Hesi 12

2016.04.
112Ï
8¹
ïÄ&?
Matching of 5-γ-critical leafless graph with a cut edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yang Yuxuan 1

On the subconvexity problem for GL2 automorphic L-functions . . . . . . . . . . . Liyang Yang 10
;K0
f!EC¼ê. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .švh 41
Bernstein½n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o … 53
Riemann6/ åi\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¢ 66
KV. ‰Æ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÓR 76
êÆ ¬
Realization of Sn as a Galois Group over Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Xu Kai 88
² 6
3Ý ‰‰ï§Ń ˜•N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÜÖj 91

Matching of 5-γ-critical leafless graph with a cut
edge
Yang Yuxuan∗
Abstract
Abstract:A graph G is said to be k-γ-critical if the size of minimum

dominating set of vertices is k,but if any edge is added to G the resulting
graph can be dominated with k-1 vertices.In this paper,we provide the
structure of the leafless graph with a cut edge.We establish that such
graph of even order contain a perfect matching if k = 5.
Keywords: Domination; Edge-critical graph
1 Introduction
In this paper all our graphs will be finite and simple.The complement of G
is denoted by G.And for V which is a vertex set of G,G[V ] denotes the subgraph
induced by V , NG (V ) denotes the neighborhood of V and NG [V ] denotes the
closed neighborhood.For S, T which are two vertex sets of G,we say that S
dominates T denoted by S T if T ⊂ NG [S].The minimum cardinality of a
dominating set of a graph G is called dominating number denoted by γ(G).A
graph is said to be k − γ − critical if γ(G) = k,but γ(G + e) < k for each edge
e ∈ E((G)).
It is easy to find that a graph is 1 − γ − critical if and only if it is com-
plete.This concept of k −γ −critical graph is first introduced in 1983 by Sumner
and Blitch [2].Since then k−γ −critical graphs have been paid a lot of attention.
A vertex is called a leaf (or endpoint or pendent point) if its degree is
one,and the unique edge which is adjacent to the leaf is denoted by pendent
∗ ê32
1
edge.A graph is leafless if there is no leaves in this graph.A perfect matching of
a G is a matching that saturates every vertex of G.
The problem of prefect matching in k − γ − critical graph is delicate and
interesting.There are many results of matching for k = 3,see [2] and [3].For
example,it is proved that every connected 3 − γ − critical graph with even order
has a perfect matching by Sumner and Blitch [2] as soon as they introduce
the concept of k − γ − critical graph.But for k = 4,it turn out to be much
more complicate.In 2010,W. Ananchuen,N. Ananchuen and R.E.L. Aldred give
a result of k = 4.They establish that even-order 4 − γ − critical connected graph
with a cut vertex contain a perfect matching[1].
The cut vertex give a starting point of observation on 4 − γ − critical
graph.In this paper,we will concentrate on 5 − γ − critical graph.But we need
a starting point,so suppose there is a cut edge in G.We will provide a little
structure of a k − γ − critical with a cut edge which is not a pendent edge,and
prove that 5 − γ − critical leafless graph with a cut edge has a perfect matching
if it is connected and even-order.
2 Preliminaries
In this section,we state several published results related to our theorem.
For a pair of non-adjacent vertices u and v in G,we denote a minimum
dominating set for G+uv by Duv
Lemma 1 [1] Let u and v be a pair of non-adjacent vertices in a k-γ-critical

graph G.Then
(1) |Duv | = k − 1 and |Duv ∩ {u, v}| = 1
(2) If Duv ∩ {u, v} = u ,then Duv ∩ NG [v] = ∅
The lemma above is the most important lemma in edge-γ-critical graphs.The

symbol Duv will be used in this paper.
Theorem 2 [2] A graph G is 2−γ −critical if and only if Ḡ = ∪ni=1 K1,si where
n ≥ 1, si ≥ 1
Theorem 3 [4] If a is a cut vertex of a k − γ−critical graph G,then G-a has

exactly two components
2
Theorem 4 [4] Let G be a k − γ−critical graph with a cut vertex a and let
C1 and C2 be the components of G − a. Further let A = G[V (C1 ) ∪ {a}] and
B = G[V (C2 ) ∪ {a}].Then γ(A) + γ(B) = k
A vertex v of a graph G is said to be critical if γ(G − v) < γ(G) and it is

stable if γ(G − v) = γ(G)
Theorem 5 [4] Let G be a k − γ − critical graph.Then

(1)Every vertex of G is either critical or stable.
(2)If a is a cut vertex,then a is stable.
(3)If C is the set of all stable vertices of G,then G[C]is complete.
Theorem 6 (Tutte) A connected graph of even order has a factor iff G does
not contain a set S such that G-S has at least |S| + 2 odd components.
3 Main Results
Suppose G is a k − γ − critical graph with a cut edge e = ab.Also,G is
connected and does not have a leaf.Then,e = ab is not a pendent edge.∃c ∈
N (a)and ∃d ∈ N (b).Suppose A,B is the components of G-e and a ∈ A, b ∈
B.Then c ∈ A, d ∈ B.The following results are related to this structure.
Figure 1: Structure
Lemma 7 a, b are stable vertices of G,and others are critical.
Proof By theorem 5,a, b are cut vertices,then they are stable.Suppose x is also
a stable vertex,then G[a, b, x] is complete and it is contradiction because ab is a
cut edge,
3
Lemma 8 (1) γ(G) = γ(A) + γ(B) (2) γ(A) = γ(A − a) = γ(A + b)andγ(B) =
γ(B − b) = γ(B + a)
Proof (1) Let DA and DB be the minimum dominating set of A and B.The
DA ∪ DB is a dominating set of G.So we have γ(A) + γ(B) ≥ γ(G)
Consider Dad .By Lemma 1,Dad ∪ {a, d} is a minimum dominating set of
G.Also (Dad ∪ {a, d}) ∩ A A and (Dad ∪ {a, d}) ∩ B B.So,we have γ(A) +
γ(B) ≤ γ(G).
In conclusion, γ(G) = γ(A) + γ(B).
(2) a, b are both cut vertices of G.By Theorem 4,we have γ(G) = γ(A) +
γ(B + a).By Theorem 5 (2),cut vertex is stable vertex and we have γ(G) =
γ(A) + γ(B − b).Compare these two equation and the result in (1).We have
γ(B) = γ(B − b) = γ(B + a).The other part is symmetry.
Corollary 9 Each minimum dominating set of A+b contains a but does not
contain b.Also it is a minimum dominating set of A.
Proof If D is a minimum dominating set of A+b which does not contains a,then
it must contain b and D \ {a} A − a.Then γ(A + b) = |D| ≥ 1 + γ(A − a) It
is contradicts with γ(A + b) = γ(A − a)
Lemma 10 ∀x ∈
/ N (a),we have x ∈
/ Dax and a ∈ Dax .It is the same for b.
Proof If x ∈ Dax ,then Dax is a dominating set of G − a.We have |Dax | =

γ(G) − 1,It contradicts with a is a stable vertex.
Theorem 11 (1) If γ(A) = 1,then c is a leaf and is the only vertex in A − a.

(2) If γ(A) = 2,then A − a is a 2 − γ − critical.Further,A − a = ∪K2
Proof (1) If γ(A) = γ(A+b) = 1,then a A.Suppose c1 , c2 are distinct vertices

in A-a,consider Dbc1 .Combine Lemma 1 and Lemma 10 ,we know b ∈ Dbc1 and
c1 , a ∈
/ Dbc1 .But Dbc1 c2 .We can replace the vertex which dominates c2 with
a.Then we get a dominating set of k-1 elements,which leads to a contradiction.So
there is only one vertex in A − a.It is a leaf c.
(2) In this situation,γ(A) = 2.
Claim 1.|NA (a)| = |A − a| − 1
4
Because a A , ∃a1 s.t. aa1 ∈
/ E(G).We have a ∈ Daa1 .Then Daa1 ∩B+a is
a dominating set of B+a.But from Corollary 9,it is not the minimum dominating
set.So |Daa1 ∩ B + a| = γ(B + a) + 1 = γ(G) − 2 + 1 = |Daa1 | ,which indicates
a A − a1 .Claim 1 follows.
Claim 2.If x, y ∈ A − a and xy ∈
/ E(G),then x A − y − a or y A − x − a
If a ∈ Dxy ,then Dxy ∩B +a is a dominating set of B +a.But from Corollary
9,it is not the minimum dominating set.So |Dxy ∩ B + a| = γ(B + a) + 1 =
γ(G) − 2 + 1 = |Dxy |.It cannot include x or y,which is a contradiction.We
conclude that a ∈
/ Dxy .So,Dxy ∩ B B , |Dxy ∩ B| ≥ γ(B) = γ(G) − 2 =
|Dxy | − 1.Then,x A − a − y or y A − a − x.Claim 2 is proved.
As a conclusion,A−a is a 2−γ −critical. Then,A − a = ∪ni=1 K1,si .Suppose
s1 is not 1,then ∃a1 , a2 , a3 s.t. a1 , a3 ∈
/ N (a2 ).By Claim 1,at least one of a1
and a3 is adjacent to a.Without loss of generality,let a1 is adjacent to a.Then
a∈
/ Dba1 ,and |Dba1 ∩ B| ≥ γ(B) = |Dba1 | − 1.But we can find that no vertex of
A can dominate A − a1 − a in this structure.
So,A − a is a K2n minus a perfect matching.
From the theorem above,it is obvious that there must exist a leaf in k − γ −
critical graph with a cut edge for k ≤ 3.After a little analysis of the structure
above,such graph cao not exist for k = 4,either.
Corollary 12 There is no leafless k − γ − critical graph with a cut edge for

k≤4
Proof For γ(A) = 1 or γ(B) = 1, it follows immediately from Theorem

11.When γ(A) = γ(B) = 2,A-a and B-b are both a complete graph minus a
perfect matching.
There is a unique a1 ∈ A such that aa1 ∈
/ E(G) and unique a2 ∈ A −
a such that a1 a2 ∈
/ E(G).There is a unique b1 ∈ B such that bb1 ∈
/ E(G)
and unique b2 ∈ B − b such that b1 b2 ∈
/ E(G).Consider Db2 a2 ,without loss of
generality,suppose a2 ∈ Da2 b2 .Then N [b2 ] ∩ Da2 b2 = ∅.To dominate b1 and b
,we have b1 , a ∈ Da2 b2 .But |Da2 b2 | = 3,so Da2 b2 = a, b1 , a2 .No one can dominate
a1 .It is a contradiction.So there is no leafless k − γ − critical graph with a cut
edge for k ≤ 4
5
Figure 2: Example
Also another result is reached immediately from theorem 11.
Corollary 13 There is a perfect matching of A+b,if γ(A) = 2.
Proof By Theorem 11,if γ(A) = 2,then A − a = ∪K2 .A − a can be divided

into two parts and each of them is a complete graph,and the two part is con-
nected.Also,there are even vertices.So there is a perfect matching in A − a.And
if we matching a with b.We get a perfect matching of A+b
We give a example of leafless 5 − γ − critical graph with a cut edge.
Example 14 There is an example of leafless 5 − γ − critical graph with a cut

edge.This must sure that k ≤ 4 in Corollary 12 is the best.
Figure 3: Example
The following is the main result of this paper.
6
Theorem 15 The leafless 5 − γ − critical graph with a cut edge has a perfect
matching if it is connected and even-order.
Proof By Lemma 8,we know γ(A) + γ(B) = 5.If either γ(A) or γ(B) is 1,then
there is a leaf because of Theorem 11.Without loss of generality,suppose γ(B) =
2 and γ(A) = 3.
From Corollary 13, it suffices to find a perfect matching of A−a.If not,there
is a cut set X such that A − a − X has at least |X| + 2 odd components.
Case 1,A − a − X has at least 4 components.
Suppose there are ω components.We can get one vertex from each compo-
nent and form a independent set S of size |S| = ω.Then,there are at most ω − 2
elements in X.
We can draw an arc from s1 to s2 in S if ∃Ds1 s2 s.t. s2 ∈ Ds1 s2 .Then we
get at least a tournament on S.There must be a Hamilton path on S.Suppose
the path is {sω , sω − 1, . . . , s1 },then ∃Dsi si+1 s.t. si ∈ Dsi si+1 We know that
|Dsi si+1 ∩ B| = 2.There is only one vertex left named xi ∈ A.Then{xi , si }
A − a − si+1 ,we can derive the following structure by {xi , si } A − a − si+1 .The
dashed line means they are not adjacent.
Figure 4: Structure 1
We can find each xi is distinct because of different neighborhood.And if

ω ≥ 4,each xi is connected with at least two vertices in S.Then xi ∈ X ∪
{a}.But |X| ≤ ω − 2 ≤ |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xω−1 } \ {a}|.So the equation holds and
{x1 , x2 , . . . , xω−1 } = X ∪ {a}.However,there is only one vertex left in Ds1 sω ∩ A
except s1 or sω ,then name it x.It is the same that x is connected with at least
two vertices in S.So,∃xi s.t. xj = x.We know that x {s2 , s3 , . . . , sω−1 },but xi
is not adjacent to si+1 .So j = ω − 1 andDs1 sω = {s1 , xω−1 }.
From then on,we know that {xω−1 , sω−1 } A − a − sω and {xω−1 , s1 }
7
A − a − sω .Then xω−1 A − X − a − sω and sω X − xω .We conclude that
{a, xω−1 , sω } A + b which contradicts with γ(A + b) = 3 and Corollary 9.
Case 2,|X| = 1 and A − a − X has only 3 components.
Suppose X=x and the 3 components of A − a − x are C1 , C2 , C3 .From
Lemma 5 and Lemma 3,we know that C1 , C2 , C3 are both connected to x and
a.The structure of our graph is shown below.
Figure 5: Structure 2
Then,b ∈ Dbx and |Dbx ∩ B| = γ(B) = 2.To dominate three components

with two vertices, a must be used.Except for a,there is only one vertex of
Dbx ∩ A.Suppose it is c1 ∈ C1 without loss of generality.Then a C2 ∪ C3
and N (c1 ) ∩ {c, a} = ∅.We can choose c2 , c3 from C2 , C3 ,respectively such that
c2 , c3 ∈ N (x).Then,we know that a, x ∈
/ Dc2 c3 .|Dc2 c3 ∩ C1 | ≤ 4 − γ(B) − 1 =
1,however we need a vertex c4 in C1 to dominate C1 .So,c4 = C1 ∩ Dc2 c3 .Recall
that γ(A − a) = 3,{x, c4 } A − a.There is a vertex c5 in C2 ∪ C3 and
c5 ∈
/ N (x).Without loss of generality,suppose c5 ∈ C2 .Finally,consider Dbc2
which contains b.Then,|Dbc2 ∩ B| = |Dbc2 ∩ A| = 2 and a ∈
/ Dbc2 .If c ∈ Dbc2 ,then
c5 and c1 cannot be dominated by only one vertex left.If c ∈
/ Dbc2 ,then c1 , c3 , c5
cannot be dominated by only two vertices left.Contradiction.
The result is proved.
References
[1] Aldred R E L. Ananchuen W, Ananchuen N. The structure of 4-γ-critical
graphs with a cut vertex. Discrete Mathematics, 310:2404–2414, 2010.
8
[2] Pattie Blitch David P Sumner. Domination critical graphs. Journal of Com-
binatorial Theory, Series B, 34:65–76, 1983.
[3] M.D.Plummer N. Ananchuen. Matching properties in domination critical

graphs. Discrete Math, 277.
[4] Wojcicka E. Paris M, Sumner D P. Edge-domination-critical graphs with

cut-vertices. Congressus Numerantium, 141:111–117, 1999.
9
On the subconvexity problem for GL2
automorphic L-functions
Liyang Yang∗
Abstract
In this paper we will describe the state of the art regarding the sub-
convexity problem (ScP); almost all of what we know about the problem
concerns essentially L-functions of GL1,Q and GL2,Q automorphic forms,
and there will be a brief introduction to these results. We will mention
briefly some of the successful present-day tools and the role they might
play in ScP. Moreover, we shall point out that subconvex bound for au-
tomorphic L-functions will be sufficiently enough for solutions to various
problems in number theory. To illustrate this, we take several typical
and important applications of ScP for instances, such as equdistribition
problems and arithmetic quantum chaos.
1 Introduction and background

An L-function is a type of generating function formed out of local data
associated with either an arithmetic geometric object (e.g. an Abelian vari-
ety defined over a number field) or an automorphic form (or an automorphic
representation). The former type is usually called motivic L-functions, while
the second type is named as aotomorphic L-functions. According to Shimura-
Taniyama for special cases (e.g. elliptic curves) and Langlands in general, it is
expected that the latter set contains the former one.
Generally speaking, there are four usual ways to define a L-function, name-
ly, via constant terms of Eisenatein series (the Langlands-Shahidi method), via
∗ ê23
10
periods of automorphic forms (the theory of integral representations, which be-
gins with the work of Hecke, or actually, the work of Riemann), via a Dirichlet
series (which is often taken as their defining propery), and via Rankin-Selberg
convolution method.
In this paper, we shall mainly focus on the automorphic L-functions and
their ScP. Then by Gross-Zagier formula ([12]) or Waldspurger formula ([33])
we will obtain some information on Heegner points supposing some kind of
subconvex upperbound is available. Therefore, we begin with introduction to
principal L-functions and Rankin-Selberg method.
Fix a number field K with deg (K/Q) = d, then for F ∈ L2 (GLm (K) \ GLm (AK )).
An L-function takes the form of a product of degree m ≥ 1 over all primes over
K:
Y
L(s, F ) := LP (s, F ),
P
where the local factors are

m
Y −1
−s
LP (s, F ) = 1 − αi (P) (N P)
i=1
for suitable complex numbers αi (P) (Satake parameters, which are determined
by F) and where N P is the norm of P. A known result is that L(s, F ) for K
is a product of L(s, F 0 ) for Q with m0 = md, the degree of the automorphic
Pr
representation (see [1]). Moreover, given mi (i ≤ r) such that i=1 mi = m,
the Langlands theory of Eisenstein series associates to an r-tuple (π1 ,...,πr) of
(not necessarily unitary) cuspidal representations a distinguished automorphic
representation of GLm (AQ ), denoted by π = π1 ... πr , the isobaric sum of
the πi , i = 1, ..., r. By construction, cuspidal representations are isobaric and
it is a result of Shalika that the πi appearing in the construction of π (i.e. the
constituents of π) are unique up to permutation ([5]). Then the L-function of
π is given by the product
m
Y
L(π1 ... πr , s) = L(πi , s).
i=1
Langlands also proved that any automorphic representation π is nearly equiv-
11
alent to an isobaric sum π 0 (i.e. for almost every place v, πv ' πv0 ), and as a
consequence L(π, s) and L(π 0 , s) coincide up to finitely many local places.
Therefore, we may mostly concentrate on cuspidal L-functions because they
form the building blocks for L-functions of general automorphic representations.
1.1 Principal L-functions

N
Let π = πp be an automorphic cuspidal (irreducible) representation of
GL2 (AQ ) with unitary character (denoted by A0d (Q) the set of all such repre-
sentations). By the general theory (see [5]), π admits an L-function:
Y X λπ (n)
L(π, s) = Lp (π, s) = .
p<∞
ns
n≥1
This is an Euler product absolutely convergent for Re s sufficiently large where

for each finite prime p,
m
Y
−1 −1 απ,i (p)
Lp (π, s) = L(πp , s) = 1− ,
i=1
ps
and L(π, s) is completed by a local factor at the infinite place, given by
m
Y
L∞ (π, s) = L(π∞ , s) = ΓR (s − µπ,i ), ΓR (s) = π −s/2 Γ(s/2);
i=1
the coefficients απ,i (p)1≤i≤d (resp. µπ,i 1≤i≤d ) will be called the local parameters
of π at p (resp. ∞). The completed L-function Λ(π, s) = L∞ (π, s)L(π, s) has a
meromorphic continuation to the complex plane with at most two simple poles,
which occurs only if m = 1 and π = |.|it for some t ∈ R.
Moreover, Λ(π, s) satisfies a functional equation of the form
qπs/2 Λ(π, s) = ω(π)qπ(1−s)/2 Λ(π̃, 1 − s),
where qπ ≥ 1 is an integer (the arithmetic conductor of π) supported at the

finite ramified places for π, ω(π) ∈ {z ∈ C : |z| = 1} (we call ω(π) the root
number), and π̃ is the contragredient of π.
12
It is convenient to encapsulate the main parameters attached to π in a
single quantity that occurs in many problems as a normalizing factor. For that
purpose, we follow ([18]) to introduce the analytic conductor of π:
m
Y
Cπ := qπ (1 + |µπ,i |) ,
i=1
which is actually a special case of the general definition but is sufficient for this
paper. As we will see in the later sections, the quantity Cπ helps to give an
elegant subconvex upper bound for automorphic L-functions of both GL1,Q ×
GL2,Q and GL2,Q × GL2,Q .
Remark. While in the number field K, p−s shall be replaced by N (P)−s and


π −s/2 Γ( s ),
2 if Kv ∼ R
Γv (s) =

(2π)−s Γ(s), if Kv ∼ C;
and m Y
Y
CK (π) = Nπ 1 + |µπ,i |d(v) ,
i=1 v|∞
where Nπ is the arithmetic conductor; d(v) = 1 if Kv ∼ R, while d(v) = 2 if

