arxiv: v3 [math.nt] 28 Jul 2012

SOME REMARKS ON RANKIN-COHEN BRACKETS OF EIGENFORMS arxiv:1111.2431v3 [math.nt] 28 Jul 2012 JABAN MEHER Abstract. We investigate the cases for which products of two quasimodular or nearly holomorphic eigenforms are eigenforms. We also generalize the results of Ghate [5] to the case of Ranin-Cohen bracets. 1. Introduction The space of modular forms of fixed weight on the full modular group has a basis of simultaneous eigenvectors for all Hece operators. A modular form is called an eigenform if it is a simultaneous eigenvector for all Hece operators. A natural question to as is whether the product of two eigenforms (which may be of different weights) is an eigenform. The question was taen up by Due [3] and Ghate [4]. They proved that there are only finitely many cases where this phenomenon happens. Then a more general question i.e., the Ranin-Cohen bracet of two eigenforms was studied by Lanphier and Taloo-Bighash [8]. They also proved that except for finitely many cases, the Ranin-Cohen bracets of two eigenforms is not an eigenform. Recently, Beyerl, James, Trentacoste, Xue [1] have proved that this phenomenon extends to a certain class of nearly holomorphic modular forms. More explicitly, they have proved that there is only one more case apart from the cases listed in [3] and [4] for which the product of two nearly holomorphic eigenforms of certain type is a nearly holomorphic eigenform. In this paper, we consider a few more cases of such results. First, we consider the product of two quasimodular eigenforms. Secondly, we consider the product of nearly holomorphic eigenforms. Finally, we generalize the result of Ghate [5] to the case of Ranin-Cohen bracets. 2. Quasimodular forms Let Γ = SL 2 (Z) be the full modular group and H denote the upper half plane. Let M be the space of modular forms of weight on Γ. Date: July 31, 2012. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 11F11, 11F25; Secondary 11F37. Key words and phrases. Eigenforms, quasimodular forms, Maass-Shimura operator, Ranin- Cohen bracets. 1

2 JABAN MEHER Definition 2.1. A nearly holomorphic modular form F of weight and depth p on Γ is a polynomial in 1/y of degree p whose coefficients are holomorphic functions on H with moderate growth, such that (cz +d) F ( az+b cz+d) = F γ = F, ( ) a b where γ = SL c d 2 (Z). M ( p) Let denote the space of such forms. We denote by M = p M( p) the space of nearly holomorphic modular form of weight and M = M the graded ring of all nearly holomorphic modular forms on Γ. Definition 2.2. A quasimodular form of weight and depth p on Γ is the constant term of a nearly holomorphic modular form of weight and depth p on Γ. M ( p) Let denote the space of such forms. Let M = p M( p) be the space of quasimodular forms of weight and M = M the graded ring of all quasimodular forms on Γ. Then it is nown that M = C[E 2,E 4,E 6 ]. Here E (z) = 1 2 σ 1 (m)q m is the Eisenstein series of weight, where is the -th m 1 Bernoulli number, σ 1 (m) is the sum of ( 1)-th powers of the positive divisors of m, and q = e 2πiz with z H. For more details on quasimodular forms see [2]. For f M, define the action of n th Hece operator T n on f by (1) (T n f)(z) = n 1 d n ( ) nz +bd f. d d 1 Then T n maps M to M. A quasimodular form is said to be an eigenform if it is an eigenvector for all of the Hece operators T n for n N. It is nown that the differential operator D = 1 d taes M 2πi dz to M +2. We have the following proposition which follows by a similar argument as done in Proposition 2.4 and 2.5 of [1]. Proposition 2.3. If f M, then (D m (T n f))(z) = 1 n m (T n (D m f))(z), for m 0. Moreover, we have D m f is an eigenform for T n iff f is. In this case, if λ n is the eigenvalue of T n associated to f, then n m λ n is the eigenvalue of T n associated to D m f. By comparing the constant coefficients of both sides of the equality given in Proposition 2.3 of [1], we get similar identies for the operator D. We now state two results which follow the same way as was done in [1]. b=0 d 2

