Subsection 3.2Siegel modular forms
In this section we prove Theorem 1.3. We start
by giving some background on Siegel modular forms for $\Sp(4,\Z)$.
Let the symplectic group of similitudes of genus $2$ be defined by
\begin{multline}\GSp(4) := \{g \in \GL(4) : {}^{t}g J g = \lambda(g) J,
\lambda(g) \in \GL(1) \}
\mbox{ where } J =
\mat{}{I_2}{-I_2}{}.
\end{multline}
Let $\SSp(4)$ be the
subgroup with $\lambda(g)=1$. The group $\GSp^+(4,\R) := \{ g \in
\GSp(4,\R) : \lambda(g) > 0 \}$ acts on the Siegel upper half
space $\HH_2 := \{ Z \in M_2(\C) : {}^{t}Z = Z,\:{\rm Im}(Z) > 0
\}$ by
\begin{multline}g \langle Z \rangle := (AZ+B)(CZ+D)^{-1}
\mbox{ where } g =
\mat{A}{B}{C}{D} \in \GSp^+(4,\R), Z \in \HH_2.
\end{multline}
Let us define the slash operator $|_k$ for a positive integer $k$
acting on holomorphic functions $F$ on $\HH_2$ by
\begin{multline}
(F|_kg)(Z) := \lambda(g)^k \det(CZ+D)^{-k} F(g \langle
Z \rangle),
g = \mat{A}{B}{C}{D} \in
\GSp^+(4,\R), Z \in \HH_2.\tag{3.2.1}
\end{multline}
The slash operator is defined in such a way that the center of
$\GSp^+(4,\R)$ acts trivially. Let $S_k^{(2)}$ be the space of
holomorphic Siegel cusp forms of weight $k$, genus $2$ with respect to $\Gamma^{(2)} := \SSp(4,\Z)$. Then $F \in S_k^{(2)}$
satisfies $F |_k \gamma = F$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma^{(2)}$.
Let us now describe the Hecke operators acting on $S_k^{(2)}$. For a matrix
$M \in \GSp^+(4,\R) \cap M_{4}(\Z)$, we have a finite disjoint
decomposition
\begin{equation}\Gamma^{(2)} M \Gamma^{(2)} = \bigsqcup\limits_i \Gamma^{(2)}
M_i.\tag{3.2.2}
\end{equation}
For $F \in S_k^{(2)}$, define
\begin{equation}
T_k(\Gamma^{(2)} M \Gamma^{(2)})F :=
\det(M)^{\frac{k-3}2}\sum\limits_i F|_kM_i.\tag{3.2.3}
\end{equation}
Note that this operator agrees with the one defined in [An].
Let $F \in S_k^{(2)}$ be a simultaneous eigenfunction for all the
$T_k(\Gamma^{(2)} M \Gamma^{(2)}), M \in \GSp^+(4,\R) \cap
M_{4}(\Z)$, with corresponding eigenvalue $\mu_F(\Gamma^{(2)} M
\Gamma^{(2)})$. For any prime number $p$, it is known that there
are three complex numbers $\alpha_0^F(p), \alpha_1^F(p),
\alpha_2^F(p)$ such that, for any $M$ with $\lambda(M) = p^r$, we
have
\begin{equation}
\mu_F(\Gamma^{(2)} M \Gamma^{(2)}) =\alpha_0^F(p)^r \sum_i
\prod\limits_{j=1}^2 (\alpha_i^F(p)p^{-j})^{d_{ij}},\tag{3.2.4}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma^{(2)} M \Gamma^{(2)} = \bigsqcup_i \Gamma^{(2)}
M_i$, with
\begin{equation}M_i = \mat{A_i}{B_i}{0}{D_i} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad D_i =
\begin{bmatrix}p^{d_{i1}}&\ast\\0&p^{d_{i2}}\end{bmatrix}.\tag{3.2.5}
\end{equation}
Henceforth, if there is no confusion, we will omit the $F$ and $p$
in describing the $\alpha_i^F(p)$ to simplify the notations. The
$\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \alpha_2$ are the classical Satake
$p$-parameters of the eigenform $F$. It is known that they satisfy
\begin{equation}
\alpha_0^2 \alpha_1 \alpha_2 = p^{2k-3}.\tag{3.2.6}
\end{equation}
For any $n > 0$, define the Hecke operators $T_k(n)$ by
\begin{equation}T_k(n) = \sum\limits_{\lambda(M)=n} T_k(\Gamma^{(2)} M \Gamma^{(2)}).
