The cusp amplitudes and quasi-level of a congruence subgroup of SL2 over any Dedekind domain
A. W. Mason, Andreas Schweizer

TL;DR
This paper generalizes properties of classical modular groups to groups over Dedekind domains, focusing on cusp amplitudes, levels, and introducing quasi-levels to better understand congruence subgroups.
Contribution
It extends algebraic properties of SL_2(Z) to SL_2(D) over Dedekind domains, introduces quasi-amplitude and quasi-level concepts, and provides new conditions for congruence subgroups.
Findings
Extended properties of cusp amplitudes and levels to Dedekind domains
Introduced quasi-amplitude and quasi-level notions
Derived new necessary conditions for congruence subgroups
Abstract
We extend some algebraic properties of the classical modular group SL_2(Z) to equivalent groups in the theory of Drinfeld modules, in particular properties which are important in the theory of modular curves. We study cusp amplitudes and the level of a (congruence) subgroup of SL_2(D) for any Dedekind domain D, as ideals of D. In particular, we extend a remarkable result of Larcher. We introduce finer notions of quasi-amplitude and quasi-level, which are not required to be ideals and encode more information about the subgroup. Our results also provide several new necessary conditions for a subgroup of SL_2(D) to be a congruence subgroup.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
**The cusp amplitudes and quasi-level of a congruence subgroup of over any Dedekind domain
**BY
A. W. Mason
*Department of Mathematics, University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QW, Scotland, U.K.
e-mail: [email protected]
*AND
Andreas Schweizer
*Institute of Mathematics, Academia Sinica
6F, Astronomy-Mathematics Building
No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road
Taipei 10617, TAIWAN
e-mail: [email protected]*
Abstract
We extend some algebraic properties of the classical modular group to equivalent groups in the theory of Drinfeld modules, in particular properties which are important in the theory of modular curves.
We study cusp amplitudes and the level of a (congruence) subgroup of for any Dedekind domain , as ideals of . In particular, we extend a remarkable result of Larcher.
We introduce finer notions of quasi-amplitude and quasi-level which are not required to be ideals and encode more information about the subgroup.
Our results also provide several new necessary conditions for a subgroup of to be a congruence subgroup.
Keywords: Dedekind domain, congruence subgroup, cusp amplitude, level, quasi-level, index.
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 11F06, 20G30, 20H05
Introduction
This paper is part of an ongoing project which aims to extend algebraic results from the classical modular group, , to equivalent groups occurring in the context of Drinfeld modular curves [Ge]. We are especially concerned with those results which have proved applicable to the classical theory of modular forms. Our hope is that our results will prove useful to experts in the theory of Drinfeld modules. Here we are primarily concerned with the cusp amplitudes and level of a subgroup of such a group. One of our principal aims is to demonstrate that these concepts, as well as much of the classical theory of congruence subgroups, can be extended to linear groups defined over any Dedekind domain .
Congruence subgroups, beginning in the th century with , are usually defined for a matrix group with entries in an arithmetic Dedekind domain (or, more generally, an order in such a domain). The definition involves a non-zero -ideal. Since every proper quotient of is finite, every congruence subgroup is necessarily of finite index. This leads naturally to the converse question (for the particular matrix group), namely the celebrated Congruence Subgroup Problem, which has attracted considerable attention for many years. For which are not arithmetic, i.e. which might have proper infinite quotients, there is no longer a close connection between the congruence subgroups of and its finite index subgroups. For example, if is an infinite field, then has infinitely many congruence subgroups and no proper finite index subgroups.
The groups include a number of very important special cases, for example, the classical modular group , the Bianchi groups, where is the ring of integers in an imaginary quadratic number field, and groups occurring in the context of Drinfeld modular curves [Ge]. Other examples are over a ring of -integers of a number field or of a function field in one variable over any constant field, over any local ring and over any principal ideal domain.
When generalizing concepts from the classical modular group to for more general rings , one sometimes has to make a choice between loss of structure and loss of information. For example, let be a subgroup of . Then the set of all such the translation matrix is contained in is an additive subgroup of . Hence in the special case this is automatically an ideal. In the general case one can choose between considering this set and losing the ideal structure or considering the biggest ideal contained in this set and thus losing information about .
This is one reason why it is sometimes difficult to extend results that hold for to more general groups . Either the associated objects do not have enough structure and hence one cannot prove enough about them, or they have the necessary structure but they don’t encode all the desired information. This also indicates that one should look at both of the possible generalizations and how they are related.
Let us make this precise by introducing the most important instance of this dichotomy structure versus information.
Let be a commutative ring with identity and let be a subgroup of . The classical definition of the level of opts for structure over information and defines it as the largest -ideal such that for every the translation matrix is contained in every conjugate of in . We emphasize information over structure and call the set of all such that the translation matrix is contained in every conjugate of in the quasi-level of , denoted by . Implicitly the quasi-level already occurs for example in the proof of Proposition 1 in [Se1].
Obviously, the level of is the largest -ideal contained in the quasi-level of . Clearly for the special case we always have . In general however, as we shall see, they can differ by “as much as possible”. By definition the level of a subgroup is not merely an additive subgroup of and it can be shown to have much stronger properties than the quasi-level. However as a parameter for studying it is less useful than , mainly for the following reason. If is of finite index in then is non-zero. On the other hand for some (including , where is a finite field) it is known that has infinitely many finite index subgroups of level zero. Moreover for any finite index subgroup important information is provided by equations involving the size of the quasi-level of and its index in .
Now let be any Dedekind domain with quotient field . The group acts on the projective line as a set of linear fractional transformations. Let be a subgroup of . Clearly acts on , the -orbit containing . We refer to the orbits of the -action on as the -cusps.
The classical definition of cusp amplitude again prefers structure over information and defines the cusp amplitude of the -cusp containing as a certain -ideal associated to the stabilizer of in . See Section 2 for details.
As the cusp amplitude often loses too much information about the stabilizer of the cusp, we also introduce what we call the quasi-amplitude. This represents the other possibility to generalize the notion of cusp-amplitude from to , going for more information and less structure by dropping the requirement that it is an ideal and considering all translation matrices in .
Again, in general the quasi-amplitude is only an additive subgroup of . Obviously, the cusp amplitude is the largest ideal contained in . In situations where one can control how far the two can be apart, one then obtains results that generalize theorems for the classical modular group.
Let denote the set of all the cusp amplitudes of . It is easy to see that the intersection of all these cusp amplitudes is nothing else than the level of . In our first principal result we prove that for one important class of subgroups the set has the following surprising properties.
Theorem A. Let be a subgroup of and let
[TABLE]
If is a congruence subgroup, then
*In particular, if is a congruence subgroup, there is an -cusp in the -orbit of whose cusp amplitude equals the level of .
