# On a Result of Atkin and Lehner

## 1 Introduction

We wish to give a new proof of one of the main results of Atkin-Lehner . That paper depends, among other things, on a slightly strengthened version of Theorem 1 below, which characterizes forms in $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ whose Fourier coefficients satisfy a certain vanishing condition. Our proof involves rephrasing this vanishing condition in terms of representation theory; this, together with an elementary linear algebra argument, allows us to rewrite our problem as a collection of local problems. Furthermore, the classical phrasing of Theorem 1 makes the resulting local problems trivial; this is in contrast to the method of Casselman , whose local problem relies upon knowledge of the structure of irreducible representations of $`\mathrm{GL}_2(𝐐_p)`$. Our proof is therefore much more accessible to mathematicians who aren’t specialists in the representation theory of $`p`$-adic groups; the method is also applicable to other Atkin-Lehner-style problems, such as the level structures that were considered in Carlton .

Our proof of Theorem 1 occupies Section 2. In Section 3, we explain the links between this Theorem and the rest of Atkin-Lehner theory; in particular, we show that Theorem 1, together with either the Global Result of Casselman  or Theorem 4 of Atkin-Lehner , can be used to derive all of the important results of Atkin-Lehner theory.

## 2 The Main Theorem

Recall that, if $`N|M`$ and $`d|(M/N)`$, there is a map $`i_d:M_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))M_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(M))`$ defined by

$$c_m(i_d(f))=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }dm\hfill \\ c_{m/d}(f)\hfill & \text{if }d|m.\hfill \end{array}$$

This map sends cusp forms to cusp forms and eigenforms to eigenforms (with the same eigenvalues); up to multiplication by a constant, it is given by $`ff|_{\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)}`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`fM_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ be such that $`c_m(f)=0`$ unless $`(m,N)>1`$. Then $`f=_{p|N}i_p(f_p)`$, where $`p`$ varies over the primes dividing $`N`$ and where $`f_pM_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N/p))`$. Furthermore, if $`f`$ is a cusp form (resp. eigenform) then the $`f_p`$’s can be chosen to be cusp forms (resp. eigenforms with the same eigenvalues as $`f`$).

Our proof rests on two elementary linear algebra lemmas:

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_n`$ be vector spaces and, for each $`i`$, let $`f_i`$ be an endomorphism of $`V_i`$. Then

$$\mathrm{ker}(f_1\mathrm{}f_n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}V_1\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ker}f_i)\mathrm{}V_n.$$

###### Proof.

We can easily reduce to the case $`n=2`$. If we write $`V_i=(\mathrm{ker}f_i)V_i^{}`$ then $`f_i|_{V_i^{}}`$ is an isomorphism onto its image, and

$$V_1V_2=((\mathrm{ker}f_1)(\mathrm{ker}f_2))((\mathrm{ker}f_1)V_2^{})(V_1^{}(\mathrm{ker}f_2))(V_1^{}V_2^{}).$$

We see that $`f_1f_2`$ kills the first three factors, and is an isomorphism from the fourth factor onto its image; $`\mathrm{ker}(f_1f_2)`$ is therefore the sum of the first three factors, which is what we wanted to show. ∎

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_n`$ be vector spaces and, for each $`i`$, let $`V_i^{}`$ and $`V_i^{\prime \prime }`$ be subspaces of $`V_i`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}V_1\mathrm{}V_i^{}\mathrm{}V_n\right)(V_1^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}V_n^{\prime \prime })\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}V_1^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}(V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{}V_n^{\prime \prime }.\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Again, we can assume that $`n=2`$. Write $`V_i=V_{i1}V_{i2}V_{i3}V_{i4}`$ where $`V_{i1}=V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime }`$, $`V_i^{}=V_{i1}V_{i2}`$, and $`V_i^{\prime \prime }=V_{i1}V_{i3}`$. Then $`V_1^{}V_2+V_1V_2^{}`$ is the direct sum of those $`V_{1j}V_{2k}`$’s where at least one of $`j`$ or $`k`$ is in the set $`\{1,2\}`$. Also, $`V_1^{\prime \prime }V_2^{\prime \prime }`$ is the direct sum of the $`V_{1j}V_{2k}`$’s where $`j`$ and $`k`$ are both in the set $`\{1,3\}`$. Thus, their intersection is $`(V_{11}V_{21})(V_{11}V_{23})(V_{13}V_{21})`$, as claimed. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1..

