Proposition 3.5.
The compact endomorphism of
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
defined by
$\phi \mapsto {h}^{s}U\left(s\right)\left({h}^{s}\phi \right)$
is the
$U$
operator, i.e., sends
$\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
to
$\sum {a}_{2n}{q}^{n}$
.

Proof.
It suffices to check the proposition for
$\phi ={h}^{s}({2}^{12r}f{)}^{j}$
for all
$j\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
, as the result then follows by linearity. If
$S$
is a formal variable then recall that we may think of
${h}^{S}$
as an element of
$1+16qS{\mathcal{O}}_{2}\left[\right[8S,q\left]\right])$
and in particular as an invertible element of
${\mathcal{O}}_{2}\left[\right[8S,q\left]\right]$
. Write
${h}^{S}$
for its inverse. We may think of
$\left({h}^{S}\right)U\left({h}^{S}\right({2}^{12r}f{)}^{j})$
as an element of
${\mathcal{O}}_{2}\left[\right[8S,q\left]\right]$
(though not yet as an element of
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
). Write
$$\left({h}^{S}\right)U\left({h}^{S}\right({2}^{12r}f{)}^{j})={\sum}_{i\ge 0}{\stackrel{~}{u}}_{ij}(S\left)\right({2}^{12r}f{)}^{i}$$
with
${\stackrel{~}{u}}_{ij}\left(S\right)\in {\mathcal{O}}_{2}\left[\right[8S\left]\right]\otimes {\mathbb{C}}_{2}$
(this is clearly possible as
$f=q+\dots $
). The proposition is just the statement that the power series
${\stackrel{~}{u}}_{ij}\left(S\right)$
equals the polynomial
${u}_{ij}\left(S\right)$
. Now there exists some integer
$N>>0$
such that both
${2}^{N}{u}_{ij}\left(S\right)$
and
${2}^{N}{\stackrel{~}{u}}_{ij}\left(S\right)$
lie in
${\mathcal{O}}_{2}\left[\right[8S\left]\right]$
(as
${u}_{ij}\left(S\right)$
is a polynomial). Furthermore, Lemma 3.1 shows that
${u}_{ij}\left(m\right)={\stackrel{~}{u}}_{ij}\left(m\right)$
for all
$m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
and hence
${2}^{N}\left({u}_{ij}\right(S){\stackrel{~}{u}}_{ij}(S\left)\right)$
is an element of
${\mathcal{O}}_{2}\left[\right[8S\left]\right]$
with infinitely many zeroes in the disc
$\left8s\right<1$
, so it is identically zero by the Weierstrass approximation theorem.
Corollary 3.6.
If
$(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}$
and
$\kappa =\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
then
$U$
is a compact operator on
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
and its characteristic power series coincides with the characteristic power series of
$U\left(s\right)$
on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
. Furthermore
$F\in {M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
is an eigenvector for
$U$
iff
$F{h}^{s}\in {M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
is an eigenvector for
$U\left(s\right)$
.
The utility of these results is that they allow us to measure the overconvergence of a finite slope form
$F$
of transcendental weight by instead considering the associated form
$F{h}^{s}$
in weight
$0$
. This will be particularly useful to us later on in the case when
$F$
is in the kernel of
$U$
. We record explicitly what we have proved. By an overconvergent modular form of weight
$\kappa $
we mean an element of
${\cup}_{r}{M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
, where
$r$
runs through the
$r\in \mathbb{Q}$
for which
$(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}$
.
Corollary 3.7.
If
$(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}$
and
$f$
is an overconvergent modular form of weight
$\kappa $
which is an eigenform for
$U$
with nonzero eigenvalue, then
$f$
extends to an element of
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
.

Proof.
This follows from 3.4 and 3.5 .
In fact we will need a similar result for families of modular forms, but our methods generalise to this case. We explicitly state what we need.
Corollary 3.8.
Let
$A\subseteq \mathcal{W}$
be an affinoid subdomain, say
$0<\rho <r<1/2$
, and assume that for all
$\kappa \in A\left({\mathbb{C}}_{2}\right)$
we have
$(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}$
. Let
$F\in \mathcal{O}\left(A\right)\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
be an analytic family of
$\rho $
overconvergent modular forms, such that
$UF=\lambda F$
for some
$\lambda \in \mathcal{O}(A{)}^{\times}$
. Then
$F$
is
$r$
overconvergent.
4 The
$W$
operator on overconvergent modular forms
We need to perform a similar analysis to the previous section with the operator
$W$
. Because
$W=2VUId$
we know that
$W$
induces a continuous linear map
$V:{M}_{0}\left[r\right]\to {M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
for
$r<1/3$
(for
$r$
in this range,
$U$
doubles and then
$V$
halves the radius of convergence). Our goal in this section is to show that, at least for
$\kappa =\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
with
$\lefts\right<8$
, there is an operator on weight
$\kappa $
overconvergent modular forms which also acts on
$q$
expansions in this manner, and to compute its matrix.
We proceed as in the previous section by firstly introducing a twist of
$W$
. If
$m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
, if
$k=12m$
and if
$\phi \in {M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
then the fact that
$h\left(q\right)/h(q)=\left(f\right(q)/f(q){)}^{2}$
implies
$${h}^{m}W\left({h}^{m}\phi \right)={f}^{2m}W\left({f}^{2m}\phi \right)$$
and so we define the operator
${W}_{k}$
on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
,
$r<1/3$
, by
${W}_{k}:={f}^{2m}W{f}^{2m}:{M}_{0}\left[r\right]\to {M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
.
Set
$g=Wf$
, so
$g\left(q\right)=f(q)=q+24{q}^{2}300{q}^{3}+\dots $
. Because
$g=2VUff=48Vf+4096(Vf{)}^{2}f$
, we see that the
$g$
can be regarded as a meromorphic function on
${X}_{0}\left(4\right)$
of degree at most 4. Similarly
$f$
may be regarded as a function on
${X}_{0}\left(4\right)$
of degree 2.
Now the meromorphic function
$$(1+48f8192{f}^{2}g{)}^{2}(1+16f{)}^{2}(1+64f)$$
on
${X}_{0}\left(4\right)$
has degree at most 16 but the first 1000 terms of its
$q$
expansion can be checked to be zero on a computer, and hence this function is identically zero. We deduce the identity
$$g=\frac{1+48f(1+16f)\sqrt{1+64f}}{8192{f}^{2}},$$
where the square root is the one of the form
$1+32f+\dots $
, and one verifies using the binomial theorem that
$g={\sum}_{i\ge 1}{c}_{i}{f}^{i}$
with
$$\begin{array}{cc}{c}_{i}& :=(1{)}^{i}{2}^{4i4}\left(\frac{(2i+2)!}{(i+1)!(i+2)!}\frac{\left(2i\right)!}{i!(i+1)!}\right)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{cc}& =(1{)}^{i}{2}^{4(i1)}\frac{3\left(2i\right)!}{(i1)!(i+2)!}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  
The other ingredient we need to compute the matrix of
${W}_{k}$
is a combinatorial lemma.
Lemma 4.1.
If
$j\ge 1$
and
$i\ge j+1$
are integers then
$${\sum}_{a=j}^{i1}\frac{3(2a+j1)!j(2i2a)!}{(aj)!(a+2j)!(ia1)!(ia+2)!}=\frac{(2i+j)!(j+1)}{(ij1)!(i+2j+2)!}.$$

Proof.
Set
$k=i1a$
and
$n=i1j$
and then eliminate the variables
$i$
and
$a$
; the lemma then takes the form
$${\sum}_{k=0}^{n}F(j,n,k)=G(j,n)$$
and, for fixed
$n$
and
$k$
, both
$F(j,n,k)$
and
$G(j,n)$
are rational functions of
$j$
. The lemma is now easily proved using Zeilberger's algorithm (regarding
$j$
as a free variable), which proves that the left hand side of the equation satisfies an explicit (rather cumbersome) recurrence relation of degree 1; however it is easily checked that the right hand side is a solution to this recurrence relation, and this argument reduces the proof of the lemma to the case
$n=0$
, where it is easily checked by hand.
We now compute the matrix of
${W}_{k}$
on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
for
$r<1/3$
and
$k=12m$
,
$m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
.
Lemma 4.2.
For
$j\ge 0$
we have
$${W}_{k}\left({2}^{12r}f{)}^{j}\right)={\sum}_{i=0}^{\infty}{\eta}_{ij}\left(m\right)({2}^{12r}f{)}^{i},$$
where
${\eta}_{ij}\left(m\right)$
is defined as follows: we have
${\eta}_{ij}\left(m\right)=0$
if
$i<j$
,
${\eta}_{ii}\left(m\right)=(1{)}^{i}$
, and for
$i>j$
we define
$${\eta}_{ij}\left(m\right)=\frac{(2i+j1+6m)!3(j+2m)\cdot {2}^{(412r)(ij)}(1{)}^{i}}{(ij)!(i+2j+6m)!}.$$

