1 Introduction and the main result
Given an integer
$Q\ge 1$
, we consider the congruence subgroup

where

We are interested in counting matrices
$A\in \Gamma _0(Q) $
with entries of size at most

The question is a natural generalization of the classical counting result of Newman [Reference Newman10] concerning matrices
$A \in \operatorname {SL}_2({\mathbb Z})$
with

and of Krieg [Reference Krieg9] who counts matrices
$A \in \operatorname {SL}_2({\mathbb Z})$
with respect to the
$L^\infty $
-norm as (1.1). We note that both of these results correspond to
$Q=1$
.
We note that while we can also use the
$L^2$
-norm as in (1.2) to measure the “size” of
$A\in \operatorname {SL}_2({\mathbb Z})$
, for us it is more convenient to use the
$L^\infty $
-norm as in (1.1). However, our main purpose to have an asymptotic formula in a broad range of uniformity with respect to the size of Q compared to X.
Let

The question of investigating the cardinality
$\# \Gamma _0(Q, X)$
has been raised in [Reference Bulinski, Ostafe and Shparlinski3], where it is also shown that for
$Q\le X$
, we have

We are interested in obtaining an asymptotic formula for the cardinality
$\# \Gamma _0(Q,X)$
in a broad range of Q and X. Furthermore, our bound on error term relies on some results of Ustinov [Reference Ustinov14], which go beyond standard techniques.
We first give an asymptotic formula for
$\# \Gamma _0(Q, X) $
with the main term expressed via sums of some standard arithmetic functions. For this, we also define

where

where as usual
$\varphi (k)$
denotes the Euler function.
Theorem 1.1 Uniformly over an integer
$Q\ge 1$
and a positive real
$X\ge Q$
, we have

Next, we study the function
$F(Q,X)$
. As indicated to us by one the referees, the sum
$F_2(Q,X)$
has already been computed in [Reference Suryanarayana13]. When Q is fixed a much more general result is given in [Reference Shapiro11, Theorem 5.5A.1]. We have not, however, been able to locate references for an asymptotic formula for
$F_1(Q,X)$
with the desired level of uniformity in Q, so we derive one in this paper (see 4.4). For this, we first recall the definition of the Dedekind function

Theorem 1.2 Uniformly over an integer
$Q\ge 1$
and a positive real
$X\ge Q$
, we have

Combining Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, we obtain the following asymptotic formula.
Corollary 1.3 Uniformly over an integer
$Q\ge 1$
and a positive real
$X\ge Q$
,

We remark that the appearance of the Dedekind function
$\psi (Q)$
in the denominator of the asymptotic formula for
$\# \Gamma _0(Q, X)$
in Corollary 1.3 is not surprising as function itself appears in as the index of
$\Gamma _0(Q)$
in
$\operatorname {SL}_2({\mathbb Z})$
, that is,

(see [Reference Iwaniec8, Proposition 2.5]).
Elementary estimates easily show that
$\psi (Q) = Q^{1+o(1)}$
. Thus, Corollary 1.3 is nontrivial in an essentially full range of Q and X, namely for
$Q \le X^{1-\varepsilon }$
for a fixed
$\varepsilon> 0$
.
2 Preparations
2.1 Notation and some elementary estimates
We recall that the notations
$U = O(V)$
,
$U \ll V$
and
$ V\gg U$
are equivalent to
$|U|\leqslant c V$
for some positive constant c, which throughout this work, is absolute.
Furthermore, we write
$U \asymp V$
to express that
$V \ll U \ll V$
.
We also write
$U= V^{o(1)}$
if for all
$\varepsilon>0$
, there exists a constant
$c(\varepsilon )>0$
such that
$ |U| \leq c(\varepsilon ) V^\varepsilon $
as
$V\to \infty $
.
The letter p always denotes a prime number.
For an integer
$k \ge 1$
, we denote by
$\mu (k)$
,
$\tau (k),$
and
$\varphi (k)$
, the Möbius function, the number of integer positive divisors, and the Euler function of k, respectively, for which we use the well-known bound

as
$k \to \infty $
(see [Reference Hardy and Wright6, Theorems 317 and 328]).
As usual, we define

For positive integers u and v, using the Möbius function
$\mu (e)$
and the inclusion–exclusion principle to detect the co-primality condition and then interchanging the order of summation, we obtain

(see [Reference Hardy and Wright6, Equation (16.1.3)]).
2.2 Modular hyperbolas
Here, we need some results on the distribution of points on the modular hyperbola

where
$q \ge 1$
is an arbitrary integer.
We start with a very well-known case counting the number
$N(q;U,V)$
of solutions in a rectangular domain
$(u,v) \in [1, U]\times [1,V]$
. For example, such a result has been recorded in [Reference Shparlinski12, Theorem 13] (we note that the restriction
$U,V\le q$
is not really necessary).
Lemma 2.1 For any
$U,V\ge 1$
, we have