If $`fM_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ then $`f|_{\left(\begin{array}{cc}N^1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)}M_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N))`$, where we define the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙)\right|b0(modN)\}.$$

Furthermore, up to multiplication by a constant, $`f|_{\left(\begin{array}{cc}N^1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)}`$ has the same Fourier coefficients as $`f`$, except that we have to take the $`q`$-expansion with respect to $`e^{2\pi \sqrt{1}z/N}`$ instead of $`e^{2\pi \sqrt{1}z}`$. Our Theorem, then, is equivalent to the statement that, if $`fM_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N))`$ satisfies the condition

$`c_m(f)=0`$ unless $`(m,N)>1`$ (1)   
then $`f=_{p|N}f_p`$ where $`f_pM_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N/p))`$.

Let $`M=M_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }(N))`$; it comes with an action of $`\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/N𝐙)`$. If $`fM`$ and $`d|N`$, define $`\pi _d(f)`$ to be $`_{d|m}c_m(f)q^m`$. Then $`\pi _d(f)M`$: in fact,

$$\pi _d(f)=\frac{1}{d}\underset{b=0}{\overset{d1}{}}f|_{\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& bN/d\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)}.$$

The principle of inclusion and exclusion implies that $`f`$ satisfies (1) if and only if

$$f=\underset{p|N}{}\pi _p(f)\underset{\begin{array}{c}p_1,p_2|N\\ p_1<p_2\end{array}}{}\pi _{p_1p_2}(f)+\mathrm{}.$$

Thus, if $`V`$ is an irreducible $`\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/N𝐙)`$-representation contained in $`M`$, it suffices to prove our Theorem for a form in $`V`$, since the conditions of our Theorem can be expressed in terms of the action of $`\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/N𝐙)`$.

Let $`N=_{i=1}^np_i^{n_i}`$ be the prime factorization of $`N`$. Then $`\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/N𝐙)=_i\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/p_i^{n_i}𝐙)`$, so $`V=_iV_i`$ where $`V_i`$ is a representation of $`\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/p_i^{n_i}𝐙)`$. Also, $`\pi _{p_i}`$ acts as the identity on the $`V_j`$ for $`ji`$. So if we define

$$\pi (f)=f\underset{p|N}{}\pi _p(f)+\underset{\begin{array}{c}p_1,p_2|N\\ p_1<p_2\end{array}}{}\pi _{p_1p_2}(f)\mathrm{}$$

then $`\pi =(1\pi _{p_1})\mathrm{}(1\pi _{p_n})`$ and $`\mathrm{ker}(\pi )`$ is the space of forms satisfying (1). Thus, Lemma 2 implies that

$$\mathrm{ker}(\pi )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}V_1\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ker}(1\pi _{p_i}))\mathrm{}V_n.$$

Turning now to the question of a form’s being in $`M_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N))`$, that is the case if and only if the form is both in $`M_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }(N))`$ and is invariant under the image $`B(N)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N)`$ in $`\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/N𝐙)`$. Also, $`B(N)=_iB(p_i)`$. Thus, setting $`V_i^{}`$ to be $`\mathrm{ker}(1\pi _{p_i})`$ and $`V_i^{\prime \prime }`$ to be the space of $`B(p_i)`$-invariant elements of $`V_i`$, Lemma 3 implies that an element of $`V`$ is both in $`\mathrm{ker}\pi `$ and invariant under $`B(N)`$ if and only if it is in

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}V_1^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}(V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{}V_n^{\prime \prime }.$$