*This extends the results of a remarkable paper of Larcher [La] for the particular case . For this case Stothers [St] has also proved that has a minimum by an alternative method. In extending Larcher’s proofs we have simplified his approach in a number of ways. Most importantly we have avoided his use of the Dirichlet theorem on primes in an arithmetic progression (for ).
Strictly speaking, our definition of the cusp amplitude differs slightly from the one given in [La]. The results in [La] are formulated for , or equivalently, for congruence subgroups that contain , and for those both definitions coincide.
Cusp amplitudes were originally introduced for subgroups of the modular group and play an important role in the theory of modular forms and modular curves. Theorem A holds (trivially) for every normal subgroup of since then reduces to a single ideal. However it is known that it does not hold in general for non-normal non-congruence subgroups. Moreover we show that Theorem A does not hold in general for the quasi-amplitudes of a congruence subgroup.
The intersection of all the quasi-amplitudes (resp. cusp amplitudes) of is , its quasi-level (resp. , its level). As previously stated, for the classical case they clearly coincide. Our second principal result shows, rather surprisingly, that this is also true for “many” congruence subgroups of .
We give a name to the precise condition as it will be used in several places in the paper.
Condition L. Let be a subgroup of of non-zero level . We say that (or ) satisfies Condition L if both the following two conditions hold:
- (i)
;
- (ii)
There are no prime ideals for which and .
Note that both conditions are satisfied if, for example, , so in particular always for . Condition L is also automatically satisfied if contains a field that is a nontrivial extension of .
Theorem B. Let be a congruence subgroup of whose level satisfies Condition L. Then
[TABLE]
*In other words, then the quasi-level of is automatically an ideal.
*There are examples of (normal) congruence subgroups which show that both restrictions on from Condition L are necessary in Theorem B. For non-congruence subgroups Theorem B breaks down completely, i.e. and can “differ by as much as possible”. More precisely we prove that , where is a field, contains normal, non-congruence subgroups whose quasi-level has -codimension 1 in and whose level can take any possible value (including zero). (There are no proper subgroups of whose quasi-level is .)
Presumably one of the most interesting and in practice one of the most useful results on congruence subgroups would be to bound the level in terms of the index of the subgroup, i.e. to generalize the classical result that the level of a congruence subgroup of can not be bigger than its index. In Section 5 we discuss different generalizations of this. The proofs use many of the previous results. We highlight a version that holds for general .
Theorem C. Let be any Dedekind domain and let be a congruence subgroup of index in whose level satisfies Condition L. Then
[TABLE]
and if is a normal subgroup then even
[TABLE]
The structure of the paper is as follows:
In Section 1 we clarify by means of theorems and counterexamples how the properties ‘Every subgroup of finite index has non-zero level’, ‘Every subgroup of non-zero level is a congruence subgroup’ and ‘Every subgroup of finite index is a congruence subgroup’ are related. In Section 2 we present the quite lengthy proof of Theorem A. In Section 3 we introduce quasi-amplitudes. In Section 4 we define the quasi-level and prove Theorem B. Using the previous results, we then can in Section 5 prove Theorem C and similar relations between the level and the index of a congruence subgroup.
On the way we also prove several other interesting results. Whenever appropriate we show by means of examples the necessity of conditions in theorems and the limitations of certain definitions.
Of course, every result that holds for congruence subgroups can also be reformulated as a necessary condition that a subgroup must satisfy in order to stand a chance of being a congruence subgroup. For the classical modular group many such criteria are known, and some of them are very useful in practice (compare Example 2.12). In order to get an overview, we now summarize the criteria that our results furnish. Several of them seem to be new or at least new in such a general setting.
Theorem D. Let be any Dedekind domain and a non-zero ideal of . Let be a subgroup of with level and quasi-level . In order for to be a congruence subgroup, the following conditions are necessary:
- a)
(Corollary 1.4) .
- b)
(Corollary 2.8) The ideal-theoretic sum of all cusp amplitudes of is again a cusp amplitude of .
- c)
(Theorem 2.10) The intersection of all cusp amplitudes of is again a cusp amplitude of .
- d)
(Corollary 2.11) The level of is a cusp amplitude of .
- e)
(Lemma 4.2) For any that is invertible modulo we have .
Now suppose moreover that the level of satisfies Condition L. Then the following conditions are necessary for to be a congruence subgroup:
- f)
(Theorem 4.6) .
- g)
(Corollary 5.7) .
Finally suppose that in addition is a normal subgroup of (and that satisfies Condition L). Then the following conditions are necessary for to be a congruence subgroup:
- h)
(Corollary 4.7) Every quasi-amplitude of is actually a cusp amplitude of .
- i)
(Theorem 5.6) .
With the exception of a) in general none of the conditions is sufficient for to be a congruence subgroup. Conditions e), f), and h) hold automatically if and Remark 2.12 points out non-congruence subgroups of that satisfy conditions b), c), d), g) and i).
On the other hand, none of the conditions is trivial in the sense of automatically true for every . Remark 2.12 provides examples of non-congruence subgroups of that violate conditions b), c) and d), and Theorem 4.12 allows the construction of normal non-congruence subgroups that satisfy Condition L, but violate the conditions e), f), g), h) and i).
If is a congruence subgroup such that does not satisfy Condition L, then Examples 4.10 and 5.4 show that none of the conditions f), g), h) and i) need hold, even if is normal. Compare also Example 4.9 for conditions f) and h).
Finally, the condition that is normal cannot simply be dropped for parts h) and i). Examples 3.2 and 3.5 exhibit non-normal congruence subgroups that satisfy Condition L, but neither h) nor i).
1. Congruence subgroups
Let be a (commutative) ring and let be its group of units. For each , we put
[TABLE]
In addition we define
[TABLE]
Let be the subgroup of generated by all and with . For each -ideal we denote by the normal subgroup of generated by all with . By definition we note that . Let be the normal subgroup of generated by . We put . We also define
[TABLE]
where denotes the -dimensional unit matrix. Obviously
[TABLE]
Occasionally we will also need the Borel group, consisting of the upper triangular matrices,
[TABLE]
If is a subgroup of , we denote the core of in , i.e. the biggest normal subgroup of contained in by
[TABLE]
Definition. The level of a subgroup of , , is the largest ideal , say, for which . The level is well-defined since .
Since is the normal subgroup of generated by all with , we can equivalently say that the level of is the largest ideal such that the core of contains all translation matrices with .
Definition. A subgroup of is called a congruence subgroup if
[TABLE]
for some .
It is clear that if is finite then is of finite index in .
Let be ideals for which . We will require some properties of the quotient group . We put and we denote the image of any in by . Let . Then
[TABLE]
for some . We define a map
[TABLE]
by
[TABLE]
(Note that )
Lemma 1.1. With the above notation, the map induces the following isomorphism
[TABLE]
where is the additive group of .
