Congruences for a mock modular form on $\operatorname{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ and the smallest parts function
Scott Ahlgren, Byungchan Kim

TL;DR
This paper investigates the congruence properties of a mock modular form related to the smallest parts function, demonstrating the rarity of such congruences modulo primes and reestablishing known results.
Contribution
It introduces a new approach using Zagier's mock modular forms to analyze congruences of the smallest parts function and proves their infrequency.
Findings
Congruences modulo primes are rare for the smallest parts function.
Reproves Garvan's theorem on the function's properties modulo .
Establishes a connection between mock modular forms and partition congruences.
Abstract
Using a family of mock modular forms constructed by Zagier, we study the coefficients of a mock modular form of weight on modulo primes . These coefficients are related to the smallest parts function of Andrews. As an application, we reprove a theorem of Garvan regarding the properties of this function modulo . As another application, we show that congruences modulo for the smallest parts function are rare in a precise sense.
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Identities · Advanced Algebra and Geometry · Analytic Number Theory Research
Congruences for a mock modular form on and the smallest parts function
Scott Ahlgren
Department of Mathematics
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
and
Byungchan Kim
School of Liberal Arts
Seoul National University of Science and Technology
232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01811, Korea
Abstract.
Using a family of mock modular forms constructed by Zagier, we study the coefficients of a mock modular form of weight on modulo primes . These coefficients are related to the smallest parts function of Andrews. As an application, we reprove a theorem of Garvan regarding the properties of this function modulo . As another application, we show that congruences modulo for the smallest parts function are rare in a precise sense.
Key words and phrases:
mock modular forms, smallest parts function, modular forms modulo
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11F33, 11F37, 11P83
The first author was supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (#426145 to Scott Ahlgren). Byungchan Kim was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2016R1D1A1A09917344)
1. Introduction
Let denote the number of smallest parts in the partitions of . This function has been the subject of much recent research. See, for example, [2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13] and the references in these papers. The best known arithmetic properties of are the congruences of Andrews [6]:
[TABLE]
(here is defined to be zero if is not a natural number). Much of the interest in arises from the fact that its generating function is related to a distinguished mock modular form. In particular, let denote the number of partitions of and define
[TABLE]
Then is a mock modular form of weight on (see the next section for details).
Suppose that is prime. Improving a result of Bringmann, Garvan and Mahlburg [9], Garvan [10] identified each generating function
[TABLE]
as a modular form modulo of low weight on . To state his result, we introduce some notation. let denote the set of -integral rational numbers, and for each integer let denote the space of modular forms on whose coefficients lie in . Define the reduction of coefficientwise, and define as the set of reductions of elements of . Define the Dedekind eta-function
[TABLE]
and for each prime define
[TABLE]
Garvan [11, Corollary 4.2] proved the following
Theorem 1** (Garvan).**
Suppose that is prime. Then
[TABLE]
Note that, since
[TABLE]
the congruences (1.1) of Andrews follow from this result. Garvan obtains a similar result for the second rank moment , which is defined by . His method involves a careful study of modular forms of level .
In this paper we take a different approach. For each prime , define the function
[TABLE]
where is the operator defined by the derivative . Using a family of mock modular forms constructed by Zagier [17], we will prove that each is congruent to a modular form of low weight on .
Theorem 2**.**
Suppose that is prime. Then we have
[TABLE]
where denotes the space of cusp forms of weight .
As an application of Theorem 2, we deduce Garvan’s Theorem 1 as a corollary. As another application, we show that congruences (1.1) of the type found by Andrews are exceedingly rare. For we say that has a congruence at if
[TABLE]
and we define
[TABLE]
In [3] it was shown that the partition function has a congruence at only if or . For the function we can prove
Theorem 3**.**
We have . Moreover, for , has a congruence only at and .
The bound is obtained from a few hours of computation using the first coefficients of as described in Section 5 and could easily be improved.
Our method uses the properties of a family of mock modular forms on introduced by Zagier [17] together with the theory of modular forms modulo . We begin in the next section by describing these mock modular forms and developing the necessary background before turning to the proofs in the following sections.
2. Background
By work of Bringmann [8] and Zagier [17, §6] (see also [2, §3] for example) it is known that
[TABLE]
is a mock modular form of weight on whose multiplier is conjugate to that of the eta-function. Recall [16] that the -th Rankin-Cohen bracket is given by
[TABLE]
where and are the respective weights of the modular forms and .
