MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $E_2$, $E_4$, and $E_6$ denote the standard Eisenstein series. The usual variables $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$ allow us to regard the $E_n$'s as functions on either the upper half plane or the unit disk and we can define $E_n'=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{d\tau}E_n(\tau)=q\frac{d}{dq}E_n(q)$. I had cause to calculate a few of these and saw $$ E_4'=\frac{1}{3}(-E_6+E_4E_2) $$ $$ E_4''=\frac{5}{36}(E_8-2E_6E_2+E_4E_2^2)$$ $$E_4^{(3)}=\frac{5}{72}(-E_{10}+3E_8E_2-3E_6E_2^2+E_4E_2^3) $$ $$E_4^{(4)}=\frac{35}{864}(E_4^3-4E_{10}E_2+6E_8E_2^2-4E_6E_2^3+E_4E_2^4)-40\Delta $$ and $$E_6'=\frac{1}{2}(-E_8+E_6E_2) $$ $$E_6''=\frac{7}{24}(E_{10}-2E_8E_2+E_6E_2^2) $$ $$E_6^{(3)}=\frac{7}{36}(-E_4^3+3E_{10}E_2-3E_8E_2^2+E_6E_2^3)+168\Delta $$ It's a standard fact that the derivative of a modular form is quasimodular, so it's not surprising that we have polynomials in $E_2$. I am surprised about the appearance of the binomial coefficients though. Is there a deeper reason for their appearance? Also, I wonder if the/a pattern continues. For instance, it would be interesting if it happens that there always is some $\alpha \in \mathbb{Q}$ so that $$E_4^{(n)}-\alpha \sum_{k=0}^{n} (-1)^{k+n}\binom {n}{k}E_{4+2n-2k}E_2^{k}$$ is modular (and similarly for $E_6$). The other direction you could ask if the pattern extends is for other modular forms besides $E_4$ and $E_6$. I've taken a handful of derivatives of other Eisenstein series and saw similar results. You don't get the binomial coefficients though when you take derivatives of $\Delta$, so maybe at most something general can be said is for non-cusp forms.

share|cite|improve this question
seems related to Rankin-Cohen brackets – Abdelmalek Abdesselam Jun 28 '11 at 22:35
yeah, that's what I was thinking, but I don't know how to use them here to say anything general – charris Jun 28 '11 at 22:50
up vote 14 down vote accepted

The constant $\alpha$ in your question can be in fact written explicitly as $(k)_n/12^n$, where $(a)_n=\Gamma(a+n)/\Gamma(n)$ is the Pochhammer symbol (shifted factorial) and $k$ denotes the (even) weight of the corresponding Eisenstein series.

Your observation is indeed related to the Rankin--Cohen brakets; see Section 5.2 in [D. Zagier, Elliptic modular forms and their applications, The 1-2-3 of modular forms, Universitext (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 1–-103]. Preserving the notation $D$ of Zagier's lectures for your differential operator and picking a modular form $f$ of weight $k$, one can show that $D^nf$ transforms under the modular group as $$ D^nf\biggl(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\biggr) =\sum_{r=0}^n\binom{n}{r}\frac{(k+r)_{n-r}}{(2\pi i)^{n-r}} c^{n-r}(c\tau+d)^{k+n+r}D^rf(\tau), $$ by the induction on $n\ge 0$. In addition, the function $E_2(\tau)$ transforms as $$ E_2\biggl(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\biggr) =\frac{12c(c\tau+d)}{2\pi i}+(c\tau+d)^2E_2(\tau). $$ Therefore, it remains to verify that the difference $$ g_n=D^nE_k-\frac{(k) _ n}{12^n}\sum_{r=0}^n(-1)^{n-r}\binom{n}{r}E_{k+2n-2r}E_2^r $$ satisfies $$ g_n\biggl(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\biggr)=(c\tau+d)^{k+2n}g_n(\tau). $$

Technicalities. Indeed, I found the remaining details quite boring, but going through my yesterday writing I have realised that your expectation fails already for $D^5E_4$ and $D^4E_6$. Here is my explanation why.