Kv ∼ C.
1.2 Rankin-Selberg method: L-functions of pairs

As mentioned in 1, another class of L-functions fundamental to the whole
theory are the so-called Rankin-Selberg type L-functions L(π ⊗ π 0 , s) associated
to pairs of automorphic representations (π, π 0 ) ∈ A0m (Q) × A0m0 (Q). This theory
was initiated by Rankin and Selberg in the case of classical modular forms ([29]).
For general automorphic forms, the analytic theory of L-functions of pairs was
initiated and developed by series of work by Jacquet, Piatetsky-Shapiro and
Shalika and completed in works of Shahidi, Moeglin/ Walspurger and Gelbart.
We refer [5] again for a detailed exposition of their construction and derivation
of their basic properties.
Given (π, π 0 ) ∈ A0m (Q)×A0m0 (Q), the Rankin-Selberg type L-function L(π⊗
13
π 0 , s) is a Dirichlet series
Y X λπ⊗π0 (s)
L(π ⊗ π 0 , s) = Lp (π ⊗ π 0 , s) = ,
p
ns
n≥1
absolutely convergent for Re s large enough. It is an Euler product of degree

mm0 with local factors of the form
mm
Y
0 −1
0 απ⊗π0 ,i (p)
Lp (π ⊗ π , s) = L(πp ⊗ πp0 , s) = 1−
i=1
ps
at the finite places, and at the infinite one, define
0
mm
Y
0 0
L∞ (π ⊗ π , s) = L(π∞ ⊗ π∞ , s) = ΓR (s − µπ⊗π0 ,i ) .
i=1
Moreover, at places v for which πv is unramified, Lv (π ⊗ π 0 , s) has the explicit

expression:
m
m Y
Y
0 −1
0 απ,i (p)απ0 ,j (p)
Lp (π ⊗ π , s) = 1−
i=1 j=1
ps
at place v = p > ∞, and at the infinite place,
0
m Y
Y m
0
L∞ (π ⊗ π , s) = ΓR (s − µπ,i − µπ0 ,j ) .
i=1 j=1
The completed L-functions also have similar properties such as meromorphic

continuation to the whole plane with at most two simple poles, bounded in
vertical strips, and functional equation with analytic conductor Cπ⊗π0 satisfying
0
Cπ⊗π0 m,m0 Cπm Cπm0 ,
which will be used in the later of this paper.
1.3 Fundamental conjectures

We turned to some of basic conjectures which until their solution are ex-
pected to be a focus of the subject. The first is the well known generalization
14
of Riemann’s conjecture.
Conjecture 1. (Grand Riemann Hypothesis)

The nontrivial zeros of any Λ(π, s) have real part equal to 12 .
Remark. So far there is no L(π, s) for which GRH is known. For families such as
L(s, χ), there are results, the so-called "Density theorems", which asserts that
almost all their zeros lies near Re s = 21 .
GRH implies the so-called Lindelöff Hypothesis, which, if true, is a very

useful bound for L-functions on the critical line. Lindelöff Hypothesis asserts
that for any > 0,
1
L( , π) (CK (π)) .
2
It follows from the functional equation for Λ(s, π) and the convex upper bounds
of Phragmen-Lindelöff that for any > 0
1 1
+
L( , π) (CK (π)) 4 .
2
Remark. We will often refer to this bound as the trivial bound, however, it is,
in this generality, not quite a trivial result as we will give a concise proof later.
Conjecture 2. (Subconvexity Problem)

For m and K fixed to show there is an absolute constant δ > 0 such that
1 1
−δ
L( , π) (CK (π)) 4 .
2
Remark. This statement has a long history and many contributors. The first
subconvexity result is due to Weyl ([34]) for Riemann zeta funation:
1 1
ζ( + it) |t| 6 +ε .
2
However, very hard work had been done to improve Weyl’s exponent of 16 , such
as theory of exponential pairs; the current record (to date), 205 ,
32
is held by M.
Huxley[14]. Since L( 12 + it, π) = L( 12 , π ⊗ |.| ), it will be sufficient to study the
it
subconvex bound for L( 12 , π) in practise. Actually, in applications we usually

have some subfamily (i.e. only one of the parameters t, Nπ or π∞ varies) and
15
we seek subconvexity estimates uniformly for the subfamily. The ScP has been
solved in lots of cases and we will discuss this and some of their applications in
the next two sections.
Next we discuss the generalized Ramanujan conjecture, which is the lo-

cal analogue of GRH and is a spectral concerning the local representations πv
of GLm (Kv ) of the global automorphic cuspidal reporesentation π. It asserts
that for a place v at which πv is unramified, πv should be tempered (see [28]).
Equivalently, this can be formulated in terms of L(s, πv ):
Conjecture 3. Generalized Ramanujan Conjecture (GRC)

Let π ∈ A0 (GLm (AK ) \ GLm (AK ), ω) which is unramified at a place v.
Then for v < ∞ |αpi,i (v)| = 1 while for v archimedean, Re(µπ,i (v)) = 0.
Remark. There are nontrivial and quite useful general bounds towards GRC.
Firstly, Jacquet and Shalika ([19]) gave the bounds:
1
| logN (v) |απ,i (v)|| < , forv < ∞;
2
1
| Re(µπ,i (v))| < , forv | ∞.
2
This can be viewed as the analogue of the subconvexity bound for L-functions,
and a general subconvex bound for π ∈ A0 (GLm (AK ) \ GLm (AK ), ω) is known
([23]):
1 1
| logN (v) |απ,i (v)|| < − 2 , forv < ∞;
2 m +1
1 1
| Re(µπ,i (v))| < − 2 , forv | ∞.
2 m +1
Combining this and results on symmetric square lift from GL(2) to GL(3) (see
[11]) yields a "subconvix bound":
1 1
| logN (v) |απ,i (v)|| < , forv < ∞; | Re(µπ,i (v))| < , forv | ∞.
5 5
We will use this bound combined with some kind of subconvex bound and
Kuznetsov’s trace formula to give an nontrivial estimate on Kloosterman sum,
which is much better than using Weil’s bound directly.
16
2 Methods and results
2.1 Results on ScP

To start with, we consider the following result:
Theorem 4. ([8]) For a fixed π on GL(2)/Q a cuspidal eigen-form and χ a

primitive Dirichlet character with conductor q, then for any s ∈ C, Re(s) = 12 ,
we have
5
L(s, π ⊗ χ) q 12 +ε .
1
Remark. The subconvex bound is q 2 . While Theorem 4 gives nontrivial bounds
for the square-free Fourier coefficients of half-integral weight holomorphic cusp
forms. Moreover, Lindelöff Hypothesis in the quadratic twisting χ aspect for
L( 21 , π ⊗ χ), is equivalent to (or determines) the half-integral weight GRC.
From Theorem (4) we can see an application of ScP, while, we will show
more and concrete instances where subconvex bounds play significant roles in
various aspects of number theory. Now, we would like to conclude some classical
results on ScP by combining main results on ScP by 2006 and give some brief
comments on them respectively. Finally, we illustrate concisely the completed
results due to Michel and Venkatesh ([25]).
Theorem 5. Let K be a fixed number field and π2 be a fixed cuspidal automor-

phic representation of GL2 (AK ). Let χ1 , π1 denote respectively a GL1 (AK )−automorphic
representation (i.e. a Grossencharacter), a GL2 (AK )−automorphic representa-
tion and let q1 denote either the conductor of χ1 or π1 and q1 = NK/Q (q1 ).
There exists an absolute δ > 0 (independent of χ1 , π1 , π2 and K) such that for
Re(s) = 1
2 one has:
1/4−δ
L(χ1 , s) s q1 , (1)
1/2−δ
L(χ1 × π1 , s) s,π2 ,π1,∞ q1 , (2)
1/4−δ
L(π1 , s) s,π1,∞ q1 , (3)
1/2−δ
L(π1 × π2 , s) s,π2 ,π1,∞ q1 . (4)
Remark. For K = Q, (1) is a generalization of Burgess bound and can be further
17
improved when χ is quadratic (see [6]). The initial and somewhat easier case
(i.e. the central character of π1 is trivial) of bound (2) and (3) are mainly due to
series of works by Duke/Friedlander/Iwaniec (see [8] and [9]). It was completed
for π1 with arbitrary central character in [3]. The bound for the Rankin-Selberg
L-functions (4) for π1 with arbitrary central character was obtained in [13].
In the case of a number field of higher degree, the first general subconvex
result is due to Cogdell/Piatetski-Shapiro/Sarnak [5]: It consists of (2) when
F is a totally real field and π2,∞ is in the holomorphic discrete series (i.e. cor-
responds to a holomorphic Hilbert modular form). In [32] ScP (2),(3) and (4)
were established for π1 with trivial central character. Eventually, Michel and
Venkatesh combined their respective methods from [24] and [32] to obtain (3)
and (4) for π1 with arbitrary central character.
Now let’s further discuss the most general solution to ScP for GL1,Q and
GL2,Q :
Theorem 6. ([25]) There exists an absolute constant δ > 0 such that: for π
an automorphic representation of GL1 (AK ) or GL2 (AK ) (with unitary central
character, not necessary of finite order), one has
1 1
−δ
L(π, ) K (C(π)) 4 .
2
The above result is a specialization (by taking π2 to be a suitable Eisenstein

series) of the following more general result:
Theorem 7. ([25]) There is an absolute constant δ > 0 such that: for π1 , π2

automorphic representations on GL2 (AK ) (with unitary central character, not
necessary of finite order), we have
1 1
−δ
L(π1 ⊗ π2 , ) K,π2 (C(π1 ⊗ π2 )) 4 .
2
More precisely, the constant implied depends polynomially on the discriminant

of K (for K varying over fields of given degree) and on C(π2 ).
Remark. More precisely, we have in Theorem 7 the bound L(π1 ⊗ π2 , 12 ) K,π2

1
−2δ
(C(π1 )) 2 . That the latter implies the former is a consequence of the bounds
18
in [2].
We will defer the sketch of the proof of Theorem 6, after briefly reviewing
some successful methods to handle ScP, since the proof of Theorem 7 can be
reduced to that of Theorem 6 by the amplification method. Hence before give
the outline of the proof, let’s summary some useful techniques.
2.2 Effective methods

In this subsection, we will mainly discuss three methods which are successful
in handling ScP. To help better understand their ideas, we will either use them
directly to prove some subconvex bound or illustrate their original ideas and
developments. Roughly, we shall talk about Weyl’s shift, which is fundamental
in classical approaches to ScP and necessary for any movements methods; then
we come to the amplification method, which, basically, takes the advantages of
averaging so as to breakthrough barriers from off-diagonal contribution; last, we
would like to introduce the latest and powerful tool, the Ergodic method, and
briefly show how to use it to prove Theorem 6.
2.2.1 Around Weyl’s shift
This method provides non-trivial bounds for exponential sums of the form:
X
Sf (X) = e(f (n)),
1≤n≤X
where f is a "good enough" function (e.g. well-approximable by polynomials).

It is easy to see that
X X X X
|Sf (X)|2 = e(f (n) − f (m)) = e(f (n + l) − f (n)).
1≤n≤X 1≤m≤X |l|<X 1≤n≤X
1≤n+l≤X
Now if f is exactly a polynomial, f (l + x) − f (x) is a polynomial in x of degree

reduced by one. One can continue this process until one reaches a sum for
a linear polynomial, where we have some sharp bounds to apply. Generally,
this methods applies also to f (n) = − it log n
2π , which is the case occuring for ζ.
Then we will discuss a variant of the Weyl shifting technique but in a purely
19
arithmetic context and with significant differences. To illustrate the mechanism
of this method:
Theorem 8. For χ a Dirichlet character of character qχ , we have
1 3
+ε
L(χ, + it) ε (1 + |t|)A qχ16 ,
2
for some absolute constant A.
Remark. This bound resisted any improvement for the next 40 years until Con-
rey/Iwaniec improve the exponent to 1
6 ([6]). Nowdays, the best result is due
to Han Wu using methods from [25], which we will discuss later (see [35]):
1 1
−δ+ε
L(χ, + it) ε (1 + |t|)A qχ8 ,
2
where δ = 1−2θ
8 and theta is such that no complementary series with parameter
> θ appear as a component of a cuspidal automorphic representation of G(A).
We see in the remark of Conjecture (3).
Proof. By the approximate functional equation for L(χ, s) it suffices to give a

bound for the character sum:
X χ(n)
n
SV (χ) = 1 V ,
n≥1
n 2 q 1/2
where q = qχ and V (x) is a smooth function decaying rapidly as x −→ ∞.

Integrating by part it suffices to bound the partial sum
X
S(χ, N ) = χ(n)
n
1
non-tivially for q 2 −δ ≤ N < q, for some fixed δ > 0. For simplicity, we shall
handle a smoothed version of S(χ, N ), i.e.
X
Sχ (N ) = χ(n)h(n),
n≤N
where h is a piecewise linear function which is 1 on [1, N ] and zero outside
20
[0, N + 1]. Note that
Z Z
−1 −2
ĥ(y) = h(x)e(−xy)dx min N, y ,y , |ĥ(t)|dt ≤ log 3N .
R R
We have
X X
Sχ (N ) = χ(n)h(n) = χ(n + ab)h(n + ab),
n n
for all a, b ≥ 1. Set AB = N , A, B ≥ 1, then
X XX
bAcbBcSχ (N ) = χ(n + ab)h(n + ab)
a≤A b≤B n
X X X
= χ(a) χ(an̄ + b)h(n + ab)
a≤A |n|≤N b≤B
X X XZ 1 t nt
≤ | ĥ( )e( )χ(an̄ + b)e(bt)dt|,
a a a
a≤A |n|≤N b≤B
by Fourier inversion. Hence
X X X
bAcbBcSχ (N ) log N ≤ | χ(an̄ + b)e(bt0 )|
a≤A |n|≤N b≤B
for some t0 ∈ R. For u ∈ Fq , we set
ν(u) = |1 ≤ a ≤ A, |n| ≤ N, ān ≡ u(q)|,
then
X X
bAcbBcSχ (N ) log N ν(u)| χ(an̄ + b)e(bt0 )|
u(q) b≤B
 1− r1   2r1   2r1
X X X X
≤ ν(u)  ν(u)2   ν(u)| χ(an̄ + b)e(bt0 )|2r  .
u(q) u(q) u(q) b≤B
One has
X
ν(u) = bAcN,
u(q)
21
q
and for AN < 2 we have
X
ν(u)2 = |1 ≤ a1 , a2 ≤ N, |n1 |, |n2 | ≤ N, a2 n1 = a1 n2 | AN (log AN )3 .
u(q)
Hence we conclude that

 1/2r
2r+3 2r−1  X X Y Y 
Sχ (N ) (log q) 2r AN 2r AB −1 
 | χ( u + bj )χ̄( u + b0k )|
 .
i≤r u(q) j≤r k≤r
bi ,b0i ≤B
At this point, we use Weil’s bound for the algebraic exponential sum:
Qr u+bi
If i=1 u+b 0
is not a k-th power (where we denote by k the order of χ),
i
one has
X Y Y
| χ( u + bj )χ̄( u + b0k )| r q 1/2 .
u(q) j≤r k≤r
The number of (b1 , ..., b0r ) not satisfying this criterion is r B r , and in this case
we bound the sum trivially by q. Hence

X X Y Y

χ( u + b )χ̄( u + b 0
) r 2r 1/2
k B q+B q
j
i≤r u(q) j≤r k≤r
bi ,b0i ≤B
Then the estimate of Theorem (8) follows by taking
A = N q −1/2r , B = q 1/2r with r = 4.
2.2.2 The amplification method
Fix F a self-dual cusp form on GLm (AK ). By contour shifts and the func-
tional equations, we obtain
X cF (a)
1 Na
L( , F ) = 2 √ V ,
2 Na X
a6=0
22
√
where V (x) is a smooth function decaying rapidly as x −→ ∞ and X = N a.
cF (a)’s are known in some cases to satisfy the GRC so that
cF (a) ε (N a)ε .
In any case for F on GLm (AK ) we have the above on average:
X
|cF (a)|2 ε Y (C(F ))ε .
N a≤Y
1
So the trivial bound is L( 21 , F ) (C(F )) 4 +ε by Cauchy’s inequality.
Now set
X 1
S(F ) := |L( , F )|2 ,
2
F ∈F
where the analytic conductors C(F )’s are all assumed to be the same (or nearly
the same) size. In some cases we may take higher moments of L in S(F ) (
However, it may be even better to consider
X 1
S̃(F ) := |L( , symn F ⊗ symn F )|2 ).
2
F ∈F
GRH (via Lindelöff Hypothesis) induces L( 12 , F ) ε (C(F ))ε , so we can

expect that:
S(F ) ε |F|(C(F ))ε , (5)
which implies that

1 1
L( , F ) ε |F| 2 (C(F ))ε . (6)
2
So if the family F is sufficiently small (precisely, |F| (C(F ))1/2−δ ) and at the
same time rich enough to establish (5), then (6) will yield a subconvex bound.
In practice, when this method succeeds one finds that one can establish
(5) with |F| (C(F ))1/2 in a relatively straight-forward analysis involving
summing over F and analyzing only the "diagonal" contribution. This however
simply recovers the convexity bound and the heart of the problem is to decrease
somewhat the size of |F|.
One appeals to a technique known as "amplification" which arithmetically
23
shorten F by introducing weights. The method was introduced to estimate
L(s, χ) (see [10]), however its true power has been shown in the more general
setting of L(s, π). Roughly the idea is as follows:
X X 1
A := | a(b)cF (b)|2 |L( , F )|2 ,
2
F ∈F N b≤M
where a(b) is arbitrary constants with modulus ≤ 1. This time we shoot for the
expected bound
A ε M |F|X ε . (7)
In order to establish (7), one faces off-diagonal terms and if these can be
successfully estimated then choosing a(b) = cF (b) i.e. amplifying F0 , we obtain
1 X
|L( , F0 |2 | |cF (b)|2 |2 ε |F|M X ε ,
2
N b≤M
which implies a subconvex bound for L( 12 , F0 ).

So the key features are the family and dealing with the off-diagonal sums.
For example in Theorem 4, the family used is L(s, F ⊗ χ) with χ a Dirichlet
character of conductor q. The key off-diagonal sums that used to be treated are
of type
X N (α) N (β)
cF (α)cF (β)V V G(α, β),
X X
να−µβ=h
where ν and µ are fixed small integers in K, h 6= 0 and G is a smooth function

depending in the arguments of α and β in the embeddings of K into R.
Over Q Duke/Friedlander/Iwanoec use Weil’s bounds on Kloosterman sums
to handle this (see [8] for more details). In general, one uses the full Maass form
spectral theory for GL2 (AK ) and a suitable theory of Poincaŕe series. Crucial
ingredients are the GRC bounds:
1 1
| logN (v) |απ,i (v)|| < , forv < ∞; | Re(µπ,i (v))| < , forv | ∞,
5 5
and the spectral method.

