9
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator\SL{SL}\DeclareMathOperator\SO{SO}$Consider the lattices in $\SL(2,\mathbb R)(\mathbb Z^2)$ up to rotation. The space of such lattices can be identified with the modular surface $\mathcal M:=\SO(2)\backslash \SL(2,\mathbb R)/\SL(2,\mathbb Z)$. We can then define a family of functions $f_t(A):\mathcal M\rightarrow \mathbb R^+$ by

$$f_t(A)=\sum_{ v\in A(\mathbb Z^2)} e^{-t \|v\|_2},$$ for $t>0$, where $\|v\|_2$ denotes the Euclidean norm.

I conjecture that for all $t>0$, $f_t(A)$ has a unique minimum at the lattice which can be tiled by equilateral triangles.

I have computational evidence which suggests that this is true; I have plotted approximations of $f_t(A)$, $$f_{t,N}(A):=\sum_{v\in A(\mathbb Z_N^2)} e^{-t\|v\|_2},$$ where $\mathbb Z_N:= \{m\in\mathbb Z:-N\leq m\leq N\}$, and the conjecture seems to hold. Note that for $t$ small and $N$ small, $f_{t,N}(A)$ is not necessarily minimized by the equilaterally tiled lattice. However, for a fixed $t>0$, it appears that there exists an $N_t>0$ such that for all $N>N_T$, $f_{t,N}(A)$ is minimized by the equilaterally tiled lattice.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As an idle comment, we can observe that the Mellin transform of this, in $t$, is the $s$th "non-analytic" [sic] Eisenstein series $E_s(z)$, with its normalizing factor of $\pi^{-s}\Gamma(s)\zeta(2s)$. $\endgroup$ Jul 17, 2021 at 2:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Apparently this is known if you consider the theta-function of the lattice, i.e. if you replace $\|v\|$ by $\|v\|^2$ in the exponent (Montgomery, Minimal theta functions (1988), doi.org/10.1017/S0017089500007047), and it is expected to be true for more general functions. (Keyword: universal optimality) $\endgroup$ Jul 17, 2021 at 13:03

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

The answer is that $f_t(A)$ is uniquely minimized at the hexagonal lattice (up to rotation).

The comment by Marco Golla led me to the following paper by Laurent Bétermin which proves the result in a more general setting: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03839

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.