Estimating the order of vanishing at infinity of Drinfeld quasi-modular forms (Q2450163): Difference between revisions

Drinfeld quasi-modular forms are analogues in positive characteristic of classical elliptic quasi-modular forms, i.e., of functions on the complex upper half-plane that transform according to a more general rule than modular forms. Given the data \(A = \mathbb F_q[\theta]\), \(K = \mathbb F_q(\theta)\), \(K_{\infty} = \mathbb F_q((\theta^{-1}))\) with an indeterminate \(\theta\) and a finite field \(\mathbb F_q\), there are three basic examples of such forms: the Eisenstein series \(g\), the function \(h\) (a certain Poincaré series satisfying \(h^{q-1} = -\Delta\) with the discriminant function \(\Delta\)) and the false Eisenstein series \(E = \Delta'/\Delta\). In fact, these are algebraically independent over the completed algebraic closure \(\mathbb C_{\infty}\) of \(K_{\infty}\) and generate the ring of all quasi-modular forms. For a number of reasons (discussed in the introduction) it is desirable to determine or to estimate the vanishing order at infinity of such forms \(f\) in terms of its invariants \(w(f) \in \mathbb N_0\), the weight of \(f\), the type \(m(f) \in \mathbb Z/(q-1)\) and the depth \(\ell(f) \in \mathbb N_0\). For example we have \(w(g) = q-1\), \(m(g) = 0 = \ell(g)\), \(w(h) = q+1\), \(m(h) = 1\), \(\ell(h) = 0\) and \(w(E) = 2\), \(m(E) = 1 = \ell(E)\). The author states and proves such an estimate in his main result Theorem 1.2. It is formally analogous with a similar statement in the classical case (see (1.1)), but is much weaker, in that it holds only for \(w(f)\) sufficiently larger, and the constants involved are more complicated. This fact (along with many others) and its meaning are discussed in the author's excellent introduction, which we will not repeat here. The proof of Theorem 1.2 uses rigid-analytic deformations of Drinfeld quasi-modular forms, based on families of \textit{Anderson} \(t\)-motives of rank two [Duke Math. J. 53, 457--502 (1986; Zbl 0679.14001)] (which themselves are generalizations of Drinfeld modules) and the structure theory and \(u\)-expansions of such forms. Therefore the full strength of rigid analysis and geometry enters in the proof, as well as many ingredients of Anderson's theory.