Because $g_n(\tau)$ is a $q$-series, so it is invariant under $\tau\mapsto\tau+1$, we can restrict to verifying the claim under the transformation $\tau\mapsto-1/\tau$ (that is, $a=d=0$, $b=-1$, and $c=1$). Then (we take $s=n-r$ in the above formula) $$ D^nE_k(-1/\tau) =\sum_{s=0}^n\binom ns\frac{(k+n-s) _ s}{(2\pi i)^s}\tau^{k+2n-s}D^{n-s}E_k(\tau) $$ and $$ \begin{aligned} & \frac{(k) _ n}{12^n}\sum_{r=0}^n(-1)^{n-r}\binom nrE_{k+2n-2r}E_2^r\bigg|_{\tau\mapsto-1/\tau} \cr &\qquad =\frac{(k) _ n}{12^n}\sum_{r=0}^n(-1)^{n-r}\binom nr\tau^{k+2n-r}E_{k+2n-2r}\biggl(\tau E_2+\frac{12}{2\pi i}\biggr)^r \cr &\qquad =\frac{(k) _ n}{12^n}\sum_{r=0}^n(-1)^{n-r}\binom nr\tau^{k+2n-r}E_{k+2n-2r}\sum_{s=0}^r\binom rs\frac{12^s}{(2\pi i)^s}\tau^{r-s}E_2^{r-s} \cr &\qquad =\frac{(k) _ n}{12^n}\sum_{s=0}^n\binom ns\tau^{r-s}\frac{12^s}{(2\pi i)^s}\tau^{k+2n-s} \sum_{r=s}^n(-1)^{n-r}\binom{n-s}{r-s}E_{k+2n-2r}E_2^{r-s}. \end{aligned} $$ Subtracting the latter from the former we obtain $$ \begin{aligned} g_n(-1/\tau) &=\sum_{s=0}^n\binom ns\frac{(k+n-s) _ s}{(2\pi i)^s}\tau^{k+2n-s}g_{n-s}(\tau) \cr &=\tau^{k+2n}g_n(\tau)+\sum_{s=1}^n\binom ns\frac{(k+n-s) _ s}{(2\pi i)^s}\tau^{k+2n-s}g_{n-s}(\tau). \end{aligned} $$ Therefore, $g_n(-1/\tau)=\tau^{k+2n}g_n(\tau)$, hence $g_n(\tau)$ is a modular form (of weight $k+2n$), if and only if the additional sum over $s$ vanishes, that is, $g_{n-s}=0$ for $s=1,\dots,n$. The latter however does not happen when $k+2n>12$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the great answer! I'm having a little trouble working out the last step. Is it as complicated as I seem to be making it? – charris Jul 3 '11 at 0:02

This isn't really an answer, but a long comment with a bit of LaTeX that thought would render poorly in the comment box.

The following fact may be lurking in the background here: While the derivative of a modular form of weight $k$ is not generally modular, the map $D$ on modular forms of weight $k$ defined by

$$D(f) = q\frac{df}{dq} - \frac{k}{12}f\cdot E_2$$ actually does preserve modularity.

I think this is sometimes called the Halperin-Fricke operator or something like this. It's also a derivation, for what it's worth. It certainly directly explains the first of your equations above, and I wonder if some cleverness iterating it would yield your more general observations.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the response Ramsey. I did have that in mind for the formulas for $E_4'$ and $E_6'$. I iterated those formulas then to find the others. What I'm really missing is the cleverness :) I've heard this $D$ called the Serre derivative also. – charris Jun 29 '11 at 0:02
Yeah, I seem to be missing said cleverness at the moment as well! At any rate, I thought I pass along $D$ in case you didn't know it, but it seems that you do. Incidentally, I now recall where I got the name of that operator. It was from Katz's "$p$-adic interpolation of real analytic Eisenstein series" where it is called the Halphen-Fricke operator, not the Halperin-Fricke operator. – Ramsey Jun 29 '11 at 2:36

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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