*Moreover the quotient group is generated by the images of the elements , where .
Proof.* *See the proof of [MSt, Theorem 4.1].
To obtain more precise properties of congruence subgroups we require some restrictions on . We recall that is said to be an -ring if, for all such that , there exists for which . Every semi-local ring, for example, is an ring ([B, Theorem 3.5, p.239]).
Theorem 1.2. Let be -ideals such that is an -ring. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.* *See the proof of [B, (9.3) Corollary, p. 267].
Since every proper quotient of a Dedekind domain is semi-local the following is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.2.
Corollary 1.3. Let be a Dedekind domain and let be -ideals.
- (i)
If then
[TABLE]
- (ii)
[TABLE]
The classical version of our next result (for the special case ) is due to Fricke. (See [W].)
Corollary 1.4. Let be a Dedekind domain and let be a subgroup of with . Then is a congruence subgroup if and only if
[TABLE]
Remarks 1.5.**
- a)
By virtue of Theorem 1.2, Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4 also apply to the case where is a Noetherian domain of Krull dimension one. For example all orders in algebraic number fields are of this type. One “standard” example of a Noetherian domain of Krull dimension one which is not Dedekind is the ring . A Dedekind domain is an integrally closed Noetherian domain of Krull dimension one.
- b)
But Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4 do in general not hold for an integrally closed Noetherian domain of Krull dimension bigger than one. Take for example , the polynomial ring in two variables over a finite field. Then
[TABLE]
Let be irreducible of degree at least . By Theorem 4.12 below or by [MSch2, Theorem 5.5] then has a normal non-congruence subgroup of finite index and level . The inverse image of under reduction modulo is a normal subgroup of finite index in of level that contains but not .
From now on will always be a Dedekind domain. We will sometimes use the abbreviations
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for each -ideal .
Lemma 1.6. *If has characteristic and every unit of has finite order, then is a field . Moreover, is the biggest algebraic extension of contained in the field of fractions of .
Proof. *Obviously , the quotient field of , contains the prime field . Let be the biggest algebraic extension of contained in .
Let be a unit of that has finite order. Then is a root of unity and hence contained in an algebraic extension of . Thus . Conversely, every element of is a root of unity, so it is in since is integrally closed, and obviously it is a unit of .
Lemma 1.7. *If contains an infinite field, then every subgroup of finite index in has level .
Proof. *The following proof is inspired by the proof of [Se1, Proposition 1, p.491].
If is a subgroup of finite index in , then its core is a normal subgroup of and still has finite index. So it suffices to prove the lemma for a normal subgroup of finite index in . We define
[TABLE]
This set will be investigated in more detail in Section 4. Here we only need that is a subgroup of and that for every . The last claim can be seen by conjugating with the diagonal matrix with entries and , as is normal.
Let be the infinite field in . Then obviously . So is stable under multiplication with and even with for all .
If the characteristic of is different from , then it is easy to see that every element of is of the form with . Thus is a subspace of the -vector space . Since the quotient space is finite because
[TABLE]
but is infinite, we must have .
If the characteristic is , the squares in still form an infinite field , and we can apply the same proof using -vector spaces.
Proposition 1.8. *If has characteristic [math] or if is infinite, then every subgroup of finite index in has non-zero level.
Proof. *As in the previous proof we can assume that the subgroup is normal. Again we show that contains a non-zero ideal. The first two cases were already treated in the proof [Se1, Proposition 1, p.491], namely:
If and , then lies in for every , so contains the ideal .
If and contains a unit of infinite order, then and are -modules. So the quotient group is also an -module, and since it is finite (whereas is isomorphic to a polynomial ring), it is annulated by some nonzero element of . Thus .
Finally, if and there are no units of infinite order, then Lemma 1.6 implies where is an infinite algebraic extension of . So in this case every subgroup of finite index has level by Lemma 1.7.
We recall from the introduction that if is of arithmetic type then every congruence subgroup of is of finite index. It is known that for some such (including the classical case ) the converse does not hold. At this point we record a class of arithmetic Dedekind domains for which the converse does hold.
Let be a global field. In other words, is either an algebraic number field, i.e. a finite extension of , or is an algebraic function field of one variable with finite constant field, i.e., is a finite extension of a rational function field .
Let be a proper subset of all the places of which contains all archimedean places. Let be the set of all elements of that are integral outside . Then is an arithmetic Dedekind domain whose prime ideals correspond to the places of outside .
Note that we do not assume that is finite (as in the standard definition of the ring of -integers of ). If is infinite, then is not finitely generated. If contains all places of except one, then is a discrete valuation ring. The next theorem is a minor extension of a famous result of Serre [Se1].
Theorem 1.9. *Let be a global field and the ring of -integers where is an infinite set. Then every subgroup of finite index in has non-zero level, and every subgroup of non-zero level is a congruence subgroup.
*Proof. The first claim follows from Proposition 1.8. The second claim is equivalent to showing
[TABLE]
for every non-zero ideal of . We use a “local” argument to reduce this to a suitable case where is finite. Take any . Then the entries of , being elements of , lie in for some finite subset of . We may assume that and that contains at least one non-archimedean place. Let be the ideal of . Then
[TABLE]
by [Se1, Théorème 2 (b), p.498]. Since obviously and , we have shown . The converse inclusion always holds.
We present another class of Dedekind domains that have the same congruence subgroup property.
Theorem 1.10. *If has only finitely many maximal ideals, then every subgroup of finite index in has nonzero-level, and every subgroup (finite index or not) of non-zero level is a congruence subgroup.
*Proof. Let be the product of the maximal ideals of . Since the ideals , , are all different, must be an infinite set. Now every element of the form with obviously does not lie in any of the maximal ideals; so it must be a unit. Thus is infinite. So if is a subgroup of finite index in , it has non-zero level by Proposition 1.8.
Now let be a subgroup, not necessarily of finite index, and assume that has non-zero level, say . As is semi-local and hence an -ring by [B, Theorem 3.5, p.239], we can apply Theorem 1.2 with being the zero ideal, and obtain .
In the previous two results the reason for the congruence subgroup property was that for every ideal of . We now construct examples with a different reason. First a very general fact.
Lemma 1.11. *If , then for every non-zero ideal of .
*Proof. Let . Then has infinitely many maximal ideals by Theorem 1.10. Asssume . Choosing an ideal with and using Corollary 1.3 we would obtain
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
a contradiction.
Example 1.12. Let be an algebraically closed field of characteristic [math]. Let with such that the cubic polynomial has no multiple roots.
