1
$\begingroup$

There is a whole theory of finding the invariant polynomials for matrix groups $\Gamma$ acting on the polynomial ring $\mathbb{C}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. I would be interested in finding invariant polynomials for a different action of a matrix group on this polynomial ring. Let me give an example.

Period polynomials (of modular forms) are homogeneous elements in $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ satisfying $$ f(x,y) + f(-y,x) = f(x,y) + f(x-y,x) + f(-y,x-y) = 0. $$ Letting $S=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $U=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$, period polynomials can be interpreted as invariant polynomials of a non-standard action of $\langle S,U+U^2 \rangle \leq \mathbb{Z}[\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})]$ by $$ (Sf)(x,y) = -f(-y,x) \qquad \text{and} \qquad ((U+U^2)f)(x,y) = -f(x-y,x)-f(-y-x+y). $$

My question is: can one, without using the theory of modular forms, describe the invariant polynomials, i.e., the period polynomials?

I would also be interested in the answer to the more general question: given an action by a subgroup of the group algebra of matrices, how does one determine the invariant polynomials? To provide another example, experiments suggest there are certain polynomials satisfying $$f(x,y,z) = f(x+y,x,z)+f(x+y,y,z),$$ but none of these polynomials is also symmetric. How can one prove such a statement?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Usually CIT looks at actions of a linear group $G$ by linear change of coordinates. So the $S$ action fits in this point-of-view but the $U+U^2$ feels a bit strange because one adds the evaluations at two different points. Most of CIT is about $G$ being a Lie group like $SL$, but some treats discrete groups, e.g., finite groups. For that literature see Klein's book on the icosahedron (which includes profuse thanks to Paul Gordan for his help with the CIT computations) and the book by... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2023 at 22:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ...Jeremy Gray on differential equations and group theory. Now there is another CIT-modular forms connection which is less direct but could be use to you. See the review arxiv.org/abs/2211.05611 by Clery and van der Geer. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2023 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ Your action is not by ring automorphisms: for example $S(fg)$ is not the same as $Sf.Sg$. So the invariants probably won't be a subring. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 8, 2023 at 23:21
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, thank you for your comments. So, then, it seems there is no general theory to solve such functional equations. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 12, 2023 at 11:51

0

You must log in to answer this question.