\end{equation}
Let the eigenvalues of $F$ corresponding to $T_k(n)$ be denoted by $\mu_F(n)$. Set $\alpha_p =p^{-(k-3/2)}\alpha_0$ and $\beta_p =
p^{-(k-3/2)}\alpha_0 \alpha_1$. Then formulas for the
Hecke eigenvalues $\mu_F(p)$ and $\mu_F(p^2)$ in terms of $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$ are
\begin{align}\mu_F(p)&= p^{k-3/2} \big(\alpha_p + \alpha_p^{-1} + \beta_p + \beta_p^{-1}\big),\\
\mu_F(p^2)&=p^{2k-3}\big(\alpha_p^2+\alpha_p^{-2}+(\alpha_p+\alpha_p^{-1})(\beta_p+\beta_p^{-1})+\beta_p^2+\beta_p^{-2}+2-\frac1p\big) .\tag{3.2.7}
\end{align}
The Ramanujan bound in this context is
\begin{equation}
|\alpha_p| = |\beta_p| = 1.\tag{3.2.8}
\end{equation}
This is closely related to our use of that term for $L$-functions, as can be seen from the spin $L$-function of $F$:
\begin{equation}
L(s,F,\spin)=\prod_p F_p(p^{-s},\spin)^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $F_p(X,\spin)=(1 - \alpha_p X)(1 - \alpha_p^{-1} X)(1 - \beta_p X)(1 - \beta_p^{-1} X)$.
It satisfies the functional equation
\begin{align}
\Lambda(s,F,\spin) :=\mathstrut&\Gamma_\C(s+\tfrac12)\Gamma_\C(s+k-\tfrac32) L(s,F,\spin)\cr=\mathstrut& \varepsilon \Lambda(s,\overline{F},\spin),\tag{3.2.9}
\end{align}
where $\varepsilon=(-1)^k$.
Let $a(p)$ be the $p$th Dirichlet coefficient of $L(s,F,\spin)$. We will use the fact that each $F$ falls into one of two classes.
- $a(p)=p^{1/2}+p^{-1/2}+\beta_p+\beta_p^{-1}$, where $\beta_p$ is the Satake $p$-parameter of a holomorphic cusp form on $\GL(2)$ of weight $2k-2$. In this case $F$ is a Saito-Kurokawa lifting; for more details on Saito-Kurokawa liftings we refer to [EZ]. Note that $|\beta_p|=1$, so that $a(p)=p^{1/2}+O(1)$ in the Saito-Kurokawa case.
- $a(p)=O(1)$. This is the Ramanujan conjecture for non-Saito-Kurokawa liftings, which has been proven in [W].
Theorem 1.3 is now a consequence of the following stronger result.
Theorem3.2.1
Suppose $F_j$, for $j=1,2$, are Siegel Hecke eigenforms of weight $k_j$ for $\Sp(4,\Z)$, with Hecke eigenvalues $\mu_j(n)$. If
\begin{equation}
\sum_{p\le X} p\,\log(p) \left|p^{3/2-k_1}\mu_1(p)-p^{3/2-k_2}\mu_2(p)\right|^2\ll X\tag{3.2.10}
\end{equation}
as $X\to\infty$, then $k_1=k_2$ and $F_1$ and $F_2$ have the same eigenvalues for the Hecke operator $T(n)$ for all $n$.
Proof
For $i=1,2$ let $a_i(p)$ be the $p$th Dirichlet coefficient of $L(s,F_i,\spin)$. Then $a_i(p)=\alpha_{i,p}+\alpha_{i,p}^{-1}+\beta_{i,p}+\beta_{i,p}^{-1}$, where $\alpha_{i,p},\beta_{i,p}$ are the Satake $p$-parameters of $F_i$, as explained after (3.2.6). By (3.2.7),
\begin{equation}
\mu_i(p)= p^{k_i-3/2} \big(\alpha_{i,p} + \alpha_{i,p}^{-1} + \beta_{i,p} + \beta_{i,p}^{-1}\big).
\end{equation}
Hence, condition (3.2.10) translates into
\begin{equation}
\sum_{p\le X} p\,\log(p) \left|a_1(p)-a_2(p)\right|^2\ll X.\tag{3.2.11}
\end{equation}
From the remarks made before the theorem, we see that either $F_1,F_2$ are both Saito-Kurokawa lifts,
or neither of them is a Saito-Kurokawa lift.
Assume first that $F_1,F_2$ are both Saito-Kurokawa lifts. Then, for $i=1,2$, there exist modular forms $f_i$ of weight $2k_i-2$ and with Satake parameters $\beta_{i,p}$ such that $a_i(p)=p^{1/2}+p^{-1/2}+\beta_{i,p}+\beta_{i,p}^{-1}$. From (3.2.11) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\sum_{p\le X} p\,\log(p) \left|b_1(p)-b_2(p)\right|^2\ll X,\tag{3.2.12}
\end{equation}
where $b_{i,p}=\beta_{i,p}+\beta_{i,p}^{-1}$. Note that $b_{i,p}$
is the $p$th Dirichlet coefficient of (the analytically normalized
$L$-function) $L(s,f_i)$. Since the Ramanujan conjecture is known
for elliptic modular forms, Theorem 2.1.2 applies. We
conclude $2k_1-2=2k_2-2$ and $L(s,f_1)=L(s,f_2)$. Hence $k_1=k_2$
and $L(s,F_1,\spin)=L(s,F_2,\spin)$. The equality of spin $L$-functions
implies $\mu_1(p)=\mu_2(p)$ and $\mu_1(p^2)=\mu_2(p^2)$ for all
$p$. Since $T(p)$ and $T(p^2)$ generate the $p$-component of the
Hecke algebra, it follows that $\mu_1(n)=\mu_2(n)$ for all $n$.