Then for every non-zero ideal of . So has non-congruence subgroups of every level. But every subgroup of finite index is a congruence subgroup for the trivial reason that has no subgroups of finite index.
To see all this, we use Takahashi’s description [Ta] of the action of on the Bruhat-Tits tree of where . Note that since every element of is a square, there exists a natural isomorphism .
Since the fundamental domain of this action is a connected graph without loops [Ta], by the theory of groups acting on trees [Se2], the group is generated by the stabilizers of the vertices. By [Ta, Theorem 5] these stabilizers are built from subgroups isomorphic to , and . As the groups and are infinitely divisible, they have no subgroups of finite index; and since is infinite, also has no finite index subgroups. Hence a subgroup of finite index in would have to contain all stabilizers and so be equal to .
Moreover, the fact that the fundamental domain has a vertex with trivial stabilizer and the description of its neighbours [Ta] shows that is a free product
[TABLE]
where is GL_{2}(k)\mathop{\mbox{\Large}}_{B_{2}(k)}B_{2}(D) modulo the center. This shows that modulo scalar matrices is isomorphic to the infinite group \mathop{\mbox{\LARGE}}\limits_{\ell\in k}\varDelta(\ell).
To appreciate this example we point out that even if a Dedekind domain has no finite quotients, this does not imply that the group has no subgroups of finite index.
Example 1.13. Let
[TABLE]
Then , and since every element of is a square we again have . By Takahashi’s results [Ta] again we have a free product
[TABLE]
with equal to SL_{2}(k)\mathop{\mbox{\Large*}}_{B_{2}(k)}B_{2}(D) modulo scalar matrices. However, since the equation has no solution in , by [Ta, Theorem 5] this time
[TABLE]
So is the unique quadratic extension of . Every element of is a third power of an element of . Moreover, , so . Thus contains the -rd roots of unity, but not the -th roots of unity. Hence the third powers in form a subgroup of index that contains . So has a subgroup of index . Because of the free product there exists a surjective homomorphism from to whose kernel is the normal subgroup generated by all other . Thus contains a normal non-congruence subgroup of index and level .
We mention two types of Dedekind domains for which does not have the congruence subgroup property.
Every subgroup of finite index in has non-zero level, but has finite index non-congruence subgroups.
Let be the ring of -integers in a global function field where . Then has uncountably many finite index subgroups of level zero [MSch2, Corollary 3.6] and has finite index non-congruence subgroups of almost every level [MSch2, Theorem 5.5].
Remark 1.14. This leaves open the question whether there exist examples that contain finite index subgroups of level zero but in which every finite index subgroup of non-zero level is a congruence subgroup.
By Lemmas 1.6 and 1.7 and Proposition 1.8 such a must be an -algebra with unit group . One might be tempted to think that the rings in a global function field with are the only instances of such rings. This is true for finitely generated -algebras , because then the Krull dimension of equals the transcendence degree of its quotient field.
However, O. Goldman [Go] has constructed Dedekind domains with such that is a finite field for every maximal ideal of , and the quotient field of has transcendence degree over where can be any given natural number. We thank Peter Vámos for pointing out this reference to us.
2. Cusp amplitudes
Throughout denotes a Dedekind domain with quotient field . For each we denote the principal -ideal by . We write , if . All the results of Section apply to which from now on we denote by .
We recall the action of on . Let g=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}a&b\\ c&d\end{array}\right] be an element of . Then
[TABLE]
In particular acts transitively on if and only if is a principal ideal domain. In general the -orbit in containing is
[TABLE]
Let be a subgroup of . For each , let denote the conjugate subgroup . For each , we denote the stabilizer of in by
[TABLE]
It is clear that
[TABLE]
for all and , and that
[TABLE]
The following correspondence is obvious.
Definition. Let . We write
[TABLE]
for some .
Lemma 2.1. Let . Then
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.1 provides the following bijection:
[TABLE]
between the orbits of the -action on and the double cosets in . We refer to the elements of as the -cusps.
It is clear that the double coset is a union of a set of (right) -cosets and that
[TABLE]
where . From now on let be a complete set of representatives for the double coset space . Then is a complete set of representatives for the -cusps in , by Lemma 2.1. Our next lemma is an immediate consequence of the above.
Lemma 2.2. Let have finite index in . Then, with the above notation,
[TABLE]
It follows from the above that, if and , then every unipotent matrix in is of the form , for some . It is obvious that is a subgroup of (the additive group of) . Now let . Suppose now that . Then , for some and . It is clear that
[TABLE]
where is completely determined by . We are now able to make the following definition.
Definition. For each , let denote the largest -ideal with the property that
[TABLE]
for all .
It is clear from the above that , whenever . We call the cusp amplitude of the -cusp containing .
It is clear that, for each , there exists a unique such that
[TABLE]
Definition. We denote a complete set of cusp amplitudes for by
[TABLE]
The following is an immediate consequence of the above.
Lemma 2.3. For each subgroup of ,
[TABLE]
Remarks 2.4.
- (i)
If is a normal subgroup then , for all . In this case involves a single -ideal.
- (ii)
If is non-zero (for example when is a congruence subgroup), then involves only finitely many ideals.
- (iii)
To avoid any possible confusion we emphasize that if is not a principal ideal domain the cusps (and the cusp amplitudes) of we consider are only a part of the -orbits on , namely those contained in the -orbit of .
It is easily verified that cusp amplitudes are invariant under conjugation as given below.
Lemma 2.5. Let . Then
[TABLE]
*for all .
We require a more detailed description of the unipotent matrices in each , where . If then is of the form
[TABLE]
where . In this case , when , and , when . Note that and
Before our principal results we record this well-known useful property of Dedekind domains, which follows from the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT).
Lemma 2.6. Let be distinct prime -ideals and let be non-negative integers, where . Then there exists such that
[TABLE]
*where
For the first principal result our approach is more direct than that of Larcher [La]. In particular we avoid his use of the Dirichlet theorem on primes in an arithmetic progression (for .)
Theorem 2.7. Let be a congruence subgroup of and let be a non-zero -ideal contained in , where . Then there exists such that
[TABLE]
Proof.* *Now , for some . It is clear that, if and , then if and only if .
By Lemma 2.5 it is sufficient to prove the theorem for the case . We may also assume that and (by Corollary 1.4 and Lemma 2.3) that , where .
Now , for all and , for all , for some , with . Let . For our purposes it is sufficient to find , with and ideals , contained in , where , such that , with the following properties. For all and all , there exist and such that:
- (a)
;
- (b)
We may then take to be any matrix of the form
[TABLE]
By definition , where . Then . Let be the “smallest” divisor of all of whose prime divisors also divide , where . (Clearly .) Then and
[TABLE]
say, where .