SOME REMARKS ON RANKIN-COHEN BRACKETS OF EIGENFORMS 3 Proposition 2.4. Suppose that {f i } i is a collection of modular forms of distinct t weights i. Then for a i C, a i D (n i ) 2 (f i ) is an eigenform if and only if each D (n i i=1 2 ) (f i ) is an eigenform where the eigenvalues are the same for any i. Proposition 2.5. If > l and f M, g M l are eigenforms, then for r 0, D ( l 2 +r) (g) and D r (f) do not have the same eigenvalues. Notation : For {12,16,18,20,22,26}, let denote the unique normalized cusp form of weight on Γ. Using the above propositions and following the method as in [1], we have a result analogous to Theorem 3.1 of [1]. Theorem 2.6. Let f M and g M l so that for some r,s 0, D r f M +2r and D s g M l+2s are eigenforms. Then (D r f)(d s g) is an eigenform only in the following cases. (1) The modular cases given in [3] and [4], namely (2) (DE 4 )E 4 = 1 2 DE 8. E 2 4 = E 8, E 4 E 6 = E 10, E 6 E 8 = E 4 E 10 = E 14, E 4 12 = 16, E 6 12 = 18, E 4 16 = E 8 12 = 20, E 4 18 = E 6 16 = E 10 12 = 22, E 4 22 = E 6 20 = E 8 18 = E 10 16 = E 14 12 = 26. M p M q l Theorem 2.7. Let f and g be eigenforms such that p,q < /2. Then fg is an eigenform only in the following cases. (1) The modular cases given in [3] and [4], namely (2) (DE 4 )E 4 = 1 2 DE 8. E 2 4 = E 8, E 4 E 6 = E 10, E 6 E 8 = E 4 E 10 = E 14, E 4 12 = 16, E 6 12 = 18, E 4 16 = E 8 12 = 20, E 4 18 = E 6 16 = E 10 12 = 22, E 4 22 = E 6 20 = E 8 18 = E 10 16 = E 14 12 = 26. M p Proof. We now from Proposition 20 of [2] (page 59) that if p < /2, then = p r=0 Dr p q (M 2r ). Now, if f M and g M l are eigenforms, then by Proposition 2.4 and 2.5, we can conclude that f = D r (f r ) and g = D s (g s ), for some r, s and f r M 2r, g s M 2s. By applying the previous theorem, the result follows. Remar 2.8. It is nown from [2] that if f is a non-zero quasimodular form of weight and depth p, then p /2.

4 JABAN MEHER Remar 2.9. If f = n 1a n q n M is a non-zero eigenform, then a 1 0. Thus, it follows that the product of two quasimodular eigenforms (having zero constant term) is not an eigenform. It is easy to see that E 2 is an eigenform. Remar 2.10. Following the same proof as in the case of M, one can prove that a quasimodular form in M with non-zero constant Fourier coefficient is an eigenform iff f CE. We have the following theorem. Theorem 2.11. Let f M and g M l be eigenforms such that the constant coefficients of both f and g are non-zero. Then (D r f)(d s g) is an eigenform only in the following cases. E 2 4 = E 8, E 4 E 6 = E 10, E 6 E 8 = E 4 E 10 = E 14, (DE 4 )E 4 = 1 2 DE 8. To prove the above theorem, we first prove the following proposition. Proposition 2.12. Let f M be an eigenform. Then E 2 f is an eigenform if and only if f C 12. Proof. Since D 12 = E 2 12, by Proposition 2.3, E 2 12 is an eigenform. Conversely, suppose that E 2 f is an eigenform with eigenvalues β n, where f = a m q m M is an eigenform with eigenvalues λ n. We now that g = Df m 0 E 12 2f M +2. Then T n (Df) T 12 n(e 2 f) = nλ n Df nλ 12 ne 2 f + (nλ 12 n β n )E 2 f M +2. Since E 2 f is not a modular form and nλ n Df nλ 12 ne 2 f is a modular form, we have nλ n = β n for all n 1. Thus g = Df E 12 2f M +2 is an eigenform with eigenvalues nλ n. If f = E, then g = αe +2 for some α C. Therefore, by applying T n to αe +2 = DE E 12 2E, we get for all n 1, nσ 1 (n) = σ +1 (n), which is not true. If f is a cusp form, without loss of generality assume that f is normalized. Let g = m 1b m q m. Since b 1 = 1, we have 12 ( (2) b n = na n 1 ), 12 for all n 1. Now computing the values of b n from Df 12 E 2f in terms of a n and then substituting in the previous equation, we see that a 2 = 24, a 3 = 252 and a 4 = 1472. These are nothing but the second, third and fourth Fourier coefficients of 12 respectively. But Theorem 1 of [6] says that if f 1 and f 2 are two cuspidal