Proof.
We firstly deal with the case
$m=0$
, by induction on
$j$
. The case
$j=0$
is easily checked as
${\eta}_{i0}\left(0\right)=0$
for
$i>0$
, and the case
$j=1$
follows from the fact that
${c}_{i}{2}^{12r(1i)}={\eta}_{i1}\left(0\right)$
for
$i\ge 1$
, as is easily verified. For
$j\ge 1$
we have
$W\left({f}^{j+1}\right)=f(q{)}^{j+1}=g\cdot W({f}^{j})=({\sum}_{t\ge 1}{c}_{t}{f}^{t}\left)W\right({f}^{j}),$
and so to finish the
$m=0$
case it suffices to verify that for
$j\ge 1$
and
$i\ge j+1$
we have
${\eta}_{ij+1}\left(0\right)={2}^{12r}{\sum}_{a=0}^{i1}{c}_{ia}{2}^{12r(ia)}{\eta}_{aj}\left(0\right),$
which quickly reduces to the combinatorial lemma above.
Finally we note that because
${\eta}_{i+2mj+2m}\left(0\right)={\eta}_{ij}\left(m\right)$
, the general case follows easily from the case
$m=0$
and the fact that
${W}_{k}={f}^{2m}W{f}^{2m}$
.
As before, we now define polynomials
${\eta}_{ij}\left(S\right)$
by
${\eta}_{ij}\left(S\right)=0$
if
$i<j$
,
${\eta}_{ii}\left(S\right)=(1{)}^{i}$
, and
$${\eta}_{ij}\left(S\right)={\frac{3(j+2S){2}^{(412r)(ij)}(1{)}^{i}}{(ij)!}}^{ij1}{\prod}_{\lambda =1}(i+2j+\lambda +6S)$$
for
$i>j$
. We observe that
${\eta}_{ij}\left(S\right)$
specialises to
${\eta}_{ij}\left(m\right)$
when
$S=m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
.
Now if
$\lefts\right<8$
and
$\kappa =\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
, and we set
$\lambda =min\left\{v\right(2s),0\}>2$
, then we check easily that
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right(s\left)\right)\ge (312r+\lambda )(ij)+1$
, so for
$12r<3+\lambda $
we see that
$\left({\eta}_{ij}\right(s){)}_{i,j\ge 0}$
is the matrix of a continuous endomorphism
$W\left(s\right)$
of
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
. Moreover, arguments analogous to those of the previous section show that if furthermore
$(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}$
(so
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
is defined), then the endomorphism of
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
defined by sending
$\phi $
to
${h}^{s}W\left(s\right)\left({h}^{s}\phi \right)$
equals the
$W$
operator as defined on
$q$
expansions. Note that if
$\lefts\right\le 4$
then
$12r<3+\lambda $
implies
$(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}$
.
5 Strategy of the proof.
We have proved in Corollary 3.7 that overconvergent modular forms
$f$
such that
$Uf=af$
with
$a\ne 0$
overconverge “a long way”. Using the
$W$
operator introduced in the previous section we will now prove that overconvergent modular forms
$f=q+\dots $
such that
$Uf=0$
cannot overconverge as far. We introduce a definition and then record the precise statement.
Definition 5.1.
If
$x\in {\mathbb{C}}_{2}$
then set
$\beta =\beta \left(x\right)=sup\left\{v\right(xn):n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}\}$
, allowing
$\beta =+\infty $
if
$x\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
, and define
$\nu =\nu \left(x\right)$
as follows:
$\nu =\beta $
if
$\beta \le 0$
,
$\nu =\beta /2$
if
$0\le \beta \le 1$
, and in general
$$\nu ={\sum}_{k=1}^{n}1/{2}^{k}+(\beta n)/{2}^{n+1}$$
if
$n\le \beta \le n+1$
. Finally define
$\nu =1$
if
$\beta =+\infty $
.
The meaning of the following purely elementary lemma will become apparent after the statement of Theorem 5.3 .
Lemma 5.2.
Say
$s\in {\mathbb{C}}_{2}$
with
$\lefts\right<4$
and furthermore assume
$2s\notin {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
. Then for all
${s}^{\prime}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{2}$
with
$s{s}^{\prime}\le 1$
, we have
$0<\frac{3+\nu \left(2s\right)}{12}<\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\mu \left({s}^{\prime}\right)}{6}.$

Proof.
We have
$\nu \left(2s\right)>1$
and so certainly
$\frac{3+\nu \left(s\right)}{12}>0$
. The other inequality can be verified on a casebycase basis. We sketch the argument.
If
$\lefts\right>2$
then
$\left{s}^{\prime}\right=\lefts\right>2$
and
$\nu \left(2s\right)1=v\left(s\right)=v\left({s}^{\prime}\right)=\mu \left({s}^{\prime}\right)$
; the inequality now follows easily from the fact that
$\mu \left({s}^{\prime}\right)>2$
.
If
$\lefts\right\le 2$
but
$2s\notin {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
then
$0<\beta \left(2s\right)<\infty $
and
$\nu \left(2s\right)<1$
; now
$\left{s}^{\prime}\right\le 2$
and hence
$\mu \left({s}^{\prime}\right)\ge 1$
, thus
$\frac{3+\nu \left(2s\right)}{12}<\frac{1}{3}\le \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\mu \left({s}^{\prime}\right)}{6}$
.
Finally if
$2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
then we are assuming
$2s\notin {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
and hence
$s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
so
$\lefts\right\le 1$
and hence
$\left{s}^{\prime}\right\le 1$
. Hence
$\mu \left({s}^{\prime}\right)=0$
and we have
$\frac{3+\nu \left(2s\right)}{12}=\frac{1}{3}<\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\mu \left({s}^{\prime}\right)}{6}$
.
Again say
$\lefts\right<4$
and
$2s/\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
. Write
$\kappa =\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
, and
$\nu =\nu \left(2s\right)$
. Let
$G=q+\dots $
be an overconvergent form of weight
$\kappa $
(by which we mean an element of
${M}_{\kappa}\left[\rho \right]$
for some
$\rho \in {\mathbb{Q}}_{>0}$
sufficiently small). The theorem we prove in the next section (which is really the main contribution of this paper) is
Theorem 5.3.
If
$G=q+\dots $
satisfies
$UG=0$
, then
$F:={h}^{s}G\in {M}_{0}\left[\rho \right]$
does not extend to an element of
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
for
$r=\frac{3+\nu}{12}$
. Equivalently,
$G\notin {M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
.
Note that by Lemma 5.2 we have
$(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}$
so the theorem makes sense. Furthermore, by Corollary 3.7 , overconvergent eigenforms of the form
$q+\dots $
in the kernel of
$U$
overconverge less than finite slope overconvergent eigenforms. Note also that if
$2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
then
$\nu \left(2s\right)=1$
and for
$\kappa ,r$
as above we have
$(\kappa ,r)\notin \mathcal{X}$
. We deal with this minor annoyance in the last section of this paper.
6 The Kernel of
$U$
In this section we prove Theorem 5.3 . We divide the argument up into several cases depending on the value of
$s$
. We suppose that
$\lefts\right<4$
and
$2s\notin {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
, and we set
$\kappa =\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
.
Define
$\nu =\nu \left(2s\right)$
as in the previous section, and set
$r=\frac{3+\nu}{12}$
. For simplicity we drop the
$s$
notation from
${\eta}_{ij}\left(s\right)$
and write
$$\begin{array}{cc}{\eta}_{ij}& ={\frac{3(j+2s){2}^{(412r)(ij)}(1{)}^{i}}{(ij)!}}^{ij1}{\prod}_{t=1}(i+2j+t+6s)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{cc}& ={\frac{3(j+2s){2}^{(1\nu )(ij)}(1{)}^{i}}{(ij)!}}^{ij1}{\prod}_{t=1}(i+2j+t+6s).\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  
Say
$G=q+\dots $
as in Theorem 5.3 is
$\rho $
overconvergent for some
$0<\rho <r$
, so
$F={h}^{s}G\in {M}_{0}\left[\rho \right]$
. If we expand
$F$
as
$$F={\sum}_{j\ge 1}{\stackrel{~}{a}}_{j}({2}^{12\rho}f{)}^{j}$$
then it follows that
${\stackrel{~}{a}}_{1}\ne 0$
. Recall also that
${\stackrel{~}{a}}_{j}\to 0$
as
$j\to \infty $
. On the other hand,
$F=W\left(s\right)F$
, and so
$${\stackrel{~}{a}}_{i}={\sum}_{j=1}^{\infty}{\stackrel{~}{a}}_{j}{\stackrel{~}{\eta}}_{i,j},$$
where
${\stackrel{~}{\eta}}_{ij}$
denotes the matrix of
$W\left(s\right)$
on
${M}_{0}\left[\rho \right]$
(so
${\eta}_{ij}={\stackrel{~}{\eta}}_{ij}{2}^{12(r\stackrel{~}{r})(ji)}$
). We deduce from this that if we define
${a}_{i}={\stackrel{~}{a}}_{i}{2}^{12(\stackrel{~}{r}r)i}$
then
$F={\sum}_{j\ge 1}{a}_{j}({2}^{12r}f{)}^{j}$
and
$${a}_{i}={\sum}_{j\ge 1}{a}_{j}{\eta}_{ij}.$$
Note in particular that the sum converges even if
$W\left(s\right)$
does not extend to a continuous endomorphism of
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
or if
$F$
does not extend to an element of
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
. In fact our goal is to show that the
${a}_{i}$
do not tend to zero, and in particular that
$F$
does not extend to an element of
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
.
Lemma 6.1.
Suppose
$F$
is as above. Suppose also that there exist constants
${c}_{1}$
and
${c}_{3}\in \mathbb{R}$
, an infinite set
$I$
of positive integers, and for each
$i\in I$
constants
$N\left(i\right)$
and
${c}_{2}\left(i\right)$
tending to infinity as
$i\to \infty $
and such that

(i)
$v\left({\eta}_{i1}\right)\le {c}_{1}$
, for all
$i\in I$
.

(ii)
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge {c}_{2}\left(i\right)$
for all
$i\in I$
and
$2\le j\le N\left(i\right)$
.

(iii)
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge {c}_{3}$
for all
$i\in I$
and
$j\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
.
Then the
${a}_{i}$
do not tend to zero as
$i\to \infty $
, and hence
$F$
does not extend to a function on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
.