Since the congruence (a) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
Since the congruence (b) is equivalent to:
[TABLE]
for some such that . A consequence of is that, for all ,
[TABLE]
We begin by finding for which
- (i)
,
- (ii)
,
- (iii)
.
By Lemma 2.6 we may choose and such that
- (i)
- (ii)
By applying the CRT to the factors in the prime decomposition of we can find such that
- (i)
- (ii)
(If , where is prime with , and , take .) Now for each prime divisor of we again use the CRT to find for which
- (i)
, where ,
- (ii)
, when .
The elements and (as above) satisfy the requirements.
We can use the CRT to find such that
[TABLE]
(Suppose that . If , take . If , take .) Then, for all , the congruences are satisfied.
In addition, for all , the congruences are satisfied (with ). This completes the proof.
Corollary 2.8. Let be a congruence subgroup of and let
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Proof.* *As previously noted involves only finitely many distinct ideals , say. By repeated applications of Theorem 2.7 it follows that there exists such that
[TABLE]
But and so .
We now come to our second principal result. Here our approach is similar to that of Larcher.
Lemma 2.9. Let be a congruence subgroup of of level and let and , where . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.* *Suppose to the contrary that . We will prove that there exists an ideal such that
[TABLE]
which contradicts Corollary 1.4.
Recall that and , by Lemma 2.3. We assume for now that
[TABLE]
where , for some prime ideal . Then , for all . There are two possibilities.
Case 1:
By Corollary 1.3
[TABLE]
Now is a field and so is generated by elementary matrices. It follows that
[TABLE]
and hence that .
Case 2:
Note that here Lemma 1.1 applies to the quotient group , since . For all and all , the element
[TABLE]
Now
[TABLE]
It follows that contains elements
[TABLE]
for all and also and (as mentioned before Case 1). This implies that , by Lemma 1.1.
If we replace , say, with , divisible by , where , and repeat the above argument.
An alternative proof of our second principal result (for the case ) can be found in [St].
Theorem 2.10. Let be a congruence subgroup of and let
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Proof.* *Recall from Lemma 2.3 that , for all , where . We will assume that
[TABLE]
for all , and obtain a contradiction.
By Lemma 2.5 it is sufficient to prove the theorem for the case where
[TABLE]
(See Corollary 2.8.) Let and let , where is any element for which . ( For example, .) By Corollary 2.8 it follows that . Now , say. Let . Then , by Lemma 2.9.
By Lemma 2.6 we can choose for prime ideals such that
- (i)
, when ,
- (ii)
, when .
(Possibly .) Consider the -cusp, , where is given by
[TABLE]
Then and is determined by the matrices
[TABLE]
where . Let . If , then, by Lemma 2.5,
[TABLE]
Now and . Applying Lemma 2.9 therefore to , it follows that . (By definition .) Note that by our initial hypothesis . There are two possibilities.
Case 1:
Choose a prime divisor of . Let . Then , since divides and . It is clear that is divisible by . It follows that , for all .
Now by definition and so . Hence, for all , there exist such that . As in the proof of Lemma 2.9 (Case 2) it follows from Lemma 1.3 that , which contradicts Corollary 1.4.
Case 2:
Choose a prime dividing . Since and , it follows that . As before let . Then , so and
[TABLE]
for all . It follows that , for all . But , since , which contradicts the maximality of . This completes the proof.
From Theorem 2.10 we obtain in particular the following necessary condition for a subgroup to be a congruence subgroup.
Corollary 2.11. *If is a congruence subgroup of , then there exists some with .
*All the results in this section are, of course, motivated by the classical modular group. It is appropriate therefore that we include a detailed account of how they apply to this important special case.
Example 2.12. Cusp amplitudes were first introduced for finite index subgroups of the modular group (motivated by the theory of modular forms). In this case the cusp is , since is a PID. Let be a subgroup of finite index in containing . For each , the -ideal is non-zero, generated by a (unique) positive integer , say. Since it follows that in this case
[TABLE]
where . The double coset space is finite, represented by elements , say, of . Let , where . We assume that . The sequence is called the cusp-split of and satisfies the important cusp-split equation
[TABLE]
If is a generator of the (-)ideal , then , by Lemma 2.3.
Suppose now that is a congruence subgroup of index in . Then, by Corollary 2.8 and Theorem 2.10,
[TABLE]
There are two immediate consequences, namely,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
(See Corollary 1.4.) The inequality can be used [St] to obtain an upper bound for the number of congruence subgroups of of bounded index.
Among the index subgroups of are those with cusp-splits and . (See [St].) They are non-congruence by Corollary 2.8 or Theorem 2.10 (or inequality ). On the other hand these results provide only necessary conditions. For example, it is known [AS] that there exist subgroups with cusp-splits and which, despite being consistent with Corollary 2.8 and Theorem 2.10, are non-congruence since neither satisfies . However non-congruence subgroups do exist for which Corollary 2.8, Theorem 2.10 and all hold. It is known [AS] there exists a non-congruence subgroup with cusp-split .
As previously emphasised we wish to demonstrate explicitly that our principal results, Corollary 2.8 and Theorem 2.10, do extend to which are not of arithmetic type.
Example 2.13. Let , the polynomial ring over a field . Then is of arithmetic type if and only if is finite. Let be a prime -ideal.
We define
[TABLE]
Now if and only if . Let . Then , where , with . If , then . There are two possibilities.
**(i): .
**In this case and hence .
**(ii): .
**In this case and . Thus if and only if , where . We are reduced to two possible outcomes.
If , then
[TABLE]
for all . We note that is an example of a non-normal subgroup all of whose cusp-amplitudes are equal.
Suppose then that (equivalently, ). (This always happens when is algebraically closed.) It is easily verified that there are precisely two double cosets in and that is a complete set of representatives for the -cusps, . It follows that
[TABLE]
3. Quasi-amplitudes
Definition. As usual let be a subgroup of . We define the quasi-amplitude
[TABLE]
Clearly the cusp amplitude is the biggest -ideal contained in .
Note that, in contrast to , the quasi-amplitude does not just depend on the -cusp containing . More precisely it is easily verified that
[TABLE]
for some . It is clear that if is normal in , then , for all .
We put
[TABLE]
It is clear that, for all , the subgroup normalizes , so that is a subgroup of . We then have the following one-one correspondences
[TABLE]
Definition. If is of finite index in we define
[TABLE]
Our next result is a generalization of the cusp split formula for subgroups of .
Theorem 3.1. Let be a subgroup of finite index in . If is a complete set of representatives for the -cusps in , then
[TABLE]
Proof.* *We note that, for all ,
[TABLE]
The proof follows from Lemma 2.2.
Example 3.2. Let . Then
[TABLE]
So there exists a (non-normal) congruence subgroup of of index and level .