Next, we recall a result of Ustinov [Reference Ustinov14] on the number
$T_f(q; Z,U)$
of points
$(u,v)$
on the modular hyperbola (2.3) with variables run through a domain of the form

where f is a positive function with a continuous second derivative.
Namely, a special case of [Reference Ustinov14], where we have also used (2.1) to estimate various divisor sums, can be formulated as follows.
Let

and let

Lemma 2.2 Assume that the function
$f:{\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}$
has a continuous second derivative on
$[Z,Z+U]$
such that for some
$L>0 $
, we have

Then we have the estimate

For other results on the distribution of points on modular hyperbolas, we refer to the survey [Reference Shparlinski12] and also more recent works [Reference Baier1, Reference Browning and Haynes2, Reference Chan4, Reference Garaev and Shparlinski5, Reference Humphries7, Reference Ustinov15].
3 Proof of Theorem 1.1
3.1 Separating contributions to the main term and to the error term
It is easy to see that there are only
$O(X)$
matrices in
$\operatorname {SL}_2({\mathbb Z}; X)$
with
$abcd=0$
. We now consider the following eight sets for different choices of the signs of a,
$c,$
and d:

with
$\alpha , \gamma , \delta \in \{-1,1\}$
.
Now observe that
$\Gamma _0(Q,X)$
is preserved under the bijections

and

This means

and

for all pairs
$\alpha ,\gamma \in \{-1,1\}$
.
Thus

3.2 Preliminary counting of
$\Gamma _0^{1, 1, 1 }(Q,X)$
Writing
$cQ$
instead of c, we need to count the number of solutions to the equation

We first do this for a fixed c and then sum up over all
$c \le X/Q$
.
First, we consider the values
$a \le cQ$
. We note that setting

for a solution
$(a,d)$
to the congruence

we have
$b \le X$
. Hence, we see from Lemma 2.1 (and then recalling that
$cQ \le X$
) that for every
$c \in [1, X/Q]$
, there are

such matrices

Next, we count the contribution
$G_{2}(c)$
from matrices
$A\in \Gamma _0^{1,1,1}(Q,X)$
with
$a> cQ$
. To do this, we recall the notation of Section 2.2 and then parameterize this set using a modular hyperbola as follows.
Lemma 3.1 Fix
$1 \leq c \leq X/Q$
,
$0 < U \leq X - cQ$
and define

Then the map

given by

is well-defined, injective and its image is exactly the set of those
$A\in \Gamma _0^{1,1,1}(Q,X)$
with
$cQ < a \leq cQ + U$
and bottom left entry equal to
$cQ$
.
Proof For
$(x,y) \in {\mathcal T}_{f_c}(cQ,cQ,U)$
, we have that
$(xy-1)/cQ \in \mathbb {Z}$
and

which is equivalent to

As
$x> cQ \geq 1$
and
$y>0$
, this is actually equivalent to

We also need to check that
$1 \leq y \leq X$
. This follows since

Thus, indeed,
$(x,y)$
is mapped to an element of
$\Gamma _0^{1,1,1}(Q,X)$
with the desired properties. Conversely, suppose that
$A \in \Gamma _0^{1,1,1}(Q,X)$
with
$a>cQ$
and bottom left entry equal to
$cQ$
. As
$ad \equiv 1 \ \ \pmod {cQ}$
, we have
$1 \leq x,y \leq X$
such that

Also by definition (the lower bound holds as
$x>cQ\geq 1$
)

which means

and so indeed
$(x,y) \in \mathcal {T}(f_c, cQ, U)$
.
We partition the interval
$(cQ,X]$
into
$I \ll \log X$
dyadic intervals of the form
$(Z_i, Z_i+U_i]$
with

(in fact
$U_i = Z_i$
, except maybe for
$i=I$
) and note that

We now write

where
$f_c(x)$
is as in Lemma 3.1.
Next, for each
$i =1, \ldots , I$
, we use Lemma 2.2 with
$q = cQ$
and use that

for
$x \in (Z_i, Z_i+U_i]$
. Therefore, we conclude that

where

Combing the main terms
$M_{i}(c)$
,
$i =1, \ldots , I$
, together and recalling (3.4), we obtain

where

and

Recalling (3.3) and using
$cQ \le X$
, we obtain

which after the substitution in (3.6) yields

3.3 Asymptotic formula for
$\Gamma _0^{1, 1, 1 }(Q,X)$
From the equations (3.2) and (3.7), we obtain

where

and

We also note that

Change the order of summation, we write

Hence, recalling (2.2), we derive that

Thus, we see from (3.8) that

3.4 Counting
$\Gamma ^{-1,1,1}(Q,X) $
Recalling (3.1), we see that it remains to count
$\Gamma _0^{-1, 1, 1 }(Q,X)$
. One can use a similar argument, but in fact, we show that

where the error term
$\mathbf {E} = O(X^{5/3+o(1)} Q^{-1} )$
is the same as obtained above.
Thus, we wish to count matrices of the form

where
$xy \equiv 1 \ \ \pmod {cQ}$
,
$-X\leq x \leq -1$
,
$1 \leq y \leq X$
,
$1 \leq cQ \leq X$
and
$-X \leq (xy-1)/cQ \leq -1$
.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that
$X \not \in {\mathbb Z}$
. Then, we consider the following two cases.
Case I:
$x> -cQ$
. Note that for any
$x,y$
with
$xy \equiv 1 \ \ \pmod {cQ}$
,
$-cQ < x \leq -1$
and
$1 \leq y \leq X$
, we have

and so

Thus, indeed, the corresponding A is in
$\Gamma _0^{-1,1,1}(Q,X)$
. Note that since
$0<x + cQ \leq cQ$
and
$-X \leq (xy-1)/cQ + y \leq X $
, we have that