For the case of L(s, F ⊗ G), where G is fixed, F varies over holomorphic
24
newforms of the same weight as G but of level N → +∞. Then we have
1 1
L(s, F ⊗ G) N 2 − 96 +ε .
The averaging is carried out by means of the Prtersson formula. Let Bk (N )

be an orthogonal basis for Sk (N ), the space of cusp forms of weight k, level N.
Normalize the Fourier coefficients of λF (n) for F ∈ Sk (N ) by setting
12
Γ(k − 1) λF (n)
ψF (n) = .
(4πn)k−1 < F, F >1/2
Then the formula reads that for m,n ≥ 1,
X X S(m, n; c) √
k 4π mn
ψF (n)ψF (m) = δ(m, n) + 2πi Jk−1 , (8)
c c
F ∈Bk (N ) c≡0(N )
where δ(m, n) is the Kronecker delta function, Jk (x) is the Bessel function and
S(m, n; c) is the Kloosterman sum:
X
mx + nx
S(m, n; c) := e .
c
x(c)
xx≡1(c)
The Petersson formula (8) and its generalization due to Kuznetsov are impor-
tant tools in the subject. They lie at the bottom of many of the applications of
the GL2 /Q analytic number theory. Particularly, these formulas can give some-
what better estimates of weighted Kloosterman sums in average. For instance,
Kuznetsov ([20]) used his trace formula and the fact that λ1 (SL(2, Z) \ H) ≥ 41 ,
to show that for m, n fixed
X S(m, n; c) 2
ε X 3 +ε .
c
c≤X

Note that Weil’s bound gives the bound O X 1+ε .
25
2.2.3 The Ergodic method
In this subsection, we will introduce how Ergodic principle serves as a tool

to deal with ScP via sketching the proof of Theorem 6. To start with, we list
the so-called quantitative form of the Ergodic principle.
e −→ G be the simply connected covering of G. For f ∈ C ∞ (X),
Let ι : G
for x ∈ X set Z
℘(f ) := f (ι(g)x)dg.
e
g∈G(K)\ e
G(A)
Then for every g ∈ G, there exists β > 0 and d, such that
| < g.f1 , f2 > − < g.℘(f1 ), g.℘(f2 ) > | kAd(g)k−β SdX (f1 )SdX (f2 ) (9)
Lemma 9. Suppose H ⊂ G(A) is noncompact, and χ: H −→ C× a unitary

character. Suppose that X has finite measure, i.e. that the center of G is
anisotropic. Let ν be a (possibly signed) χ-equivariant measure on X, i.e. ν h =
χ(h)ν for h ∈ H. Let µ be the G(A)-invariant (Haar) probability measure, and
suppose that, for some d ≥ 0, we have the majorization:
|ν|(f ) µ(f ) + SdX (f ), (f ≥ 0)
Let σ be any probability measure on H. Then, for any f with ℘(f ) = 0,

|ν(f ) − δχ=1 µ(f )| kσk2d0 + kσ ? σ̌k−β SdX0 (f )2 .
Here δχ=1 is 1 if χ is trivial and zero otherwise,

Z
kσkd := kAd(h)kd dσ(h),
h∈H
and similarly for kσ ? σ̌k, σ̌ denote the pullback of σ by g 7→ g −1 . β is as in (9),

and d0 depends only on d.
Sketch of the proof of Theorem 6.
26
Proof. By Hecke functional ([15]) we have
Z
1 ε 1
L(π ⊗ χ, ) ε (C(π)Q) Q 2 ϕ(a(y)n(T ))χ(y)d× y,
2 F × \A×
   
y 0 1 T
where ϕ is an element in π and a(y) =  , n(T ) =   . Us-
0 1 0 1
ing Mellin transform and Jacquet-Langlands functional ( see [32] for a direct
computation) we have achieve a weighted (truncated) integral
1 1 n(T ) κ
Q− 2 −ε |L(π ⊗ χ, )| ε,π,K |µχ,h | + Q− 2 ,
2
where
µgχ (ϕ) := µχ (g.ϕ);

Z
µχ (ϕ) := ϕ(a(y)n(T ))χ(y)d× y;
F × \A×
Z ∞
n(T )
µχ,h (ϕ) := h(t)χ(yt )µa(y
χ
t )n(T )
(ϕ)d× t,
0
here yt ∈ A× with norm t and h is essentially a smoothed characteristic function

of interval [Q−1−κ , Q−1+κ ] and κ is a positive (small) constant.
Lemma 10. Take g = a(yt )n(T ) for t ∈ R>0 ,→ A, T = (Tv )v ∈ A. For some
"good" f we have
1
µg (f ) S XP GL2 (f ) |t|A2 + |T |−δ
A
n(T )
Since µχ,h is χ-equivariant under the subgroup of elements of H (1) which
commute with n(T ), we can reduce to the corresponding fact for χ = 1, which
is already known by properties of Soblev’s norms. Noting that µa(yt )n(T ) is
orthogonal to all one-dimensional automorphic representation on P GL2 except
the constants, then by Lemma 8 we have
Z Z
n(T )
|µ1,h (f )| ≤ h f + S XP GL2 (f ),
XP GL2
27
κ−1
with ε Qε Q 2 + Q−δ .
Let σ be the average sum of the Dieac measure which are supported at
a($v−1 )a($v0 ) ∈ a(Fv )a(Fv0 ) ⊂ H,
for (v, v 0 ) ranging over pairs of distinct non-archimedean places at which χ is

unramified and for which qv , qv0 are contained in [M, 2M ] where M is a small
positive power of Q.
2
M2
The number of such pairs is log M . σ is not supported on H (1) but
([ 14 ,4])
rather on H := {a(y) : y ∈ A× , |y| ∈ [ 41 , 4]}.
Since kAd(a($v−1 )a($v0 ))k M 2 , we have
Z
kσkd = kAd(h)kd dσ(h) M 2d ;
H

kσ ? σ̌kθ (log M )2 M −2 + M −1−2θ + M −4θ .
Notice that supp(σ) commutes with n(T ), one has µχ,h (ϕ ∗χ σ) = µχ,h∗ η (σ),
where η demote the average of the Dirac measures at qv qv−1
0 on R>0 for (v, v 0 )
as above. Therefore, we have by Lemma 8:
κ−1
|µχ,h∗η (ϕ)|2 ε,π Qε M 4d Q 2 + Q−δ + M −2 + M −1−2θ + M −4θ .
Thus the subconvex bound comes from the estimate:
1 1 κ
Q− 2 +ε L( , π ⊗ χ) ε,π,χ |µχ,h∗η (ϕ)| + Q− 2 .
2
Remark. In fact, Theorem 7 can be reduced by period integral and regularization

to case there π1 = χ, which is exactly Theorem 6. Here the measure σ plays a
role similar to that of an amplifier in the amplification method.
28
3 Applications of ScP
3.1 Equidistribution problems

In this section, we shall describe some applications of the subconvex bound
to various equidistribution problems. Among those problems, we pick up the
most classical or remarkable ones to discuss, for instance, Linnik problem and
equidistribution of Heegner points.
3.1.1 Equidistribution of lattice points of the sphere
Given n ≥ 1, it goes back to Gauss that n is representable as the ternary

quadratic form: X 2 + Y 2 + Z 2 if and only if n is not the form 4k (8l − 1). We
denote by
R3 (n) := {→
−
x = (x, y, z) ∈ Z3 : x2 + y 2 + z 2 = n}
and denoted by r3 (n) := |R3 (n)| the number of such representations. By a

result of Cornut (see [7]) we know that
1
r3 (n) ε n 2 −ε if n 6= 0, 4, 7(8), (10)
which means that there are sufficiently many vectors in R3 (n) if n 6= 0, 4, 7(8).
So one may then look at the distribution of their projections on the unit sphere
S 2 as n → ∞. This question was studied by Linnik ([21]): by usinbg ergodic
methods, he proved the equidistribution of the projections under some annoying
condition, which was removed by Iwaniec by different methods (see [16]).
R3 (n)
Theorem 11. As n goes to +∞ through integers n 6= 0, 4, 7(8), the set √
n
be-
comes eqiudistributed on the unit sphere S with respect to the standard Lebesgue
2
measure; i.e. for any continuous functions V on S 2 ,
X Z
1 R3 (n)
V √ → V (u)dµ.
r3 (n) →
− n S2
x ∈R3 (n)
Proof. By Weyl’s equidistribution criterion, it is sufficient to show that for any
29
harmonic polynomial P on R3 of degree k ≥ 1, say, the Weyl sum
X Z
1 R3 (n)
W (n, P ) := P √ → P (u)dµ = 0.
r3 (n) →
− n S2
x ∈R3 (n)
Observe that W (n, P ) = 0 if k is odd. If k is even, one has
n− 4
k
X n− 4
k
W (n, P ) = P (R3 (n)) = rP (n),

r3 (n) →
− r3 (n)
x ∈R3 (n)
k+1
say. In view of (10) it suffices to show that rP (n) n 2 −δ for some absolute
δ > 0. The theta series
X
ΘP (z) := rP (n)e(nz)
n≥0
is in fact a holomorphic modular form of weight k + 3

2 and level 4 and a cusp
form when k ≥ 1 (see [17]). For k ≤ 1 we have the Fourier expansion:
X 1
f (z) = ρf (n)n 2 e(nz).
n≥1
1
By Petersson’s formula we have ρf (n) f,ε n− 4 +ε for any ε > 0. This bound
k+1
yields rP (n) P,ε n 2 +ε , which is barely not sufficient for our equidistribution
problem. To conquer this, we consider Waldspurger’s formula, which relates
the fourier coefficient ρf d to a central value of a twisted L-function. If D is
the discriminant of some quadratic field K, with Dk+1 > 0, then Waldspurger’s
formula has the form
|ρf (|D|)|2 = C(f, g, D)L(g ⊗ χK , 1/2),
where g is a cusp form (see [30]), χK is the associated Kronecker symbol and
C(f, g, D), the proportionality constant, is bounded independently of D. In
p
particular, for D = Disc Q( (−1)k+1 d) we see by Deligen’s bound, that
d1/2 ρf (d) ε,f dε |L(g ⊗ χK , 1/2)|1/2 .
30
Hence, any improvement over the 1/4 exponent in ρf (n) is equivalent to the
solution to the ScP for L(g ⊗ χK , 1/2), which can be solved by Theorem 7.
3.1.2 Equidistribution of Heegner points
We will, in this subsection, describe the equidistribution of Heegner points

and their applications in elliptic curves. Let F be a general totally real field. Let
B be a quaternion algebra over F and π a cuspidal automorphic representation
of BA× with central character ω. Let K be a quadratic field extension of F and η
the quadratic Hecke character on F × \A× associated to the quadratic extension.
Let χ be a Hecke character on KA× . Write L(s, π, χ) for the Rankin-Selberg L-
series L(s, π JL ⊗ πχ ), where π JL is the Jacquet-Langlands correspondence of π
on GL2 (A) and πχ is the automorphic representation of GL2 (A) corresponding
to the theta series of χ, so that L(s, πχ ) = L(s, χ). Assume that ωχ |A× = 1.
Let N be the conductor of π JL , D the relative discriminant of K/F , c ⊆ O
Q × Q
the ideal maximal such that χ is trivial on v-c OK v v|c (1 + cOK,v ). Define
the following set of places v of F dividing N :
X
:= {v | N nonsplit in K | ordv (c) < ordv (N )}.
1
Q P P
Let c1 := p|c P p
ordp (c)
be the 1 -off part of c, n1 the 1 -off part of N
pis not in 1
P
and n2 = n−1
1 N the 1 -part of N .
Let R be an admissible O-order of B for (π, χ) in the sense that Rv is
admissible for (πv , χv ) for every finite place v of F . It follows that R is an O-
order with discriminant N such that R∩K = Oc1 . Notice that R is independent
of π of conductor N if both N and χ are fixed.
N
Let V (π, χ) denote the space of the forms f = v fv ∈ π which are invari-
ant under the action of R̂ . By a proposition in ([4]) we have dim V (π, χ) = 1.
×
Further, we assume that for any place v | ∞ of F , πvJL is a unitary discrete

series of weight 2 and (c, N ) = 1. Let X = B × \ B̂ × /R̂× . Since B × \ B̂ × is
compact and R̂× is open, so X is a finite set. Let g1 , ..., gn ∈ B̂ × be a complete
set of representations of X. Write ei = [gi ] ∈ X for the class of the element
gi ∈ B̂ × . For each gi , denote by Γi = (B × ∩ gi B̂ × gi−1 )/O× , which is finite and
31
denoted by ωi its order. Let Z[X] be the free Z-module (of rank n) of formal
P
sums i ai ei . There is a height pairing on Z[X] × Z[X] defined by
X X X
< ai ei , bj ej >= ai bi ωi .
i j i
N ×
Define Z[X]0 := Pic(X)0 , C[X]0 = Z[X]0 Z C. Note that V (π, χ) ⊂ π R̂ ,
then there is an injection:
X
V (π, χ) ,→ C[X]0 , f 7→ f (ei )ωi−1 ei ,
so we can view V (π, χ) as a line on C[X]0 . It follows that < f, f >=< f, f >R̂× .
Every embedding ξ : K ,→ B induces a map
Pic(Oc ) → X, σ 7→ ξ(σ),
using which we define an element in C[X],
X
Pχ := χ−1 (σ)ξ(σ),
σ∈Pic(Oc )
and let Pχπ be its projection to the line V (π, χ). Then we have
Theorem 12. Let (π, χ) be as above with the assumptions above. The height
of Pχπ is given by the formula
2 d
| (8π ) < φ, φ >U0 (N )
P 1 P
L( )
, π, χ = 2−| D p < Pχπ , Pχπ >,
2 u2 |DK |kck2
where
X X
:= {v | (N, D)∞ : vkN ⇒ v - D}, := {v | (N, D)},
D
u = |κc |[Oc× : O× ], and φ ∈ π JL is some Hilbert newform.
Denote by HN (c) the set of Gross-Heegner points of level c, which is

nonempty under our conditions above. Consider a Heegner point which is asso-
ciated to an embedding ξ : K ,→ B which can be lifted as a map Pic(Oc ) → X.
32
Hence Pic(Oc ) has an action on HN (c). For any subgroup G ≤ Pic(Oc ) we have,
by Fourier inversion, that
!
1 X 1 X 1 X X
ξ(σ) = χ(σ 0 ) χ−1 (σ)ξ(σ)
|G| |Pic(Oc )| |G| 0
σ∈Pic(Oc ) \c )
χ∈Pic(O σ ∈G σ∈Pic(Oc )
!
1 X 1 X
= χ(σ 0 ) Pχ
|Pic(Oc )| |G| 0
\c )
χ∈Pic(O σ ∈G
1 X
= Pχ .
|Pic(Oc )|
\c )
χ∈Pic(O
χ|G =1
Thus, for any 0 6= f we have
1 X 1 X
< f, ξ(σ) > = < f, Pχ >
|G| |Pic(Oc )|
σ∈Pic(Oc ) \c )
χ∈Pic(O
χ|G =1
1
≤ max | < f, Pχ > |
|G| χ∈Pic(O
\c )
χ|G =1
< f, f >1/2
= max < Pχπ , Pχπ >1/2 .
|G| \c )
χ∈Pic(O
χ|G =1
<f,f >1/2
If such f ’s can form a basis of C[X]0 , and |G| maxχ |Pχπ | |G|−δ , then by
a direct computation we will have essentially that
|{σ ∈ G, ξ(σ) = ei }|
= µN (ei ) + ON |G|−δ ,
|G|
if G is not too small, where µN is a probability measure on X defined by:
ω −1
µN ({ei }) = Pn i −1 . (11)
i=1 ωi
Precisely, we have the following theorem:
Theorem 13. Let B, K defined as above satisfying the properties, while R =

Rn1 ,n2 the classical Eichler order of level N . Then there are absolute constants
δ, δ 0 > 0 such that for any ξ ∈ HN (c), for any subgroup G ≤ Pic(Oc ) of index
33
[Pic(Oc ) : G] ≤ Dδ , as D → +∞, the orbit G.ξ becomes equidistributed in the
set {e1 , ..., en } relative to the measure µN defined in (11).
More precisely, there exists an absolute constant δ 0 > 0 such that
|{σ ∈ G, ξ(σ) = ei }| 0

= µN ({ei }) + ON D−δ
|G|
Proof. Similar to [24], by Jacquet-Langlands correspondence we have finite basis

of C[X]0 consisting of a family of Hilbert modular forms {fi } ∈ V (πi , χ) where
i ≥ 1. Define
n
!− 12 n
X X
f0 := ωi−1 ωi−1 ei .
i=1 i=1
P
Write ei =< ei , f0 > f0 + i≥1 ai fi . Then
|{σ ∈ G, ξ(σ) = ei }| 1 X
ωi =< ei , ξ(σ) >
|G| |G|
σ∈Pic(Oc )
n
!−1
X X 1 X
= ωi−1 + ai < fi , ξ(σ) > .
i=1
|G|
i≥1 σ∈Pic(Oc )
Then by Theorem 12 we have
1 X 1 1
| < fi , ξ(σ) > | max |D| 4 |L(1/2, π, χ)|1/2 .
|G| |G| χ
σ∈Pic(Oc )
On the other hand, we have, by Siegel’s theorem and Class Number Formula,
1 1
D− 2 −ε ε |Pic(Oc )| D 2 log D.
Thus by Theorem 7 one has
X 1 X 1 1
| ai < fi , ξ(σ) > | N max |D| 4 |L(1/2, π, χ)|1/2
|G| |G| χ
i≥1 σ∈Pic(Oc )
|D|1/4−δ 0
N N D−δ .
|G|1/2
The theorem thus follows.
34
3.2 Arithmetic quantum chaos
Suppose we are giving a compact Riemannian manifold and {ϕj }j≥0 an
orthogonal basis of L2 (X) composed of Laplace eigenfunctions with eigenvalues
ordered in increasing size: ∆ϕj + λj ϕj = 0 with 0 = λ0 ≤ λ1 ≤ .... Considera-
tions from theoretical physics led to extensive investigations of the distribution
properties of ϕj in the limit as λj → +∞, and in particular, of the weak-∗ limits
of the sequence of probability measures:
dµj := |ϕj (x)|2 dx,
where dµj is interpreted in quantum mechanics as the probability density for

finding a particle in the state ϕj at the point s and dx is the normalized Rie-
mannian volume. When the geodesic flow is ergodic, a result (see [31] and
[36]) shows that at least for a full-density subsequence {jk }k≥0 , sµj weakly-∗
converges to dx. More precisely, one has for any V ∈ C ∞ (X),
1 X Z Z
| V dµj − V dx|2 = of (1);
|{λj ≤ λ}| X X
λj ≤λ
this phenomenon is called Quantum Ergodicity.

However, quantum ergodicity does not exhibit an explicit subsequence hav-
ing dx as its quantum limit, nor does it exclude the possibility of having excep-
tional (zero density) subsequences dµjk having a quantum limit different from
dx. Such exceptional weak limit are called strong scars and indeed have been
observed numerically in some related chaotic dynamical systems (such as bil-
liards). Rudnick and Sarnak ([27]) have ruled out the existence of strong scars
supported on a finite union of points and closed geodesics. This leads to the
conjecture that in many cases dx is the only quantum limit (Quantum Unique
Ergodicity).
Conjecture 14. (QUE) Let X be a negatively curved compact manifold. Then

dµj weakly converges to dx as j → ∞.
So far, the best evidence towards QUE comes from the case of arithmetic
surfaces and arithmetic hyperbolic 3-folds. The study of distribution properties
35
of explicit sequences of primitive Hecke eigenforms is sometimes called Arith-
metic Quantum Chaos, and one of its conjectures is to prove QUE for such
Hecke eigenforms: the Arithmetic QUE Conjecture:
Conjecture 15. (Arithmetic QUE) For any fixed q ≥ 1, let f be a primitive

weight 0 Maass cusp form (resp. holomorphic cusp form)-with nebentypus trivial
or not-for the group Γ0 (q) with eigenvalue λf (resp. with weight kf ). Then as
λ → +∞, the measure
|f (z)|2 dxdy |f (z)|2 y kf dxdy

dµf (z) := (resp. dµf (z) := )
< f, f > y 2 < f, f > y 2
weak-∗ converges on X0 (q)(C) to the normalized Poincaré
1 dxdy
dµP = .
vol(X0 (q)) y 2
Remark. Conjecture 15 has a nice consequence due to Rudnick (see [26]): if

qkf
f is holomorphic of weight k, then f has ≈ 12 zeros on X0 (q); this leads to
naturally to the question of the distribution of such zeros. It turns out that the
convergence of sµj to dµP implies that the zeros of f are equidistributed with
respect to the quantum limit dµP .
In the noncompact case, quantum limits of the Eisenstein series can be
studied as well. For the full modular curve X0 (1), Luo/ Sarnak ([22]) proved
the analog of QUE for E∞ as follows using subconvex bound.
Theorem 16. ([22]) Set dµt (z) := |E∞ (z, 1/2 + it)|2 dxdy
y 2 . For V a continuous
function compactly supported away from the cusp ∞, one has, as t → +∞:
Z Z
48 dxdy
V (z)dµt (z) = V (z) log t + oV (log t).
X0 (1) π X0 (1) y2
Proof. It suffices to obtain the above identity for either an incomplete Eisenstein
series or a Maass/Hecke-eigenform g. Note that the former case is not trivial,
since it requires both a subconvex bound for ζ(1/2 + it) and the Hadamard/de
la Vallée-Poussin/Weyl bound (here the savings of the log log t is necessary),
ζ 0 (1 + it) log t
,
ζ(1 + it) log log t
36
which follows from the zero-free region. For V = g a primitive Maass/Hecke-
eigenform, one has to show that
Z Z
dxdy
g(z)dµt (z) = |E∞ (z, 1/2 + it)|2 g(z) = og (log t).
X0 (1) X0 (1) y2
By the unfolding method, one has
Z 1−2it −4it 1+2itg −4it

2|Γ( 1+2it 2
4 )| Γ( 4
g
)Γ( 4 ) 1 1
g(z)dµt (z) = 2it 1+2it 2
L(g, )L(g, − it).
X0 (1) π |ζ(1 + 2it)Γ( 2 )| 2 2
By Stirling’s formula and the lower bound ζ(1 + it) log t ,

1
we thus have
Z
1
g(z)dµt (z) ε,g tε−1/2 L(g, − it).
X0 (1) 2
Here any subconvex bound is sufficient to prove Themrem 16.
References
[1] J. Arthur, L. Clozel. Simple algebras, base change and the advanced theory
of the trace formula. Annals of Math Studies, 120, Princeton University
Press (1989).
[2] C. J. Bushnell. G. Henniart. An upper bound on conductors for pairs. J.

Number Theory. 65 (1997) no. 2, 183-196.
[3] V. Blomer. G. Harcos. P. Michel. Bounds for automorphic L-functuions, in

preparation (2006).
[4] Li Cai, Jie Shu, Ye Tian. Explicit Gross-Zagier and Waldspurger formulae.
Algebre and Number Theory. (2014)
[5] J. Cogdell. L-functions and Converse Theorems for GLn . J. Theor. Nom-
bres Bordeaux 15, no. 1, 33-44. 2003.
[6] J. B. Conrey. H. Iwaniec. The cubic moment of central values of automor-

phic L-functions. Ann. Math. J. 151 (2000), no. 3, 1175-1216.
37
[7] C. Cornut. Mazur’s conjecture on higher Heegner points. Invent. Math. 148,
no. 3, 459-523 (2002).
[8] W. Duke. J, Friedlander. H.Iwaniec. Bounds for automorphic L-functions.

Invent. Math. 112 (1993). no.1, 1-8.
[9] W. Duke. J, Friedlander. H.Iwaniec. A quadratic divisor problem. Invent.

Math. 115 (1994). no.2, 209-217.
[10] J. Friedlander. H. Inwaniec. A mean value theore for character sums. Michi-
gan Math. J. 39 (1992), 153-159.
[11] S. Gerbart. H. Jacquet. A relation between automorphic representations of

GL(2) and GL(3). Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup 11 (1978), 411-452.
[12] B. H. Gross, D. B. Zagier, Heegner points and derivatives of L-series. In-

vent. Math. 84:2 (1986), 225-320. MR 87j: 11057 Zbl 0608.14019.
[13] G. Harcos. P. Michel. The subconvexity problem for Rankin-Selberg L-

functions and equidistribution of Heegner points II. Invent. Math. (2006).
[14] M. Huxley. Oberwolfach lecture, fall 2001.
[15] A. Ichino. Trilinear forms and the central values of triple product L-
functions. Duke Math. J. 145, (2008). no. 2, 281-317.
[16] H. Iwaniec. Fourier coefficients of modular forms of half-intergal weight.