Obviously . Actually, both inclusions are proper: cannot equal since does not contain a subgroup of order ; on the other hand
[TABLE]
so cannot equal . In particular, this shows that is not an -subspace of , although, being an additive group, it is clearly an -subspace. All in all we see that
[TABLE]
where is an element from .
Let be a primitive -th root of unity. Then cannot contain any matrices of the form
[TABLE]
since has no elements of order . Hence is divisible by . Together with we see that and hence that is the only cusp of .
Here we see the problem discussed earlier. The matrix
[TABLE]
represents the same cusp as , namely , but
[TABLE]
where is a primitive -th root of unity in .
Proposition 3.3.
- a)
If , then has no proper, normal subgroup of finite index with only one cusp.
- b)
If , then for every positive integer there are uncountably many normal subgroups of index in that have only one cusp.
Proof. a) If is a normal subgroup of finite index in with only one cusp, then Theorem 3.1 shows that the Borel group contains a system of coset representatives for in . Thus is a semidirect product of an elementary abelian -group where and a cyclic group of order where . If , then contains a normal subgroup of index , in contradiction to the fact that the minimal index of a normal subgroup in is . Compare [MSch1, Theorem 6.2]. If , then contains a normal subgroup of index , again contradicting the same minimal index.
b) Recall Nagao’s Theorem
[TABLE]
Compare for example [Se2, exercise 2, p.88]. We define
[TABLE]
Since for all diagonal matrices are in the center of , this amalgamated product shows that the identity on extends to a surjective group homomorphism whose kernel is the normal subgroup generated by . Now for each of the uncountably many -subspaces of codimension in the inverse image is a normal subgroup of of index , and Theorem 3.1 shows that it has only one cusp.
The following lemma will be required later on.
Lemma 3.4. *Let be a congruence subgroup of of level . Assume that . Then for every that is invertible modulo there exists an element with .
*Proof. Since is invertible mod , there exists such that . Let . Then contains
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
is an element of , which is a subgroup of . Hence .
We conclude this section with two examples which show that in general neither Corollary 2.8 nor Theorem 2.10 hold for the quasi-amplitudes of a congruence subgroup. If is any subgroup of , we denote the subgroup by .
Example 3.5. Here we use to denote the Bianchi group , where is the ring of integers in the imaginary quadratic number field . We will assume that , which ensures that is a prime ideal in . Then and
[TABLE]
Hence there exists a (non-normal) subgroup of for which
[TABLE]
So is a congruence subgroup of level and index .
Let . Then . Suppose that . Then , for all , which implies that has a subgroup of order . Hence . On the other hand, by Theorem 3.1,
[TABLE]
It follows that .
Now suppose moreover that ; then . With the above notation therefore, there exists such that . By Theorem 3.1 we deduce that
[TABLE]
Hence there are precisely two -double cosets in . Then
[TABLE]
for some . For a representative of the other double coset we fix which maps onto a primitive root of . By Lemma 3.4 there exists for which
[TABLE]
Then can represent the other double coset. We conclude that
[TABLE]
Clearly this set has neither a minimum nor maximum member under set-theoretic containment.
Example 3.6. For our second example of this type we return to Example 2.13. Let be a prime ideal in , where is a field. We recall that
[TABLE]
From Example 2.13 it follows that, for all ,
[TABLE]
for some . It is clear that , if , and that if and only if . We now restrict our attention to those for which .
Let . For each pair we write
[TABLE]
Then is an equivalence relation on . Let be a subset of which maps bijectively onto a complete set of representatives for the -classes. It follows that
[TABLE]
This set always has a minimal member, i.e. . However it has a maximal member only when it reduces to . This happens only when , for all . It is easy to find examples of without this property when is not algebraically closed.
4. Quasi-level
Definition. Let be a subgroup of . We define the quasi-level of as
[TABLE]
Since , we see that
[TABLE]
where is the core of in .
However, Example 3.2 shows that in contrast to Lemma 2.3 the intersection over can in general not be replaced by the intersection over a system of representatives of the cusps (even when is a congruence subgroup).
The second equality shows that our definition of quasi-level coincides with the one we gave in [MSch2]. Actually for any . But Example 3.5 shows that in contrast to Corollary 2.11 there is in general no for which (even when is a congruence subgroup).
We summarize the basic properties:
Lemma 4.1.
- (i)
**
- (ii)
* is an additive subgroup of with the property that*
[TABLE]
- (iii)
**
- (iv)
* for all .*
- (v)
* for all .*
- (vi)
* is the largest -ideal contained in .*
- (vii)
.
For congruence subgroups we can combine Lemmas 3.4 and 4.1 to obtain the following extension of Lemma 4.1(ii).
Lemma 4.2. Let be a congruence subgroup and let be invertible modulo . Then
[TABLE]
We will also show that when is a congruence subgroup the inequality in Lemma 4.1(iii) becomes an equality (in “most” cases). For this purpose we require a number of preliminaries.
Lemma 4.3. Let be a congruence subgroup of and let , where . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.* *Let the required level be . Then . Now
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
Hence by Corollary 1.4. The result follows.
Lemma 4.4. Let be a normal congruence subgroup of level , where . Let and . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.* *Now , by Corollary 1.3. It follows that
[TABLE]
The result follows.
Our next lemma is almost certainly well-known. In the absence of a reference we provide a proof.
Lemma 4.5. *Let be a local ring for which . Then has trivial centre. *
Proof.* *Note that, since , the only involutions in are . Let
[TABLE]
Then, if maps into the centre of , it follows that, for all ,
[TABLE]
where . If , then and so . Thus and similarly . We deduce that . From the first of the above equations it follows that and hence that . The latter equation holds for and so . From the above and similarly . It then follows from the above that , i.e. .
Before coming to our next principal result we make another definition.
Definition. For a subgroup of we define as the ideal of generated by all elements with . Somewhat unfortunately, is sometimes called the order of . Every matrix in is congruent modulo to a scalar matrix for some , and is the smallest ideal of with this property. Obviously
[TABLE]
Conversely, for each -ideal we define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
So it is clear that if
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
**Theorem 4.6. **Let be a congruence subgroup of such that satisfies Condition L (from the Introduction). Then
[TABLE]
*equivalently, the quasi-level is actually an ideal. *
Proof.* *By Lemma 4.1(iv), (v) we may assume that (i.e. ). From the above it is sufficient to prove that , and hence that , where is any prime ideal for which .
Let denote the local ring and let
[TABLE]
denote the natural map. Now is generated by elementary matrices by [K, Theorem 1] and so (again by [K, Theorem 1])
[TABLE]
for all -ideals , where is the image of in . (In particular is an epimorphism.)
