1
$\begingroup$

Consider the analytic space $\mathbb{C}^{*}$ with coordinate $z$. Let $q$ be some parameter with $|q|<1$ and define the analytic function $$\theta(z;q):=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}q^{\binom{n}{2}}(-z)^{n}.$$ Remark that this is I think usually denoted $\theta_{11}$, and is the theta function corresponding to the trivial two torsion point on the elliptic curve $E_{q}=\mathbb{C}^{*}/q^{\mathbb{Z}}$.

Question. Is there an analytic function on $\mathbb{C}^{*}$, denoted $s(z)$, with the property $$s(qz)-s(z)=\theta(z).$$ Moreover can it be expressed neatly as some $q$-series? What I would really like is a reference to a text where such identities are collected in bulk so I don´t have to spend too much time trying to invent them myself.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

No, because the constant coefficient $c_0=q^0=1$ of your Laurent series is non-zero. Look at $$f(z) =c_0\frac{\log z}{\log q}+ \sum_{n\ne 0} \frac{q^{n(n-1)/2}}{q^n-1} (-z)^n, \qquad f(qz)-f(z)=\theta(z)\bmod \frac{c_0 2i\pi }{\log q}$$ Assuming your $s(z)$ exists let $$g(w)=s(e^w)-f(e^w)$$ which is entire, $\log q$ periodic, and $$g(w+2i\pi)= g(w)-c_0\frac{2i\pi}{\log q} $$ Therefore, $\frac{g(w)-g(0)}{w}$ is entire and bounded so that $g(w)=g(0)+wg'(0)$.

$g(w+2i\pi)= g(w)-c_0\frac{2i\pi}{\log q}$ gives that $g'(0)\ne 0$, contradicting that $g$ is $\log q$-periodic, contradicting that $s(z)$ is analytic on $\Bbb{C}^*$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I cannot yet follow this. In particular as the above f does not satisfy the diff equation on the nose it seems that g is not log(q)-periodic? $\endgroup$
    – EBz
    Apr 12 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean? $f(e^w)$ is entire and $f(e^{w+\log q} )-f(e^w) = \theta(e^w)$. The problem is that $f(e^w)$ is not $2i\pi$-periodic, there is a $2i\pi $ term coming from the continuation of $\log z$. $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Apr 12 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ my apologies, i was confused! $\endgroup$
    – EBz
    Apr 12 at 18:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I did not understand why anything else except the first sentence was necessary. Since $s$ is assumed to be analytic in $C^*$ it has a Laurent expansion, and in $s(qz)-s(z)$, the constant term is evidently $0$. $\endgroup$ Apr 12 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexandreEremenko True, and I missed that, I guess the point is that when the constant term is $0$ there is an obvious solution, and when it is not as you say there is an obvious contradiction. $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Apr 12 at 23:56

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.