2008Unpublished venueRequires access

A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SELBERG AND THE BRUGGEMAN-KUTZNETSOV TRACE FORMULAS III

C. J. Mozzochi

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

In this paper we elucidate and make somewhat transparent the clever technique of first introducing and then removing weights (Fourier co- efficients of eigenfunctions) when employing the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov trace formula to obtain information on the distribution of the eigenvalues of the hy- perbolic Laplacian for the modular group. Frequently, this technique yields improvement of results obtained by the Selberg trace formula. This gain is realized because the sums on the geometric side of the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov trace formula involve sums and integrals, which apparently package certain cancellations in a more efficient way than do the sums involving class numbers, which appear naturally on the geometric side of the Selberg trace formula. We do this by elaborating and significantly modifying the argument outlined in a letter from Sarnak to Rudnick, and, in the process, we improve one of the results obtained there. The limit of the construction is also discussed. To the memory of my friend Paul Cohen.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In this paper we elucidate and make somewhat transparent the clever technique of first introducing and then removing weights (Fourier co- efficients of eigenfunctions) when employing the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov trace formula to obtain information on the distribution of the eigenvalues of the hy- perbolic Laplacian for the modular group. Frequently, this technique yields improvement of results obtained by the Selberg trace formula. This gain is realized because the sums on the geometric side of the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov trace formula involve sums and integrals, which apparently package certain cancellations in a more efficient way than do the sums involving class numbers, which appear naturally on the geometric side of the Selberg trace formula. We do this by elaborating and significantly modifying the argument outlined in a letter from Sarnak to Rudnick, and, in the process, we improve one of the results obtained there. The limit of the construction is also discussed. To the memory of my friend Paul Cohen.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In this paper we elucidate and make somewhat transparent the clever technique of first introducing and then removing weights (Fourier co- efficients of eigenfunctions) when employing the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov trace formula to obtain information on the distribution of the eigenvalues of the hy- perbolic Laplacian for the modular group. Frequently, this technique yields improvement of results obtained by the Selberg trace formula. This gain is realized because the sums on the geometric side of the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov trace formula involve sums and integrals, which apparently package certain cancellations in a more efficient way than do the sums involving class numbers, which appear naturally on the geometric side of the Selberg trace formula. We do this by elaborating and significantly modifying the argument outlined in a letter from Sarnak to Rudnick, and, in the process, we improve one of the results obtained there. The limit of the construction is also discussed. To the memory of my friend Paul Cohen.

Key concepts: Selberg trace formula, TRACE (psycholinguistics), Limit (mathematics), Mathematics, Pure mathematics, Eigenfunction, Argument (complex analysis), Laplace operator

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SELBERG AND THE BRUGGEMAN-KUTZNETSOV TRACE FORMULAS III — Research Paper | ScholarLens