If $n$ is a natural number, let $\displaystyle \sigma_{11}(n) = \sum_{d \mid n} d^{11}$. The modular form $\Delta$ is defined by $\displaystyle \Delta(q) = q \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1 - q^n)^{24}$. Write $\tau(n)$ for the coefficient of $q^{n}$ in $\Delta(q)$.
I would like to know why $\tau(n) \equiv \sigma_{11}(n) \pmod{691}$. I think the proof may be somewhat difficult, so even just an outline of the argument would be much appreciated.
Thank you!
The proof is not at all obvious if you begin simply with the formula $$\Delta(q) = q \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1-q^n)^{24}.$$ However, as Derek Jennings explains in his answer, if you use the (absolutely crucial!) fact that $\Delta$ is a cusp form of weight twelve and level one, the proof is actually not very difficult.
As Derek explains, the ring of modular forms of level one is generated by two $q$-expansions, namely $$E_4 := 1 + 240 \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \sigma_3(n) q^n,$$ which has weight 4, and $$E_6 := 1 + 504 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sigma_5(n) q^n,$$ which has weight 6. (The coefficients $240$ and $-504$ come from Bernoulli numbers, as Derek explains, but we don't need that at the moment.)
Now we see that we can make two monomials of weight 12 from these, namely $E_4^3$ and $E_6^2$. How do we get $\Delta$? Well, the constant term of $\Delta$ vanishes, while $E_4^3$ and $E_6^2$ have constant term $1$, so $\Delta$ must be proportional to $E_4^3 - E_6^2$. Since the coefficient of $q$ in $\Delta$ is $1$ (i.e. $\tau(1) = 1$) while the coefficient of $q$ in $E_4^3 - E_6^2$ is $1728,$ we find that $$E_4^3 - E_6^2 = 1728 \Delta.$$
It is useful to note that we can also use $E_4^3$ (say) and $\Delta$ as a basis for the weight $12$ modular forms. In fact, they are a very convenient basis, because if $f$ is any weight $12$ modular form, with constant term $a_0$, then we can subtract of $a_0 E_4^3$ to get rid of the constant term of $f$, and then $f - a_0 E_4^3$ must be a mulitple of $\Delta$.
To go further, we have to introduce another fact, also noted by Derek Jennings, namely that there is a weight 12 modular form $$E_{12} = 1 + \dfrac{65520}{691} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sigma_{11}(n) q^n.$$ In fact, it is (for me) easier to work with $$691 E_{12} = 691 + 65520\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sigma_{11}(n) q^n,$$ which has integer coefficients.
Now we apply the above procedure to write $691 E_{12}$ in terms of $E_4^3$ and $\Delta$, to find that $$691 E_{12} = 691 E_4^3 + (65520 - 691\cdot 720) \Delta.$$ Now all the $q$-expansions in this formula have integral coefficients, and so what we find, looking at the coefficient of $q^n$, is that $65520\sigma_{11}(n) \equiv 65520\tau(n)$ for each $n \geq 1$.
Dividing by $65520$ (which is coprime to $691$) gives the desired formula.
The usual way this is summarized is to say that $$\dfrac{691}{65520} E_{12} = \dfrac{691}{65520} + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sigma_{11}(n) q^n$$ is normalized (i.e. has coefficient of $q$ equal to $1$) and is a cuspform modulo $691$ (i.e. its constant term vanishes mod $691$). This forces it (as we have just seen) to be congruent to $\Delta$ modulo $691$.
Finally, let me note that by far the best place to read about the theory of modular forms used here is Serre's beautiful book A course in arithmetic.
Added: Since I was editing this anyway, let me add a cultural remark, namely that the study of congruences between Eisenstein series and cuspforms, of which the congruence between $\dfrac{691}{65520} E_{12}$ and $\Delta$ considered above is the first example, is a central topic in modern number theory. It lies at the heart of Mazur's determination of the possible torsion subgroups of elliptic curves over $\mathbb Q$, and is the basic method via which Ribet proved his "converse to Herbrand's theorem'' result giving a criterion for non-triviality of various $p$-power subgroup of the class group of the cyclotomic field $\mathbb Q(\zeta_p)$.