Arxiv:1904.08041V1 [Math.NT] 17 Apr 2019 Aeyee Roduioua Atcs Hr Santrlprobability Natural a Is There Lattices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE SIEGEL VARIANCE FORMULA FOR QUADRATIC FORMS NASER T. SARDARI Abstract. We introduce a smooth variance sum associated to a pair of posi- tive definite symmetric integral matrices Am×m and Bn×n, where m ≥ n. By using the oscillator representation, we give a formula for this variance sum in terms of a smooth sum over the square of a functional evaluated on the B- th Fourier coefficients of the vector valued holomorphic Siegel modular forms A which are Hecke eigenforms and obtained by the theta transfer from O m m . By using the Ramanujan bound on the Fourier coefficients of the holomorphic× cusp forms, we give a sharp upper bound on this variance when n = 1. As applications, we prove a cutoff phenomenon for the probability that a uni- modular lattice of dimension m represents a given even number. This gives an optimal upper bound on the sphere packing density of almost all even unimod- ular lattices. Furthermore, we generalize the result of Bourgain, Rudnick and Sarnak [BRS17], and also give an optimal bound on the diophantine exponent of the p-integral points on any positive definite d-dimensional quadric, where d ≥ 3. This improves the best known bounds due to Ghosh, Gorodnik and Nevo [GGN13] into an optimal bound. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Proof of Theorem 1.1 9 3. Proof of Theorem 1.4 14 4. The Siegel variance formula 17 5. Harmonic polynomials 21 6. The oscillator representations and Weyl’s sums 24 7. Proof of Theorem 1.8 30 References 30 arXiv:1904.08041v1 [math.NT] 17 Apr 2019 1. Introduction 1.1. Statement of results. In this section, we discuss two applications of the Siegel variance formula (Theorem 1.8 for n = 1). 1.1.1. The cutoff phenomenon in large dimension. Suppose that Am m is a positive definite symmetric integral matrix with determinant 1, and C(A) denotes× the genus of A which is a finite set. It is well known that C(A) has only two possibilities, namely even or odd unimodular lattices. There is a natural probability measure Date: April 18, 2019. 1 2 NASER T. SARDARI defined by Siegel [Sie63] on C(A): 1 O (Z) | Ai | µs(Ai) := 1 , Ai C(A) O (Z) ∈ | Ai | where s 0, 1 depending on C(A)P being even or odd, and O (Z) is the size ∈ { } | Ai | of the integral orthogonal group of Ai. The first application is on bounding the probability that an odd integer q (even number 2q) is representable by an odd unimodular lattice (even unimodular lattice) of dimension m with respect to µs. Every integer (even integer) is representable over p-adic integers Zp by an odd unimodular lattice (even unimodular lattice) of dimension m 4. This fact and an application of the Hardy-Littlewood circle method implies that≥ every large enough integer (even integer) with respect to m is representable by every odd unimodular (every even unimodular lattice). This is a version of our theorem which shows a cutoff phenomenon at point q m (2q m ) for the probability measure µ . ∼ 2πe ∼ 2πe s Theorem 1.1. Let m be even and q be an odd integer. We have 5113 t for q m + 0.5 log(m) t 1, x⊺ x x Zm − 2πe 2πe µ1 A = q for some = ≤ t ≤ m 1.6 − − ∈ ( 1 5133− for q 2πe + πe log(m)+ t, ≥ − ≥ where 0 t = o(m). Similarly for µ , we have ≤ 0 5113 t for 2q m + 0.5 log(m) t 1, x⊺ x x Zm − 2πe πe µ0 A =2q for some = ≤ t ≤ m 2.6 − − ∈ ( 1 5113− for 2q 2πe + πe log(m)+ t, ≥ − ≥ where 0 t = o(m). Note that 5113 = eπe . ≤ ⌊ ⌋ We give the proof of Theorem 1.1 in Section 2. We have the following conjecture. Conjecture 1.2. Let q (1 + ǫ) m for some fixed ǫ> 0. Then q is representable ≥ 2πe by every odd unimodular lattice of dimension m ǫ 1. Similarly, every even integer m ≫ 2q (1 + ǫ) 2πe is representable by every even unimodular lattice of dimension m ≥ 1. ≫ǫ Remark 1.3. Let δ > 0 and L be an even unimodular lattice of dimension m. 2+δ m Theorem 1.1 implies the sphere packing density of L is less than m 2− with δ+ǫ µ0-probability 1+ O(m− ) for any ǫ> 0. Moreover, if A is an odd uniomodular 1+δ m lattices, then the sphere packing density is less than m 2− with µ1-probability