Let be the usual quasi-modular Eisenstein series of weight and for even define
[TABLE]
Zagier [17, §6] described a family of mock modular forms on in every even weight.
Proposition 4**.**
We have
- (1)
[TABLE] 2. (2)
For all , the function
[TABLE]
is a modular form of weight on .
We have corrected a typographical error in the first statement. The proof, which uses holomorphic projection, is not given in [17]. A sketch of a proof of the first assertion is described in [1]. If is the completion of the mock modular form , then for we have
[TABLE]
A description of the holomorphic projection of Rankin-Cohen brackets in weight is given by Mertens [12, §5] (for these weights there is quite a bit of simplification). Zagier’s result follows from computing explicitly in terms of .
Finally, we require some basic facts from the theory of modular forms modulo . Each has a filtration defined by
[TABLE]
Define the -operator by its action on -series:
[TABLE]
These facts about filtrations can be found in [15] and [14, §2.2].
Lemma 5**.**
If then the following are true.
- (1)
. 2. (2)
. 3. (3)
, with equality if and only if . 4. (4)
w(g\big{|}U_{\ell})\leq\ell+\frac{w(g)-1}{\ell}.
3. Proof of Theorem 2
From the definitions (2.1) and (1.3) we have
[TABLE]
We have and . Set
[TABLE]
From Proposition 4 it follows that
[TABLE]
From the definition we have
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
and Theorem 2 follows from (3.2), after noting that
[TABLE]
4. Deduction of Theorem 1
We define by
[TABLE]
so that . Using Theorem 2 and Lemma 5 we find that
[TABLE]
Since , we conclude that
[TABLE]
Finally, we find that the -expansion has the form
[TABLE]
for some . Therefore
[TABLE]
and Theorem 1 follows.
5. Proof of Theorem 3
Let be prime and let and be defined as in (2.1) and (3.1). We begin with a proposition (this can also be deduced from [13, Thm. 1.1], [4, Thm. 1.2] or [5, Cor. 3.2]).
Proposition 6**.**
If f\big{|}U_{\ell}\equiv 0\pmod{\ell} then .
Proof.
Suppose that f\big{|}U_{\ell}\equiv 0\pmod{\ell}. Then . Using this with (3.1) and (4.1) we obtain
[TABLE]
In particular we have
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2 we have . If it were the case that
[TABLE]
then Lemma 5 would give the contradiction
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
By (3.3) we have
[TABLE]
for some . Since for , it follows that
[TABLE]
∎
Finally, we prove Theorem 3.
Proof of Theorem 3.
Given a prime , it follows from Proposition 6 that if there is an integer such that
[TABLE]
then does not have a congruence at . For each other than , , and , we find an integer satisfying (5.1) among the first candidates; this gives the second assertion of Theorem 3.
To prove the first assertion, fix a positive integer , and let be the first primes which are . Let be the finite set of primes which divide . From (5.1), we see that if has a congruence at , then either or is in the the set defined by the quadratic conditions
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Therefore . The theorem follows. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Scott Ahlgren and Nickolas Andersen, Euler-like recurrences for smallest parts functions , Ramanujan J. 36 (2015), no. 1-2, 237–248. MR 3296721
- 2[2] by same author, Algebraic and transcendental formulas for the smallest parts function , Adv. Math. 289 (2016), 411–437. MR 3439692
- 3[3] Scott Ahlgren and Matthew Boylan, Arithmetic properties of the partition function , Invent. Math. 153 (2003), no. 3, 487–502. MR 2000466
- 4[4] Scott Ahlgren, Kathrin Bringmann, and Jeremy Lovejoy, ℓ ℓ \ell -adic properties of smallest parts functions , Adv. Math. 228 (2011), no. 1, 629–645. MR 2822242
- 5[5] Scott Ahlgren and Byungchan Kim, Mock modular grids and Hecke relations for mock modular forms , Forum Math. 26 (2014), no. 4, 1261–1287. MR 3228930
- 6[6] George E. Andrews, The number of smallest parts in the partitions of n 𝑛 n , J. Reine Angew. Math. 624 (2008), 133–142. MR 2456627
- 7[7] George E. Andrews, Frank G. Garvan, and Jie Liang, Self-conjugate vector partitions and the parity of the spt-function , Acta Arith. 158 (2013), no. 3, 199–218. MR 3040662
- 8[8] Kathrin Bringmann, On the explicit construction of higher deformations of partition statistics , Duke Math. J. 144 (2008), no. 2, 195–233. MR 2437679