Invent. Math. 87 (1987), no. 2, 453-468.
[17] H. Iwaniec. Topics in classical automorphic forms. Graduate Studies in

Mathematics, 17. AMS. Prov. RI. (1997). Chap. 10.
[18] H. Iwaniec, P. Sanark. Perspectives in the Analytic Theory of L functions,

GAFA, Special Volume GAFA 2000, 705-741.
[19] H. Jacquet. J. Shalika. On Euler products and the classification of auto-

morphic representations, I. Amer. J. Math. 103 (1981), 499-558.
[20] N. Kuznetzov. Petersson’s conjecture for cusp forms of weight zero and
Linnik’s conjecture, sums of Kloosterman sums. Math. SB 111 (1980), 334-
383.
38
[21] Y. V. Linnik. Ergodic properties of algebraic fields. Ergebnisse Math, 45
Springer. (1968).
[22] W. Luo, P. Sarnak. Quantum ergodicity of eigrnfunctions on SL2 (Z) \ H.

Publ. Math. IHES 81 (1995), 207-237.
[23] W. Luo, Z. Rudnick, P. Sarnak. On the generalized Ramanujan conjecture

for GL(n). Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 66, part 2, AMS, (1999).
[24] P. Michel. The subconvexity problem for Rankin-Selberg L-functions and

equidistribution of Heegner points. Ann. of Math. (2) 160 (2004). no. 1,
185-236.
[25] P. Michel. A. Venkatesh. The sunconvexcity problem for GL2 . Institut des
Hautes Études Scientifiques, 2010.
[26] Z. Rudnick. On the asymptotic distribution od zeros of modular forms. Int.

Math. Res. Not. 2005, no. 34, 2059-2074.
[27] Z. Rudnick. P. Sarnak. The behavior of eigenstates of arimetic hyperbolic

manifolds. Comm. Math. Phys. 161 (1994), no. 1. 195-213.
[28] P. Sarnak. Intergals of products of engenfunctions. IMRN 6 (1994), 251-260.
[29] A. Selberg. On the estimation of Fourier coefficients of modular forms. 1965

Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. Vol. VIII pp. 1-15 Amer. Math. Soc. Providence,
R.I.
[30] G. Shimura. On modular forms of half-integral weight. Ann. of Math. (2)

97. (1973). 440-481.
[31] A. Shnirelman. Uspenski Math. Nauk. 29/6 (1974), 79-88.
[32] A. Venkatesh. Sparse equidiatribution problems, period bounds, and subcon-

vexity. Ann. of Math. 200, no. 2 (2006).
[33] J. L. Waldspurger, Sur les valeurs de certaines fonctions L automorphes en

leur centre de symetrie. Compositio Math. 54:2 (1985), 173-242. MR 87g:
11061b Zbl 0567.10021.
39
[34] H. Weyl. Zur Abschatzung von ζ(1 + it). Math. Zeitschr. 10, 88-101. (1921).
[35] Han Wu. Burgess-like subconvex bounds for GL2 × GL1 . Geometric and
Functional Analysis. 2014. 24(24):968-1036
[36] S. Zelditch. Duke Math. Journal. 55 (1987). 919-941.
40
f!EC¼ê
švh∗
<‚•@¿£ Eêù‡Vg§´316-V ¿Œ|§ u¦)3g•§"

¦Šúª¥§‡‰ŒU•K êm•))ù3 ž´ØŒ É ¶,˜•¡§
¢Xê3g•§˜½k¢Š"XJ6ž ÉKêm• /ªÎÒ§K) úª/
Xz + z̄))´¢ê§Ù¥z´d•§XêLˆ Šª"De Miovreuy ˜ n
√
¼ê úª§ ;•¦^ −1¶† EulerJÑ¦ úª
diθ = cos(θ) + i sin(θ),
<‚â¿£ De MiovreúªŒL••g, /ª
(cos(θ) + i sin(θ))n = cos(nθ) + i sin(nθ),
√
l É i = −1" ,§ 19-V§k Ý Vg§<‚²x§e
òa + biéAuÝ  
a b
  ∈ M2 (R),
−b a
KEê \{!¦{ŒéAuÝ \{!¦{¶AÏ/§/i2 = −1”` Ãš

´  2
0 1
  = −I,
−1 0
Ø2 “"
¤¢EC¼ê§• ´˜‡±Eê•gCþÚÏCþ ¼ê
f : Ω → C, Ω ⊂ C.
∗ ˜uŒÆ£¤ÐêÆ‰Æ¥%
41
•ïÄ)Û5ŸûÐ ¼êf§·‚˜„‡¦Ω´˜‡«•§=ëÏm8" ˜
‡EC¼êf (z), z = x + iy,¢Ÿþ´˜‡ •þŠ¢C¼ê
(x, y) 7→ (u(x, y), v(x, y)), u = Re(f ), v = Im(f ).
·‚3õ ‡È©¥®w Lùa¼ê 4• Vg" éa ∈ Ω§½Âf 3a?

ê•
f (z) − f (a)
f 0 (a) = lim ,
z→a z−a
e 4 • • 3" ¡f •Ωþ )Û£• X§ K¤¼ ê§X Jf 3 z ˜ : ?
ÑëYŒ " ƒ¤±kõ«¡ §´ Ï • { ¤ þ£19- V¤k õ < l Ø Ó
ÝïÄ E ) Û ¼ ê§ • u y Ï å Ó 8" Š Ñ Ì ‡ z kCauchy,
WeierstrassÚRiemann"
ÄkŠ Úå<‚5¿ §ÉŒ †¢Œ « O" Ï L -zl Y
²/ç†••ªua§Œ„ef (z)3a?Œ §KuÚv3a?½Œ §…÷v¤
¢Cauchy-Riemann•§£{P•CR•§¤
ux (a) = vy (a), uy (a) = −vx (a),
∂u
Ù¥ux L« ê " ùL²§f (z)Œ 'ÙŠ• ¢¼êf (x, y)Œ ‡
∂x
r" k ‰Ö¥òdy–)º•zŒ÷ˆ‡••ª•ua§w·ú ´Ø ¡
µÏ• ¢¼ê 4••´|z − a| → 0§=/÷ˆ‡••0ª•ua"·@
•§E¤EŒ †¢Œ «OƒŠ Ï§´4•¥
f (z) − f (a)
z−a
DĆ¥ Ø{§ 'X•• ê
f (a + t · v) − f (a)
lim
t→0 t
E´R¥Ø{" Ć = R2 þ ù«Ï# ¦{( EÒ ù««O"£ÁŽ˜

eo ê½l ê/EC¼ê0¬´Ÿo f nØ"¤
42
aqu¢Cþ¼ê§·‚•F"½Â/Cþ•½È©0
Z z
f (w)dw,
z0
Š•f (z) ¼ê" ,§e? ˜^ë z0 Úz £©ã¤1w-‚C§Œ}

Á½Â Z Z
z
f (w)dw := f (w)dw,
z0 C
ög,´k½Â §=/1 .-‚È©0§•ØL©•¢ÜÚJÜµ
f (w)dw = (u(w)+iv(w))(dx+idy) = u(x, y)dx−v(x, y)dy+i(u(x, y)dy+v(x, y)dx).
g, ¯K´µdÈ©´Ä†´»C À Ã'º ‡nØ Äœ5½n§

CauchyÈ©½n§ é d ‰ Ñ Ü©’½ ‰ Eµef (z)•Ωþ ) Û ¼ ê§
C•ΩS˜^©ã1w 4´»§…C SÜþ•¹uΩ¥§K
I
f (z)dz = 0.
C
ly3 *:w§y²¿ØJµ† ^Greenúª ±CR•§=Œ" dy²½

Œ„§†Greenúª˜ §CauchyÈ©½n•Œí2 Ckõ‡ëÏ©| œ
¹§•‡-‚þ ½• é"AÏ/§ ˜^4´»C3Ω¥ëY/C ,˜^
0
4´»C ž§·‚k I I
f (z)dz = f (z)dz.
C C0
ù®²V«·‚µk˜ ÿÀ5õuÙ¥"
õc± §Goursatò^‡~f••b f (z)3ΩSŒ £ Ø´ëYŒ
¤
"
ù‡½nkNõ-‡íØ§Ù¥ƒ˜=•CauchyÈ©úªµe4 |z −
a| ≤ r•¹uΩ§K I
1 f (z)
f (a) = dz.
2πi |z−a|=r z−a
AÏ/§Óž•´-<¯Û ´§f 3a? Š¾d3 >.|z − a| = rþ

Šû½œ£ ,§ ±•Œ†•Ù¦/G 4´»§•‡7a˜ "¤ùž¢
C¼êØŒUÊHPk 5Ÿ"£ ,§NÚ¼ê•äkù‡5Ÿ))ù¿Ø›
43
©-<¯¯§XJ\• NÚ¼ê†E)Û¼ê 'X"¤¯¢þ§)Û¼ê÷
v¤¢•˜5½n:ef1 Úf2 3ΩS)Û§…é,‡3Ω¥kà: f8A ⊂ Ω§
·‚kf1 |A = f2 |A §Kf1 = f2 .
ddŒíÑ,˜-‡…-<¯¯ (Øµef 3ΩS)Û§Kf 0 •3ΩS)
Û§½=ˆ êf (k) þ•3§…·‚kp CauchyÈ©úª
I
(k) k! f (z)
f (a) = dz,
2πi |z−a|=r (z − a)k+1
•?˜Ú§3 |z − a| ≤ r£•¹uΩ¤SkTaylor?êÐm
∞
X f (k) (a)
f (z) = ak (z − a)k , ak = .
k!
k=0
ù•´¢C¼êŽ•ØcŽ 5Ÿµ
C ω (0, 1) ⊂ C ∞ (0, 1) ⊂ · · · ⊂ C k+1 (0, 1) ⊂ C k (0, 1) ⊂ · · · ⊂ C(0, 1),
z‡f8Ñ´ ˜‡¥ /"ÿ80£XJ· ½ÂÿÝ¤

"
e5·‚X-w˜‡AÏœ/µΩ = C" ùž)Û¼êf : C → C¡
• ¼ê" 'Xõ‘ª¼êP (z) ∈ C[z]§•ê¼êf (z) = ez §n ¼êf (z) =
sin(z) Ñ´ ¼ê"ù‡œ/e§3 ‡E²¡¥ÑkTaylorÐm
∞
X f (k) (0)
f (z) = ak z k , ak = , z ∈ C.
k!
k=0
¤±f (z)wå5Ð”˜‡Ã¡g/õ‘ª0
"w éõ/ØÓ0§·‚5w˜
/ƒq0
" Äk§?˜š~Š õ‘ªP (z), z ∈ C§Ñ´Ã. " ¼ê•ä
kù‡5Ÿ§¡•Liouville½n£Ùy²^ CauchyÈ©úª¤ " 5¿cos(z) =
eiz + e−iz
§ z XJêixž§ Šo´≥ 1 §…‘|x| → ∞uÑ ∞" Í¶
2
“êÄ ½n§=?¿š~ŠEõ‘ª•§okŠ§ŒdLiouville½níÑµ
eP (z)oØ•"§K1/P (z)• ¼ê§…w,k." ùÚÑ ¼ê†õ
‘ª ,˜ƒq5µõ‘ª¼êP (z)Œ H˜ƒEêŠ§ ¼êQº·‚•
z
e ðØ•"§ ùÚu) •€œ¹ µé?˜š~Š ¼êf (z)§§–
õk˜‡EêŠ Ø "ù¡•Picard ½n"
2•ÄΩ 6= C œ¹" <‚~~'%f (z)UPk •Œ½Â•" äN5`§
44
eΩ ⊂ Ω0 §f (z)´Ωþ )Û¼ê§<‚'%f (z)´ÄŒ)Ûòÿ Ω0 þ£5¿
d•˜5½n§)Ûòÿ´•˜ §XJ•3 {¤
"˜„5`§ù´éJ ¯
K§·‚ØõŠ?Ø§•Þ˜‡~fµRiemann-ζ¼ê"½Â
∞
X
ζ(s) = 1−s + 2−s + 3−s + · · · = n−s .
n=1
´•ù‡?ê3Re(s) > 1žýéÂñ§…•Re(s) > 1þ )Û¼ê"Riemanny

²§ζ(s)Œ)Ûòÿ C − 1þ" y²I‡rζ(s) Š˜‡2ÂÈ©Lˆª§=
¤¢θ−¼ê MellinC†§2? È© {§¦ƒéRe(s) ≤ 1•Âñ£ùI
‡^ θ−¼ê ¼ê•§§dPoisson¦ÚúªíÑ¤
" ddŒ„)Ûòÿy²
ƒØ´" Œ•Ä˜‡•{ü œ¹µa´f (z) ˜‡ áÛ:§=•3a ˜‡
%
{z|0 < |z − a| ≤ r} ⊂ Ω.
3d % S§k¤¢LaurentÐm
X I
1 f (z)
f (z) = ak (z − a)k , ak = dz.
2πi |z−a|=r (z − a)k+1
k∈Z
ùžk3«œ¹µ
i) ak = 0, ∀k < 0§d žlimz→a f (z)• 3£… k •¤
" e -f (a) = a0 =
limz→a f (z)§Kf (z)3a?•)Û¶
ii)∃k0 < 0§¦ ak0 6= 0§…ak = 0, ∀k < k0" džlimz→a |f (z)| = ∞§
f (z)Ø U ) Û ò ÿ a" ù ž · ‚ ¡a´f (z) ˜ ‡|k0 |- 4:" ,§e
Àf (z)•3Riemann¥¡þ Š /)Û¼ê0
f : Ω → C ⊂ CP 1 ,
K-f (a) = ∞BŒòf )Ûòÿ aþ"

iii)∀n ∈ Z, ∃k < n¦ ak 6= 0" d žlimz→a |f (z)|Ø • 3§= ¦ Àf •
3CP 1 þ Š )Û¼ê§•Ã{òÿ aþ"·‚¡a´f (z) ˜‡ 5Û:"
'X0é1/z ˜‡ 5Û:" ù«œ¹•E,•• “" 'X§ z → až§
f (z)Ø=Øª•u?Û4•§ …„Ã¡g/ HØ –õ˜‡Eê ¤k
1/z
EêŠ£•Äe 30?¤¶ù¡•PicardŒ½n"k<`§ 5Û:´/þ2•
45
3 /•0
"
ea´f (z) ˜‡ áÛ:§K3¯õLaurentXêak ¥§·‚•'%a−1 §
Ï• I
1
a−1 = f (z)dz.
2πi |z−a|=r
ù‡Xê¡•f 3a? 3ê£½íê¤

§P•a−1 = Res(f ; a)"l‡©/ª
Ýw§∀n 6= −1§n ∈ Z§
1
(z − a)n dz = d((z − a)n+1 ),
n+1
… ¼ê(z − a)n+1 3 ‡C − {a}þ´)Û¼ê¶•k
dz
= ”d log(z − a)”,
z−a
log(z − a)´ØUëY/½Â3C − {a}þ " ù‡‡©/ª3ÿÀ¥¬˜2

/Ñy"
·‚J˜e3OŽ¥k-‡A^ 3ê½n"eΩ´˜‡«•§a1 , · · · , an ∈
Ω§f ´Ω − {a1 , · · · , an }þ )Û¼ê§C´Ω¥˜^{ü4-‚£ ±_ž
½•¤
§K I n
X
1
f (z)dz = Res(f ; ai ).
2πi C i=1
ù´£õ©|¤CauchyÈ©úª A~§ y²ØJ"-:3A^þ"'X•

Ä¢È© Z ∞
dx
.
0 x2 + 1
π
XJ\• ¼ê•arctan(x)á•Œ (J " Ø• {§Œ= •ÄEÈ
2
© I
dz
, R >> 0.
CR z2 +1
d3ê½n§ I
dz 1
= 2πi · Res( 2 ; i) = π.
CR z2 + 1 z +1
46
q•
Z π Z π Z pi
d(Reiθ ) iReiθ dθ Rdθ
| |=| |≤
0 R2 e2iθ + 1 R 2 e2iθ + 1 |R 2 e2iθ + 1|
Z 0π 0
Rdθ Rπ
≤ 2 e2iθ | − 1
= 2 → 0 R → ∞,
0 |R R −1
Z ∞ Z R
dz dz
= lim = π.
−∞ z 2 + 1 R→∞ −R z2 + 1
Rπ dx π
˜Œ§= 0
= " ,§3ê½n„ŒAûŒþ3‡È©¥Ã{
x2 + 1 2
¦Ñ ¼ê ½È©"
'u)Û¼ê„k˜ -‡½n§XmN ½n§4Œ n§Ì n
§ÒØ˜˜[L "
e¡·‚ò5¿å=£ AÛ£ƒéuƒc ¼êØ§©Û¤
"ïÄ˜‡˜
m£X«•Ω¤þ ,«¼ê£X)Û¼ê¤
§˜‡Ì‡8 ´•x˜m AÛ
5Ÿ" ˜m AÛ5Ÿ§û½ §þ¡UkN ¼ê¶‡ƒ§ù ¼ê•û
½ ˜m AÛ"·‚¡ü‡«•Ω1 †Ω2 ´ / d §XJ•3˜‡)ÛV
µ
f : Ω1 → Ω2 .
dž§f −1 : Ω2 → Ω1 •´)Û § / d´˜‡ d'X"ù‡¶¡5

0
u§)ÛN f (z)3f (z) 6= 0?Ñ´ § /ÛÜ/G3f eØC0
" k.
5Ø´ /ØCþ§'XþŒ²¡h†ü ∆ / dµ
h = {z|Im(z) > 0} → ∆ = {z||z| < 1}

i−z
z 7→ .
i+z
/É0 ‡ê´‡ÿÀØCþ§¤±•´ /ØCþ" e••ÄüëÏ«•§

KkRiemannN ½nµ?¿üëÏ«•Ω§•‡Ω 6= C§KΩ†∆ / d"
ù´š~ • ½n" §wŠ·‚§•, /N £=)Ûü ¤f5›v
§ê8ATØéõ£ƒ'u¢C ∞ N
£k•˜5½n¤ ¤
§ ¯¢þqv õ§
Œ±r N¤?¿/G£•‡ÃÉ§6= C¤
"kÉ «•XÛ©aºùÒ‡^
ÿÀp CX˜m nØ §¥%½n üŠz½n§6Ø•ã"
• §·‚{ü!!EC¼ê A^§½ö`†Ù¦nØ 'X" 3Ôn
47
¥ A^ÒØJ §)ö•ØÃ" =B´†êÆ¥˜ nØ 'X§·‚ùp
Qã•ýØ´ §•´]˜ ùù"
©Û
˜‡ ¢¼ê
ϕ(x, y) : Ω → R, Ω ⊂ R2
¡•ŃÚ¼ê§XJϕk ëY ê§¿…÷vLaplace•§
∂2 ∂2
∆ϕ := 2
ϕ + 2 ϕ = 0.
∂x ∂y
)Û¼êf (z) ¢Üu(x, y)ÚJÜv(x, y)ÑŃÚ¼ê¶‡ƒ§e«•ΩüëÏ

£'X ¤
§K?ÑÚ¼êÑ´,‡)Û¼ê ¢Ü£½JÜ¤
"dd§Œ±
íÑ'uNÚ¼ê Nõaqu)Û¼ê 5Ÿ"ÞA‡~fµ
∞
a)NÚ¼êϕ(x, y)Ć £=?¿ êÑ•3¤¶
b)NÚ¼êϕ÷v/CauchyÈ©úª0µ
Z 2π
1
ϕ(a) = ϕ(a + reiθ )dθ,
2π 0
•‡4 |z − a| ≤ r•¹uΩ¥"
c)NÚ¼êϕ÷v/4ŒŠ n0µe∃a ∈ Ω§¦
ϕ(a) ≥ ϕ(z), ∀z ∈ Ω,
Kϕ•~Š¼ê"
, §ÊC¼êŒ±y²§4 §
Dþ Dirichlet¯Kok)£…•˜¤
=é?¿>. ±þ ëY¼ê
g : ∂D → R,
•3•˜ ëYòÿ
ϕ:D→R
¦ ϕ3m D̊þNÚ"
48
ÿÀ
CX˜m ~fŒV•@uyuEC¼ê£)öØU(½¤
§'X
z n : C − {0} → C − {0}, exp(z) : C → C − {0}.
ù‡nØ•/õŠ¼ê0ù‡VgJø ( êÆŠó§±9n)§ (
√
•ª"'X/ z0Œî‚½Â•Xeü‡x¢‚ )ÛN |¤ ãµ
n
C − {0}
n
z z
y "
C − {0} √
n
oC
z
√ √
Ù¥J‚ n z´·‚Ž` ØU` ¼ê n z" þ> C − {0}Œn)• n‡÷
¢¶}m E²¡Êå5¤ -¡"Ón§/log(z)0Œ½Â•Xe ã
C
exp(z) z=id
{
C − {0} oC
log(z)
Ù¥þ> CŒn)• Œêõ‡÷ ¢¶}m E²¡Ê¤ -¡"

,˜‡ÚÑÿÀÆ /•´ý È©"·‚•
Z x Z y Z x√1−y2 +y√1−x2
dt dt dt
√ + √ = √ ,
0 1 − t2 0 1 − t2 0 1 − t2
½= u¼ê \{úª
sin(A + B) = sin(A) cos(B) + sin(B) cos(A).
í2 pgõ‘ª§'X3g§•;•¦Š æN§•Ð3C£ Ø´R¥¤¦