So in fact, the number of such matrices A is exactly
$G_1(c)$
as computed in (3.2) in the
$\Gamma _0^{1,1,1}(Q,X)$
case.
Case II:
$-X<x \leq -cQ$
. Let

We now need an analogue of Lemma 3.1. While the argument is very similar to that of the proof of Lemma 3.1, there are some differences, so we prefer to present it in full detail.
Lemma 3.2 Fix
$1 \leq c \leq X/Q$
,
$0 < U \leq X - cQ$
. Then the map

given by

is well-defined, injective and its image is exactly the set of those
$A\in \Gamma _0^{-1,1,1}(Q,X)$
with
$-X < x \leq -X + U$
and bottom left entry equal to
$cQ$
.
Proof Let
$(x,y) \in \mathcal {T}_{\widetilde {f}_c}(cQ, -X, U) $
. Thus, by definition,

As
$x<-cQ$
, we have that

and so indeed
$y \leq X$
. Moreover, as
$x<0$
, we have

So indeed this mapping has range inside
$\Gamma _0^{-1,1,1}(Q,X)$
. Conversely, suppose

is in
$\Gamma _0^{-1,1,1}(Q,X)$
with
$-X <x \leq -X + U$
. Then
$-X \leq b \leq 0$
is an integer, thus
${xy \equiv 1 \ \ \pmod {cQ}}$
and

Thus, as
$x<0,$
we have

Thus

and so indeed
$(x,y) \in \mathcal {T}_{\widetilde {f}_c}(cQ, -X, U)$
as desired.
We now fix c with
$1 \leq c \leq X/Q$
and observe now that by Lemma 3.2, for any
$Z \in [-X,0)$
and
$0 < U \leq |Z|$
, we have that
$T_{\widetilde {f}_c}(cQ, Z, U)$
has the main term

where we recall
$f_c(x) = (cQX-1)/x$
as used in Lemma 3.1. But this is precisely the same main term as for
$T_{f_c}(cQ, |Z| - U, U)$
except for the boundary terms (
$x = -Z-U, -Z$
) which contribute only
$O(X)$
(uniformly in Q as
$|(cQX-1)/x \leq (cQX-1)/cQ \leq X$
). Thus, recalling (3.4), (3.5), and (3.6), we see that for each admissible c, we obtain the contribution to
$\# \Gamma ^{-1,1,1}(Q,X)$
, which is asymptotic to
$G_2(c)$
. Now observe that
$\widetilde {f}_c(x) = - f_c(x)$
and so
$|\widetilde {f}^{\prime \prime }_c(x)| = |f^{\prime \prime }_c(-x)|$
which means that the error terms we obtain from applying Lemma 2.2 to
$\widetilde {f}_c$
are the same as those obtained for
$f_c$
(we have
$x \in [-X, -cQ]$
and before we had
$x \in [cQ, X]$
). Thus, if we sum over c and proceed as before, we see that the error term is at most
$O\left (\mathbf {E} + X\right )$
which implies (3.10).
4 Proof of Theorem 1.2
4.1 Approximating
$F_1(Q,X)$
For convenience, we let

So

We now define the function

Lemma 4.1 We have

Proof Observe that for any integer
$n \ge 1$
,

Hence

Thus, we derive

which completes the proof.
We now see from Lemma 4.1 that

Using that

we write

Note that

Thus, we see from (4.2) that

and so by (4.1), we derive

4.2 Approximating
$F_2(Q,X)$
We can now easily recover an estimate for
$F_2(Q,X)$
originally derived in [Reference Suryanarayana13]. We do this for the sake of completeness as [Reference Suryanarayana13] is not easily available. Let

be the characteristic function of the set of integer multiplies of an integer
$d\ne 0$
. Then

We can now use (4.3) and then the multiplicativity of
$\psi (d)$
to obtain

since

where
$\omega (Q)$
is the number of prime divisors of Q.
A simple computation shows that

Therefore

Therefore, using that
$2^{\omega (Q)} \le \tau (Q) = Q^{o(1)}$
, we obtain

whence
$\psi (Q) \ge Q$
.
5 Comments
We presented our result, Corollary 1.3 as a direct consequence of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 of very different nature with error terms of different strength. This makes it apparent that Theorem 1.1 is the bottleneck to further improvements of Corollary 1.3.
The methods of this work can also be used for counting elements of bounded norm of other congruence subgroup such as

and

One can also adjust our approach to counting matrices of restricted size with respect to other natural matrix norms.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Régis de la Bretèche for his suggestion which has led to the proof of Theorem 1.2 with the current error term. The authors are also very grateful to the referees for the very careful reading of the manuscript and very useful comments.