Proof.
Assume
${a}_{i}\to 0$
. Recall that we assume
${a}_{1}\ne 0$
. By throwing away the first few terms of
$I$
if necessary, we may then assume that for all
$i\in I$
we have

(1)
${c}_{2}\left(i\right)>v\left({a}_{1}\right)+{c}_{1}min\left\{v\right({a}_{j}):j\ge 1\}$
, and

(2)
$min\left\{v\right({a}_{j}):j>N(i\left)\right\}>v\left({a}_{1}\right)+{c}_{1}{c}_{3}$
.
We now claim that for all
$i\in I$
we have
$v\left({a}_{1}{\eta}_{i1}\right)<v\left({a}_{j}{\eta}_{ij}\right)$
for all
$j>1$
. The reason is that if
$j\le N\left(i\right)$
the inequality follows from equation (1) above, and if
$j>N\left(i\right)$
it follows from (2).
Now from the equality
$${a}_{i}={\sum}_{j=1}^{\infty}{a}_{j}{\eta}_{ij}$$
we deduce that
$v\left({a}_{i}\right)=v\left({a}_{1}{\eta}_{i1}\right)$
is bounded for all
$i\in I$
, contradicting the fact that
${a}_{i}\to 0$
.
The rest of this section is devoted to establishing these inequalities for suitable
$I$
and
$r$
.
We start with some preliminary lemmas.
Lemma 6.2.

1.
If
$m\ge 1$
then
$v(m!)\le m1$
, with equality if and only if
$m$
is a power of 2.

2.
If
$m\ge 0$
then
$v(m!)\ge (m1)/2$
, with equality if and only if
$m=1,3$
.

3.
If
$n\ge 0$
and
$0\le m<{2}^{n}$
then setting
$t={2}^{n}m$
we have
$mv(m!)\ge n(t/2)$
.

Proof.
1 and 2 follow easily from
$$v(m!)=\lfloor m/2\rfloor +\lfloor m/4\rfloor +\lfloor m/8\rfloor +\dots .$$
For 3, we have
$m!(m+1)(m+2)\dots ({2}^{n}1)\left({2}^{n}\right)=\left({2}^{n}\right)!$
and for
$0<d<{2}^{n}$
we have
$v\left(d\right)=v({2}^{n}d)$
, so
$v\left(\right(m+1\left)\right(m+2)\dots ({2}^{n}1\left)\right)=v\left(\right(t1)!)\ge (t2)/2$
by 2. Finally
$v\left(\right({2}^{n})!)={2}^{n}1$
by 1. Hence
$v(m!)\le {2}^{n}1n(t2)/2={2}^{n}n(t/2)$
and so
$mv(m!)\ge {2}^{n}t({2}^{n}n(t/2\left)\right)=n(t/2)$
.
Lemma 6.3.
Let
$m\in \mathbb{Z}$
be arbitrary and set
$\beta =\beta \left(x\right)$
and
$\nu =\nu \left(x\right)$
as in Definition 5.1 .

1.
If
$\beta \le 0$
then
$v(x+n)=\nu $
for all
$n\in \mathbb{Z}$
, hence the valuation of
${\prod}_{t=1}^{N}(x+m+t)$
is
$N\nu $
.

2.
If
$0<\beta <\infty $
and if
$N$
is a power of 2 with
$N\ge {2}^{\lceil \beta \rceil}$
then the valuation of
$${}^{N}{\prod}_{t=1}(x+m+t)$$
is exactly
$N\nu $
.

3.
If
$0<\beta <\infty $
and if
$N\ge 0$
is an arbitrary integer then the valuation of
$${}^{N}{\prod}_{t=1}(x+m+t)$$
is
$v$
, where
$vN\nu <\beta $
.

4.
If
$\beta =\infty $
and if
$N\ge 0$
is an arbitrary integer then the valuation of
${\prod}_{t=1}^{N}(x+m+t)$
is at least
$v(N!)$
.

Proof.
(1) is obvious and (2) is easy to check (note that
$v(x+n)$
is periodic with period
${2}^{\lceil \beta \rceil}$
). For part (3), say
$n=\lfloor \beta \rfloor $
. Now about half of the terms in this product are divisible by
$2$
, about a quarter are divisible by
$4$
, and so on. More precisely, this means that the largest possible power of
$2$
that can divide this product is
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \lceil N/2\rceil +\lceil N/4\rceil +\dots +\lceil N/{2}^{n}\rceil +(\beta n)\lceil N/{2}^{n+1}\rceil \end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{cc}<& (N/2+1)+(N/4+1)+\dots +(N/{2}^{n}+1)+(\beta n)(N/{2}^{n+1}+1)\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{cc}=& N\nu +\beta .\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  
A similar argument shows that the lowest possible power of 2 dividing this product is strictly greater than
$N\nu \beta $
.
For part (4), if
$\beta =\infty $
then
$x\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
and by a continuity argument it suffices to prove the result for
$x$
a large positive integer, where it is immediate because the binomial coefficient
$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{x+m+N}{N}\right)$
is an integer.
Now set
$x=2s$
and let
$\beta =\beta \left(2s\right),\nu =\nu \left(2s\right)$
. Note that if
$\beta \le 0$
then
$\mu =\beta 1$
, and if
$\beta \ge 1$
then
$\mu =0$
.
Recall
${\eta}_{ij}=0$
if
$i<j$
,
${\eta}_{ii}=(1{)}^{i}$
, and if
$i>j$
we have
$${\eta}_{ij}={\frac{3(j+2s){2}^{(1\nu )(ij)}(1{)}^{i}}{(ij)!}}^{ij1}{\prod}_{t=1}(i+2j+t+6s).$$
In particular, for
$i>j$
we have
$$(*)v\left({\eta}_{i,j}\right)=(1\nu )(ij)v\left(\right(ij)!)+v(j+2s)+v\left({}^{ij1}{\prod}_{t=1}(i+2j+t+6s)\right).$$
We shall continually refer to
$(*)$
in what follows.
Proposition 6.4.
Say
$\beta \le 0$
(and hence
$\nu =\beta $
).

1.
If
$j\ge i$
then
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge 0$
, and if
$j<i$
then
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)=ijv\left(\right(ij)!)\ge 1$
.

2.
If
$i={2}^{n}+1$
then
$v\left({\eta}_{i1}\right)=1$
and if
$1<j<i$
then
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge n(j1)/2$
.

Proof.
1 is immediate from
$(*)$
and Lemma 6.3 (1). Now 2 can be deduced from 1, using part 1 of Lemma 6.2 for the first part and part 3 of Lemma 6.2 for the second.
We now prove:
Lemma 6.5.
Theorem 5.3 is true if
$1<\beta \le 0$
(i.e., if
$2\le \lefts\right<4$
).
Equivalently, if
$2\le \lefts\right<4$
and
$\kappa =\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
, and if
$G=q+\dots $
is a nonzero weight
$\kappa $
overconvergent form in
$ker\left(U\right)$
, then
$F={h}^{s}G$
does not converge as far as
${M}_{0}[1/4+\nu /12]$
, where
$\nu =\nu \left(2s\right)$
as above.

Proof.
This will be a direct application of lemma 6.1 . We set
$I=\{{2}^{n}+1:n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}\}$
, and if
$i={2}^{n}+1$
we define
${c}_{2}\left(i\right)=(n+1)/2$
and
$N\left(i\right)=n$
. We set
${c}_{1}=1$
and
${c}_{3}=0$
. Now assumptions (i) and (ii) of Lemma 6.1 follow from Proposition 6.4 (2), and (iii) follows from Proposition 6.4 (1).
Let us now consider the case when
$0<\beta <\infty $
.
Proposition 6.6.
Let
$0<\beta <\infty $
.

1.
If
$j<i$
then
$v\left({\eta}_{i,j}\right)\left((ij)v\left(\right(ij)!)\nu \right)\in [\beta ,2\beta ]$
.

2.
If
$j<i$
then
$$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge 1\beta \nu .$$
If
$i={2}^{n}+1$
then
$$v\left({\eta}_{i1}\right)\le 2\beta \nu +1$$
and if
$1<j<i$
then
$$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge n(j+1)/2\nu \beta .$$

Proof.
From the definition of
$\beta $
, the valuation of
$j+2s$
lies in
$[0,\beta ]$
. The result then follows from
$(*)$
and lemma 6.3 , part 3. Part 2 follows from part 1 and Lemma 6.2 , parts (1) and (3), applied to
$(ij)!$
.
Lemma 6.7.
Theorem 5.3 is true if
$0<\beta <\infty $
, that is, if
$\lefts\right\le 2$
and
$2s\notin {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
.