SOME REMARKS ON RANKIN-COHEN BRACKETS OF EIGENFORMS 5 eigenforms on Γ 0 (N) of different weights, then there exists n 4(log(N)+1) 2 such that a n (f 1 ) a n (f 2 ). Applying this theorem to f 1 = f, f 2 = 12 and N = 1, we conclude that = 12. Thus we have f = 12. Remar 2.13. Since DE 2 = E2 2 E 4 and DE 12 2, E 4 are eigenforms with different eigenvalues, E2 2 is not an eigenform. Proof of Theorem 2.11. By Theorem 2.6, Remar 2.9, Remar 2.10, Proposition 2.12 and Remar 2.13, we only have to prove that in the following cases (D r E 2 )(D s E ) is not an eigenform. (1) r = 0 and s 1 (2) r 1 and s = 0. For (1), let us assume on the contrary that E 2 (D s E ) is an eigenform where s 1. The first few coefficients of the normalized form 2 E 2(D s E ) = n 1a n q n are a 1 = 1, a 2 = 2 s σ 1 (2) 24, a 3 = 3 s σ 1 (3) 24(2 s σ 1 (2)+3), a 4 = 4 s σ 1 (4) 24(3 s σ 1 (3)+3 2 s σ 1 (2)+4). Since E 2 2(D s E ) is an eigenform we have a 4 = a 2 2 2+2s+1 and a 6 = a 2 a 3. Thus we have 4 s σ 1 (4) 24(3 s σ 1 (3)+3 2 s σ 1 (2)+4) = 2 2s σ 1 (2) 2 48 2 s σ 1 (2)+576 2 +2s+1 and 6 s σ 1 (6) 24(5 s σ 1 (5)+3 4 s σ 1 (4)+4 3 s σ 1 (3)+7 2 s σ 1 (2)+6) = (2 s σ 1 (2) 24)(3 s σ 1 (3) 24(2 s σ 1 (2)+3)). From the multiplicativity of σ 1 and σ 1 (4) = σ 1 (2) 2 2 1, these simplify to (3) 3 s (1+3 1 )+2 s +28 = 2 +s 4 (2 s 2 3 ) and (4) 5 s σ 1 (5)+3 s+1 σ 1 (3)+2 2s+1 σ 1 (2) 2 +7 2 s+2 σ 1 (2) 3 2 +2s 1 +78 = 0. Now, if s 3, then the left hand side of (3) is positive, but the right hand side of the equation ( is non-positive. ) Thus s 4. If 2 (mod 4) and s is odd, then 7 + 3 s 2 (mod 4), but 2 +s 6 (2 s 2 3 ) 2 s 2 is divisible 1+3 1 4 by 4, giving a contradiction to (3). If 2 (mod 4) and s 0 (mod 4), then 3 s (1+3 1 )+2 s (1+2 1 )+28 0 (mod 5), but 5 does not divide 2 +2s 4. This gives a contradiction. If 2 (mod 4) and s 2 (mod 4), then 3 s+1 σ 1 (3) + 2 2s+1 σ 1 (2) 2 + 7 2 s+2 σ 1 (2) 3 2 +2s 1 + 78 4 (mod 5), but the remaining term of left hand side of (4) is divisible by 5, giving a contradiction. If 0 (mod 4) and s is even or s 1 (mod 4), then we get a contradiction from (3) and if 0 (mod 4) and s 3 (mod 4), we get a contradiction from (4). This proves the theorem for case (1).