δ+ǫ 1 m− for any ǫ > 0. The problem of studying unimodular lattices with large sphere− packing densities has studied by several authors; see [CS99]. The best known m m upper bounds on the sphere packing density of unimodular lattices is (1.424) 2− [RS98], while the best known lower bound for the density of lattices (not necessarily m integral) is m log log(m)2− [Ven13]. So, there is an exponential gap between the upper bound and the lower bound for the sphere packing density of unimodular lattices. We substantially improve the upper bound and show that the sphere packing 2+ǫ m density is o(m 2− ) for all but a tiny fraction of unimodular lattices with respect to the Siegel mass probability. Conjecture 1.2 implies the sphere packing density of m m even unimodular lattices is less than (1 + ǫ) 2− . THE SIEGEL VARIANCE FORMULA FOR QUADRATIC FORMS 3 1.1.2. Optimal equidistribution of the integral points on quadrics. The second ap- plication is on the distribution of the integral points on quadrics. Suppose that F (x1,...,xm) is a positive definite integral quadratic form in m 3 variables with discriminant D. Let N > 0 be an integer where gcd(N, 2D) = 1,≥ and define V (R) := (x ,...,x ): F (x ,...,x )= N, and x R for 1 i m , N 1 m 1 m i ∈ ≤ ≤ where R is any commutative ring. Assume that V (Z ) = for every prime p. Let N p 6 ∅ OF be the orthogonal group associate to the quadratic form F (x1,...,xm). Note that V1(R) is a compact homogenous variety with the action of OF (R). Let µ be the unique OF (R) invariant probability measure defined on V1(R). Suppose that k(x) is a fixed positive smooth function supported on ( 2, 2), and k(x) = 1 for x ( 1, 1). Let − ∈ − F (x y) Kη(x, y) := Cηk − , p η where x, y V (R), η R and C is a normalization factor such that ∈ 1 ∈ η Kη(x, y)dµ(y)=1. ZV1(R) We note that Kη(x, y) is a point-pair invariant function, which means Kη(gx,gy)= Kη(x, y) for every g OF (R). Let RF (N) := VN (Z) . For m 4 and from gcd(N, 2D) = 1 [Sar15a, Remark∈ 1.7], it follows that| | ≥ m/2 1 ǫ m/2 1+ǫ (1.1) N − − R (N) N − . ≪ F ≪ 2 For m = 3, we further assume that N = tiZ for finitely many ti that defines the exceptional-type square classes; see [Han04].6 Then by Siegel’s in{ effective} bound ǫ L(1,χq) > q− , we have the same bounds as in (1.1). Define 2 (1.2) Var (N, η) := K (x,N) R (N) dµ(x), F η − F ZV1(R) where K (x,N) := 1 K (x, y). The following theorem is an application η y VN (Z) η ∈ √N of our main results.P Theorem 1.4. Let F and N be as above. For m = 3, suppose that N = t , 6 i where ti defines the finitely many exceptional-type square classes. Assume either of these{ assumptions} m is even, • N = sl2 for some bounded square free integer s, • Lindel¨of hypothesis holds for the holomorphic modular forms. • Then, we have ǫ N RF (N) VarF (N, η) m 1 , ≪ η − where the implied constant in only depends on F and ǫ> 0. ≪ We give the proof of Theorem 1.4 in Section 3. When m = 3 Theorem 1.4 essen- tially follows from the work of Bourgain, Rudnick and Sarnak [BRS17]. They verified, with respect to different statistical tests, that the distribution of the integral points on the 2-sphere is similar to the distribution of a Poisson pro- cess. However, for m 4 it was observed by Wright [Wri33, Wri37] as mentioned ≥ 4 NASER T. SARDARI in [Sar15b] that they are big regions on V1(R) which repels the integral points. Let C(x, η) := B(x, η) V1(R) be a cap of radius η > 0 centered at x V1(R), where B(x, η) is the Euclidean∩ ball of radius η > 0. Wright [Wri33, Wri37]∈ showed that 1 1 there are caps of size η N − 4 which does not intersect V (Z). In [Sar15a], we ≫ √N N 1 +δ proved that every cap of size η N − 4 contains an integral point for m 5 and every δ > 0. The following corollary≫ implies that on average the covering propertie≥ s of 1 V (Z) for every m 4 is optimal and is as good as the Poisson process. √N N ≥ 1 (m 1) +ǫ Corollary 1.5. Assume the conditions of Theorem 1.4. Let η RF (N)− − m 2 ≫ ∼ 2(m− 1) +ǫ N − − , then all but a tiny fraction of the caps of V1(R) with the radius η in- 1 1 (m 1) ǫ tersects V (Z). On the other hand if η R (N)− − − then only a tiny √N N ≪ F fraction of them intersect 1 V (Z).