Proof.
Again this is an application of lemma 6.1 . Set
$I=\{{2}^{n}+1:n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}\}$
,
${c}_{1}=2\beta \nu +1$
,
${c}_{3}=min\{0,1\beta \nu \}$
, and if
$i={2}^{n}+1$
then set
$N\left(i\right)=n$
and
${c}_{2}\left(i\right)=(n+1)/2\nu \beta $
.
Conditions (i)–(iii) of Lemma
6.1 hold by Proposition 6.6 (2).
The only cases of Theorem 5.3 left to deal with are those with
$\beta =+\infty $
, that is,
$2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
.
Because the theorem does not deal with the case
$2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
we may assume from now on that
$2s\in 2{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
, so
$s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
. We next deal with the case
$s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
and
$6s\notin \mathbb{N}$
, where
$\mathbb{N}=\{1,2,3,\dots \}$
is the positive integers. In this case, we shall again use Lemma 6.1 with
$i$
of the form
$i={2}^{n}+1$
.
However, it will turn out that only certain (although infinitely many)
$n$
will be suitable.
Since we assume
$s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
we have
$\beta =+\infty $
, so
$\nu =1$
and hence
$$(**){\eta}_{ij}={\frac{3(j+2s)(1{)}^{i}}{(ij)!}}^{ij1}{\prod}_{t=1}(i+2j+t+6s).$$
Let
$u\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
. Define functions
${f}_{n}\left(u\right)$
as follows:
$${f}_{n}\left(u\right)=({2}^{n}+u)({2}^{n}+u+1)\cdots ({2}^{n+1}1+u){=}^{{2}^{n}1}{\prod}_{\tau =0}({2}^{n}+u+\tau ).$$
Lemma 6.8.
For any
$u\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
there exist infinitely many values of
$n$
for which
$${v}_{n}\left(f\right(u\left)\right)=v\left(\right({2}^{n})!)\text{or}v\left(\right({2}^{n})!)+1.$$

Proof.
For each
$n$
, define an integer
$0<{u}_{n}\le {2}^{n}$
by setting
$u\equiv {u}_{n}mod{2}^{n}$
. If
$0\le \tau \le {2}^{n}1$
and
$\tau \ne {2}^{n}{u}_{n}$
, then
$$v({2}^{n}+u+\tau )=v({u}_{n}+\tau ).$$
Since
$\tau $
takes on every equivalence class modulo
${2}^{n}$
, It follows from the definition of
${f}_{n}$
that
$$v\left({f}_{n}\right(u\left)\right)=v\left(\right({2}^{n}1)!)+v({2}^{n+1}+u{u}_{n}).$$
If
$u\not\equiv {u}_{n}mod{2}^{n+1}$
then
$v({2}^{n+1}+u{u}_{n})=v\left({2}^{n}\right)$
and
$v\left({f}_{n}\right(u\left)\right)=v\left(\right({2}^{n})!)$
. There are infinitely many
$n$
satisfying this condition unless
$u\equiv {u}_{n}mod{2}^{n+1}$
for all sufficiently large
$n$
.
Yet this implies
${u}_{n}={u}_{n+1}$
for all sufficiently large
$n$
, and subsequently that
$u={u}_{n}$
. In this case we have
$v({2}^{n+1}+u{u}_{n})=v\left({2}^{n+1}\right)$
, and
$v\left({f}_{n}\right(u\left)\right)=v\left(\right({2}^{n})!)+1$
.
Corollary 6.9.
There are infinitely many
$n$
such that if
$i={2}^{n}+1$
then
$v\left({\eta}_{i1}\right)\in \{0,1\}$
.

Proof.
Let
$i={2}^{n}+1$
and
$j=1$
, and assume
$n\ge 1$
. By
$(**)$
we have
$${\eta}_{i1}={\frac{3(1+2s)(1)}{\left({2}^{n}\right)!}}^{{2}^{n}1}{\prod}_{t=1}({2}^{n}+3+t+6s).$$
Let
$u=6s+4\in 2{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
and set
$\tau =t1$
. Then
$${\eta}_{i1}={\frac{(1u)}{\left({2}^{n}\right)!}}^{{2}^{n}2}{\prod}_{\tau =0}({2}^{n}+u+\tau )=\frac{{f}_{n}\left(u\right)}{\left({2}^{n}\right)!}\cdot \frac{1u}{u1+{2}^{n+1}}$$
and the result follows from Lemma 6.8 and the fact that
$u\in 2{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
.
Let us now turn to estimating
${\eta}_{ij}$
for general
$i,j$
.
Lemma 6.10.
If
$i,j\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
then
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge 0$
.

Proof.
By continuity, it suffices to verify the result for
$6s$
a large positive even integer. It is clear if
$i\le j$
so assume
$i>j$
. Now because the product of
$N$
successive integers is divisible by
$N!$
we see (putting one extra term into the product) that both
${x}_{1}:=\frac{i+2j+6s}{3(j+2s)}{\eta}_{ij}$
and
${x}_{2}:=\frac{2i+j+6s}{3(j+2s)}{\eta}_{ij}$
are integers. The result now follows as
${\eta}_{ij}=2{x}_{1}{x}_{2}$
.
Set
${I}_{0}=\{i={2}^{n}+1:v({\eta}_{i1})\in \{0,1\left\}\right\}$
. Then
${I}_{0}$
is infinite by Corollary 6.9 . We will ultimately let
$I$
be a subset of
${I}_{0}$
. We must analyse
${\eta}_{ij}$
for
$i\in {I}_{0}$
and
$1<j$
small. Note that if
$i={2}^{n}+1$
and
$j\ge 2$
, then
$$\frac{{\eta}_{i,j}}{{\eta}_{i,1}}={2}^{n}\cdot \frac{(j+2s)}{(1+2s)}{\cdot}^{j2}{\prod}_{t=1}(ij+t)\cdot \frac{{\prod}_{t=1}^{j1}(2i+t+6s)}{{\prod}_{t=1}^{2j2}(i+2+t+6s)}$$
Since
$6s/\in \mathbb{N}$
,
$3+6s+t\ne 0$
. Thus for any
$N$
there exists
${n}_{0}$
depending on
$N$
such that for all
$n\ge {n}_{0}$
we have
$v(i+2+6s+t)=v(3+6s+t)$
for all
$t\le 2N2$
. In particular, for fixed
$N$
and sufficiently large
$n$
(with
$i={2}^{n}+1$
),
$$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge nv\left({}^{2j2}{\prod}_{t=0}(3+6s+t)\right)+v\left({\eta}_{i1}\right).$$
Lemma 6.11.
For any constants
${c}_{2}\in \mathbb{R}$
and
$N\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 1}$
, there exists
${n}_{1}={n}_{1}({c}_{2},N)$
such that for all
$n\ge {n}_{1}$
such that
$i={2}^{n}+1\in {I}_{0}$
, we have
$v\left({\eta}_{ij}\right)\ge {c}_{2}$
for
$2\le j\le N$
.

Proof.
Set
$M=v\left({\prod}_{t=0}^{2N2}\right(3+6s+t\left)\right)$
and choose
${n}_{1}$
such that
${n}_{1}M\ge {c}_{2}$
.
We may now prove:
Lemma 6.12.
Theorem 5.3 is true if
$s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$
and
$6s\notin \mathbb{N}$
.

Proof.
We apply lemma 6.1 as follows. Set
${c}_{1}=1$
and
${c}_{3}=0$
. We build
$I$
as follows. As
$m$
runs through the positive integers, set
$N={c}_{2}=m$
, define
${n}_{1}$
as in Lemma 6.11 , choose
$n\ge {n}_{1}$
such that
$i:={2}^{n}+1\in {I}_{0}$
and such that
$i$
is not yet in
$I$
; now add
$i$
to
$I$
and define
$N\left(i\right)={c}_{2}\left(i\right)=t$
. The conditions of lemma 6.1 are then satisfied.
The final case in our proof of Theorem 5.3 is the case
$6s\in 2\mathbb{N}$
, which corresponds to weight
$k=12s\in 4\mathbb{N}$
. We shall not use Lemma 6.1 in this case, but give a direct argument.
Because our level structure is so small it is convenient to temporarily augment it to get around representability issues. So choose some odd prime
$p$
and consider the compact modular curve
$Y$
over
${\mathbb{Q}}_{2}$
whose cuspidal points parametrise elliptic curves with a subgroup of order 2 and a full level
$p$
structure (note that this curve is not in general connected). There is a sheaf
$\omega $
on
$Y$
, and classical modular forms of weight
$k$
and level 2 are, by definition,
${GL}_{2}(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})$
invariant global sections of
${\omega}^{\otimes k}$
on
$Y$
.
For
$0<r\le 2/3$
let
$Y\left[r\right]$
denote the preimage of
$X\left[r\right]$
via the forgetful functor. Recall that there is a compact operator
$U$
on
${H}^{0}\left(Y\right[r],{\omega}^{\otimes k})$
for
$r<2/3$
and
$k\in \mathbb{Z}$
.
Lemma 6.13.
If
$k\in \mathbb{Z}$
and
$f\in {H}^{0}\left(Y\right[1/3],{\omega}^{\otimes k})$
is in the kernel of
$U$
, then
$f=0$
.
Remark 6.14.
The lemma is not special to
$p=2$
; the proof shows that nonzero
$p$
adic modular forms in the kernel of
$U$
are never
$1/(p+1)$
overconvergent.

Proof.
Say
$f\in {H}^{0}\left(Y\right[1/3],{\omega}^{\otimes k})$
is arbitrary. If
$E$
is an elliptic curve over a finite extension of
${\mathbb{Q}}_{2}$
, equipped with with a subgroup
$C$
of order
$2$
and a full level
$p$
structure
$L$
, and such that the corresponding point
$(E,C,L)\in Y$
is in
$Y[1/3]$
, then one can regard
$f(E,C,L)$
as an element of
${H}^{0}(E,{\Omega}^{1}{)}^{\otimes k}$
. Now define
$g\in {H}^{0}\left(Y\right[2/3],{\omega}^{\otimes k})$
by
$$g(E,L)={\sum}_{D\ne C}(pr{)}^{*}f(E/D,\overline{C},\overline{L}),$$
where the sum is over the subgroups
$D\ne C$
of
$E$
of order 2,
$pr$
denotes the projection
$E\to E/D$
, and a bar over a level structure denotes its natural pushforward. An easy calculation using Tate curves (see for example Proposition 5.1 of [1] ) shows that
$g=pUf$
, and hence if
$Uf=0$
then
$g=0$
. In particular if
$E$
is an elliptic curve with no canonical subgroup and we fix a full level
$p$
structure
$L$
on
$E$
, then then
$(E,C,L)\in Y[2/3]$
for all
$C$
, and
$g(E,C,L)=0$
for all
$C$
implies that
${\sum}_{D\ne C}(pr{)}^{*}f(E/D,E\left[2\right]/D,\overline{L})=0$
for all
$C$
. Summing, one deduces that
${\sum}_{D}(pr{)}^{*}f(E/D,E\left[2\right]/D,\overline{L})=0$
and hence that
$f(E/D,E[2]/D,\overline{L})=0$
for all
$D$
of order 2. This implies that
$f$
is identically zero on the “boundary” of
$Y[1/3]$
and hence that
$f$
is identically zero.
We deduce
Lemma 6.15.
Theorem 5.3 is true for
$6s\in 2\mathbb{N}$
.