6 JABAN MEHER For case (2), let us assume on the contrary that (D r E 2 )E is an eigenform for r 1. Let 1 24 (Dr E 2 )E = b n q n be the normalized eigenform. The first few coefficients n 1 of the expansion are b 1 = 1, b 2 = 3 2 r 2, b 3 = 4 3 r 2 (3 2 r + σ 1 (2)), b 4 = 7 4 r 2 (4 3 r +3 2 r σ 1 (2)+σ 1 (3)). Since 1 24 (Dr E 2 )E isanormalizedeigenform, wehaveb 4 = b 2 2 2+2r+1. Substituting above values of b 2 and b 4 we get 7 4 r 2 (4 3 r +3 2 r σ 1 (2)+σ 1 (3)) = ( 3 2 r 2 ) 2 2 +2r+1. This can be simplified to ( ) 2 2 + 2 ( 4 3 r +3 2 r (2 1 1)+1+3 1) +2 2r+1 (1 2 ) = 0. (5) 2 = b± b2 +2 2r+3 (2 1), 2 where (6) b = 4 3 r +3 2 r (2 1 1)+1+3 1. Since 2 is a rational number, b 2 + 2 2r+3 (2 1) is a perfect square, and since 2 2 divides b, is an integer. This implies that {2,4,6,8,10,14}. Since the case = 2 is shown in case (1), we only consider {4,6,8,10,14}. Let = 4. In this case, 2 = 240. Since 2 is negative, from (5), we get b b 2 +2 2r+3 (2 4 1) = 480 b 2 +15 2 2r+3 = (b 480) 2 b = 240 2 2r 3 Substituting this value of b in (6), we get (7) 2 2r 3 +4 3 r +21 2 r 212 = 0. Now, we can see that (7) is not satisfied for any positive integer r, giving a contradiction. The other cases are done similarly, whereby one uses (5) to obtain an equation in terms of r. It is straightforward to show that this equation cannot be satisfied for any appropriate integer values of r. This concludes the proof of the theorem. Corollary 2.14. Let f M be an eigenform. Then (D r E 2 )f is an eigenform if and only if r = 0 and f C 12. Proof. It is a direct consequence of Remar 2.9, Theorem 2.11 and Proposition 2.12.

SOME REMARKS ON RANKIN-COHEN BRACKETS OF EIGENFORMS 7 3. Nearly holomorphic modular forms Definition 3.1. The Maass-Shimura operator δ on f M is defined by ( ( 1 δ (f) = 2πi 2iIm(z) + ) ) f (z). z The operator δ taes M to M +2. Here we consider the action of δ on M. The operator T n, for each n 1 as defined by (1), maps M to M. The function E2(z) = E 2 (z) 3 is a nearly holomorphic modular form of weight 2 on Γ and πim(z) it is also an eigenform. Theorem 3.2. Let f be a normalized eigenform in M. Then E 2f is an eigenform if and only if f = 12. Proof. ItisnownfromProposition2.5of[1] thatδ 12 ( 12 ) = E2 12 isaneigenform. For any modular form f M, we have δ (f) 12 E 2 f = Df E 12 2f M +2. Now assume that f M is a normalized eigenform such that E2 f is an eigenform. Then proceeding as in Proposition 2.12, we conclude that f = 12. 4. Ranin-Cohen Bracets of holomorphic eigenforms Let M (Γ 1 (N)), S (Γ 1 (N)) and E (Γ 1 (N)) be respectively the spaces of modular forms, cusps formsandeisenstein series ofweight 1onΓ 1 (N), andlet M (N,χ), S (N,χ), E (N,χ) be the spaces of modular forms, cusps forms and Eisenstein series of level N and character χ respectively. We have an explicit basis B for M (Γ 1 (N)) which consist of common eigenforms for all Hece operators T n with (n,n) = 1 as described in [5]. An element of M (Γ 1 (N)) is called an almost everywhere eigenform or a.e. eigenform for short, if it is constant multiple of an element of B. For further details see [5]. Let g M 1 (N,χ) and h M 2 (N,ψ). The m th Ranin-Cohen bracet of f and g is defined by [g,h] m (z) = ( )( ) ( 1) r m+1 1 m+2 1 g (r) (z)h (s) (z), s r r+s=m where g (r) (z) = D r g(z) and h (s) (z) = D s h(z). It is nown that [g,h] m M 1 + 2 +2m(N,χψ) and [g,h] m is a cusp form if m 1. For > 2, the Eisenstein series is defined by E (N,ψ) (z) = γ Γ Γ 0 (N) ψ(d)(cz +d) E (N,ψ),