´»È©"•ÄÈ©
Z z
dx
p , λ ∈ C − {0, 1}.
∞ x(x − 1)(x − λ)
49
p
Äk§§Ø´ûÐ½Â µÏ• x(x − 1)(x − λ)Ø´/üŠ 0§ È©•6
u´»"e ü‡l∞ 0Úl1 λ}m¸• Riemann¥¡§÷¸•Êb
K ˜‚¡E" ƒc È©A½Â3Eþ" È©Š„´•6u´»§Ï•‚
¡E¥kü‡ØŒ 4´»α, β§÷§‚ŠÈ©Ø•"§¡•E ±Ïµ
Z Z
dx dx
ω1 = p , ω2 = p .
α x(x − 1)(x − λ) β x(x − 1)(x − λ)
Rz dx
È©z 7→ ∞
p AÀ•¼ê
x(x − 1)(x − λ)
E → C/Λ,
Ù¥Λ•ω1 Úω2 3C¥)¤ ‚:f+"Ù‡¼ê=•¤¢Λ Weierstrass-℘¼ê"

‰½z1 , z2 §e-z3 •¦e¡•§¤á ê£3C/Λ¥¤á¤
Z z1 Z z2 Z z3
dx dx dx
p + p = p ,
∞ x(x − 1)(x − λ) ∞ x(x − 1)(x − λ) ∞ x(x − 1)(x − λ)
XÛLˆz3 º‡rz1 , z2 ÀŠ3Eþ§I‡•²3=‡Riemann¥þ££ÁE´

dü‡Riemann¥©¤ ¤
§½=I‡•²˜‡ωi )§i = 1, 2µ
ωi2 = zi (zi − 1)(zi − λ).
, §ë :(z1 , ω1 )Ú(z2 , ω2 ) ˜E†‚§†3g-‚
ω 2 = z(z − 1)(z − λ)
u1n:(z3 , ω3 )§Ùî‹I=•¤¦"ù‡^VièteúªBŒ”t Lˆ
ª§a'uƒc úª
q q
x3 = x1 1 − x22 + x2 1 − x21 ,
¢Sþ‰Ñ℘-¼ê \{úª"
50
Lie +
ù†üŠz½nk'" ·‚Ø•ã§•´•Ñ§e> gÓ +£)Ûg
Ó ¤
az + b
Aut(C∞ ) = {©ª‚5C†z 7→ } = P SL2 (C)
cz + d
Aut(C) = {• C†z 7→ az + b} = P B2 (C)
Aut(h) = {¢Xê©ª‚5C†} = P SL2 (R)
Ñ´Lie+"
êØ
·‚c>J Riemann-ζ¼ê§Euler´•@•Ä§ <ƒ˜" Riemann¿
£ AT-Cþs EêŠ§ Ø==´Œu1 ¢ê"Euler¦Èúª
Y 1
ζ(s) =
1 − p−s
pƒê
V « · ‚§ζ(s) ) Û 5 Ÿ A † ƒ ê © Ù k '" ¯ ¢ þ§Riemann¿ £ §

eζ(s)3†‚Re(s) = 1þÃ":§Kƒê½n£ ž))1859))•´ßŽ¤
¤áµ
π(x)
lim = 1,
x→∞ x/ log(x)
P
Ù ¥π(x) = ƒêp≤x 1• Ø ‡ Lx ƒê ‡ ê" ù ‡ζ(s) š"5 5
dHadamardÚde la Vallée PoussinÕáy²§ …¦‚Öþ ddš"5íÑ
ƒê½n Eâ[!"•,[!E,§ Œ—g´´ÊC¼ê¥ CauchyÈ
©úª§AO/§3ê½n"
x
ƒê½n¿™‰Ñπ(x)† ƒ O))ùI‡• •õζ(s) "
log(x)
x
:©Ù &E" AO/§XJRiemannb ¤á§KØ ‘π(x) − /•
log(x)
0
"
, ·‚l/˜‘0=•/ ‘0
" c>J Λ Weierstrass ℘-¼ê§
Ć − Λþ )Û¼ê§z‡Λ¥ ‚:´℘(z) 4:§…℘(z)3Λ-²£e
0
ØC))¡•˜‡ý ¼ê"•-‡ ´§℘ (z)Ú℘(z)÷v˜‡“ê'X
℘0 (z)2 = 4℘(z)3 − g2 ℘(z) − g3 ,
51
Ù¥g2 = g2 (Λ)Úg3 = g3 (Λ)´•6uΛ ~ê£éz5`¤
§…÷v
g2 (aΛ) = a−4 g2 (Λ), g3 (aΛ) = a−6 g3 (Λ), ∀a ∈ C − {0}.
e½ÂþŒ²¡hþ ¼êg̃2 , g̃3 •
g̃2 (z) := g2 (Z < z, 1 >), g̃3 (z) := g3 (Z < z, 1 >),
Kg̃2 Úg̃3 ´)Û¼ê" §‚´ü‡¤¢Eisenstein?ê" ùÚÑ ¤¢ /ª

Vgµ /ª´˜‡÷v˜ é¡5 hþ )Û¼ê" §‚ FourierXê%
¹ é • Žâ&E" /ª§½ö`§‚‰Ñ L-¼ê£•´)Û¼êœ¤
§
´Riemann ζ-¼ê ‘í2" aq/§§‚ )Û&E•ŒíÑ˜ Žâé
– ©Ù"
52
Bernstein½n
o …∗
1 Bernstein¯K µ
3‡©AÛ¥§·‚• §¼êu : Ω ⊂ Rn−1 → R ã´˜‡4 -¡§
e§÷v4 -¡•§µ
!
∇u
div p =0 (1.1)
1 + |∇u|2
N´ y§‚5¼êu§=‡²¡§÷vþã•§. …§dž§u½Â••
n−1
‡R .
1914c§Bernstein[2]JÑ ±þ¯K _¯K§¿…y² n=3 œ¹.
¯K LãXe
¯K(Bernstein¯K). eu ã”´Rn ¥ -¡§…u´÷vþã4 -¡•§

N)§@ou´Ä˜½´‡²¡º
1965c§De Giorgi[6]y² XJRn−1 ¥vkš²¡ ¡È4 (area-

minimizing)I¡§@oBernstein½n(Ø•¤á. AO §ùŒ±íÑR4 ¥
N)•k‡²¡.
1966c§Almgren[1]y² R4 ¥vkš²¡ ¡È4 I¡§(ÜDe
Giorgi (J• §Bernstein½nŒí2 n = 5.
1968c§Simons[8]y² R7 ¥vkš²¡ ¡È4 I¡§ò½ní2
n = 8.
1969c§Bombieri§De GiorgiÚGiusti[3] E Rn 3n ≥ 9žš²¡ 4
-¡ N) ~f.
–d§Bernstein¯K”.)û.
∗ ê32
53
2 ©V‡
3 ©¥§·ò‰Ñn ≤ 6žBernstein½n y². Ùy²Ì‡g´5
g1975cSchoen§SimonÚYauÜ Ø©5Curvature estimates for minimal
hypersurfaces6[7]. Ø©y² Ì‡g´´|^-½5Ø ª -½ 4
-¡ -Ç O§, ÏLÀ · ä¼ê‘\Ø ª§•ªŒ±y
²§3nØ Œž§-Ç O‰Ñ 4 -¡ -Ç7•0.
©éuÖö •£‡¦´ÙGiùAÛ¥ Ä Vg. 3 ©¥§·‚
•ÄΣk É\ ,‡iù6/M n ¥ k‘f6/§ÙÝþÚiùéädM p
. • •B§·‚ùp?Ø 6/Ñ´1w6/.
3 C©úª
l†*þw§ Σ “¡È”• ž§§´“¡È”•¼ .:. •
Σ 5Ÿ§·‚Œ±ÏL“¡È”•¼ .: 5Ÿ5‡N§•Ä úªB
´±e 1˜Ú1 C©úª. |^ùü‡C©úª§·‚Œ± 4 -¡
±9-½£4 ¤-¡ ½Â.
·‚-F : Σ × (−, ) → M ´Σþ ˜‡k;|8Ú ½>. C©§=
1. 3˜‡;|8 F = Id
2. F (x, 0) = x
3. éu?¿ x ∈ ∂Σ, F (x, t) = x
3.1 1˜C©úª
‡Ïé“¡È”•¼ .:§•† Ž{B´é“¡È”•¼¦ ê§Ï
é•• ê•0 :.
·‚ Σþ ÛÜ‹IXxi §P
gij (t) = g(Fxi , Fxj ) (3.1)

q p
ν(t) = det(gij (t)) det(g ij (0)) (3.2)
54
Ù¥νØ•6u‹IX À . ¡ÈúªŒ±L«•
Z q
Vol(F (Σ, t)) = ν(t) det(gij (0)) (3.3)
Σ
ü>ét¦ Œ± §
Z q
d d
Vol(F (Σ, t)) = ν(t) det(gij (0)) (3.4)
dt t=0 Σ dt t=0
d
·‚òOŽ dt t=0
ν(t)3,˜:x ∈ Σ Š. 5¿ ν(t)Ø•6u‹IX
À §¤±·‚Œ±ÀJx:NC IO ‹IX§Kgij (0) = δij . |^t•
•Úxi •• ê †§=[Ft , Fxi ] = 0§3x:?§·‚Œ±
k k k
d 1X d X X
ν(t) = hFxi , Fxi i = h∇Ft Fxi , Fxi i = h∇Fxi Ft , Fxi i = divΣ Ft .
dt t=0 2 i=1 dt t=0 i=1 i=1
(3.5)
d
Ù¥§1˜‡ ª|^ dt t=0
det(δij + taij ) = Tr(aij ).
·‚XJòC©•þ|Ft ©)•ƒ•••Ú{•••§@o·‚Œ±
X k
d
ν(t) = h∇Fxi Ft , Fxi i
dt t=0 i=1
n−k
XX k
(3.6)
= h∇Fxi hFt , Nl iNl , Fxi i + divΣ FtT
l=1 i=1
= −khFt , Hi + divΣ FtT
R
|^Stokesúª( Σ
divΣ FtT = 0)§·‚éþª?1©ÜÈ©Œ 1˜C
©úª Z Z
d
Vol(F (Σ, t)) = −k hFt , Hi = divΣ Ft (3.7)
dt t=0 Σ Σ
Ù¥§H•²þ-Ç.
þª u0 …= -¡´ .:. N´w §duC©F ?¿5§-
¡Σ´“¡È”•¼ .: …= ²þ-ÇH ≡ 0. Ïd§·‚¡E\f6
k n
/Σ ⊂ M •4 -¡§ …= H ≡ 0.
55
3.2 1 C©úª
Šâþã4 -¡ ½Â§·‚•‡¦§´“¡È”•¼ .:§ ù¿
ØU yÙ¡Èˆ • § .:ŒU==•´Q:§$–ŒU´¡È•Œ:.
k n
Ïd§éu4 -¡Σ ⊂ M §·‚•Ä“¡È”•¼3§þ¡ ê. •
OŽ•B§·‚Œ±b F ´{•C©§=FtT ≡ 0§ù´Ï•î•C©¿Ø
UCÙ“¡È”•¼ Š.
Z q
d2 d2
Vol(F (Σ, t)) = ν(t) det(gij (0)) (3.8)
dt2 t=0 Σ dt2 t=0
Ï•
d 0
2 ν(t) = Tr(gij (t)g jl (t))ν(t)
dt
X (3.9)
0
= gij (t)g ij (t)ν(t)
i,j
E, xi •x:NC IO Ä§@o
d2 00 0 1
2 ν(t) = Tr(gij (0)g jm (0)) + Tr(gij (0)g 0jm (0)) + [Tr(gij 0
(0)g jm (0))]2
dt2 t=0 2
00 00 1 0
= Tr(gij (0)) − Tr(gij (0)g jm (0)) + [Tr(gij (0))]2
2
= Tr(g 00 (0)) − |g 0 (0)|2
(3.10)
0 2 2
Ù¥§Tr(g (0)) = 0…Tr(M ) = |M | éé¡Ý M ¤á.
Ún1. 3x:§·‚kXe ª
|g 0 (0)|2 = 4|hB(·, ·), Ft i|2 (3.11)

00 2
Tr(g (0)) = 2|hB(·, ·), Ft i| + 2|∇N
Σ Ft |
2
+ 2TrhRM (·, Ft )Ft , ·i + 2divΣ Ftt .
(3.12)
Ù¥§RM ´M þ iù-Ç.
0
Proof. Ï•gij (0) = hFxi t , Fxj i + hFxi , Fxj t i = −2hB(Fxi , Fxj ), Ft i§ éuI
O Äk
|g 0 (0)|2 = 4|hB(·, ·), Ft i|2 (3.13)
56
Pk Pk
Ï•Tr(g 00 (0)) = 2 i=1 hFxi tt , Fxi i +2 i=1 hFxi t , Fxi t i. Ù¥
k
X k
X
hFxi tt , Fxi i = h∇Ft ∇Ft Fxi , Fxi i
i=1 i=1
k
X
= h∇Ft ∇Fxi Ft , Fxi i
i=1
(3.14)
k
X k
X
= hRM (Fxi , Ft )Ft , Fxi i + h∇Fxi ∇Ft Ft , Fxi i
i=1 i=1
k
X
= hRM (Fxi , Ft )Ft , Fxi i + divΣ (Ftt )
i=1
“\
k
X k
X k
X
Tr(g 00 (0)) = 2 hFxTi t , FxTi t i + 2 hFxNi t , FxNi t i + hRM (Fxi , Ft )Ft , Fxi i + divΣ (Ftt )
i=1 i=1 i=1
= 2|hB(·, ·), Ft i|2 + 2|∇N 2

Σ Ft | + 2TrhRM (·, Ft )Ft , ·i + 2divΣ (Ftt )
(3.15)
|^þãÚn§·‚ µ
d2
ν(t) = −|hB(·, ·), Ft i|2 + |∇N 2
Σ Ft | − TrΣ hRM (·, Ft )·, Ft i + divΣ (Ftt )
dt2 t=0
(3.16)
u´·‚ 1 C©úª
Z Z Z
d2
Vol(F (Σ, t)) = − |hB(·, ·), Ft i|2 + |∇N 2
Σ Ft | − TrΣ hRM (·, Ft )·, Ft i
dt2 t=0
ZΣ Σ Σ
=− hFt , LFt i
Σ
(3.17)
R
ùp|^ 1˜C©úª Σ divΣ Ftt ≡ 0.
Ù¥§L´½Â3{mþ -½Žf(stability operator)§Xe½Âµ
LX = ∆N
Σ X + Tr[RM (·, X)·] + B̃(X) (3.18)
57
B̃´SimonsŽf§½Â•
k
X
B̃(X) = g(B(Ei , Ej ), X)B(Ei , Ej ) (3.19)
i,j=1
∆N
Σ ´{mþ .Ê.dŽf§½Â•
k
X k
X
∆N
ΣX = (∇Ei ∇Ei X)N − (∇∇Ei Ei X)N (3.20)
i=1 i=1
·‚¡f6/k²…{m§XJÙ{m•3 Û IO Ä. Σ´‡-
¡ž§À½ Û ü {•þ|N §·‚Œ±òC©•þ|X = ηN †η Ó§
l -½ŽfŒ±w‰Š^3¼êþ Žf
Lη = ∆Σ η + |A|2 η + kRicM (N, N )η (3.21)
d 2 R
dž§e dt2
t=0
Vol(F (Σ, t)) = − Σ
hFt , LFt i ≥ 0¤á§·‚B¡4 -
k n
¡Σ ⊂ M ´-½ .
4 -Ç O
ÏLþ¡ 1 C©úª§·‚Œ± ±eØ ªµ
½n1 (-½5Ø ª). b Σn−1 ⊂ M n ´-½Ý k²…{m 4 ‡-¡§

@oéu¤käk;|8 Lipschitz¼êη§
Z Z
(inf RicM + |A|2 )η 2 ≤ |∇Σ η|2 (4.1)
Σ M Σ
Proof. Ï•Σ´-½ §d1 C©úª§

Z Z
0≤− ηLη = − (η∆Σ η + |A|2 η 2 + RicM (N, N )η 2 ). (4.2)
Σ Σ
©ÜÈ©Œ±
Z Z
2 2
(RicM (N, N ) + |A| )η ≤ |∇Σ η|2 (4.3)
Σ Σ
58
(Ø¤á.
éu4 -¡§Simons‰Ñ ˜‡'u1 Ä .•Ý²• š~k^

n
Ø ª. ùp·‚•?Ø§3R ¥ ‡ .
½n2 (SimonsØ ª). b Σn−1 ⊂ Rn ´˜‡4 ‡-¡§@o
2
∆Σ |A|2 ≥ −2|A|2 + 2(1 + )|∇Σ |A||2 (4.4)
n−1
Proof. y²„ .
òþ¡ü‡Ø ª(Üå5§·‚ÒŒ± Xe-‡ Ø ªµ
½n3 (Schoen-Simon-Yau). b Σn−1 ⊂ Rn ´˜‡Œ½• -½ 4 ‡-

p
¡. éu¤k p ∈ [2, 2 + 2/(n − 1)]±9¤kk;|8 šKLipschitz¼êφ§
·‚k Z Z
|A|2p φ2p ≤ C(n, p) |∇φ|2p . (4.5)
Σ Σ
p
Proof. éuq ∈ [0, 2/(n − 1))§XJ·‚--½5Ø ª¥ η = |A|1+q f§
5¿ džRicRn = 0§·‚Œ±
Z Z
4+2q 2
|A| f ≤ |f ∇|A|1+q + |A|1+q ∇f |2
Σ Σ
Z Z
= (1 + q)2 f 2 |∇|A||2 |A|2q + |A|2+2q |∇f |2 (4.6)
Σ Σ
Z
+ 2(1 + q) f |A|1+2q h∇f, ∇|A|i.
Σ
·‚òüg¦^ù‡Ø ª(4.6).
2
Ä k§ · ‚ òSimonsØ ª|A|∆|A| + |A|4 ≥ | n−1 |∇|A||2 üàÑ¦
þ|A|2q f 2 ¿?1È©§Œ±
Z Z Z
2
|∇|A||2 |A|2q f 2 ≤ |A|4+2q f 2 + f 2 |A|1+2q ∆|A|
n−1 Σ Σ Σ
Z Z
4+2q 2
= |A| f −2 f |A|1+2q h∇f, ∇|A|i (4.7)
Σ Σ
Z
− (1 + 2q) f 2 |A|2q |∇|A||2
Σ
59
(Ü(4.6)Ú(4.7)§·‚k
Z Z Z
2
( − q2 ) 2q
|A| |∇|A|| f ≤ 2 2
|A| 2+2q
|∇f | + 2q2
f |A|1+2q h∇f, ∇|A|i
n−1 Σ Σ Σ
Z Z
≤ |A|2+2q |∇f |2 + q f 2 |A|2q |∇|A||2
Σ Σ
Z
q
+ |∇f |2 |A|2+2q .
Σ
(4.8)
R R
u´§·‚Œ± 2
( n−1 −q 2 −q) Σ 2q
|A| |∇|A|| f ≤ 2 2
(1+ q ) Σ |A| 2+2q
|∇f |2
2|^(4.6)·‚
Z Z Z
4+2q 2 2 2 2 2q
|A| f ≤ 2(1 + q) f |∇|A|| |A| + 2 |A|2+2q |∇f |2
Σ Σ Σ
Z (4.9)
2(1 + q)2 (1 + q/)
≤( 2 2 − q
+ 2) |A|2+2q |∇f |2 .
n−1 − q Σ
p
XJ§·‚-p = 2 + q±9f = φp §@o2 ≤ p < 2 + 2/(n − 1) ±9Œ
±dHölderØ ª
Z Z
|A|2p φ2p ≤ c |A|2p−2 φ2p−2 |∇φ|2
Σ
ZΣ Z (4.10)
p−1 1
≤ c( |A|2p φ2p ) p ( |∇φ|2p ) p .
Σ Σ
½n4 (Scheon-Simon-Yau). XJΣn−1 ⊂ Rn ´˜‡ Œ½• -½4

