2
$\begingroup$

I have been reading section 7 of Serre's "Quelques applications du théorème de densité de Chebotarev" (http://www.numdam.org/item/PMIHES_1981__54__123_0/), and in particular have been trying to understand the proof of Theorem 17(i) (pg.60-62) which gives the order of magnitude of the count $M_f(x)$ of non-zero Fourier coefficients upto $x$, of a non-CM modular form of weight $k \geq 2$ and level $\Gamma_0(N)$ with Nebentypus $\omega$.

For context, the idea of the proof is to consider the sets $R_0$ (respectively, $R_{1/2}$) of $f \in M_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)$ for which the lower asymptotic density of $M_f(x)/x$ (respectively, $M_f(x)\sqrt{log x}/x$) is zero, and show that each of these two subsets is stable under the action of the $\mathbb C$-subalgebra $\mathfrak H$ of $End_{\mathbb C} M_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)$ generated by the Hecke operators $T_p$ $(p \nmid N)$ and $U_p$ $(p|N)$, whereafter he shows by means of a contradiction argument that $R_0$ is precisely the set of CM-cusp forms (in the sense of Ribet) of weight $k$ and level $\Gamma_0(N)$, Nebentypus $\omega$ (henceforth denoted, $S_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)^{\text{cm}}$), while $R_{1/2}=0$.

In order to achieve the aforementioned contradiction, he assumes that there is some form $f \not\in S_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)^{\text{cm}}$ which lies in $R_0$, so that $f$ can be uniquely written as a sum $g+h$ of some nonzero $g \in S_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)^{\text{non-cm}} \oplus E_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)$ and some $h \in S_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)^{\text{cm}}$, with $S_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)^{\text{non-cm}}$ denoting the orthogonal complement of $S_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)^{\text{cm}}$ in $S_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)$ (i.e., the space of non-CM cusp forms) and with $E_k(\Gamma_0(N), \omega)$ denoting the space of Eisenstein series with usual parameters. He considers the $\mathfrak H$-module $\mathfrak Hg$ generated by $g$ and claims that it contains a simple submodule $\Sigma$, which must therefore be one-dimensional (as a complex vector space) since $\mathfrak H$ is a commutative algebra.

The last sentence is what I cannot seem to be able to see.

  1. First, as far as I know, nonzero modules over Artinian rings have simple submodules. If the ring is not Artinian, then even cyclic modules need not have simple submodules (as happens in the ring $\mathbb Z$). Is it known that $\mathfrak H$ is Artinian? If so, I would really appreciate a easy-to-understand reference with minimal machinery used. If not, how do we get a simple submodule of $\mathfrak H g$ in this case?

  2. I know that simple modules over finitely generated $\mathbb C$-algebras are one-dimensional complex vector spaces (and can see it as a consequence of the weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz). But our algebra $\mathfrak H$ here is clearly not finitely generated, right? So even we do end up with a simple submodule $\Sigma$ of $\mathfrak H g$, why is it one-dimensional?

I would really appreciate some help with these queries, they are the only places in the proof which I cannot fill in. I fear I might be missing something simple, in which case I apologize in advance. Thank you for your time.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The set $\mathfrak H g$ is a finite dimensional complex vector space on which the Hecke operators ($T_p$ for $p\nmid N$ and $U_p$ for $p\mid N$) act. The Hecke operators are normal and commute with each other, hence $\mathfrak H g$ has a basis consisting of simultaneous eigenfunctions of the Hecke operators. If $b$ is an element of such an eigenbasis, then $\Sigma=\mathfrak H b$ is a one-dimensional submodule that Serre talks about. This is straightforward linear algebra, no need to look at ring-theoretic properties of $\mathfrak H$.

$\endgroup$

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.