Here is a question I raised at the Puerto-Rico conference during one of the “problem sessions.” Toby Gee seems to remember that I had some half-baked heuristics that predicted both **A** and **B** below, but perhaps one of my readers has a more sophisticated suggestion, or even a similarly wild guess (or even a similarly contradictory collection of guesses).

Fix a pair of distinct odd primes and . Now consider a random normalized Hecke eigenform of weight two and level , where is squarefree and prime to both and . Now take the Hecke eigenvalue and reduce it modulo a random prime above .

**Question**: As one ranges over all newforms of conductor , what is the resulting distribution — if it even exists — of ?

Let me not be too precise about what random means — for example, there's a question about whether one wants to normalize in some way for Galois conjugates of eigenforms, but none of this will really matter for the very weak questions I have in mind. For example, consider the following two possibilities:

**A**: The element lies in at least 100% of the time.**B**: The element lies in at least 100% of the time.

Here by 100% I mean as a proportion of all forms as , although I confess that I can’t even rule out the extreme version of **A** where 100% really means every single form.

The specifications on the level are designed to rule out some “trivial” examples. At level with squarefree there will be no CM-forms, which is one cheap way to generate large coefficient fields. The level also prevents twisting by characters (an even cheaper trick). Finally, in general, it is possible to generate large coefficient fields for Galois representations by imposing a local condition at some auxiliary prime . For example, one can impose some supercuspidal condition so that the *local* residual representation at does not land in for any not divisible by an arbitrary fixed integer chosen in advance. However, this too is not possible if is forced to be either unramified or special (up to unramified quadratic twist).

Note that there do exist infinitely many semi-stable modular elliptic curves, so will lie in at least infinitely often. This disproves the “extreme” version of **B**, but doesn’t go very far towards disproving the asymptotic version of **B**. As for **A**, every single time you write down a normalized eigenform with coefficients in some field , you disprove the extreme version of **A** for a positive density of pairs . But no finite collection of such forms can disprove **A** even for a single and varying , because there will always be (many) primes which split completely in any finite collection of number fields.

Here are three questions:

- Can you disprove the extreme version of
**A**for all and ? - Can you disprove the super-extreme version of
**A**, namely, show that for all primes , there exists a newform of squarefree level prime to such that the residual representation is not defined over ? (equivalently, replace by the collection of all with prime to .) - Can you give any heuristic that suggests that either
**A**or**B**(in the weaker form) is either strong or true? - Do you have any guesses as to the distribution of the ?

Right now, as you read this, KB’s computer is churning away in sage generating some data, which will be the topic of Part II. But until then, I would like to hear your opinions/guesses. For me, I think that **A** is probably false, but I honestly have no feeling for **B**.