‡-¡§@oéu?¿ n ≤ 6§•3V ≤ ∞¦
Vol(BR ∩ Σ)
sup ≤ V, (4.11)
R>0 Rn−1
@oΣ´²" .
Proof. éur > 0§-φ´˜‡ ä¼ê÷vφ|Br ≡ 1, φ|Brc ≡ 0§…φ÷X»•

p p
‚5eü. d½n3•§ 2p = 4 + 7/5 < 4 + 8/(n − 1)k
Z √ √
|A|4+ 7/5
≤ C(n, p)r−4− 7/5
Vol(B2r ∩ Σ)
Br ∩Σ (4.12)
√
n−1 n−5− 7/5
≤ C(n, p)2 Vr
60
p
5¿ n−5− 7/5 < 0§ -¡´ §Ïd·‚•‡-r → ∞§@
o·‚Òk|A| = 0§l (Ø¤á.
5 n ≤ 6 Bernstein½n
3m©y²Bernstein½nƒc§·‚Äk O˜e4 -¡ —Ý. l†
*þw§?¿˜‡÷v4 -¡•§ -¡§§3˜‡¥S ¡Èw,ØAT
‡L¥¡¡È ˜Œ§ù´Ï•·‚oŒ±ÏLò§ ëÏ¬†¥¡þkƒÓ
>. ëÏ¬?1O† yù˜:. ˜„·‚k±e(Øµ
Ún2. eu : Ω ⊂ Rn−1 → R÷v4 -¡•§§Bn−1

r ⊂ Ω§@o
|Bnr |
Vol(Bnr ∩ Graphu ) ≤ (5.1)
2
Proof. y²„ .
|^ù‡Ún±9þ¡ -Ç O§·‚Œ± •ª ½nµ
½n5 (Bernstein½n). XJu : Rn−1 → R´4 -¡•§ ˜‡ N)§@

o n ≤ 6ž§u´˜‡‚5¼ê.
Vol(BR ∩Σ)
Proof. w,§d1.22·‚• §supR>0 Rn−1 ≤ Area(Sn−1 )/2. Ïd§d
½n4§á=•(Ø¤á.
A N¹1 Ún2 y²
Proof. [4] Äk·‚½Â˜‡ O(calibration)
1
ω=p (dx1 ∧ dx2 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn−1 − ux1 dx2 ∧ dx3 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn−1 ∧ dxn
1 + |∇u|2
− · · · − uxn−1 dxn ∧ dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn−2 )
(A.1)
d4 -¡•§•dω = 0.
n
·‚Äky²éu?¿÷v∂M ⊂ ∂BR ±9kk•õ‡ëÏ¬ i\-
n
¡M ⊂ BR n
§BR = K 0 ∪ K 00 …∂K 0 \∂BR
n
= ∂K 00 \∂BR
n
= M.
éM ëÏ¬êþ?18B§ T1 , T2 , . . . , Ts"
61
es = 1§(Øw,¤á"
n n
b (Øés = n¤á§éus = n+1§Ø”b T1 ´BR ¥˜‡±T1 ÚBR
˜Ü©•>. n‘6/K1" db §(ØéT2 ∪ · · · ∪ Tn+1 ¤á§ kƒA
K̃ 0 , K̃ 00"Ø” K1 ⊂ K̃ 0"@oN´ y§K 0 = K̃ 0 \K1 ±9K 00 = K̃ 00 ∪ K1 §
÷v^‡"
Ïd§8B(Ø¤á"
Ø”˜„5§Œb |K 0 ∩∂BR
n
| ≤ 12 |∂BR
n
|§PTÜ©•S(R)"džK 0 ±S(R)∪
Σ•>."dStokesúª§
Z
n
|Σ ∩ BR |=| ω|
n
Σ∩BR
Z Z
≤| ω| + | dω|
S(R) K0 (A.2)
= |S(R)|
1 n
≤ |∂BR |
2
ùp|^ ∀|xi| ≤ 1, hω, ξi ≤ 1§±9 Ò¤á …= ξ = ±ωž"

Ïd§(Ø¤á"
B N¹2 SimonsØ ª y²
Proof of Simons’ Inequality. -Ei (i = 1, . . . , n)•½Â3x ∈ Σ • ÛÜIO
Ie§Ù¥E n R†uΣ. ½ÂXeé¡Üþµ
a(X, Y ) = hB(X, Y ), En i = −h∇X En , Y i (B.1)
XJ·‚Paij = a(Ei , Ej )§@o
n−1
X
a= aij Θi ⊗ Θj (B.2)
i,j=1
3í SimonsØ ªƒc§·‚k?1•Äa ˜ é¡5

Äk§N´ y§
aij = aji (B.3)
62
Ï•Rn •~-Ç˜m§ÏddCodazzi•§•§
aij,k = akj,i (B.4)
Pn−1 Pn−1
, §dRiccið ª§·‚• aij,kl = aij,lk + m=1 Rlkim amj + m=1 Rlkjm ami .
2dGauss•§Rijkl = aik ajl − ajk ail Œ•
n−1
X n−1
X
aij,kl = aik,kj + Rkjim amk + Rkjkm ami
m=1 m=1
n−1
X n−1
X
= aik,kj + (aki ajm − aji akm )amk + (akk ajm − ajk akm )ami
m=1 m=1
(B.5)
|^þãé¡5§·‚Œ± ±e ª
n−1
X n−1
X
1
∆Σ |A|2 = aij ∆Σ aij + |∇Σ aij |2
2 i,j=1 i,j=1
n−1
X n−1
X
= aij aij,kk + a2ij,k
i,j,k=1 i,j,k=1
n−1
X n−1
X
= aij aik,jk + a2ij,k
i,j,k=1 i,j,k=1
n−1 n−1
(B.6)
X X
= aij akk,ij + aij (aki ajm − aji akm )amk
i,j,k=1 i,j,k,m=1
n−1
X n−1
X
+ aij (akk ajm − ajk akm )ami + a2ij,k
i,j,k,m=1 i,j,k=1
n−1
X n−1
X
=− a2ij a2km + a2ij,k
i,j,k,m=1 i,j,k=1
P
Ù¥§·‚|^ -¡4 5Ÿ k akk = 0"
Pn−1
Ïd§·‚ Simons•§∆Σ |A|2 = −2|A|4 + 2 i,j,k=1 a2ij,k"
Ï•a´é¡Üþ§3x:§·‚Ø” Ei ¦ aij = λi δij"@o§d∇|A|2 =
63
2|A|∇|A|§·‚•
4|A|2 |∇|A||2 = |∇|A|2 |2

n−1
X n−1
X
= [( a2ij )k ]2
k=1 i,j=1
n−1
X n−1
X (B.7)
=4 ( aii,k λi )2
k=1 i=1
n−1
X
≤ 4|A|2 a2ii,k
i,k=1
Ïd§·‚k
n−1
X X n−1
X
|∇|A||2 ≤ a2ii,k = a2ii,k + a2ii,i
i,k=1 i6=k i=1
 2
X n−1
X X
= a2ii,k +  ajj,i 
i6=k i=1 i6=j
X n−1
XX
≤ a2ii,k + (n − 2) a2jj,i
i6=k i=1 i6=j
(B.8)
X
= (n − 1) a2ii,k
i6=k
X
= (n − 1) a2ik,i
i6=k
n−1 X 2 X
= ( aik,i + a2ki,i )
2
i6=k i6=k
(Üþ¡ü‡Ø ª§·‚Œ±á=
n−1
X X X
2
(1 + )|∇|A||2 ≤ a2ii,k + a2ik,i + a2ki,i
n−1
i,k=1 i6=k i6=k
(B.9)
n−1
X
≤ a2ij,k .
i,j,k=1
“\Simons•§= (Ø"
64
References
[1] FJ Almgren. Some interior regularity theorems for minimal surfaces and an
extension of bernstein’s theorem. Annals of Mathematics, pages 277–292,
1966.
[2] Serge Bernstein. Über ein geometrisches theorem und seine anwendung auf
die partiellen differentialgleichungen vom elliptischen typus. Mathematische
Zeitschrift, 26(1):551–558, 1927.
[3] Enrico Bombieri, Ennio De Giorgi, and Enrico Giusti. Minimal cones and
the bernstein problem. Inventiones mathematicae, 7(3):243–268, 1969.
[4] Jingyi Chen and Tobias Lamm. A bernstein type theorem for entire willmore
graphs. Journal of Geometric Analysis, pages 1–14, 2013.
[5] Tobias H Colding and William P Minicozzi. A course in minimal surfaces,

volume 121. American Mathematical Soc., 2011.
[6] Ennio De Giorgi. Una estensione del teorema di bernstein. Annali della
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa-Classe di Scienze, 19(1):79–85, 1965.
[7] Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, and Shing-Tung Yau. Curvature estimates for
minimal hypersurfaces. Acta Mathematica, 134(1):275–288, 1975.
[8] James Simons. Minimal varieties in riemannian manifolds. Annals of Math-

ematics, pages 62–105, 1968.
65
Riemann6/ åi\
∗
¢
•Ä˜‡ n ‘1w;Rieman6/ (M, g) . ·‚‡y²e ½n:
Theorem 0.1. k=† n k' êN , ¦ •3 (M, g) RN 1w åi

\.
•°( `, RN þ IOÝþ²þã1wi\.£ Ð´RiemannÝ

þg.
ÏL˜ {ü?Ø, N´rþã¯K8(•˜‡ ‡©•§|. ¢Sþ, Š
âWhitenyi\½n, 1w6/ M Œ±1wi\ •N Q = (0, 1)2n+1 ¥, u´
Œ±|^+G •Úü ©)ò g òÿ•˜‡ Q þ RiemannÝþ g̃ , l ŒÀ
ƒ• n × n • Š¼ê; Œ §=3 Q ,;f8þØð uü . ùp
‚¡ T 2n+1
þ ˜‡Riemann Ýþ, M ⊂T 2n+1
Š•f6/ p ÝþÒ
´ g . u´·‚Œ±ò¯K8( M ´‚¡ T n
œ/; ùž, M þÒk ˜‡
g, NIe, …ùIeØ%˜‡$‘48 kLˆª {∂i }ni=1 . ù , ·‚
Œ±òþ¡ åi\¯K8(•:
Ïé u : T → RN , ¦ƒ´1wi\, …÷v ‡©•§|
n
(∂i u, ∂j u) = gij , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n. (1)
ùp (·, ·) ´ RN SÈ. du´3‚¡þ, ¤±(1)ªØ%˜‡$‘48ƒ k

N¿Â.
5P Riemann6/ åi\¯K´˜‡Í¶ (J¯K. {¤þ, John Nash

[4] Äk‰Ñ ’½ )‰, , ¦¦^ •{4Ù„¡. 5, ²LMoser <
n, ¦ ‰{ Ä–¤ Nash-Moser Û¼ê½n. õc , Günther [2] %
uy ˜‡Ñ<¿ {'y². ùp‡Qã =´Günther g´, Óž•ë
∗ ê31
66
• AlinhacÚGérard Ö[1] ; Günther ©¥¿vkò6/i\?‚¡, l
3OŽ¥Òk Ó-Çƒ' ‘. [1] KÏLi\‚¡¿9±‚¡ IOÝ
þ‰ ‡ {z, GÑ “dK´8I˜m ‘êk¤Jp; ØL, XJØ'
%•Z‘êU ü Ÿo§Ý, @où«{z‰{Œ±¦ OŽC ‡˜ .
ùp¤^ %C½n3.1„´áuNash . ¦ @ ˜ŸØ©[3] ‰Ñ Xe
C 1 %C½n, ù‡½n3y² 5 1w åi\½n[4]ž ^5 EÝþ
%C:
?Û n ‘;1wRiemann6/ÑŒ± C 1 åi\ R2n ¥.
ù‡½n† 5 1w åi\½n¿ØÀâ. ¢Sþ, 1w åi\p
1 Ä .I‡÷vGauss•§, Ricci•§ÚCodazzi•§, ùn‡•§E¤
ƒ r æN, =k C 1 K5 åi\%ØU½Â1 Ä ., l •Ò
1
vk ù æN. ,, ù•L« C a åi\ ÛÜLyŒ±š~<s.
e©¥, é M = Tn þ •þŠ¼ê v : M → RN , òÙéu‚¡IO‹
I {x1 , ..., xn } ‡© • Dv . ò v p ÝþP• Φ(v) , i.e.,
Φ(v) = (Dv, Dv). (2)
(§‰Ñ˜‡ n × n • ). î‚/5`, AT
N
X
Φ(v) = dv i ⊗ dv i , (3)
i=1
3e©¥, • PÒ{', ·‚òØ«©RiemannÝþ†• Š¼ê.

·‚¡˜‡i\ u : Tn → RN ´gd , e§Äk´1wi\, …•þ|
{∂i u, ∂j ∂k u}1≤i≤n,1≤j≤k≤n
3 Tn z˜:Ñk4Œ• n + n2 . ù N (¢•3([1], [4]): F : Tn →

R2n ´1wi\, ¿·
L : R2n → R2n × Rn(2n+1) , L(x) = (xi , xj xk ),
Ù¥ i = 1, ..., 2n , j, k = 1, ..., 2n … j ≤ k . K L ◦ F Ò´˜‡gdi\.
67
1 8(•˜‡ØÄ:.¯K
½˜‡š ê ρ > 3 . ± C ρ (Tn ; RN ) L« ρ gHölderëYN ˜m(D
ƒ T ±IOÝþ). •ìNash[3] Ž{, Œ±ÏL%C`²: Œ ¤(2)/ª
n
Ý
þ3RiemannÝþ ˜mp´È— .
Theorem 1.1. •‡8I˜m ‘ê N ≥ 6n2 + 19n + 7 , @oŒ ¤(2)/ª

Ýþ, 3 T þ1wRiemannÝþ
n
˜m¥´ C − È— ρ
; ?˜Ú, „Œ‡¦
ƒA i\´gdi\.
·‚ò½n1.1 y²˜ • .
ù , ¯K8(•¦)˜‡‡6¯K:
Φ(u0 + u) = Φ(u0 ) + h, (4)
Ù¥gdi\ u0 = (ũ0 , y) X·K3.1¤ E, § p Ýþl g ”éC”, hv

” ”; ùÑ´3 C ρ ¿Âe ó . ?˜Ú zƒ, Œ
u0 + u = (ũ0 , y + u),
= u •6Ä ¡ %CÜ©; ù´• y u0 + u •Î´1wi\.

y35ïÄ(4)ª. ²w Ñ:
(∂i u, ∂j u) + (∂i u, ∂j u0 ) + (∂i u0 , ∂j u) = hij ; 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n. (5)
·‚5‰˜ k OŽ; kb½ u : Tn → RN ´(4)ª C ρ (ρ > 3) a).

∆ ´ Tn þ IOLaplaceŽf, =
n
X
∆= ∂i ∂i .
i=1
e k OŽ´† .
68
Proposition 1.1. k ª
∂j (∂i u0 , u) − ∂j [(1 − ∆)−1 (∆u, ∂i u)]

+ ∂i (∂j u0 , u) − ∂i [(1 − ∆)−1 (∆u, ∂j u)] − 2(∂i ∂j u0 , u)
= hij − (1 − ∆)−1 Qij (Du, D2 u); 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n.
ùp Qij ´~Xê gàgõ‘ª:
X
Qij (Du, D2 u) = (∂i u, ∂j u) + 2(∆u, ∂i ∂j u) − 2 (∂i ∂k u, ∂j ∂k u).
k
Proof. ^ð Žf 1 = (1 − ∆)−1 (1 − ∆) Š^(5)ªü>¿ n= .
dd·Ká•wÑ, –¦ u : Tn → RN ÷v(4)ª, •‡¦ƒ÷v
(u, ∂i u0 ) = (1 − ∆)−1 (∆u, ∂i u),

1 (6)
(u, ∂j ∂k u0 ) = −(1 − ∆)−1 Qjk (Du, D2 u) + hjk ; 1 ≤ i, j, k ≤ n
2
Ò . Á9•þ|
{∂i u0 , ∂j ∂k u0 }1≤i≤n,1≤j≤k≤n
3z˜: p ∈ Tn Ñk4Œ•, Œ„3z˜: p ∈ Tn ?, ‚5•§
(x, ∂i u0 ) = Ri ,
(x, ∂j ∂k u0 ) = Tjk ; 1 ≤ i, j, k ≤ n
k•˜˜‡áu span{∂i u0 , ∂j ∂k u0 } )
 
n
[Ri ]i=1
x = M (u0 (p)) ·  n
,
[Tjk ]j,k=1
… ´ „ ù ) 1 w / • 6 u p ∈ Tn † [Ri ]ni=1 , [Tjk ]nj,k=1 . l (6)ª duX

e”ØÄ:”/G •§:
 
0n
u = M (u0 )G(u) + M (u0 ) ·  n
 , u ∈ C ρ (Tn ; RN ); (7)
[hjk ]j,k=1
69
ùp M (u0 ) ´‚5 (§ Žf‰ê••6u u0 ),
 
n
(1 − ∆)−1 [(∆u, ∂i u)]i=1
G(u) =  n .
− 21 (1 − ∆)−1 Qjk (Du, D2 u) j,k=1
2 ¦)ØÄ:.•§
·‚•Iy²•§(7)•3).
Theorem 2.1. •‡8I˜m ‘ê N ≥ 4n2 + 3n , @oéuäk¿© Cρ ‰

ê h ∈ C ∞ , •§(7)•3) u ∈ C ρ (Tn ; RN ) .
Proof. ± | · |ρ “L˜m C ρ (Tn ; RN ) ‰ê: ρ = l + α , Ù¥ l ´ ρ êÜ

l
©, KP [v]ρ = |D v|α ,
l
X
|v|ρ = [v]ρ + |Di v|0 .
i=0
ùp‡¦ê °[ Ø ª:
|vw|ρ0 +1 ≤ |v|0 |w|ρ0 +1 + |v|ρ0 +1 |w|0 + Cρ0 |v|ρ0 |w|ρ0 , ∀v, w ∈ C ∞ . (8)
y²´† . d(8)N´
|M (u0 )v|ρ ≤ K1 |v|ρ + C(u0 , ρ)|v|ρ−1 ,
Ù¥~ê K1 =Ó |u0 |0 k'. dd2Šâý ‡©Žf Schauder O, ´„
|M (u0 )G(u1 ) − M (u0 )G(u2 )|ρ ≤ C (|u1 |ρ + |u2 |ρ ) · |u1 − u2 |ρ ,
Ù¥~ê C = C(n, |u0 |ρ ) . ù , •‡ |h|ρ ≤ 1/(8C) , N

 
0n
u → M (u0 )G(u) + M (u0 ) ·  n

[hjk ]j,k=1
Ò´Banach˜m C ρ (Tn ; RN ) ¥ 4¥ B̄ρ (0, 1/(4C)) g Ø N ,l

ρ
k•˜˜‡ØÄ:. ùL«•§(7)3 B̄ρ (0, 1/(4C)) ⊂ C ¥k•˜˜‡).
ÏL˜ ½n2.1•°[ OŽ, =Œy²½n2.1‰Ñ )´1w :
70
Theorem 2.2. •§(7)d½n2.1‰Ñ )´1w .
Proof. ÷^½n2.1 ¤kPÒ. ´„½n2.1‰Ñ ) u ∈ C ρ (Tn ; RN ) éã

S“S 4•: l  
0n
u1 = M (u0 ) ·  n

[hjl ]j,l=1
m©, -
 
0n
uk+1 = M (u0 )G(uk ) + M (u0 ) ·  n
 , k ≥ 1.
[hjl ]j,l=1
w,z‡ uk Ñ´1w ,
|uk − u|ρ → 0.
•I`²: éu?Û˜‡ ρ0 ≥ ρ , {|uk |ρ0 } Ñ´k.ê . 5¿ w, Ø ª
|v|ρ0 ≤ |v|ρ00 , ∀v ∈ C ∞ , ρ00 ≥ ρ0 ,
ùL«Œ±¦^8B{.
8Bb ´: {|uk |ρ0 } ´k.ê . ‡y² {|uk |ρ0 +1 } •´k. . dd=
íÑ u ∈ C (T ; R ) .
ρ n N
5‰8Bín. é¤k v ∈ C ∞ , dSchauder O,
|(1 − ∆)−1 v|ρ0 +1 ≤ K2 |v|ρ0 −1 + Cρ0 |v|ρ0 −1 ,
ùp K2 † ρ0 Ã'(Schauder C 2+α O). u´
|M (u0 )G(v)|ρ0 +1 ≤ K1 K2 |v|0 |v|ρ0 +1 + Cρ0 |v|2ρ0 .
ddíÑ
|uk+1 |ρ0 +1 ≤ K1 K2 |uk |0 |uk |ρ0 +1 + Cρ0 |uk |2ρ0 + Cρ0 |h|ρ0 +1 . (9)
q5¿ ,Ó ínŒ‰Ñ
|uk+1 |2 ≤ A(|uk |22 + |h|2 ),
71
Ù¥ A = A(|u0 |0 ) . e‡¦
1
|h|2 ≤ ,
4A4
Kd4í=
|uk |2 ≤ A|h|2 .
£“?(9)
|uk+1 |ρ0 +1 ≤ K1 K2 A|h|2 |uk |ρ0 +1 + Cρ0 |uk |2ρ0 + Cρ0 |h|ρ0 +1 .
2?˜Ú‡¦
1
|h|2 ≤ ,
2K1 K2 A
K
|uk+1 |ρ0 +1 ≤ Cρ0 |uk |2ρ0 + Cρ0 |h|ρ0 +1 .
ù`² {|uk |ρ0 +1 } •´k. . ½n2.2y..
3 ©Ö¿: 'uÝþ %C
ù˜!y² ©¥‡^ %C½n, =½n1.1. eã½nƒ u½n1.1:
1 2
Theorem 3.1. M ´ n ‘1w;6/. •‡8I˜m ‘ê N ≥ 2 (3n +
13n) + 1 , @o M þd1wi\p Ýþ, 3 M þ1wRiemannÝþ ˜m
ρ
¥´ C − È— ; ?˜Ú, „Œ‡¦ƒA i\´gdi\.
•dI‡ü‡9Ï·K:
Proposition 3.1. (M, g) ´ n ‘ 1 w ; 6 /. K • 3 1 w ¼ ê f1 , ..., fr ,

a1 , ..., ar , ¦
r
X
g= a2k dfk ⊗ dfk ,
k=1
Ù¥ d “L ‡©. ùp r †Ýþk'. z‡ ak |8Ñ3,‡‹I•p.
Proof. F : M → RN ´ 1 w i \. 3 z ˜ : p ∈ M ?, Ñ Œ À • þ
| e1 (p), ..., en (p) , ¦
X
gkl (p) = [d(F, ei + ej )] ⊗ [d(F, ei + ej )] (p).
1≤i≤j≤n
72
ùŒ±ÏLé zwÑ5. ŠâëY5, Œ„3 p ,‡ • U (p) SŒ±é
1w¼ê| {bp;ij }ni,j=1 , ¦ 3 U (p) þk
X
g= b2p;ij [d(F, ei + ej )] ⊗ [d(F, ei + ej )] .
1≤i≤j≤n
ÏL M ;5Úü ©), =Œ (Ø.
Proposition 3.2. (M, g) ´ n ‘1w;6/. F : M → RN ´1wi\,

