3
$\begingroup$

Referencing Don Zagier's notes (Utrecht), and also paper for moderate growth version.

The Rankin-Selberg transform can be defined by $\mathcal{R}(f,s) := \int_0^\infty \tau_2^{s-2} a_0(\tau_2) d\tau_2 = \mathcal{M}(\tau_2^{-1} a_0,s)$ (where $\mathcal{M}$ is the Mellin transform). By the main theorem, this has a simple pole at $s=1$ with residue $\kappa = \frac{\pi}{3}\int_{\mathcal{F}}f d\mu$, and elsewhere poles at $\rho/2$ where the $\rho$s are non-trivial zeroes of the Riemann zeta function.

Suppose that the constant term $a_0(\tau_2) = C_0 \tau_2^{\lambda_0}+C_1 \tau_2^{\lambda_1}+\cdots$ as $\tau_2 \rightarrow 0$. Then the Rankin-Selberg transform gives poles at $s=1-\lambda_j$ with residue $C_j$. Zagier writes that this suggests but unfortunately does not seem to imply that we have $a_0(\tau_2) \sim \kappa + \sum_{\rho: \zeta(\rho) = 0}C_\rho \tau_2^{1-\rho/2}$ as $\tau_2 \rightarrow 0$.

He continues, "under some circumstances it may be possible to prove this" (paraphrasing). Does anyone know references, or a direct answer to what one needs to prove this?

$\endgroup$

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.