But if $`v_iV_i`$ is in $`V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime }`$ then it is invariant both under $`B(p_i)`$ and under projection to the subspace of invariants under the cyclic subgroup generated by $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& p_i^{n_i1}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$; this last condition is equivalent to its being invariant under $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& p_i^{n_i1}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. Thus, our vector $`v_i`$ is invariant under

$$\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/p_i^{n_i}𝐙)\right|b0(modp_i^{n_i1})\},$$

and $`V_1^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}(V_i^{}V_i^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{}V_n^{\prime \prime }`$ is the set of invariants under

$$\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{SL}_2(𝐙/N𝐙)\right|b0(modN/p_i)\},$$

i.e. the elements of $`VM_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(N/p_i))`$, completing our proof.

The cusp form case is similar, replacing $`M`$ by the space of cusp forms. The eigenform case then follows from the facts that the Hecke operators are simultaneously diagonalizable and that their action is preserved by the operators $`i_p`$. ∎

## 3 Newforms, Oldforms, and All That

In this Section, we explain the relation between Theorem 1 and the rest of Atkin-Lehner theory. We shall see that the whole theory follows from Theorem 1 together with facts about $`L`$-series associated to modular forms, as expressed by Theorem 4 of Atkin-Lehner  or the Global Result of Casselman . We claim no originality in the methods used in this Section.

Define $`K_0(N)`$ to be the subspace of $`fS_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ such that $`c_m(f)=0`$ unless $`(m,N)>1`$: thus, $`K_0(N)`$ is the subspace characterized in Theorem 1. Define $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ to be $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))/K_0(N)`$; for $`f\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$, $`c_m(f)`$ is well-defined exactly when $`(m,N)=1`$. Also, let $`𝐓^N`$ be the free polynomial algebra over $`𝐂`$ generated by commuting operators $`T_m`$ for $`(m,N)=1`$. Then $`𝐓^N`$ acts on $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ (where $`T_m`$ acts as the $`m`$’th Hecke operator), and its action is diagonalizable; it is easy to see that its action descends to $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$. (For example, $`T_m`$ commutes with the action of the operators $`\pi _d`$ defined in the proof of Theorem 1.)

###### Proposition 4.

The $`𝐓^N`$-eigenspaces in $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ are one-dimensional; furthermore, an eigenform $`f\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ is zero if and only if $`c_1(f)=0`$.

###### Proof.

If $`f\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ is an eigenform for $`T_m`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda _m(f)`$ then $`c_m(f)=\lambda _m(f)c_1(f)`$. Thus, if $`f`$ is a $`𝐓^N`$-eigenform then it is determined by its eigenvalues and by $`c_1(f)`$. ∎

This Proposition, together with Theorem 1, sometimes allows one to reduce questions about the spaces $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ to spaces whose eigenspaces are one-dimensional.

###### Proposition 5.

If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are eigenforms in $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ such that, for some $`D`$, they have the same eigenvalues $`\lambda _m`$ for all $`m`$ with $`(m,ND)=1`$, then they have the same eigenvalues for all $`m`$ with $`(m,N)=1`$.

###### Proof.

This is part of the Global Result of Casselman , or of Theorem 4 of Atkin-Lehner . ∎

We should also point out that our Theorem 1 isn’t quite the same as Theorem 1 of Atkin-Lehner . Their Theorem 1 assumes that $`c_m(f)=0`$ unless $`(m,ND)=1`$, and thus breaks down into two parts: showing that you can assume that $`D=1`$, and our Theorem 1. It is easy to show that the first part is equivalent to Proposition 5, at least in the eigenform case; the cusp form case takes a bit more work.

We now present what is traditionally thought of as the core of Atkin-Lehner theory.

###### Theorem 6.

If $`\{\lambda _m\}`$ is a set of eigenvalues (for all $`m`$ relatively prime to a finite set of primes) that occurs in some space $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ then there is a unique minimal such $`N`$ (with respect to division) for which those eigenvalues occur, and the corresponding eigenspace is one-dimensional. If $`f`$ is a basis element for that eigenspace and if $`M`$ is a multiple of $`N`$ then the corresponding eigenspace in $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(M))`$ has a basis given by the forms $`i_d(f)`$ where $`d`$ varies over the (positive) divisors of $`M/N`$.