N − n ≥ 2, ¦ g − Φ(F ) •Î´RiemannÝþ( Φ d(3)‰Ñ), =Ýþ Φ(F ) ƒ
éu g •á. Kéu?Û ε > 0 , •3˜‡ C 1 a åi\ Fe : M → RN , ¦
|F − Fe|0 < ε .
Proof. Šâ·K3.1, Œ
r
X
g = Φ(F ) + a2i [d(F, ei )] ⊗ [d(F, ei )] ,
i=1
ùp e1 , ..., er ´ RN ¥ ü •þ, a1 , ..., ar ´1w¼ê. λ > 0; À {

•þ|( M À•f6/) e1 , e2 , ¦§‚3 a1 |8þ 8˜ 3Ù|8 ,
• •ð", ¿·
a1 a1
Fλ = F + √ sin (λf1 ) e1 + √ cos (λf1 ) e2 .
2λ 2λ
K
1 1
Φ(Fλ ) = Φ(F ) + a21 df1 ⊗ df1 + O .
2 λ
λ ¿©Œž, ´• Fλ Ó F ˜ ´ü , …Ýþ Φ(Fλ ) 3 C 0 ¿ÂeéÐ/%

C
1
Φ(F ) + a21 df1 ⊗ df1 ;
2
dd•Œ„(ŠâÝ ÛÉŠ©), Œ ½ÛÜ‹I?1{ü OŽ) Fλ •Î
´1wi\.
y3± Fλ “O F , ± a2 “O a1 , f2 “O f1 , -Eþ˜Ú½, éuÝþ
1 1
Φ(F ) + a21 df1 ⊗ df1 + a22 df2 ⊗ df2
2 2
73
C 0 %C. XdY1, = éuÝþ
r
1X 2
Φ(F ) + ak dfk ⊗ dfk
2
k=1
%C, §† g O3 C 0 ¿Âe´
r
1X 2 1
ak dfk ⊗ dfk + O .
2 λ
k=1
Y1d%CL§, = ˜ 1wi\N Fl , ¦ Φ(Fl ) U C 0 Âñ

g. Ó
ÏL ÛÜ‹IOŽÛÉŠ©), N´wÑ Fl ŒU C Âñ 1
,‡1wi\ Fe .
Šâ E, Œ±¦ §Uì C 0 ?¿ Cm© F.
ùŃash3[3] ¥Ì‡y² (Ø.

y35y²½n3.1. g ´?Û˜‡RiemannÝþ. E˜gdi\ F0 :
n(n+3)
M →R 2 ¦ Φ(F0 ) ƒéu g •á(ŒÏL¦±· ~êÏf¢y). Ón
n(n+3)
Œ E1wi\ F1 : M → R 2 ×R 2n+1
¦ Φ(F1 ) ƒéu g − Φ(F0 ) •á.
n(n+3)
Šâ3.2, k C 1 ai\ F2 : M → R 2 × R2n+1 ¦
Φ(F2 ) = g − Φ(F0 ),
… |F2 − F0 × F1 |C 0 é . u´qŒ±¦^Ï~ 1wzE|é U C1 %

n(n+3)
C F2 1wi\ F3 : M → R 2 × R2n+1 . ÏdÝþ g − Φ(F3 ) U C 1 C
n(n+3)
u Φ(F0 ) . ù F3 •Î´gd . dd, ´„•31w¼ê {ck }k=1 2
¦
n(n+3)
X 2
g − Φ(F3 ) = c2k dF0k ⊗ dF0k .

k=1
y3•Ä1wN yλ : Tn → Rn(n+3) , ½ÂXe:
ck n(n + 3)
yλk = sin (λfk ) , k = 1, ..., ;
λ 2
ck n(n + 3)
yλk = cos (λfk ) , k= + 1, ..., n(n + 3).
λ 2
74
´„N yλ p RiemannÝþ´
n(n+3)
1 X
Φ(yλ ) = g − Φ(F3 ) + dck ⊗ dck .
λ2
k=1
w,éu ½ ρ > 0 , •‡ λ v Œ, N yλ Ò‰Ñ g − Φ(F3 ) C ρ − %C.

ù , gdi\
n(n+3)
F3 × yλ : M → R 2 × R2n+1 × Rn(n+3)
p ÝþÒ‰Ñ g C ρ − %C. ½n3.1uý..
NP w,ùp ‘ê N = 6n2 +19n+7 Ø´•Z . e^rWhitenyi

\½n, @o M Œ1wi\ R 2n
p ; , , i\‚¡•´• {zOŽ
®. ¤±þã‘ê ,Œ±ŒŒü$. , Ï• E•6ugdi\, ¤±
‘ê N – „´ n gª. åi\¯K¥•Z N ´õ ? ù„
´˜‡™)û¯K. 8c•ké Ü©(J, ~X'uK-Ç-¡ØUi
\R 5
Hilbert½n. 3ù‡••þ™mu „ õu®mu .
References
[1] Alinhac S., Gérard P., Opérateurs Pseudo-Différentiels et Théorème de
Nash-Moser, InterEditions, Paris, 1991.
[2] Günther, M., On the Perturbation Problem Associated to Isometric Embed-

dings of Riemannian Manifolds, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. Vol. 7 (1989):
69-77.
[3] Nash J., C 1 isometric imbeddings, Annals of mathematics (1954): 383-396.
[4] Nash J., The Imbedding Problem for Riemannian Manifolds, Ann. of Math.
Vol. 63, 20-63 (1956).
75
KV. ‰Æ
ÓR∗
1 {0
V.´“êAÛ¥ Ä Vgƒ˜,§Q´˜«éAÛé– £ã•ª,q
´ †‚ù˜Vg í2.éu˜‡‰½ V.,Œ±3Ùþ½Âvà Ú[
và Vg,ù Ø ´‚þ í2 …äk´L AÛ¹Â.Ò
”ò ÀŠ‚ L«˜ ,Ï L é ?Ø•Œ±•xV. 5 Ÿ.¢ S
þ,GrothendieckJÑ ˜«“óÆ”,ïÆò˜‡V.n)¤Ùþ [và ¤
‰Æ½và ¤ ‰Æ.ù«“GrothendieckóÆ” 5ÅìuÐ¤ ˜‡
¡•š †“êAÛ ïÄ••,=ò ‰Æ , 5ŸÄ–Ñ5,, òä
kù A½5Ÿ ‰ÆÀ•éV.Vg í2,¿3Ùþïá“êAÛ.
© Ì‡8 ´Ð«3“êAÛ¥XÛÏL‰ÆŠó Qã,±˜ Ä
k•5^‡(Xnoether5!k•)¤5!k•Ly5![;5 )•Ä:, ï
”Serreéóù ƒé • (Ø. ©òl ‰ÆQGr AÚqgr A Ä Vg
Ñu,ïáSerrek•5½n¿y²Serreéó.¤±ƒéuéˆ‡(Ø AÛ¿Â
?Ø ©•ý-uéÜ6´‚ În. ©¤I Ä:•£é ,•I )
†“êÚÓN“ê¥•Ä ˜ Vg=Œ(¯¢þ, Ö ©$–¿ØI‡
)V.Ú[và Vg).
Äk`²˜ {ü V g Ú P Ò:-A´ ˜ ‡ © g † ‚,M ´ © gA-
,^Mi L«M i g©þ,=M = ⊕i Mi .^M [d]L«M dg²£,=M [d]i =
Mi+d .^sL « ² £ Ž fs : M 7→ M [1],l M [d] = sd (M ).-F ´ © g ‚ ‰
L
ÆGr A ,˜‰Æ ¼f,eF ´ C ,K½ÂF = F (si (−));eF ´‡C
L
,K½ÂF = F (s−i (−)).~X
Exti (M, N ) = ⊕i Exti (M, N [i]) = ⊕i Exti (M [−i], N )

∗ ê32
76
.
2 ©g †noether‚
·‚l‰Ñ ‰Æ¥˜|AÏ )¤fm©:
Ún2.1. -A´©g †noether‚,M ´k•)¤ ©gA- ,K•3M Ý

©)
p2
M p1
M
··· → A[−l2i ] → A[−l1i ] → M → 0.
i=1 i=1
Ln
Proof. M )¤ •x1 , · · · , xn ,Ùgê©O•l1 , · · · , ln ,Kg,k i=1 A[−li ]
P
M ÷ (a1 , · · · , an ) 7→ ai xi (5¿ùpéA ²£´du©g m
‡¦ Ó gê•0).qduAńoether‚,¤±þãN Ø´k•)¤
.8B Œ± ¤ E.
eã·K¢SþÒ´Í¶ χ^‡:
·K2.2. -A´©g †noether‚,M, N ´k•)¤ ©gA- ,KExti (N, M )´

k•)¤A- .
Proof. dÚn2.1,kN ©)
p2
M p1
M
··· → A[−l2i ] → A[−l1i ] → N → 0,
i=1 i=1
Hom(−, M )3ÙþŠ^ (J•
p2
M p1
M
··· → M [l2i ] → M [l1i ] → Hom(M, N ) → 0,
i=1 i=1
TE/ z˜‘Ñ´k•)¤ ,ÏdExti (N, M )´k•)¤ .
Ún2.3. -A´©g †noether‚,M, N ´©gA- .e
1. N k†.l;
2. Extj (A0 , M ) j ≤ ižk•Œm.ρ,
K∀j ≤ i,Extj (N, M ) m.–õ•ρ − l.
77
52.4. eM ´ k • ) ¤ ,K l · K2.2,∀i, Exti (A0 , M )´ k • ) ¤A- .
w,A+ 3Exti (A0 , M )þ Š^´0, Exti (A0 , M )¢Sþ´k•)¤A0 .l
i
∀i, Ext (A0 , M )Ñ´k. .=eM k•)¤,K∀j,Ún¥ ρo•3.
L Q
Proof. duExtj (N, M ) = Extj ( d≥l Nd , M ) ∼
= d≥l Extj (Nd , M ), •Iy
²N = N0 , l = 0 œ¹.e¡éi^8B{.
duN = N0 ,Š•A0 - kN á Ü 0 → K → F → N → 0,Ù¥F ´
Q
gdA0 .dž∀j ≤ i,ExtjA (F, M ) = ExtjA (A0 , M ) m.–õ•ρ.u´é?
¿d ≥ ρ k• Ü
0 → hom(N, M [d]) → 0 → hom(K, M [d]) → Ext1 (N, M [d]) → 0 → · · ·

→ 0 → Exti−1 (K, M [d]) → Exti (N, M [d]) → 0,
dd•i = 0ž·K¤á…e·Kéi − 1¤áKéi¤á.
·K2.5. -A´©g †noether‚,M, N ´©gA- …M ´k•)¤ ,K
1. eN k†.,K∀d, ∀j, ∃n0 ¦ ∀n ≥ n0 ,
Extj (N/N≥n0 , M )≥d ∼

= Extj (N/N≥n , M )≥d .
AO ,Extj (N/N≥n , M )'unk˜— m..
2. ∀d, ∀j, ∃n0 ¦ ∀n ≥ n0 ,
Extj (N≥n0 , M )≥d ∼

= Extj (N≥n , M )≥d .
3. eN k†.,K∀j, ∃l¦ ∀n,
Extj (N, M )≥l ∼

= Extj (N≥n , M )≥l .
Proof. 1. •Äá Ü
0 → Nn → N/N≥n+1 → N/N≥n → 0
lþãÚn2.3,é¿©Œ n,∀j ≤ i, Exti (Nn , M ) m.þò ud. d

žExtj (N/N≥n , M )d ∼
= Extj (N/N≥n+1 , M )d .
78
2. aþ,•Äá Ü 0 → N≥n+1 → N≥n → Nn → 0.
3. •Äá Ü 0 → N≥n → N → N/N≥n → 0.d1˜±,Exti (N/N≥n , M )'

unk˜— m., Ù•li ,¿-l = max{lj−1 , lj }K
Extj (N, M )≥l ∼

= Extj (N≥n , M )≥l
f = lim Hom(A≥n , M ).
½Â2.6. -A´©g †noether‚,M ´©gA- ,½ÂM
ù‡½Â ¹Âò3e˜!¥)º.
·K2.7. -A´©g †noether‚,M ´k•)¤©gA- ,K
1. ∀d, ∀n 0, Hom(A≥n , M )≥d ∼

=Mf≥d .
2. ∃l, M≥l ∼
=Mf≥l .
fd ´k•)¤A- .
3. ∀d, M
Proof. 1. d·K2.5 1 ±,(Øw,.
2. d·K2.5 1n±,(Øw,.
3. dá Ü 0 → A≥n → A → A/A≥n → 0 Ü
M → Hom(A≥n , M ) → Ext1 (A/A≥n , M ) → 0,
4•
f → lim Ext1 (A/A≥n , M ) → 0,
M →M
u´•Iy∀d, lim Ext1 (A/A≥n , M )d ´k•)¤ . l·K2.5 1˜±

Ú·K2.2,é¿©Œ n,klim Ext (A/A≥n , M )d ∼
1
= Ext1 (A/A≥n , M )d ´
k•)¤ .
eã·K`² ©g †noether‚A3ÓN¿Âe r5:
79
íØ2.8. -A´©g †noether‚,M, N ´k•)¤©gA- ,Ké?¿÷ f :
fn → N
M → N ,•3n0 ¦ ∀n ≥ n0 ,M en ´÷ .
Proof. l·K2.71 ±,w,.
3 KV.
½ Â3.1. -A´ © g † ‚,M ´ © gA- ,¡x ∈ M ´ L ,e∃s, xA≥s =
0.¡M ´L ,e∀x ∈ M Ñ´L .
½Â3.2. -A´©g †‚,½Â
1. Gr A´©gA- ¤ ‰Æ;
2. Tors A´Gr A¥ L ƒ ¤ ÷f‰Æ;
3. QGr A´û‰ÆGr A/ Tors A1 ,¿-π ´Gr A QGr A ;K¼f;
4. gr A, tors A, qgr A©O•ƒA‰Æ¥k•)¤ ¤ ÷f‰Æ.
½Â3.3. -A´©g †noether‚,¡
1. n |(QGr A, A, s)•A½Â ˜„ KV.,PŠProj A;
2. n |(qgr A, A, s)•A½Â noether KV.,PŠproj A,
Ù¥A´ K AA 3πe ”.s : M → M[1]´QGr A½qgr Aþ gÓ ¼f.
e¡Ø\y² •Ñü‡¯¢,§‚£ã û‰ÆQGr AÚqgr A:
¯¢3.4. 1. eA´©g †noether‚,M, N ´k•)¤ ,Khom(π(N ), π(M )) =

lim hom(N≥n , M ).
2. •3π mŠ‘¼fΓ : QGr A → Gr A.=khom(N, Γ(M)) ∼

= hom(π(N ), M).A
O ,ddπ´ Ú¼f.
¢Sþ,džkΓ(M) = Hom(A, Γ(M)) = Hom(A, M).•äN :
M M
Γ(πM ) = Hom(A, M) = hom(πA, πM [d]) = lim hom(A≥n , M [d])
M
= lim f.
hom(A≥n , M [d]) = lim Hom(A≥n , M ) = M
1 ù´•:éM, N ∈ Gr A,ek f : M → N ,¦ ker f Úcoker f Ñ´L ,K3QGr A¥
òM, N À•Ó é–
80
f),Ïdéu?¿M ∈ ob QGr A,M = π(Γ(M )).=π ◦
l·K2.7,π(M ) = π(M
Γ = idQGr .
òþ! ˜ (Ø3qgr A¥-#LãK eã½n,§o( KV.
•'… 5Ÿ:
½n3.5 (Serre). -A´©g †noether‚,proj A = (qgr A, A, s)´Ùnoether

KV.,é?¿M ∈ ob qgr A,½ÂH 0 (M) = Γ(M)0 = hom(A, M), K
1. qgr A¥ ?¿é–Ñńoether ;
2. ?¿M ∈ ob qgr A,H 0 (M)´k•)¤A0 ;
3. s´r .ù´•:
L
(a) ∀M ∈ ob qgr A,•3 êl1 , · · · lp Ú÷ A[−li ] → M;
(b) ?¿÷ f : M → N ,•3n0 ¦ ∀n ≥ n0 ,H 0 (M[n]) → H 0 (N [n])´

÷ .
© z[5]• Ñ þ ã 5 Ÿ 3 , « ¿ Â þ ´ KV. A 5 Ÿ:e k n

|X = (C, A, s)÷vþã5Ÿ,K•3š †‚A,¦ XÁ KV..
e¡?ØProj Aþ þÓNnØ:
·K3.6. π : Gr A → QGr A ±S é–.
53.7. S • •353y²¥å '…Š^,ù´S é–3džù

Ý é– /•.¢Sþ,Ý A 3πe ”AÒØ´Ý ,·‚e¡Ò¬ï
Ähom(A, −) = H 0 Ñ¼fH i .
Proof. ky²eãÚn:
Ún3.8. é?¿S Q,•3†Ú©)Q ∼

= Q1 ⊕ Q2 ,Ù¥Q1 ∼ e
= Q´ÃLS
,Q2 = τ (Q)´LS .
Proof. ·K©•oÜ©:
1˜Ú -τ (Q)´Q NL
ƒ ¤ f ,¿-Q2 ´τ (Q) S •.dS •
IO5Ÿ,••3Q1 ¦Q ∼
= Q1 ⊕ Q2 .
1 Ú duQ1 ´S Q †Ú‘,¤±•´S .duτ (Q) ⊂ Q2 •¹ N

L ƒ, Q1 ´ÃL .
81
1nÚ e ¡ y ²Q2 ´ L :é ? ¿x ∈ Q2 ,xA ∩ τ (Q)´ k • ) ¤ L ,= ´
mk. .† ó ƒ,• 3n,xA≥n ∩ τ (Q) = 0, τ (Q) → Q2 ´ Ÿ ,¤
±xA≥n = 0.
e∼
1oÚ • ,y²Q = Q1 :d Ü 0 → A≥n → A → A/A≥n → 0 Ü
0 → Hom(A/A≥n , Q) → Q → Hom(A≥n , Q) → Ext1 (A/A≥n , Q) = 0,
én 4•,
e → 0,
0 → lim Hom(A/A≥n , Q) → Q → Q
w,Hom(A/A≥n , Q) = {x ∈ Q|xA≥n = 0}, lim Hom(A/A≥n , Q) =

∪{x ∈ Q|xA≥n = 0} = τ (Q) = Q2 .Ïd,k Ú
e → 0,
0 → Q2 → Q → Q
e∼
=Q = Q/Q2 ∼
= Q1 .
f
e¡y² ·K:•Iy?¿QGr A¥ ü 0 → π(Q) −
→ M´© .d
uΓ´† Ú e → Γ(M)´ü
, Γ(f ) : Q .duQ ∼ Q1 ´S
e = , •3g :
e
Γ(M) → Q¦ g ◦ Γ(f ) = 1Qe .¤±π(g) ◦ f = 1π(Q) ,·K y.
Š â þ ¡ · K,( Üπ Ú 5,· ‚ • é ? ¿M ∈ ob QGr A,eM =

π(M )…0 → M → Q1 → Q2 → · · · ´M 3Gr A¥ ˜‡S ©),K
0 → M → π(Q1 ) → π(Q2 ) → · · ·
´M3QGr A¥ S ©).AO ,QGr A¥k¿v S é–.