Let . Now suppose that is not central in . Then by [K, Theorem 3] the hypotheses on and the above ensure that
[TABLE]
for some which contradicts Lemma 4.3 (with and ). It follows that
[TABLE]
The map extends to an epimorphism
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.4 is central in . We now apply Lemma 4.5 to conclude that
[TABLE]
For normal subgroups we can reformulate Theorem 4.6 as follows.
Corollary 4.7. Let be a normal congruence subgroup of . If the level of satisfies Condition L, then
[TABLE]
*that is, the quasi-amplitudes of are actually the cusp amplitudes. *
**Proof. Since is normal any quasi-amplitude is equal to the quasi-level and any cusp amplitude is equal to the level.
Remark 4.8. A word of warning is in order here. If for a (non-normal) congruence subgroup and has only one cusp, this does **not imply , not even if satisfies Condition L. See Example 3.2. Ultimately the problem is caused by diagonal matrices that are not central.
McQuillan [Mc, Theorem 1] has proved, for the special case , that, if is a normal congruence subgroup of of level , then , using a similar approach. We now provide a pair of examples to show that both restrictions in Theorem 4.6 are necessary.
Example 4.9. Our first example [M1, Example 2.3] shows that Theorem 4.6 can fail when is not prime to . Let be a prime -ideal for which . We recall from Lemma 1.1 that
[TABLE]
where the latter group is additive. Let . We define a subgroup , where , by
[TABLE]
Since , it is easily verified that is a subgroup of , normalized by , for all . Since is also normalized by , it follows from Theorem 1.2 that is normal in .
Clearly . Now suppose that . Then . Let be a generator of . It follows that there exists such that . We conclude that .
Explicit examples that satisfy the requirement are, among others, with , or to take a local example, with . More generally, this example actually works for any Dedekind domain of characteristic with any nonzero prime ideal because then trivially .
Example 4.10. Suppose that , where and . (Consider, for example, with and or with and .) Then, by Corollary 1.3(ii),
[TABLE]
From the well-known structure of it follows that there exists a normal subgroup, , of , containing , such that
[TABLE]
Now let
[TABLE]
Since , and . Obviously, contains . If , then , in which case . Thus .
In particular, there exists a normal congruence subgroup of index in that has level .
Remarks 4.11.
- a)
If the level of a congruence subgroup is a prime ideal , then . This follows immediately from the simplicity of the group , when . The cases for which can be checked directly.
- b)
If is any arithmetic Dedekind domain, the quasi-level of a congruence subgroup is not “too far from” its level. For a normal congruence subgroup the relation between and is described in [M2, Theorems 3.6, 3.10 and 3.14]. See also the end of Section 3 of [M2].
For example, for a finite index subgroup of we obtain
[TABLE]
from [M2, Theorem 3.6] since is ramified and is inert in . Actually even since would mean that is an ideal and hence equal to .
Our final result demonstrates that for a non-congruence subgroup there is in general almost no connection between its quasi-level and level (in contrast with Theorem 4.6). We note that there is no proper normal subgroup of whose quasi-level is . (Since is a Euclidean ring, is generated by , where .)
Theorem 4.12. Let be any field and let with . Suppose that and, further, that , when . Then there exists a normal non-congruence subgroup of of level with the following properties.
- (i)
.
- (ii)
.
- (iii)
* has -codimension in .*
Proof.* *We note that, by hypothesis, . We define the -subspace
[TABLE]
where . Let be the normal subgroup of generated by all , where . Since is generated by all , where , part (i) follows. In addition
[TABLE]
by [M3, Theorem 3.8]. Part (iii) follows. Suppose that . Then
[TABLE]
for some polynomial divisor of , with . Then by the definition of , , and hence , must be divisible by . Part (ii) follows.
Finally, suppose that is a congruence subgroup. Since, by hypothesis is prime to ,
[TABLE]
by Lemma 4.2. If , then . If , then . Now for this case and so , by the extra hypothesis. In either case , which implies that , a contradiction. The proof is complete.
Remarks 4.13.
- a)
Obviously the group in Theorem 4.12 shows that Lemmas 3.4 and 4.2 do not hold in general for non-congruence subgroups, even if they are normal.
- b)
The restriction on the degree of in Theorem 4.12 is necessary. It is well-known that, if , then every subgroup of of level is a congruence subgroup.
- c)
Several versions of Theorem 4.12 are already known for subgroups of level zero. (See Section 4 of [MSch2].)
5. Level and index
We now make use of quasi-amplitudes to extend the index/level inequality for finite index subgroups of (in Example 2.12) to other arithmetic Dedekind domains.
First, let be an algebraic number field of degree over . We recall the definition of from Section 1, where is a suitable, not necessarily finite, set of places of .
Lemma 5.1. Let be a subgroup of such that has exponent . Then contains the -ideal generated by .
In particular, every finite index subgroup of contains an -ideal such that
[TABLE]
Proof. The first claim is obvious since for every .
For the second claim let . Then contains . Denote the ring of integers of by . If is the decomposition of into a product of prime ideals of , then
[TABLE]
So
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.2. Let be an algebraic number field with and let be the ring of -integers of (with not necessarily finite). If is a congruence subgroup of , then
[TABLE]
Proof. By Corollary 2.11 there exists with . Let be the quasi-amplitude . Then , and the Theorem follows from Lemma 5.1.
Remarks 5.3.
- a)
Theorem 5.2 also holds for normal non-congruence subgroups of since then every cusp amplitude is equal to the level.
- b)
If and contains at least one real or non-archimedean place, or if , then by [Se1] resp. Theorem 1.9 the inequality in Theorem 5.2 holds for all subgroups of finite index in .
- c)
Lubotzky [Lu, (1.6) Lemma] has given a version of Theorem 5.2 for more general algebraic groups using different methods.
Next we exhibit some examples for which the inequality in Theorem 5.2 is sharp.
Example 5.4. Let be a number field of degree over . Let denote the ring of integers of (i.e. the ring of -integers of , where consists precisely of the archimedean places of ). We suppose that the ideal splits into the product of distinct prime ideals in . Let . Then, using Corollary 1.3,
[TABLE]
where for ,
[TABLE]
Let be any prime ideal dividing and let . Then, again by Corollary 1.3, under the first isomorphism above
[TABLE]
for some . For each , let be the normal subgroup of of order . There exists an epimorphism
[TABLE]
such that contains but not any . Let be the inverse image of in . If , then, by Corollary 1.4, contains , for some prime divisor of , which contradicts the above. Hence . We conclude that is a normal congruence subgroup with
[TABLE]
By the way, also shows
[TABLE]
Remark 5.5. Actually, for each there are infinitely many number fields of degree that satisfy the condition in Example 5.4. This can be seen as follows:
By Dirichlet’s Theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions there are infinitely many odd primes that are congruent to modulo . Pick two of these, say and with . Then and hence . So by the decomposition law in cyclotomic fields the inertia degree of in the -th cyclotomic field divides . Since has degree over , the decomposition field of in is an abelian extension of whose degree is divisible by . Thus it contains a subfield of degree over with the desired property.