Proof.
If
$G\in {M}_{k}[1/3]$
then
$G={h}^{k/12}F$
and, because
$k=12s\in 4\mathbb{N}$
, we know that
${h}^{k/12}$
is a classical modular form of level 2 and hence an element of
${H}^{0}\left(Y\right[1/3],{\omega}^{\otimes (k/12)})$
. Thus the preceding lemma applies to
$G$
and we conclude that
$G=0$
.
Theorem 5.3 now follows from Lemmas 6.5 , 6.7 , 6.12 and 6.15 .
7 General facts about the 2adic eigencurve.
In this section we collect some standard results about
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
, including several for which we know no reference. For brevity we have restricted our attention to the 2adic level 1 eigencurve, but much of what we say applies more generally (see Remark 7.6 for more precise comments about what works in general and what doesn't.) We remark that sometimes our proofs could be shortened slightly but we have presented proofs that would generalise easily once one has set up the required notation.
We firstly recall the definition of the eigencurve
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
, following Part II of [
2]
. If
$Y=Sp\left(R\right)\to \mathcal{W}$
is a map from an affinoid to
$\mathcal{W}$
(for example a point of
$\mathcal{W}$
or an admissible affinoid open in
$\mathcal{W}$
) then for
$0<r<2/3$
we define
${M}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
to be the space of
$r$
overconvergent modular forms of weight
$Y$
, that is, the
$R$
module of formal power series
$F\in R\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
such that
$F/{E}_{Y}$
is the
$q$
expansion of an element of
$\mathcal{O}\left(X\right[r]\times Y)$
, where
${E}_{Y}$
denotes the pullback of the Eisenstein family in
$\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{W})\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
to
$R\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
. This is probably not the “correct” definition if
$r$
is close to
$2/3$
and the image of
$Y$
contains points near the boundary of weight space. On the other hand, it is shown in section 7 of [
2]
that for
$r$
sufficiently close to zero the space
${M}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
is stable under all the Hecke operators
${T}_{n}$
(this was not proved in [
7]
, although it was stated for
$p>2$
; however the missing ingredient is provided by Lemma 7.1 of [
2]
). We assume henceforth that
$r$
is always sufficiently small for all the Hecke operators to be defined. Then
$U$
is a welldefined compact endomorphism of
${M}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
and its characteristic power series
${P}_{U,Y}\left(T\right)\in R\left[\right[T\left]\right]$
is independent of
$r$
. As noted in Remark 2.1 , if the image of
$Y$
in weight space is contained within the characters of the form
$\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
with
$\lefts\right<8$
, and if
$r$
is sufficiently small, then the definition of
${M}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
above coincides with the one used in this paper. We henceforth assume that
$r$
is also sufficiently small to ensure that this is the case.
Now if
$\phi $
is a compact operator on
${M}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
(for example,
$\phi $
could be the operator
$U$
, or
$U{T}_{\ell}$
for some odd prime
$\ell $
) then its characteristic power series
${P}_{\phi ,Y}\left(T\right)$
is in
$R\left[\right[T\left]\right]$
and can even be regarded as a function on
$Y\times {\mathbb{A}}^{1}$
. Let
${Z}_{\phi ,Y}$
denote the closed subspace of
$Y\times {\mathbb{A}}^{1}$
cut out by
${P}_{\phi ,Y}\left(T\right)$
. If we let
$Y$
run over the elements of an admissible affinoid cover of
$\mathcal{W}$
, the corresponding
${Z}_{\phi ,Y}$
glue together to give the spectral curve
${Z}_{\phi}\subset \mathcal{W}\times {\mathbb{A}}^{1}$
associated to
$\phi $
.
Going back to
$Y\to \mathcal{W}$
arbitrary, for every factorization
${P}_{\phi ,Y}=Q\left(T\right)S\left(T\right)$
where
$Q=1+\dots $
is a polynomial of degree
$n$
with leading term a unit, and such that
$Q$
and
$S$
are relatively prime, there is a decomposition of
${Z}_{\phi ,Y}$
into two disjoint subspaces, the one corresponding to
$Q$
being finite and flat of degree
$n$
. The submodule
$N$
of
${M}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
corresponding to
$Q\left(T\right)$
via Coleman's Riesz theory (Theorem A4.3 of [
5]
) is a free
$R$
module of rank
$n$
, and is stable under all the Hecke operators. The Hecke operators acting on this subspace generate a finite free
$R$
algebra which is hence an affinoid algebra, and the associated rigid space naturally lives over
${Z}_{\phi ,Y}$
. The eigencurve
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
is built by glueing all such spaces together, as
$Y$
ranges over admissible affinoid opens in
$\mathcal{W}$
. The key technical difficulty in this construction is verifying that the induced cover of
${Z}_{\phi}$
is admissible, and this problem was solved in Proposition A5.8 of [
5]
.
Lemma 7.1.
Let
$Y$
be an affinoid subdomain of
$\mathcal{W}$
and choose
$r>0$
sufficiently small so that the Hecke operator
${T}_{\ell}$
is a welldefined endomorphism of
${M}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
.
Then, possibly after shrinking
$r$
again, we have
$\left\right{T}_{\ell}\left\right\le 1$
.

Proof.
This comes from an explicit analysis of the formula used to describe
${T}_{\ell}$
. Note that, unlike the classical case,
${T}_{\ell}$
is not defined as a correspondence in general weight
$\kappa $
, because of the slightly unnatural definition of an overconvergent eigenform of weight
$\kappa $
. On the other hand, the definition as a correspondence does work well in weight 0, and one can deduce from this that
$\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}\mapsto \sum {a}_{n\ell}{q}^{n}$
is a welldefined map from
$r$
overconvergent functions of weight 0 and level 1 to level
$r$
overconvergent functions of weight 0 and level
$\ell $
, and furthermore that this map has norm at most 1. Now the lemma follows from the explicit definition of
${T}_{\ell}$
at weight
$\kappa $
given on p463 of [5] , with the proviso that this definition only works near the centre of weight space, so every occurrence of
${E}^{s}$
should be replaced by the Eisenstein family
${E}_{\kappa}$
, and every occurrence of
${e}_{\ell}^{s}$
should replaced by
${E}_{\kappa}\left(q\right)/{E}_{\kappa}\left({q}^{\ell}\right)$
, a function which is proved to be overconvergent in Proposition 2.2.7 of [7] , and which has
$q$
expansion congruent to 1 modulo the maximal ideal of
${\mathcal{O}}_{2}$
. The reason one might have to shrink
$r$
again is that we need to guarantee that the supremum norm of
${E}_{\kappa}\left(q\right)/{E}_{\kappa}\left({q}^{\ell}\right)$
is at most 1 on
${X}_{0}(\ell {)}_{\ge {2}^{r}}$
.
Lemma 7.2.
If
$\kappa \ne 0$
then
${E}_{\kappa}$
is not the
$q$
expansion of a function on
$X\left[0\right]$
.
Equivalently,
$1$
is not the
$q$
expansion of a 2adic modular form of weight
$\kappa $
for any nonzero
$\kappa $
.

Proof.
For
$\kappa $
a positive even integer this follows from Corollary 4.5.2 of [9] . We reduce to this case. Assume
${E}_{\kappa}$
is a function on
$X\left[0\right]$
. Then theorem 2.2.2 of [7] implies that
${E}_{{\kappa}^{2}}$
is as well, and hence we may assume that
$\kappa =\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{{k}^{\prime}}$
with
${k}^{\prime}\in {\mathbb{C}}_{2}$
and furthermore we may assume that
${k}^{\prime}$
is sufficiently close to zero to ensure that
${E}_{{k}^{\prime}}1$
has
$q$
expansion divisible by, say, 16 in
${\mathcal{O}}_{2}\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
. Now choose
$k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$
with
$k={k}^{\prime}\alpha $
and
$\left\alpha \right<1$
, and consider the function
$({E}_{{k}^{\prime}}{)}^{\alpha}$
on
$X\left[0\right]$
. By Corollary B4.5.2 of [5] we see that
${E}_{k}/({E}_{{k}^{\prime}}{)}^{\alpha}$
is an overconvergent function on
$X\left[0\right]$
, and this reduces us to the case we have dealt with already.
Fix a weight
$\kappa $
, and for a Hecke operator
$T\in \{U,{T}_{3},{T}_{5},{T}_{7},{T}_{11},\dots ,{T}_{\ell},\dots \}$
define
$\lambda \left(T\right)$
to be the eigenvalue of
$T$
acting on
${E}_{\kappa}$
(so
$\lambda \left(U\right)=1$
and
$\lambda \left({T}_{\ell}\right)=1+\kappa (\ell )/\ell $
.)
Corollary 7.3.
If
$f$
is a nonzero cuspidal eigenform of weight
$\kappa $
, then there is a Hecke operator
$T\in \{U,{T}_{3},{T}_{5},{T}_{7},{T}_{11},\dots \}$
such that
$Tf\ne \lambda \left(T\right)f$
.