Now assume that $F_1$ and $F_2$ are both not Saito-Kurokawa lifts.
Then, using the fact that the Ramanujan conjecture is known for
$F_1$ and $F_2$, Theorem 2.1.2 applies to $L_1(s)=L(s,F_1,\spin)$
and $L_2(s)=L(s,F_2,\spin)$. We conclude that $k_1=k_2$ and that
the two spin $L$-functions are identical. As above, this implies
$\mu_1(n)=\mu_2(n)$ for all $n$.
Subsection 3.3Hyperelliptic curves
Let $X/\Q$ be an elliptic or hyperelliptic curve,
\begin{equation}
X:\ y^2 = f(x),
\end{equation}
where $f\in \Z[x]$, and let $N_X(p)$ be the number of points
on $X$ mod $p$. In Serre's recent book [Ser], the title
of Section 6.3 is "About $N_X(p)-N_Y(p)$," in which he gives
a description of what can happen if
$N_X(p)-N_Y(p)$ is bounded. For Serre, $X$ and $Y$ are much more
general than hyperelliptic cuves, but we use the hyperelliptic curve
case to illustrate an application of multiplicity one results for
$L$-functions.
Recall that the Hasse-Weil $L$-function of $X$,
\begin{equation}
L(X,s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{a_X(n)}{n^s},
\end{equation}
has coefficients $a_X(p^n)=p^n+1-N_X(p^n)$ if $p$ is prime,
which gives the general case by multiplicativity.
The $L$-function (conjecturally if $g_X\ge 2$) satisfies the functional equation
\begin{equation}
\Lambda(X,s) = N_X^{s/2}\,\Gamma_\C(s)^{g_X} L(X,s) = \pm \Lambda(X,2-s),\tag{3.3.1}
\end{equation}
where $N_X$ is the conductor and
$g_X= \lfloor ({\rm deg}(f)-1)/2 \rfloor$ is the genus of $X$.
Proposition3.3.1
Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are hyperelliptic curves and $N_X(p)-N_Y(p)$
is bounded. If the Hasse-Weil $L$-functions of $X$ and $Y$ satisfy
their conjectured functional equation (3.3.1),
then $X$ and $Y$ have the same conductor and genus, and
$N_X(p^e)=N_Y(p^e)$ for all $p,e$.
Note that this result can be found in Serre's book without the hypothesis of functional equation. But Serre's proof involves more machinery than we use here.
Proof
To apply Theorem 2.1.2, we first form the
analytically normalized $L$-function
\begin{equation}L(s,X)=L(X,s+\tfrac12) =\sum \frac{a_X(n)/\sqrt{n}}{n^{s}}
=\sum \frac{b_X(n)}{n^{s}},\tag{3.3.2}
\end{equation}
say. Note that we have the functional equation
\begin{equation}
\Lambda(s,X) = N_X^{s/2} \Gamma_\C(s+\tfrac12)^{g_X} L(s,X) = \pm \Lambda(1-s,X).\tag{3.3.3}
\end{equation}
The Hasse bound for $a_X(n)$ implies the Ramanujan bound
for $L(s,X)$. The condition $|N_X(p)-N_Y(p)| \ll 1$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation}|b_X(p) - b_Y(p)|\ll \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathstrut p}},\tag{3.3.4}
\end{equation}
which implies
\begin{equation}\sum_{p\le T} p|b_X(p) - b_Y(p)|^2 \log(p) \ll
\sum_{p\le T} \log(p) \sim T,\tag{3.3.5}
\end{equation}
by the prime number theorem.
Thus, Theorem 2.1.2 applies and we conclude that
$L(X,s)=L(Y,s)$.
If one knew that $L(s,X)$ and $L(s,Y)$ were "automorphic",
then Theorem 4.1 would apply, and a much weaker bound
on $|N_X(p)-N_Y(p)|$ would allow one to conclude that
$N_X(p^e)=N_Y(p^e)$ for all $p,e$.
For example, if $E,E'$ are elliptic curves over $\Q$, then
$|N_{E}(p)-N_{E'}(p)|\le 1.4 \sqrt{\mathstrut p}$ for all but
finitely many $p$ implies $N_{E}(p)=N_{E'}(p)$ for all $p$.
\appendix