###### Proof.

For any positive integer $`M`$, write $`V_0(M)`$ for the set of eigenforms in $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(M))`$ with eigenvalues $`\{\lambda _m\}`$. By Proposition 5, we don’t have to worry exactly about which primes are avoided in our set of eigenvalues, so this notation makes sense. Furthermore, let $`N`$ be a minimal level such that $`V_0(N)`$ is nonzero. By Proposition 4, the image of $`V_0(N)`$ in $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ is one-dimensional. Theorem 1 shows that any element of the kernel of the map from $`V_0(N)`$ to $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ is of the form $`_{p|N}i_p(f_p)`$, where $`f_pV_0(N/p)`$. But the minimality of $`N`$ shows that there aren’t any such forms; the kernel is therefore zero, so $`V_0(N)`$ is one-dimensional.

To see that $`N`$ is unique, let $`S_k`$ be the space of adelic cusp forms of weight $`k`$ but of arbitrary level structure; it comes with an action of $`\mathrm{GL}_2(𝐀^{\mathrm{}})`$, and elements of $`S_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(M))`$ correspond to elements of $`S_k`$ invariant under the action of a certain subgroup $`U_0(M)=_pU_0(p^{m_p})`$, where $`p`$ varies over the set of all primes and $`p^{m_p}`$ is the highest power of $`p`$ that divides $`M`$. Casselman’s Global Result says that the set $`V`$ of forms in $`S_k`$ with eigenvalues $`\{\lambda _m\}`$ gives an irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{GL}_2(𝐀^{\mathrm{}})`$; thus, it can be written as a restricted tensor product $`V=_pV_p`$, and

$$V_0(M)=\underset{p}{}V_p^{U_0(p^{m_p})}.$$

Since $`U_0(p^m)`$ contains $`U_0(p^{m+1})`$, for each $`p`$ it is the case that, if for some power $`p^m`$, $`V_p^{U_0(p^m)}`$ is nonzero, then there is a minimal such power. Thus, taking $`N`$ to be the product of those minimal powers of $`p`$, we see that, if for some $`M`$, $`V_0(M)`$ is nonzero, then it is nonzero for a unique minimal $`M`$, namely our $`N`$. (Alternatively, the uniqueness of the minimal level is part of Theorem 4 of Atkin-Lehner .)

Finally, to see that the eigenspace grows as indicated, let $`f`$ be a nonzero element of $`V_0(N)`$ for $`N`$ minimal. By Proposition 4, we can assume that $`c_1(f)=1`$, since our argument above showed that the image of $`f`$ in $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ is nonzero. Fix some multiple $`M`$ of $`N`$, and assume that we have shown that, for all proper divisors $`M^{}`$ of $`M`$ with $`N|M^{}`$,

$$V_0(M^{})=\underset{d|(M^{}/N)}{}i_d(f)𝐂.$$
(2)   
We then want to show that the same statement holds with $`M`$ in place of $`M^{}`$. Thus, let $`g`$ be an element of $`V_0(M)`$. By Proposition 4, the image of $`gc_1(g)i_1(f)`$ in $`\overline{S}_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(M))`$ is zero, so by Theorem 1,

$$g=c_1(g)i_1(f)+\underset{p|M}{}i_p(g_p)$$

for some forms $`g_pV_0(M/p)`$. Also, $`g_p=0`$ unless $`p|(M/N)`$, since otherwise $`N`$ wouldn’t divide $`M/p`$, contradicting the unique minimality of $`N`$. But then (2) implies that each $`g_p`$, and hence $`g`$, can be written as a linear combination of the forms $`i_d(f)`$ for $`d|(M/N)`$; it is easy to see that such an expression for $`g`$ is unique. ∎