^0(\Gamma,\mathbb{C})$... $\endgroup$ – stupid_question_bot Oct 24 '17 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ I think, it is correct what I wrote, but one has to be careful with the interpretation. For example, for me a $\Gamma(n)$-level structure would mean that one fixes an isomorphism of the $n$-torsion $E[n]$ with $(\mathbb{Z}/n)^2$. Over $\mathbb{C}$, we de not get classical modular forms for $\Gamma(n)$, but rather $\phi(n)$ copies of it. But if you want to $\mathcal{Y}(\Gamma(n))_R$ to be defined for all $\mathbb{Z}[\frac1n]$ you do not have much of a choice; to single out the "right" component, you have to restrict to $\mathbb{Z}[\frac1n, \zeta_n]$-algebras. $\endgroup$ – Lennart Meier Oct 24 '17 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ I'm having some trouble understanding how to actually define global sections of a sheaf (e.g. line bundle) on a DM stack. A lot of sources define sheaves on a stack $\mathcal{X}$ by defining them on the lisse-etale site or the small etale-site of $\mathcal{X}$. However, the objects of these sites are schemes (over $\mathcal{X}$), and hence these sites do not have final objects, and a sheaf on such a site cannot simply be 'evaluated' at the final object to yield global sections. Do you know of a good reference which defines "global sections" of a line bundle on an algebraic stack? $\endgroup$ – stupid_question_bot Oct 26 '17 at 23:53
  • $\begingroup$ (I was trying to understand your statement that "sections of line bundles commute with flat base change as global sections are computed as a kernel") $\endgroup$ – stupid_question_bot Oct 26 '17 at 23:54
  • $\begingroup$ Abstractly, you define them as the limit over the evaluation at all schemes over $\mathcal{X}$. More concretely: Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sheaf on the etale site of $\mathcal{X}$. Pick an etale cover $U\to \mathcal{X}$ by a scheme $U$. Then $U\times_{\mathcal{X}}U$ is a scheme as well (as the diagonal of $\mathcal{X}$ is representable by assumption). Then $\mathcal{F}(X) = \mathrm{ker}(pr_1^* - pr_2^*: \mathcal{F}(U) \to \mathcal{F}(U\times_{\mathcal{X}}U))$. $\endgroup$ – Lennart Meier Oct 27 '17 at 8:03

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.