I am interested in computing the algebraic parts of $L(f, n, \chi)$ for a primitive form $f \in S_k(\Gamma_0(N))$ with wieght $k > 2$ twisted by a primitive Dirichlet character $\chi$ of conductor $m$. It is known that there are some non-zero complex numbers $\Omega^{\pm}$ depending on the sign of $\chi$ such that for any positive integer $n$ with $1 \le n \le k-1$, \begin{equation*} \Lambda(f, n, \chi) := \frac{c(m, n, \chi)}{\Omega^{\pm}}L(f, n, \chi) \in \mathbb{Z}[\chi], \end{equation*} for some constants $c(m,n,\chi) \in \mathbb{C}$ depending on $m, n \text{ and } \chi$ and $\mathbb{Z}[\chi]$ is the ring of integers generated by the values of $\chi$.

For $k = 2$, it is well known to compute $\Omega^{\pm}$. For $k > 2$, For a given such $f$ and $\chi$, I can compute the values of $L(f, n, \chi)$ with the Dokchitser's calculator as well as $c(m,n,\chi)$ but can not find a way to compute $\Omega^{\pm}$.

Question: Can anyone let me know how to compute $\Omega^{\pm}$ directly? A reference for this computation is also welcome.

Update #1: Following Chapter 1. on "On $p$-adic analogues of the conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer" by Mazur, Tate and Teitelbaum, we have \begin{equation*} c(m, n, \chi) = \frac{(n-1)!m^n}{(-2\pi i)^{n-1}\tau(\chi)}, \end{equation*} where $\tau(\chi)$ is the Gauss sum of $\chi$. For the computations of $L(f, n, \chi)$ one way is to use the functional equation and evaluate the series of integrals involving the Fourier coefficients of $f$ within some precision (This is exactly how Dokchitser built in his L-value calculator). In Mazur, Tate and Teitelbaum, they presented some numerical values of $\Lambda(f, n, \chi)$ on page 11 for quadratic twists of the primitive form $f \in S_6(\Gamma_0(3))$. From there, I can obtain $\Omega^{+}$ with the values of $L(f, n, \chi)$ computed by Dokchitser's $L$-function calculator.

I hope this update can explain it more explicitly as reuns wants.

Update #2: As David pointed out, the form $f$ should be assumed that its Fourier coefficients are in $\mathbb{Q}$.

  • $\begingroup$ No, I am able to compute $L(f, n, \chi)$ for those $n$'s. What I want to compute is $\Lambda(f, n, \chi)$ by computing $\Omega^{\pm}$. $\endgroup$ – user115356 Oct 4 '17 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ Can you be more explicit how you compute it and what you get, maybe take an example ? $\endgroup$ – reuns Oct 4 '17 at 15:55

I think your question is actually not well-posed, because it is not clear if such $\Omega_{\pm}$ actually exist, and if they do exist they are very far from being uniquely determined.

Firstly, it is not true that the quantity you call $\Lambda(f, n, \chi)$ is actually in $\mathbf{Z}[\chi]$. Shimura's theorem on periods of modular forms states that you can choose the $\Omega_{\pm}$ such that the ratio is in $\mathbf{Q}(f, \chi)$ -- the field extension generated by the values of $\chi$ and the coefficients of $f$, which is in general much larger than $\mathbf{Q}(\chi)$; coefficient fields of modular forms are often pretty big. In Shimura's construction, the $\Omega_{\pm}$ are only unique up to scaling by elements of $\mathbf{Q}(f)^\times$.

However, you want more than just rationality: you want integrality. For each prime $\mathfrak{p}$ of the coefficient field, Vatsal showed how to pick a particular canonical $\mathfrak{p}$-integral normalisation of $\Omega_{\pm}$ such that the $\Lambda(f, n, \chi)$ were integral at $\mathfrak{p}$ (more precisely, at the primes of $\mathbf{Q}(f, \chi)$ above $\mathfrak{p}$). However, there's a nasty caveat here: because $\mathbf{Q}(f)$ might have non-trivial class group, there is no guarantee that you can choose a period that is $\mathfrak{p}$-canonical for every prime $\mathfrak{p}$ of $\mathbf{Q}(f)$ simultaneously!

So the objects you are looking for don't necessarily exist, and when they do exist, they are only well-defined up to multiplication by units in a potentially quite large number field. So in what sense is it meaningful to "compute" them?

Having spent a while pedantically criticising your question, let me now try to answer it. For simplicitly, suppose that $f$ has coefficients in $\mathbf{Q}$; then all my criticisms above go away, and $\Omega_{\pm}$ are well-defined up to signs.

In this case, I believe your question can be answered with modular symbols. For each sign $\pm$, take a basis over $\mathbf{Z}$ of the space of (homological) modular symbols of the appropriate weight, level and sign. Over $\mathbf{Q}$, there is a unique 1-dimensional quotient of modular symbols where the Hecke operators act as they do on $f$; the image of the integral mod symbols in this quotient must therefore be a copy of $\mathbf{Z}$, and you can choose one of your basis elements whose image generates this group.

If I remember correctly, the two numbers $\Omega_{\pm}$ are given by integrating $f$ against these symbols -- concretely, this will be a finite linear combination of integrals $\int_{\alpha}^\beta f(z) z^r dz$, where $\alpha, \beta$ are cusps and $0 \le r \le k-2$.

(The issue when $\mathbf{Q}(f)$ is larger is that the $f$-eigenspace quotient of modular symbols is now 1-dimensional over $\mathbf{Q}(f)$, and the image of the integral modular symbols is a rank 1 torsion-free module over the ring of integers of $\mathbf{Q}(f)$, but it needn't be a free module.)

  • $\begingroup$ David, thank you for your answer in detail! Yes, the form $f$ in my question should have been mentioned with its Fourier coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$. I will update the question as criticised. I have checked it with Sage and saw the modular symbol corresponding to $f$ with respect to the Hecke operators. I am not sure if you are familiar with the space of modular symbols on Sage. There is a method called "integral_period_mapping" for the 1-dimensional space of modular symbols for $f$. With this mapping, can I get the algebraic parts of $L(f, n, \chi)$ maybe upto a multiple of rational number? $\endgroup$ – user115356 Oct 5 '17 at 3:44
  • $\begingroup$ This is now a Sage question, not a mathematical one, and is probably better asked elsewhere. Anyway, if you read the docstring for integral_period_mapping you'll see that it's only implemented for weight 2 at present; but in the weight 2 case, it does indeed precisely calculate the integrally normalised algebraic parts. $\endgroup$ – David Loeffler Oct 5 '17 at 5:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.