Proof.
By standard results on how Hecke operators act on
$q$
expansions, we see that any counterexample to the lemma must be of the form
$f=c(q+{q}^{2}+\lambda ({T}_{3}){q}^{3}+\cdots )$
with
$c\ne 0$
.
If
$\kappa \ne 0$
then this eigenform is of the form
${c}^{\prime}({E}_{\kappa}1)$
, and hence the
$q$
expansion 1 is in the linear span of
${E}_{\kappa}$
and
$f$
, and we deduce that 1 is an overconvergent modular form of weight
$\kappa $
, contradicting Lemma 7.2 . It remains to deal with the case
$\kappa =0$
. Yet, as noted in Lemma 4 of [
6]
, a result of Serre implies that the form
$f$
is not even a
$p$
adic modular form, and thus certainly not an overconvergent eigenform.
Lemma 7.4.
The 2adic level 1 eigencurve
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
can be written as a disjoint union
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}Eis\prod \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
, with
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}Eis$
, the Eisenstein component, mapping isomorphically down to
$\mathcal{W}$
via the projection, and
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
being the eigencurve constructed from spaces of cuspidal overconvergent modular forms via the argument above.

Proof.
This is no doubt wellknown but we write down a proof for lack of a reference. Let
$P\left(T\right)$
denote the characteristic polynomial of
$U$
in
$\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{W})\left[\right[T\left]\right]$
. Now
$P\left(1\right)=0$
because it is a function on weight space that vanishes at all classical even weights
$k\ge 2$
, which are Zariskidense in
$\mathcal{W}$
(it vanishes because the Eisenstein series is an eigenform with eigenvalue 1). Write
$P\left(T\right)=(1T){P}^{0}\left(T\right)$
. Set
$z:={P}^{0}\left(1\right)$
. Now
$z$
is not identically zero, because if it were then there would be a cuspidal overconvergent eigenform of weight 4 with
$U$
eigenvalue 1 and such a thing would be classical. However the level 2 weight 4 Eisenstein series which vanishes at infinity does not have the right eigenvalue, and neither do any cusp forms because this would contradict the Weil bounds. So the zeroes of
$z$
form a Zariskiclosed subset of weight space which is not all of
$\mathcal{W}$
. Let
${\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
denote the complement of this set, so
${\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
is open and dense in
$\mathcal{W}$
. Over
${\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
we know that
$(1T)$
is coprime to
${P}^{0}\left(T\right)$
, and one deduces that the spectral curve
${Z}_{U}$
is the disjoint union of the component
${Z}_{U}^{Eis}$
corresponding to the
$U$
eigenvalue 1, and its complement, corresponding to cusp forms. Moreover the construction of the eigencurve over the spectral curve gives, over
${Z}_{U}^{Eis}$
, a component of the eigencurve isomorphic to
${\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
, since the associated Hecke algebra is of rank 1. Hence over
${\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
the eigencurve is a disjoint union of a component
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}Eis$
isomorphic to
${\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
and its complement,
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
.
We must extend this construction now to
$\mathcal{W}$
. We remark that in the case we are interested in it is almost certainly the case that
${\mathcal{W}}^{\times}=\mathcal{W}$
, and this would follow from the wellknown fact that Hida theory and Coleman theory are compatible; unfortunately we have been unable to find an explicit reference for this that applies for small primes or for weights that are not in
$Hom({\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times},{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times})$
, so we give a selfcontained proof. The trick is to change our choice of compact operator. If
$\kappa \in \mathcal{W}\backslash {\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
then there is a cuspidal eigenform of weight
$\kappa $
with
$U$
eigenvalue 1, but we shall construct another compact operator
${U}^{\prime}$
such that the eigencurves constructed via
$U$
and
${U}^{\prime}$
are isomorphic,
${E}_{\kappa}$
is an eigenvector for
${U}^{\prime}$
with eigenvalue
$\alpha $
, and furthermore
$(1\alpha T)$
divides the characteristic power series of
${U}^{\prime}$
on
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
precisely once. The existence of such a
${U}^{\prime}$
implies that
${Z}_{{U}^{\prime}}$
splits up as the disjoint union of an Eisenstein component and a cuspidal component over a neighbourood of
$\kappa $
, and hence
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
also splits up as a disjoint union of
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
and
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}Eis$
over this neighbourhood, which is what we need to finish the proof.
It remains to construct such a
${U}^{\prime}$
. Chose
$\kappa $
in
$\mathcal{W}\backslash {\mathcal{W}}^{\times}$
and consider the space
$V$
of overconvergent cusp forms of weight
$\kappa $
annihiliated by
$(U1)$
. This space is finitedimensional and nonzero. Furthermore, by Corollary 7.3 , for any
$0\ne v\in V$
there exists an odd prime
$\ell $
such that
${T}_{\ell}v\ne (1+\kappa (\ell )/\ell )v$
. Choose a basis
$\{{e}_{1},{e}_{2},\dots ,{e}_{n}\}$
of
$V$
such that all the
${T}_{\ell}$
are in upper triangular form, and for each
${e}_{i}$
choose a Hecke operator
${T}_{{\ell}_{i}}$
such that
${T}_{{\ell}_{i}}{e}_{i}\ne (1+\kappa ({\ell}_{i})/{\ell}_{i}){e}_{i}$
. It is easy now to find a linear combination
${T}_{0}:={\sum}_{i}{c}_{i}{T}_{{\ell}_{i}}$
of these Hecke operators such that if
${T}_{0}{E}_{\kappa}=\lambda {E}_{\kappa}$
then
$\lambda $
is not an eigenvalue of
${T}_{0}$
on
$V$
. For
$N$
sufficiently large we have
$\left\right{p}^{N}{T}_{0}\left\right<1$
and hence
$1+{p}^{N}{T}_{0}$
is invertible on
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
. We claim that for some such
$N$
the Hecke operator
${U}^{\prime}:=U(1+{p}^{N}{T}_{0})$
suffices. The eigencurves constructed using
$U$
and
${U}^{\prime}$
are isomorphic above a small neighbourhood of
$\kappa $
in
$\mathcal{W}$
, by the arguments of Corollary 7.3.7 of [
7]
(applied to the neighbourhood of
$\kappa $
rather than all of weight space, and noting that the argument does not rely on any of the deformation theory of Galois representations presented earlier in [
7]
and hence does not need the assumptions
$N=1$
and
$p>2$
.) It remains to check that we can choose
$N$
such that if
${U}^{\prime}{E}_{\kappa}=\alpha {E}_{\kappa}$
then the generalised
$\alpha $
eigenspace for
${U}^{\prime}$
on
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
is precisely 1dimensional (and hence spanned by
${E}_{\kappa}$
). It suffices to verify this on the
$U$
ordinary subspace of
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
(which is equal to the
${U}^{\prime}$
ordinary subspace of
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
), as
$\alpha $
is a unit. The ordinary subspace splits as a direct sum of the Eisenstein subspace and the cuspidal part, which in turns splits into the sum of the generalised
$U$
eigenspace
${V}_{1}$
where the
$U$
eigenvalue is 1, and the direct sum
${V}_{2}$
of the other generalised
$U$
eigenspaces. On
${V}_{1}$
we have to verify that no eigenvalue of
$UT$
is
$\alpha $
, which follows without too much trouble from our construction of
$T$
, whatever the value of
$N$
. Finally the space
${V}_{2}$
is finitedimensional and 1 is not an eigenvalue of
$U$
on this space. On the other hand, as
$N$
tends to infinity we see that
$\alpha $
tends to 1 and
${U}^{\prime}$
tends to
$U$
, so for
$N$
large enough there will also be no eigenvalues equal to
$\alpha $
on
${V}_{2}$
. This completes the proof.
Finally we need a result that says that
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
represents a functor on rigid spaces over weight space. Again this result seems to be known but we know of no reference. If
${\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
is an affinoid subdomain of
$\mathcal{W}$
then we let
${S}_{{\mathcal{W}}_{i}}\left[r\right]$
denote the
$r$
overconvergent cusp forms of weight
${\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
. Now let
$Y$
denote any rigid space over
$\mathcal{W}$
. We say that
$F={\sum}_{n\ge 1}{a}_{n}{q}^{n}\in \mathcal{O}\left(Y\right)\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
is a normalised overconvergent finite slope cuspidal eigenform of weight
$Y$
if
$F=q+O\left({q}^{2}\right)$
, if
${a}_{2}\in \mathcal{O}(Y{)}^{\times}$
, and furthermore if we can write
$Y$
as an admissible union of affinoids
${Y}_{i}$
such that for each
$i$
there exists
${r}_{i}>0$
and an affinoid subdomain
${\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
of
$\mathcal{W}$
with
${Y}_{i}\to {\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
, such that
$F$
is the
$q$
expansion of an element in
${S}_{{Y}_{i}}\left[r\right]:={S}_{{\mathcal{W}}_{i}}\left[r\right]{\widehat{\otimes}}_{\mathcal{O}\left({\mathcal{W}}_{i}\right)}\mathcal{O}\left({Y}_{i}\right)$
. Let
$\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}\left(Y\right)$
denote the functor on rigid spaces over
$\mathcal{W}$
, sending
$Y/\mathcal{W}$
to the set of normalised overconvergent finite slope cuspidal eigenforms of weight
$Y$
.
Lemma 7.5.
This functor is represented by
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
.

