Construction of eigenfunction for Hecke operators $T_p$











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I am reading Theorem 2 from Atkin-Lehner's Hecke operators on $Gamma_0(m)$. Let $u=(u_1(tau),u_2(tau),..,u_n(tau))$ be an orthonormal basis for the space of cusp forms on $Gamma_0(m)$ with weight $k$. Let $A_p$ denote the matrix associated with each Hecke operator $T_p$ with respect to $u$. Then we take $A$ to be a unitary matrix which can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p.$



Then how does it follow that each element of the new basis $f=Au$ is an eigenfunction of all the operators $T_p$?



My attempt: Need $T_p(f_i) = lambda_pf_i$ for all $p$. Since $A$ can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p,$ I have $A_p = ADA^{-1}$ ($D$ is diagonal). Then, right multiply with $Au$ leading to $A_p(Au) = ADA^{-1}Au, = ADu. $ I can't proceed further.



Will this construction of eigenforms work for any set of operators?



Let me know if any more clarifications are needed.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • It is because the $T_p$ commute and $M_k(Gamma_0(m))$ is finite dimensional, so there exists a basis $U$ where they are all in Jordan normal form, and they are normal for the Peterson inner product, so they are diagonal in $U$ and $U$ is unitary for that inner product. Can you copy the article ?
    – reuns
    yesterday












  • @reuns No I could not. I seem to miss a point somewhere. I will try with this insight and come back.
    – 1.414212
    yesterday

















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I am reading Theorem 2 from Atkin-Lehner's Hecke operators on $Gamma_0(m)$. Let $u=(u_1(tau),u_2(tau),..,u_n(tau))$ be an orthonormal basis for the space of cusp forms on $Gamma_0(m)$ with weight $k$. Let $A_p$ denote the matrix associated with each Hecke operator $T_p$ with respect to $u$. Then we take $A$ to be a unitary matrix which can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p.$



Then how does it follow that each element of the new basis $f=Au$ is an eigenfunction of all the operators $T_p$?



My attempt: Need $T_p(f_i) = lambda_pf_i$ for all $p$. Since $A$ can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p,$ I have $A_p = ADA^{-1}$ ($D$ is diagonal). Then, right multiply with $Au$ leading to $A_p(Au) = ADA^{-1}Au, = ADu. $ I can't proceed further.



Will this construction of eigenforms work for any set of operators?



Let me know if any more clarifications are needed.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • It is because the $T_p$ commute and $M_k(Gamma_0(m))$ is finite dimensional, so there exists a basis $U$ where they are all in Jordan normal form, and they are normal for the Peterson inner product, so they are diagonal in $U$ and $U$ is unitary for that inner product. Can you copy the article ?
    – reuns
    yesterday












  • @reuns No I could not. I seem to miss a point somewhere. I will try with this insight and come back.
    – 1.414212
    yesterday















up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I am reading Theorem 2 from Atkin-Lehner's Hecke operators on $Gamma_0(m)$. Let $u=(u_1(tau),u_2(tau),..,u_n(tau))$ be an orthonormal basis for the space of cusp forms on $Gamma_0(m)$ with weight $k$. Let $A_p$ denote the matrix associated with each Hecke operator $T_p$ with respect to $u$. Then we take $A$ to be a unitary matrix which can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p.$



Then how does it follow that each element of the new basis $f=Au$ is an eigenfunction of all the operators $T_p$?



My attempt: Need $T_p(f_i) = lambda_pf_i$ for all $p$. Since $A$ can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p,$ I have $A_p = ADA^{-1}$ ($D$ is diagonal). Then, right multiply with $Au$ leading to $A_p(Au) = ADA^{-1}Au, = ADu. $ I can't proceed further.



Will this construction of eigenforms work for any set of operators?



Let me know if any more clarifications are needed.










share|cite|improve this question













I am reading Theorem 2 from Atkin-Lehner's Hecke operators on $Gamma_0(m)$. Let $u=(u_1(tau),u_2(tau),..,u_n(tau))$ be an orthonormal basis for the space of cusp forms on $Gamma_0(m)$ with weight $k$. Let $A_p$ denote the matrix associated with each Hecke operator $T_p$ with respect to $u$. Then we take $A$ to be a unitary matrix which can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p.$



Then how does it follow that each element of the new basis $f=Au$ is an eigenfunction of all the operators $T_p$?



My attempt: Need $T_p(f_i) = lambda_pf_i$ for all $p$. Since $A$ can simultaneously diagonalise all $A_p,$ I have $A_p = ADA^{-1}$ ($D$ is diagonal). Then, right multiply with $Au$ leading to $A_p(Au) = ADA^{-1}Au, = ADu. $ I can't proceed further.



Will this construction of eigenforms work for any set of operators?



Let me know if any more clarifications are needed.







modular-forms






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked yesterday









1.414212

133




133












  • It is because the $T_p$ commute and $M_k(Gamma_0(m))$ is finite dimensional, so there exists a basis $U$ where they are all in Jordan normal form, and they are normal for the Peterson inner product, so they are diagonal in $U$ and $U$ is unitary for that inner product. Can you copy the article ?
    – reuns
    yesterday












  • @reuns No I could not. I seem to miss a point somewhere. I will try with this insight and come back.
    – 1.414212
    yesterday




















  • It is because the $T_p$ commute and $M_k(Gamma_0(m))$ is finite dimensional, so there exists a basis $U$ where they are all in Jordan normal form, and they are normal for the Peterson inner product, so they are diagonal in $U$ and $U$ is unitary for that inner product. Can you copy the article ?
    – reuns
    yesterday












  • @reuns No I could not. I seem to miss a point somewhere. I will try with this insight and come back.
    – 1.414212
    yesterday


















It is because the $T_p$ commute and $M_k(Gamma_0(m))$ is finite dimensional, so there exists a basis $U$ where they are all in Jordan normal form, and they are normal for the Peterson inner product, so they are diagonal in $U$ and $U$ is unitary for that inner product. Can you copy the article ?
– reuns
yesterday






It is because the $T_p$ commute and $M_k(Gamma_0(m))$ is finite dimensional, so there exists a basis $U$ where they are all in Jordan normal form, and they are normal for the Peterson inner product, so they are diagonal in $U$ and $U$ is unitary for that inner product. Can you copy the article ?
– reuns
yesterday














@reuns No I could not. I seem to miss a point somewhere. I will try with this insight and come back.
– 1.414212
yesterday






@reuns No I could not. I seem to miss a point somewhere. I will try with this insight and come back.
– 1.414212
yesterday

















active

oldest

votes











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005149%2fconstruction-of-eigenfunction-for-hecke-operators-t-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005149%2fconstruction-of-eigenfunction-for-hecke-operators-t-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$