Alternatively we could argue as follows: and the Frobenius at generates a cyclic subgroup; so its fixed field is an abelian extension of whose degree is divisible by .
Taking two other primes , one obtains a different field since and hence is unramified outside .
By an analogous proof for each there are infinitely many number fields of degree such that splits completely in . For these one can similarly construct a normal congruence subgroup of index in with level . (Compare Example 4.10 for a special case.)
Thus it looks like Theorem 5.2 is optimal. Also, it is not possible to prove a function field analogue of Theorem 5.2 along the same lines, as there cannot be a function field analogue of the inequality in Lemma 5.1. Even in one can construct additive subgroups of index such that the biggest ideal contained in is the zero ideal or any prescribed nontrivial ideal. (This is actually the key point for many constructions in [MSch2]. See also Theorem 4.12.)
However, somewhat surprisingly, under the condition that the level is prime to certain ideals one can give a relation between the level and the index (if finite) of a congruence subgroup of that is valid for any Dedekind domain .
Theorem 5.6. Let be any Dedekind domain and a normal congruence subgroup of . If the level of satisfies Condition L, then
[TABLE]
Proof. If is normal, the level is equal to any cusp amplitude. Under Condition L this cusp amplitude is equal to the quasi-amplitude by Corollary 4.7. So the result follows from Theorem 3.1.
Examples 3.2 and 3.5 show that even for “relatively simple” rings like or we cannot expect
[TABLE]
for non-normal congruence subgroups that satisfy Condition L. But of course we have
Corollary 5.7. Let be any Dedekind domain and a congruence subgroup of of index . If the level of satisfies Condition L, then
[TABLE]
Proof. has the same level as its core in , and the index of this core divides .
Corollary 5.7 is stronger than Theorem 5.2 if is sufficiently small compared to .
Examples 4.10 and 5.4 show that Condition L cannot simply be dropped in Theorem 5.6 and Corollary 5.7. But for arithmetic Dedekind domains one can prove somewhat weaker results than Theorem 5.6 and Corollary 5.7 for congruence subgroups that do not satisfy Condition L. The key is that by results of [M2] one can still control the relation between and . See our Remark 4.11 b). We content ourselves with the function field case. Since the case of characteristic is already fully covered by Theorem 5.6, we only have to deal with characteristic and .
Theorem 5.8. Let be a global function field with constant field and let where is finite. Let be a normal congruence subgroup of .
- a)
If , then
[TABLE]
where is the number of prime ideals of with .
- b)
If , then
[TABLE]
where is the number of prime ideals of with .
Proof. We only give the proof for characteristic as they are almost the same.
By [M2, Theorem 3.14] (compare also the end of Section 3 in [M2]) we have where is the product of all prime ideals in with . Hence divides , which divides since is an -subspace of . As is normal, we have , and the claim follows from Theorem 3.1.
Remarks 5.9.
- a)
If is a number field and is finite, then using [M2, Theorem 3.6] and the end of Section 3 of [M2], for a normal congruence subgroup of we obtain in the worst case
[TABLE]
where .
- b)
Theorems 5.6 and 5.8 can be used to improve [MSch2, Proposition 4.5 b)] in the sense that the condition that is a maximal ideal is not really needed there. This condition was used to show that the constructed groups of level are non-congruence subgroups. But if is big enough, then Theorem 5.6 (resp. Theorem 5.8) guarantees the non-congruence property.
Acknowledgements. Parts of this paper were developed during research visits of the second author at Glasgow University. The hospitality of their Mathematics Department is gratefully acknowledged. The final version was written while the second author was holding a visiting position at the National Center for Theoretical Sciences (NCTS) in Hsinchu, Taiwan. We are also grateful to Peter Vámos for pointing out the reference [Go] to us.
References
- [AS]
A. O. L. Atkin and H. P. F. Swinnerton-Dyer: Modular forms on noncongruence subgroups, *Combinatorics (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIX, Univ. California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1968), *pp.1-25. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., .
- [B]
H. Bass: *Algebraic -theory, *W. A. Benjamin Inc., New York-Amsterdam, 1968.
- [Ge]
E.-U. Gekeler: *Drinfeld Modular Curves, *Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1231, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1986.
- [Go]
O. Goldman: On a special class of Dedekind domains, *Topology ***3 suppl. 1 **(1964), 113-118.
- [K]
W. Klingenberg: Lineare Gruppen ber lokalen Ringen, *Amer. J. Math. ***83 **(1961), 137-153.
- [La]
H. Larcher: The cusp amplitudes of the congruence subgroups of the classical modular group, *Illinois J. Math. ***26 **(1982), 164-172.
- [Lu]
A. Lubotzky: Subgroup growth and congruence subgroups, *Invent. Math. ***119 **(1995), 267-295.
- [Mc]
D. L. McQuillan: Classification of normal congruence subgroups of the modular group, *Amer. J. Math. ***87 **(1965), 285-296.
- [M1]
A. W. Mason: Standard subgroups of , *Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. ***30 **(1987), 341-349
- [M2]
A. W. Mason: The order and the level of a subgroup of over a Dedekind ring of arithmetic type, *Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A ***119 **(1991), 191-212.
- [M3]
A. W. Mason: Normal subgroups of with or without free quotients, *J. Algebra ***150 **(1992), 281-295.
- [MSch1]
A. W. Mason and A. Schweizer: The minimum index of a non-congruence subgroup of over an arithmetic domain. II: The rank zero cases, *J. London Math. Soc. ***71 **(2005), 53-68
- [MSch2]
A. W. Mason and A. Schweizer: Non-standard automorphisms and non-congruence subgroups of over Dedekind domains contained in function fields, *J. Pure Appl. Algebra ***205 **(2006), 189-209
- [MSt]
A. W. Mason and W. W. Stothers: On subgroups of which are generated by commutators, *Invent. Math. ***23 **(1974), 327-346.
- [Se1]
J.-P. Serre: Le problème des groupes de congruence pour , *Ann. of Math. ***92 **(1970), 489-527.
- [Se2]
J.-P. Serre: *Trees, *Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1980
- [St]
W. W. Stothers: Level and index in the modular group, *Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A ***99 **(1984), 115-126.
- [Ta]
S. Takahashi: The fundamental domain of the tree of over the function field of an elliptic curve, *Duke Math. J. ***72 **(1993), 85-97
- [W]
K. Wohlfahrt: An extension of F. Klein’s level concept, *Illinois J. Math. ***8 **(1964), 529-535.