Ï d,3QGr A¥ Œ ± ½ Âhom¼ f Ñ ¼ fExt,¿ -Exti (N , M) =
⊕n Exti (N , M[n]).A O ,Œ ± ½ ÂH 0 (M) = hom(A, M) Ñ ¼ fH n ,¿
L
-H n (M) = i H n (M[i]).
·K3.9. -A´©g †noether‚,M, N ´k•)¤©gA- ,M = π(M ), N =

π(N ),K é ? ¿i ≥ 0,kExti (N , M) ∼
= lim Exti (N≥n , M ).A O ,H i (M) ∼
=
82
lim Exti (A≥n , M ).
Proof. -0 → M → Q• ´M S ©),K
lim Exti (N≥n , M ) = lim hi (Hom(N≥n , Q• )) = hi (lim Hom(N≥n , Q• ))

= hi (Hom(N , π(Q• ))) = Exti (N , M).
íØ3.10. -A´©g †noether‚,M, N ´k•)¤©gA- ,M = π(M ), N =

π(N ),K∀i ≥ 0, ∀dÚn 0,kExti (N , M)≥d ∼
= Exti (N≥n , M )≥d .
Proof. d·K2.5Ú·K3.9á .
½n3.11 (Serrek•5½n). -A´©g †noether‚,M ∈ ob qgr A,K
1. é?¿j ≥ 0,H j (M)´k•)¤A0 - ,
2. é?¿j ≥ 1,H j (M)mk.,=∃d0 , ∀d ≥ d0 , H j (M[d]) = 0.
Proof. 1. j = 0ž,d½n3.5(Ø®•.j ≥ 1ž,én 0,kH j (M) ∼

= Extj (A≥n , M )0 =
Extj+1 (A/A≥n , M )0 .d·K2.2,Extj+1 (A/A≥n , M )0 ´k•)¤A- , A+ 3
Ùþ Š^•0, H j (M) = ∼ Extj+1 (A/A≥n , M )0 ´k•)¤A0 - .
2. aþ,∀dÚn 0,kH j (M)≥d ∼

= Extj (A≥n , M )≥d = Extj+1 (A/A≥n , M )≥d .Ï
d,d·K2.5,·K y.
4 Serreéó
3 !¥ob †noetherk-“ê,Ù¥k´‰½
A´˜‡©g •.éu?
∗
L
¿M ∈ Gr A,½ÂM = homk (M, k) = homk (M−n , k).
Äkïáqgr Aþ Watt½n:
·K4.1. -A´©g †noetherk-“ê,F : qgr A → mod k´† Ú‡C¼

f, B = F (A),B = π(B).eB ∈ ob qgr A,KF ∼
= hom(−, B).
Proof. y²©nÜ©:
83
1˜Ú Eg,N F → homgr A (Γ(−), B):é?¿M,5¿ Γ(M) =
L
homqgr A (A[−d], M). ?¿mj ∈ homqgr A (A[−d], M),F (mj ) : F (M) →
F (A[−d]) = B−d . é?¿x ∈ F (M),Œ±-σM (x) : mj 7→ F (mj )(x).ù
Ò½Â N σM : F (M) → homgr A (Γ(M), B).'uσM g,5 yž
²… .
1 Ú •Äπ : homgr A (Γ(−), B) → homqgr A (π(Γ(−)), π(B)) = homqgr A (−, B),=

g,N η : F → homgr A (Γ(−), B) → homqgr A (−, B).
1nÚ y²η´g,Ó :5¿ é?¿i,F (A[−i]) = Bi , homqgr A (A[−i], B) =

ei . é¿©Œ i,ηA[−i] o´Ó .
homqgr A (A, B[i]) = B
£ ˜„œ¹,é?¿M, M = π(M ),Kw,M• uπ(M≥n ). éM≥n ,Ú

L L
n2.1‰ Ñ ÷ A[−li ] → Mn → 0,Ù ¥li ≥ n.= k ÷ A[−li ] →
M → 0.?˜ÚŒ±
M M
A[−li0 ] → A[−li ] → M → 0
u´k †ã
L L
F (A[−li0 ]) o F (A[−li ]) o F (M) o 0
L L
homqgr A (A[−li0 ], B) o homqgr A (A[−li ], B) o homqgr A (M, B) o 0
dÊÚn·K y.
£ ˜:ÓN“ê¥ IOSN:
½Â4.2. -A,B´ü‡Abel‰Æ,F Á B \5¼f,¡F ´{žÛ5 ,eé

u
?¿A ∈ ob A,•3÷ P −
→ A,¦ F (u) = 0.
·K4.3. -T Á B ‡Cδ-¼f,eé?¿i > 0,T i Ñ´{žÛ5 ,KT ´

•δ-¼f.
Proof. eT 0 Á B ,˜|‡Cδ-¼f,f 0 ´T 0 → T 00 g,N .é?¿A ∈

0 1 1
ob A, á Ú 0 → A → M → A → 0,¦T (M ) → T (A)´"N .u´k1
84
Ú †ã
/ T 0 (A0 ) 0
T 0 (M ) / T 1 (A) / T 1 (M )
f0 f0

T 00 (M ) / T 00 (A0 ) / T 01 (A)
ù ¿ › XT 0 (A0 ) → T 1 (A)´ ÷ ,l f 0g , p f 1 : T 1 (A) →

T 01 (A).8B Œ± ¤ E,Ün½Â5!g,5Ú†δ †5 yÑ´²
… .
½n4.4. -A´©g †noetherk-“ê,M ∈ ob qgr A÷vmax{i|∃N , Exti (M, N ) 6=

0} = d < ∞.
1. B = Extd (M, A)∗ ,eB = π(B) ∈ qgr A,Ké?¿ikg,N
θi : Exti (−, B) → Extd−i (M, −)∗
…θ0 ´g,Ó .
2. ∀i,θi Ñ´g,Ó ¿‡^‡´∀i ≥ 1, n 0, Extd−i (M, A(−n)) = 0.
Proof. 1. é?¿á Ú 0 → K → L → N → 0,duExtd+1 (M, −) = 0,

k Ú
· · · → Extd (M, K) → Extd (M, L) → Extd (M, N ) → Extd+1 (M, K) = 0
duhomk (−, k)´† Ú ,k
0 → Extd (M, N )∗ → Extd (M, L)∗ → Extd (M, K)∗ → · · ·
Ïd,Extd (M, −)∗ ´qgr A → mod k ‡C† Ú¼f.d·K4.1,kθ0 =

hom(−, B) ∼
= Extd (M, −)∗ .þã• Ú Óž`² Extd−i (M, −)∗ ´˜
|δ¼f.,˜•¡,Exti (−, B)Š•˜| Ñ¼f´•δ ,u´θ0 Œ±*Ü
¤θi .
2. eθi ´Ó ,Kd½n3.11,é¿©Œ n,Extd−i (M, A(−n))∗ ∼

= Exti (A(−n), B) ∼
=
H i (B(n)) = 0.
85
‡ƒ,e∀i ≥ 1, n 0, Extd−i (M, A(−n)) = 0,du∀p, {A(−n)|n ≥ p}Ñ
´qgr A ˜|)¤f, džExtd−i (M, −)∗ ´{žÛ5 ,l ´•δ . θi ´
Ó .
íØ4.5 (proj Aþ Serreéó½n). -A´©g †noetherk-“ê…cd(proj A) :=

max{i|∃M, H i (M) 6= 0} = d < ∞.
1. é?¿i,kg,N
θi : Exti (−, ω 0 ) → H d−i (−)∗
Ù¥ω 0 = π(H d (A)∗ )…θ0 ´g,Ó .
2. ∀i,θi Ñ´g,Ó ¿‡^‡´∀d > i ≥ 1, H d−i (A)´k•‘ …H 0 (A)†

k..
54.6. é?¿M ∈ ob qgr A,ÏLéM 4 S ©) ©Û,Œ±y²∀i ≥

i ∗ 0
1, H (M) Ñ´k•)¤A- .AO ,ω ∈ ob qgr A.ùpÑ éd y²,
y²ë„[5]¥ ·K7.9.I‡AO•Ñ ˜:´,3ù‡y²¥k´•ù˜b
už Š^.
½Â4.7. 1. ω 0 ∈ ob qgr A¡•proj A éó .
2. e∀i, θi Ñ´g,Ó ,K¡proj A3²;¿ÂeĆohen-Macaulay .
References
[1] A.Grothendieck. Sur quelques points d’algebre homologique. Tohoku
Math.J., 9(119-221), 1957.
[2] J.J.Zhang A.Yekutieli. Serre duality for noncommutative projective schemes.

Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 125(697-707), 1997.
[3] J.J.Rotman. An Introduction on Homological Algebra. Academic Press,

1979.
[4] Snigdhayan Mahanta. On some approaches towards non-commutative alge-

braic geometry. 2005.
86
[5] J.J.Zhang M.Artin. Noncommutative projective schemes. Advances in Math-
ematics, 109(228-287), 1994.
[6] R.Hartshorne. Algebraic Geometry. Springer-Verlag, 1977.
87
Realization of Sn as a Galois Group over Q
Xu Kai∗
Inverse Galois problem, i.e. construction of a finite Galois extension K/Q

with a given Galois group has some profound connections with algebraic number
theory and algebraic geometry and remains unsolved since it was first posed in
the 19th century. The first nontrivial case concerning the symmetric group
Sn was solved by Hilbert using his irreducibility theorem. The purpose of this
article is to present a more elementary proof using only some basic Galois theory
and commutative algebra. As algebraic number theory is not presupposed, some
definitions and proofs are quite standard and admit easy generalizations.
Theorem: There exists a Galois extension K/Q s.t. Gal(K/Q) = Sn for
every n.
We begin with some easy facts and definitions in algebraic number theory.
A number field is a finite extension K/Q. The integer ring Ok ⊂ K is the
normal closure of Z ⊂ K, that is Ok = Z̄k .
Lemma: Z ,→ Ok is a finite extension.
Proof : Choose a basis ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ωn of K/Q s.t. ωi ∈ Ok , consider the
Q-bilinear form: T : K × K 7→ Q, (x, y) 7→ tr(xy).K/Q is separable implies
that T is non-degenerate and the subgroup Ok ⊗Z Ok ,→ K ⊗Q K is mapped to
Z ⊂ Q.
Define T∗ : K 7→ K, T = hx, T∗ yi, V = {f ∈ K∗ |f ωi ∈ Z. It is easily seen
that V ∼
= Zn and T∗ maps Ok into V , thus Ok is a subgroup of Zn with rank
≥ n. Therefore Z Ok ∼
= Zn .
Corollary: Ok is a Dedekind domain.
Proof : By the lemma above, Ok is a finite extension of the Dedekind
domain Z. Thus Ok is Dedekind.
∗ ê41
88
From now on we only consider Galois extension K/Q and denote Gal(K/Q)
by G. It can be easily seen that for σ ∈ G, σOk = Ok .
If P is a prime ideal over p, then so is σP. Therefore, if we have the
decomposition p = Pe1 · · · Per . By the following lemma and uniqueness of
primary decomposition we have e1 = · · · = er
Lemma: G acts transitively on {Pe1 · · · Per }
S
Proof : It’s sufficient to show Pi ⊆ σ∈G σPj for i 6= j. If x ∈ Pi , we have
T
N ∈ Pi Ok = p ⊆ Pj . Thus σx ∈ Pj for some σ and x ∈ Pj .
For σPi = Pj , σ also induces a homomorphism σ̄: Ok /Pi 7→ Ok /Pj . It
has an inverse σ¯−1 , thus it is an isomorphism. Therefore we also have [Ok :
Pi ] = [Ok : Pj ] = pf for some fixed f .
Claim: [K : Q] = ref .
Proof : p = Pe1 · · · Per , Ok /p = ⊕Ok /Pei . We have exact sequence of
abelian groups 0 −→ Pji /Pj+1
i −→ Ok /Pj+1
i −→ Ok /Pji −→ 0. Choose x ∈
Pji \ Pj+1
i , Pji ⊇ (x) + Pj+1
i % Pj+1
i . Therefore, by unique factorization
x
(x) 6= Pj+1
i = Pji . 0 −→ Pi −→ Ok −→ Pji /Pj+1
i −→ 0 is exact. Thus we have
dimZ/p Ok /Pei = dimZ/p Ok /Pi = ef and [K : Q] = [Ok : Z] = dimZp Ok /p =
dimZp ⊕ Ok /Pei = ref .
For a fixed P (denote O/P by κP and Z/p by κp ,) define GP = {σ ∈
G | σP = P}, then there’s a natural homomorphism:η: GP 7→ Gal(κP /κp ).
σ 7→ σ̄. We calim that: η is surjective.
Proof : Denote KGP by F and consider the Galois extension K/F. If the
restriction of P to OF is P0 then P0 = Pe . It’s easily seen by computing di-
mensions that κp ,→ κP0 is isomorphism and we may identify them. κP /κp is
easily seen to be finite-dimensional, therefore Galois. If κP = κp [ū], ū(resp.u)
has irreducible polynomial ḡ, f , then ḡ|f¯. An element σ̄ in Gal(κP /κp ) is de-
termined uniquely by an element s.t. ḡ(v̄) = 0. Then v̄ = σ̄(ū). We also have
f (v) = 0, hence there’s a σ ∈ Gal(κP /κp ) s.t. σ(u) = v. Hence σ̄ is the image
of σ
Corollary: If f ≡ f1 · · · fr (mod p) for some f ∈ Z[X] and fi irreducible
in Fp [X], the Galois group Gf has a permutation of cycle type (n1 · · · nr ) where
ni = degfi .
Proof : The Galois group of f¯ over Fp is generated y the Frobenious au-
89
tomorphism which acts as a ni -cycle in the roots of fi . Hence it has cycle type
(n1 · · · nr ). By the Claim above we see that there’s such an element in Gf .
Proof of the Theorem: Choose f¯1 ∈ F2 [X] f¯2 = g¯2 h¯2 ∈ F3 [X] and
f¯3 = g¯3 h¯3 ∈ F5 [X] s.t. deg f¯1 = n, deg g¯2 = 1, deg h¯2 = n − 1, deg g¯3 =
2, deg h¯3 = n−2 and that f¯1 g¯2 h¯2 g¯3 are monic and irreducible, every irreducible
factor of h¯3 has odd degree.
Let f = −5f1 + 10f2 + 6f3 then f ≡ f¯1 (mod 2), f ≡ f¯2 (mod 3) and
f ≡ f¯3 (mod 5). By the corollary above, Gf has a n-cycle, a (n − 1)-cycle and
a n element of cycle type (2, s1 , · · · , sr ) s.t. si are odd, but this gives a 2-cycle.
By elementary group-theoretical analysis we see that Gf = Sn . This completes
our proof.
90
3Ý ‰‰ï§Ń ˜•N
ÜÖj∗
ff þ • ˜‰ •ò§¯);Ö Ã„‘X Ë§=úm§·®

Õ3 c Ý Å•" ,¯§o´4žmL œ¯§•4<Ãa Ï" Œ
‡õ c§·„vk< \y§Ñuc5U§·„vu ’§Ñuc4 U§·f
f(åÏ"•Á"
ØL§ý 4<,¯ ¯ §¬4<éå¥ ˆ«bug uÑ‡r ÔÌ
å" ˜‡ c§·ffÂ –¯ ž&¶ y3·®²r3Ý Þ§g•
X²UT† “! Ÿo"
X8ªul;Ü,¯ Ý )¹¥…L 5§[[Ž5§3xŒ‰‰ï
)¹§´ù ˜•N µ
xŒ Æâ‚¸gd ”t§l@ §·ÑU gd Süžm§·¬
sþŒŒUÕgg•‘K§23•e žmÚP“!“*“7?Ø¯K" 3
“ • e§ïÄk^Ø® ?1Xµ Ö©z§ ïgCéu¯K *:§
†“• 6§ÀJk Ý§UY ©z" ÏL˜H˜Hù Ì‚§ì
ì/§·U \· ¯K§m©¹ § Ø%(J" ,§~~kXù
]m§›,Œ× ·¿£ gC•´3ã<‚ eÑÚ ®"
xŒkXéõÆâÚ<§ ¦‚ÑéŠƒŒO" ·k3~– êØ••
Ü• Ç§c” ¦¿÷¹åÚ_%a§5k,—/‹·£Áå¦ Ph.D)
¹" ¦`§êÆ<´•gd §˜‡êÆÆ¬)Œ±”lÐA‡ £‰¦Ž‰
¯ ¤
§, <‚¬ú ùé ~"
3Ý )¹ Ff§g,´‡N Ý )¹!s " z‡±"§·Ñk
ÐÐ |^§Ø+´kX‡?ŒºÈ ž“2|Ïé{ §Ú|p“•°•
þwÈ§7X¥%ú • ˜±§„´ë*ˆ«ˆ ‡7 ÆÔ,§ zP®
wyì K§†5gÊ o° <‚Ÿ6S!" ±¥S· ‰‰ï§±"K#
#aaÑ "Ø Ø`§Ý Aè¾,' ® •• m"
∗ ê33 2016c»bAxÔ'æŒÆ 6ÆS
91
Ý Ú ®é”§®à 5g-.ˆ/ <‚" z‡<Ñ´Ý •<§
z‡<•Ñ´Ý Ì<" Ý u<+NK•´ Œ§Peter Liang ž
Òð˜Ñ§ >ïXÝŒ P ÒØÊ/S|·µ4‚Ñ´¥I<§·‚‡
˜Ó|ÆùØú²"
ù˜‡Œ »bž1¥§•Ž[ žÿ§ŒVÍSS!í¨ ß§
úû¢exUu) s Y žÿj" Ã'~g3˜u11:lgS¿Ñ5§ï
°–Ÿ£‘ )¹§½´3[¥ –Ñ ÑÑÚ as"
±þ§Ž´r‰ ˜u/3Ý ‰‰ïŃ ˜•N 0
"
2016c4
92
vé¯
5Ög6´˜uŒÆêÆXÆ)gÌM• êÆÆârÔ§¡•ˆ‡ X¥éêÆa,
‰)9ïÄ)"
r•H “)?Û†êÆk' Ýv§ÃØ´•Ÿ Øã§„´°ç ¬§³½
ÆS/ Æ % !SK ©)"3 Šö #Ne§í•¦< Š¬•Ó •H"
• ?6•B§ïÆÝvöU Jø>f‡§¿…æ^ LATEX (í•) ½ Word ü‡" 5
vž5²Šö§éX•ª"
ÝvžMµTHUmath@googlegroups.com
•H–¯Ög Õµhttp://math.tsinghua.me/hesi/
5Ög6?6Ü
2016-04
Ì•µ˜uŒÆ êÆ‰ÆX 5Ög6?6Ü

Ì?µx
?”µ£U6¶©Ñ•S¤
•k~ p<) o h oÿÖ o … 4a(
#ŒÆ ¢ 'Z Œý Ç|l Ç…š
Ç“‹ %ú Ü“‰ ±ŒÐ
µ¡µ•'•
ü‡µo …
AO´ µ <m ‰Z
éX rµTHUmath@googlegroups.com
®½ °D« ˜uŒÆ 28Ò¢ 340
93

Hesi 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hesi 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hesi 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016.04.

Matching of 5-γ-critical leafless graph with a cut edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yang Yuxuan 1

Realization of Sn as a Galois Group over Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Xu Kai 88

3Ý ‰‰ï§´N ˜•N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ÜÖj 91

Abstract:A graph G is said to be k-γ-critical if the size of minimum

Lemma 1 [1] Let u and v be a pair of non-adjacent vertices in a k-γ-critical

The lemma above is the most important lemma in edge-γ-critical graphs.The

Theorem 3 [4] If a is a cut vertex of a k − γ−critical graph G,then G-a has

A vertex v of a graph G is said to be critical if γ(G − v) < γ(G) and it is

Theorem 5 [4] Let G be a k − γ − critical graph.Then

Lemma 7 a, b are stable vertices of G,and others are critical.

Proof If x ∈ Dax ,then Dax is a dominating set of G − a.We have |Dax | =

Theorem 11 (1) If γ(A) = 1,then c is a leaf and is the only vertex in A − a.

Proof (1) If γ(A) = γ(A+b) = 1,then a  A.Suppose c1 , c2 are distinct vertices

Corollary 12 There is no leafless k − γ − critical graph with a cut edge for

Proof For γ(A) = 1 or γ(B) = 1, it follows immediately from Theorem

Also another result is reached immediately from theorem 11.

Corollary 13 There is a perfect matching of A+b,if γ(A) = 2.

Proof By Theorem 11,if γ(A) = 2,then A − a = ∪K2 .A − a can be divided

We give a example of leafless 5 − γ − critical graph with a cut edge.

Example 14 There is an example of leafless 5 − γ − critical graph with a cut

The following is the main result of this paper.

We can find each xi is distinct because of different neighborhood.And if

Then,b ∈ Dbx and |Dbx ∩ B| = γ(B) = 2.To dominate three components

[3] M.D.Plummer N. Ananchuen. Matching properties in domination critical

[4] Wojcicka E. Paris M, Sumner D P. Edge-domination-critical graphs with

1 Introduction and background

where the local factors are

Langlands also proved that any automorphic representation π is nearly equiv-

1.1 Principal L-functions

This is an Euler product absolutely convergent for Re s sufficiently large where

and L(π, s) is completed by a local factor at the infinite place, given by

qπs/2 Λ(π, s) = ω(π)qπ(1−s)/2 Λ(π̃, 1 − s),

where qπ ≥ 1 is an integer (the arithmetic conductor of π) supported at the

where Nπ is the arithmetic conductor; d(v) = 1 if Kv ∼ R, while d(v) = 2 if

1.2 Rankin-Selberg method: L-functions of pairs

absolutely convergent for Re s large enough. It is an Euler product of degree

at the finite places, and at the infinite one, define

Moreover, at places v for which πv is unramified, Lv (π ⊗ π 0 , s) has the explicit

at place v = p > ∞, and at the infinite place,

The completed L-functions also have similar properties such as meromorphic

which will be used in the later of this paper.

1.3 Fundamental conjectures

Conjecture 1. (Grand Riemann Hypothesis)

GRH implies the so-called Lindelöff Hypothesis, which, if true, is a very

Conjecture 2. (Subconvexity Problem)

subconvex bound for L( 12 , π) in practise. Actually, in applications we usually

Next we discuss the generalized Ramanujan conjecture, which is the lo-

Conjecture 3. Generalized Ramanujan Conjecture (GRC)

2.1 Results on ScP

Theorem 4. ([8]) For a fixed π on GL(2)/Q a cuspidal eigen-form and χ a

Theorem 5. Let K be a fixed number field and π2 be a fixed cuspidal automor-

Remark. For K = Q, (1) is a generalization of Burgess bound and can be further

The above result is a specialization (by taking π2 to be a suitable Eisenstein

Theorem 7. ([25]) There is an absolute constant δ > 0 such that: for π1 , π2

More precisely, the constant implied depends polynomially on the discriminant

Remark. More precisely, we have in Theorem 7 the bound L(π1 ⊗ π2 , 12 ) K,π2

2.2 Effective methods

Proof (1) If γ(A) = γ(A+b) = 1,then a A.Suppose c1 , c2 are distinct vertices

Remark. More precisely, we have in Theorem 7 the bound L(π1 ⊗ π2 , 12 ) K,π2

GRH (via Lindelöff Hypothesis) induces L( 12 , F ) ε (C(F ))ε , so we can

|ν|(f ) µ(f ) + SdX (f ), (f ≥ 0)

d1/2 ρf (d) ε,f dε |L(g ⊗ χK , 1/2)|1/2 .