Proof.
We need to exhibit functorial bijections
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp\left(Y\right)=\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}\left(Y\right)$
for all
$Y$
, which we do by writing down canonical maps in both directions. Let us first start with a map
$\beta :Y\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
and concoct a finite slope cuspidal overconvergent eigenform. Recall that
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
is equipped with functions
${T}_{1}$
,
${T}_{2}$
,
${T}_{3},\dots $
and given
$\beta :Y\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
we define
${a}_{n}={\beta}^{*}\left({T}_{n}\right)$
and set
$F={\sum}_{n\ge 1}{a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
. We claim that this is indeed a normalised overconvergent finite slope cuspidal eigenform. It suffices to verify this on an admissible affinoid cover of
$Y$
, and hence we may assume that
$Y=Sp\left(A\right)$
is affinoid and the map
$Y\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
has image in
$Sp(\mathbf{T})$
, where
$\mathbf{T}$
is one of the Hecke algebras used to define the eigencurve via the spectral curve
${Z}_{U}$
. Now
$\mathbf{T}$
is the Hecke algebra corresponding to a finite rank space of overconvergent cuspidal modular forms
$M$
over an affinoid
$R$
, and Coleman proves on p465 of [7] that the usual
$R$
linear pairing
$\mathbf{T}\times M\to R$
defined by
$(t,m)\mapsto {a}_{1}\left(tm\right)$
is perfect. Because
$\mathbf{T}$
and
$M$
are free
$R$
modules of finite rank, this pairing remains perfect when one tensors up to
$A$
, and we deduce that the map
$\mathbf{T}\to A$
of
$R$
modules corresponds canonically to an element of
$M{\otimes}_{R}A=M{\widehat{\otimes}}_{R}A$
with
$q$
expansion
${\sum}_{n\ge 1}{a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
, and in particular to a normalised cuspidal overconvergent eigenform.
It suffices to prove that this eigenform has finite slope, but this is clear because, by definition, the characteristic polynomial of
$U$
on
$M$
has constant coefficient equal to a unit in
$R$
, and hence
$U={T}_{2}$
is invertible, thus
${a}_{2}$
is also invertible.
The construction the other way is just a case of ensuring that the argument above can be reversed. If
$Y/\mathcal{W}$
is a rigid space and
$F=\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
is a normalised cuspidal finite slope overconvergent eigenform over
$Y$
then we must show that there is a unique map
$Y\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
such that
${a}_{n}$
is the pullback of
${T}_{n}$
for all
$n$
. Again it suffices to do this on an admissible affinoid cover of
$Y$
so again we may assume
$Y=Sp\left(A\right)$
is affinoid, that the map
$Y\to \mathcal{W}$
has image in an affinoid
${\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
, and that
$\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
is an element of a space
${S}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
of
$r$
overconvergent cusp forms of weight
$Y$
. Let
${P}_{U,Y}\left(T\right)$
denote the characteristic power series of
$U$
on
${S}_{Y}\left[r\right]$
.
The factor
$(1{a}_{2}T)$
of
${P}_{U,Y}\left(T\right)$
, corresponding to our finite slope eigenform, cuts out a closed subspace
${Z}_{F}$
of
${Z}_{U,Y}$
, which maps down isomorphically onto
$Y$
under the canonical projection
${Z}_{U,Y}\to Y$
, as
${a}_{2}\in \mathcal{O}(Y{)}^{\times}$
. Note that
${Z}_{F}$
may not be disconnected from the closure of its complement in
${Z}_{U,Y}$
. The admissible cover of
${Z}_{U}$
in Proposition A5.8 of [
5]
pulls back to an admissible cover of
${Z}_{U,Y}$
and hence to an admissible cover of
${Z}_{\mathcal{\mathcal{F}}}$
and thus of
$Y$
. Replacing
$Y$
by an element of this admissible cover, we may assume that there exists a factorization
${P}_{U,Y}\left(T\right)=Q\left(T\right)S\left(T\right)$
with
$\left(Q\right(T),S(T\left)\right)=1$
,
$Q\left(T\right)=1+O\left(T\right)$
a polynomial with leading term a unit, and
$(1{a}_{2}T)\leftQ\right(T)$
. This factorization induces a
$U$
invariant decomposition
${S}_{Y}\left[r\right]=N\oplus E$
with
$N$
free of finite rank over
$\mathcal{O}\left(Y\right)$
. We may write
$F={F}_{N}+{F}_{E}$
via this decomposition, and both
${F}_{N}$
and
${F}_{E}$
will be eigenvectors for
$U$
with eigenvalue
${a}_{2}$
. But
$S\left(T\right)$
, the characteristic power series of
$U$
on
$N$
, is coprime to
$Q\left(T\right)$
and hence to
$1{a}_{2}T$
, so
${F}_{E}=0$
.
We deduce that
$F\in N$
. Now if
$\mathbf{T}$
denotes the Hecke algebra associated to
$N$
then
$F\in N$
induces an
$\mathcal{O}\left(Y\right)$
algebra homomorphism
$\mathbf{T}\to \mathcal{O}\left(Y\right)$
, and it is a standard calculation, using the fact that
$F=q+\cdots $
is an eigenform, that this map is in fact a ring homomorphism. This ring homomorphism induces a map
$Y\to Sp(\mathbf{T})$
and hence
$Y\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
.
Finally, it is elementary to verify that both constructions are inverse to one another.
Remark 7.6.
Lemmas 7.1 and 7.2 are true for general ColemanMazur eigencurves (with the same proofs!). Corollary 7.3 is true for regular primes but will not be true at weights corresponding to zeros of the
$p$
adic
$L$
function, because the corresponding Eisenstein series is cuspidal. Similarly for Lemma 7.4 — the proof works for regular primes but the cuspidal and Eisenstein components of the eigencurve will meet for irregular primes, as can be seen from the main theorem of [
8]
and the wellknown compatibility of Hida theory and Coleman theory. On the other hand Lemma 7.5 is true for general ColemanMazur eigencurves — one can define
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
using families of cuspidal overconvergent modular forms, rather than as a component of
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
.
8 There are not too many holes in the eigencurve.
We begin with a simple rigidanalytic lemma that forms the basis to our approach. Let
$X$
be a connected affinoid variety, and let
$V$
be a nonempty admissible open affinoid subdomain of
$X$
. Let
$B=Sp({\mathbb{C}}_{2}\langle T\rangle )$
denote the closed unit disc, and let
$A=Sp({\mathbb{C}}_{2}\langle T,{T}^{1}\rangle )$
denote its “boundary”, the closed annulus with inner and outer radii both 1.
Lemma 8.1.
If
$f$
is a function on
$V\times B$
and the restriction of
$f$
to
$V\times A$
extends to a function on
$X\times A$
, then
$f$
extends to a function on
$X\times B$
.

Proof.
We have an inclusion
$\mathcal{O}\left(X\right)\subseteq \mathcal{O}\left(V\right)$
, as
$X$
is connected, and we know
$f\in \mathcal{O}\left(V\right)\langle T\rangle $
and
$f\in \mathcal{O}\left(X\right)\langle T,{T}^{1}\rangle $
. But the intersection of these two rings is
$\mathcal{O}\left(V\right)\langle T\rangle $
.
Let
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
denote the 2adic eigencurve of tame level 1, and let
$\mathcal{W}$
denote 2adic weight space.
Let
$B$
denote the closed unit disc and let
${B}^{\times}$
denote
$B$
with the origin removed. Suppose we have a map
$\phi :{B}^{\times}\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
such that the induced map
${B}^{\times}\to \mathcal{W}$
extends (necessarily uniquely) to a map
$B\to \mathcal{W}$
. Let
${\kappa}_{0}\in \mathcal{W}\left({\mathbb{C}}_{2}\right)$
denote the image
$0\in B\left({\mathbb{C}}_{2}\right)$
under this map. The theorem we prove in this section is
Theorem 8.2.
If
${\kappa}_{0}/\in \{\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}:2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}\}$
then the map
$\phi :{B}^{\times}\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
extends to a map
$B\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
.

Proof.
Recall from Lemma 7.4 that
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}=\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp\prod \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}Eis$
. If the image of
$\phi $
is contained in
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}Eis$
then the theorem is automatic, since the projection
$\mathcal{\mathcal{E}}Eis\to \mathcal{W}$
is an isomorphism. Hence we may assume that
$\phi :{B}^{\times}\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
. If
$\left{\kappa}_{0}\right(5)1>1/8$
then we are finished by the main theorem of [4] . Assume from now on that
$\left{\kappa}_{0}\right(5)1\le 1/8$
. By Lemma 7.5 the map
$\phi $
gives rise to a family
$\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
of overconvergent eigenforms over
${B}^{\times}$
. By Lemma 7.1 the supremum norm of each
${a}_{n}$
is at most 1 and, analogous to the analysis of isolated singularities of holomorphic functions, one checks easily that this is enough to ensure that each
${a}_{n}$
extends to a function on
$B$
. We now have a formal power series
${\sum}_{n\ge 1}{a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
in
$\mathcal{O}\left(B\right)\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
. We next claim that this formal power series is an overconvergent form of weight
$B$
— indeed, it is not too difficult to establish how overconvergent it is. We are assuming
$\left{\kappa}_{0}\right(5)1\le 1/8$
and hence
${\kappa}_{0}=\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}$
with
$\lefts\right<4$
. Now assume also that
$2s\notin {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
. Set
$r=\frac{3+\nu \left(2s\right)}{12}$
. After shrinking
$B$
if necessary, we may assume that for all
$b\in B$
we have
${\kappa}_{b}=\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12{s}^{\prime}}$
with
$s{s}^{\prime}\le 1$
. By Lemma 5.2 we have
$({\kappa}_{b},r)\in \mathcal{X}$
for all
$b\in B$
, and by Corollary 3.8 we see that on the boundary of
$B$
our function
$\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
is
$r$
overconvergent, it being a finite slope eigenform for
$U$
here. By Lemma 7.1 the coefficients
${a}_{n}$
are all bounded by 1 on all of
$B$
. Now applying Lemma 8.1 with
$X=X\left[r\right]$
and
$V$
a small disc near infinity such such that
$q$
(the
$q$
expansion parameter) is a welldefined function on
$V$
, we deduce that
$\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
is
$r$
overconvergent on all of
$B$
.
Next we show that
${a}_{2}\in \mathcal{O}(B{)}^{\times}$
. It suffices to prove that
${a}_{2}\left(0\right)\ne 0$
, as we know that
${a}_{2}\left(b\right)\ne 0$
for all
$0\ne b\in B$
. But
$\sum {a}_{n}\left(0\right){q}^{n}=q+\dots $
is an
$r$
overconvergent form of weight
${\kappa}_{0}$
, so by Theorem 5.3 we deduce
${a}_{2}\left(0\right)\ne 0$
. Hence
${a}_{2}\in \mathcal{O}(B{)}^{\times}$
and
$\sum {a}_{n}{q}^{n}$
is an overconvergent cuspidal finite slope eigenform of weight
$B$
. We finish the proof by applying Lemma 7.5 once more, giving us a map
$B\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}cusp$
.
9 There are no holes in the eigencurve
In the previous section we showed that if there are any holes in the eigencurve, then they lie above weights of the form
$\{\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}:2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}\}$
. To show that in fact there are no holes in the eigencurve, we redo our entire argument with a second, even more nonstandard, twist and show that using this twist we may deduce that the only holes in the eigencurve lie above the set
$\{\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{212s}:2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}\}$
. Because there is no
$s\in \frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
such that
$\frac{12s2}{12}\in \frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
this finishes the argument. We sketch the details.
Let
${E}_{2}=1+24q+24{q}^{2}+96{q}^{3}+\dots $
denote the holomorphic Eisenstein series of weight 2 and level
${\Gamma}_{0}\left(2\right)$
. We define
${\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}=\left\{\right(\kappa \langle \cdot {\rangle}^{2},r):(\kappa ,r)\in \mathcal{X}\}$
. If
$\lefts\right<8$
then set
${\kappa}^{\prime}=\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{212s}$
.
If
$r$
is such that
$({\kappa}^{\prime},r)\in {\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}$
, we define
${M}_{{\kappa}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left[r\right]$
to be the vector space of formal
$q$
expansions
$F\in {\mathbb{C}}_{2}\left[\right[q\left]\right]$
such that
$F{h}^{s}/{E}_{2}$
is the
$q$
expansion of an element of
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
. For
$r>0$
sufficiently small this definition is easily checked to coincide with the usual definition. We shall be using this definition with
$r$
quite large and again we neglect to verify whether the two definitions coincide in the generality in which we use them. We give
${M}_{{\kappa}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left[r\right]$
the Banach space structure such that multiplication by
${h}^{s}/{E}_{2}$
is an isometric isomorphism
${M}_{{\kappa}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left[r\right]\to {M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
, and endow
${M}_{{\kappa}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left[r\right]$
once and for all with the orthonormal basis
$\{{E}_{2}{h}^{s},{E}_{2}{h}^{s}({2}^{12r}f),{E}_{2}{h}^{s}({2}^{12r}f{)}^{2},\dots \}$
.
Note that the reason that this definition gives us more than our original definition of
${M}_{\kappa}\left[r\right]$
is that if
$k$
is an even integer with
$2\left\rightk$
then
$(k,1/3)\notin \mathcal{X}$
but
$(k,1/2\epsilon )\in {\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}$
, so we can “overconverge further” for such weights.
If
$\theta =q(d/dq)$
is the operator on formal
$q$
expansions, then one checks that
$U\theta =2\theta U$
.
Moreover, it is wellknown that
$\theta f=f{E}_{2}$
and hence
$\theta {f}^{j}=j{f}^{j}{E}_{2}$
for any
$j\ge 0$
. Hence our formulae for the coefficients of
$U$
acting on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
will give rise to formulae for the coefficients of
$U$
acting on
${M}_{2}^{\prime}\left[r\right]$
, which was the starting point for the arguments in section 3. We give some of the details of how the arguments should be modified. If
$m\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$
and
${k}^{\prime}=212m$
then we define a continuous operator
${U}_{{k}^{\prime}}^{\prime}$
on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
by
${U}_{{k}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left(\phi \right)={E}_{2}^{1}{h}^{m}U\left({E}_{2}{h}^{m}\phi \right)$
. One checks that this is indeed a continuous operator by verifying that it has a basis
$\left({u}_{ij}^{\prime}\right(m){)}_{i,j\ge 0}$
defined by
${u}_{ij}^{\prime}\left(m\right)=0$
for
$2i<j$
or
$2ji+3m<0$
,
${u}_{00}^{\prime}\left(0\right)=1$
, and
$${u}_{ij}^{\prime}\left(m\right)=\frac{3(i+j+3m1)!(i+m){2}^{8i4j+12r(ji)}}{(2ij)!(2ji+3m)!}$$
otherwise. One checks that for
$i,j$
fixed there is a polynomial
${u}_{ij}^{\prime}\left(S\right)$
interpolating
${u}_{ij}^{\prime}\left(m\right)$
and that for
$\lefts\right<8$
with
$\mu =min\left\{v\right(s),0\}$
we have
$v\left({u}_{ij}^{\prime}\right(s\left)\right)\ge (\mu +36r)(2ij)+6rj$
as before.
Hence for
$\lefts\right<8$
,
${\kappa}^{\prime}=\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{212s}$
and
$r\in \mathbb{Q}$
such that
$({\kappa}^{\prime},r)\in {\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}$
, the matrix
$\left({u}_{ij}^{\prime}\right(s){)}_{i,j\ge 0}$
defines a compact operator
${U}^{\prime}\left(s\right)$
on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
. Furthermore we have
${U}^{\prime}\left(s\right)\left(\phi \right)={E}_{2}^{1}{h}^{s}U\left({E}_{2}{h}^{s}\phi \right)$
, and in particular
$U:{M}_{{\kappa}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left[r\right]\to {M}_{{\kappa}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left[r\right]$
is welldefined and compact. Moreover
${U}^{\prime}\left(s\right)$
increases overconvergence and any eigenvector for
${U}^{\prime}\left(s\right)$
on
${M}_{0}\left[r\right]$
with nonzero eigenvalue extends to
${M}_{0}\left[{r}^{\prime}\right]$
for any
${r}^{\prime}$
such that
$0<{r}^{\prime}<1/2+\mu \left(s\right)/6$
. Finally, these arguments also work for families of modular forms and the analogue of Corollary 3.8 remains true in this setting.
Similar arguments work in section 4. One checks that
$2V\theta =\theta V$
and hence
$VU\theta =2V\theta U=\theta VU$
. Hence
$\theta $
commutes with
$W$
and one now deduces from our explicit formulae for
$W$
in weight
$12m$
that in weight
$212m$
the matrix for
$W$
is given by
${W}_{k}=\left[{\eta}_{ij}^{\prime}\right]$
, where:
$${\eta}_{ij}^{\prime}=\frac{(2i+j1+6m)!3(i+2m)\cdot {2}^{(412r)(ij)}(1{)}^{i}}{(ij)!(i+2j+6m)!}.$$
We remark that the only difference in this formula is that
$(j+2m)$
has been replaced by
$(i+2m)$
. One finds that the arguments at the end of this section apply mutatis mutandis in this case.
The analogue of Theorem
5.3 is that if
$\lefts\right<4$
and
$2s\notin {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}$
and
${\kappa}^{\prime}=\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{212s}$
then an overconvergent infinite slope form of weight
${\kappa}^{\prime}$
is not
$r$
overconvergent, for
$r=\frac{3+\nu \left(2s\right)}{12}$
.
The proof follows the same strategy, although some of the lemmas in section 6 need minor modifications; for example in Lemma
6.10 we set
${x}_{1}=\frac{i+2j+6s}{3(i+2s)}{\eta}_{ij}^{\prime}$
and
${x}_{2}:=\frac{2i+j+6s}{3(i+2s)}{\eta}_{ij}^{\prime}$
, and the result follows as
${\eta}_{ij}^{\prime}=2{x}_{2}{x}_{1}$
. Note that
${E}_{2}$
can be regarded as an element of
${H}^{0}\left(Y\right[1/3],{\omega}^{\otimes 2})$
so that Lemma 6.13 does not need modification.
We deduce our main theorem:
Theorem 9.1.
If
$\phi :{B}^{\times}\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
and the induced map
${B}^{\times}\to \mathcal{W}$
extends to a map
$\psi :B\to \mathcal{W}$
, then
$\phi $
extends to a map
$B\to \mathcal{\mathcal{E}}$
.

Proof.
If
$\psi \left(0\right)\notin \{\langle \cdot {\rangle}^{12s}:2s\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}^{\times}\}$
then we use Theorem 8.2 , and if it is then we use the modification explained above.
References

K. Buzzard, Analytic continuation of overconvergent eigenforms, JAMS, 16(2003), 29–55.

K. Buzzard, Eigenvarieties, preprint.

K. Buzzard, F. Calegari, Slopes of overconvergent
$2$
adic modular forms, to appear in Compositio Mathematica.

K. Buzzard, L. Kilford. The 2adic eigencurve at the boundary of weight space, to appear in Compositio Mathematica.

R. Coleman,
$p$
adic Banach spaces and families of modular forms Invent. math. 127, 417–479 (1997).

R. Coleman, F. Gouvêa, N. Jochnowitz.
${E}_{2}$
,
$\Theta $
, and overconvergence, Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1995, no. 1, 23–41

R. Coleman, B. Mazur, The eigencurve, Galois representations in algebraic geometry, (Durham, 1996), 1–113, London Math Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 254, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998.

M. Emerton, The Eisenstein ideal in Hida's ordinary Hecke algebra, IMRN 1999, No. 15.

Katz,
$p$
adic properties of modular schemes and modular forms., Antwerp.

JeanPierre Serre. Endomorphismes complètement continus des espaces de Banach
$p$
adiques. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (12):69–85, 1962.
Email addresses: buzzard@imperial.ac.uk fcale@math.harvard.edu