8 JABAN MEHER where z H and the sum varies over all γ = ( 1 n Γ = { 0 1 ( a b c d ) n Z}. We recall Proposition 6 of [11]: ) Γ 0 (N) modulo Theorem 4.1. Let 1, 2, m be integers satisfying 2 1 + 2 > 2 and let = 1 + 2 +2m. If f(z) = a n q n S (N,χψ) and g(z) = b n q n M 1 (N,χ), then n=1 f,[g,e (N,ψ) 2 ] m = Γ( 1)Γ( 2+m) (4π) 1 m!γ( 2 ) product. n=1 n=0 a n b n n 1+ 2, where, is the Petersson inner +m 1 Now, for an arbitrary positive integer N, let Q N such that (Q,N/Q) = 1. Let W Q be the Atin-Lehner operator on M (N,χ). Let χ = χ Q χ N/Q. Then it is nown that W Q maps M (N,χ Q χ N/Q ) to M (N,χ Q χ N/Q ) and it is an involution. It taes cusp forms to cusp forms and a.e. eigenforms to a.e. eigenforms (see [9] for details). We have the following lemma (see [7], Proposition 1). Lemma 4.2. Ifg M 1 (N,χ) andh M 2 (N,ψ), then [g,h] m W Q = [g W Q,h W Q ] m. Let ψ i be Dirichlet characters mod M i, i = 1,2 such that ψ 1 ψ 2 ( 1) = ( 1), where 1. Also assume that: (1) if = 2 and ψ 1 and ψ 2 both are trivial, then M 1 = 1 and M 2 is a prime number, (2) otherwise, ψ 1 and ψ 2 are primitive characters. Put M = M 1 M 2 and ψ = ψ 1 ψ 2. Let f (Qz,ψ 1,ψ 2 ), where QM 1 M 2 N be the set of elements of E (N,ψ) as given in Theorems 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 of [10] which form a basis of common eigenforms for all the Hece operators T n of level N, with (n,n) = 1. Remar 4.3. Using Theorem 4.1 and following the lines of Proposition 3 of [5], we have the following: For positive integers, 1, 2, m satisfying 2 1 +2 > 2 and = 1 + 2 +2m, g S 1 (N,χ) an a.e. eigenform which is a newform, h = E (N,ψ) 2 (N,χψ) 2 then [g,h] m is not an a.e. eigenform. S new E 2 (N,ψ), if dim Remar 4.4. Similarly as mentioned in the previous remar, we have an analogous result to Proposition 4 of [5] in this case: For positive integers, 1, 2, m satisfying the same condition as in the previous remar, g = f 1 (z,χ 1 χ 2 ) an a.e. eigenform as described above with χ primitive, h = E (N,χ) 2 E 2 (N,χ), if dim S new (N,χψ) 2 then [g,h] m isnot ana.e. eigenform. Theorem 4.5. Let 1, 2,,m be positive integers such that = 1 + 2 +2m and let N be square-free.

SOME REMARKS ON RANKIN-COHEN BRACKETS OF EIGENFORMS 9 (i) If g S 1 (Γ 1 (N)) and h S 2 (Γ 1 (N)) are a.e. eigenforms, then [g,h] m is not an a.e. eigenform. (ii) Let 1 3 and 2 1 + 2 > 2. Suppose that g S 1 (N,χ) is an a.e. eigenform which is a newform and h E 2 (N,ψ). If dim S new (N,χψ) 2, then [g,h] m is not an a.e. eigenform. (iii) Let 1, 2 3, 1 2 2. Let g = f 1 (z,χ 1,χ 2 ) E 1 (N,χ) and h = f 2 (z,ψ 1,ψ 2 ) E 2 (N,ψ) be a.e. eigenforms as mentioned above with χ and ψ primitive characters. If dim S new (N,χψ) 2, [g,h] m is not an a.e. eigenform. Proof. Assume that (8) [g,h] m = f isana.e. eigenform. Then f(z) = f 0 (Qz), wherem N, Q (N/M)andf 0 S (M,χ) isanormalizednewform. SinceN issquare-free, foranydivisiorqofn, (Q,N/Q) = 1. We also have f W Q = Q /2 χ(w)f 0 (z). Applying the operator W Q to (8) and by Lemma 4.2, we get [g W Q,h W Q ] m = f W Q = const. f 0. This gives a contradiction since the q-expansion of f 0 (being primitive) starts with q, whereas the q-expansion of [g W Q,h W Q ] m starts with at least q 2. This proves (i). Let h = f 2 (Qz,ψ 1,ψ 2 ), for Q (N/M 1 M 2 ). Since N is square-free, for any divisor Q of N, we have (Q,N/Q) = 1. Now applying W N/QM2 on h and using Proposition 1 and Lemma 1 of [5], we get h W N/QM2 = const. f 2 ( Nz M 1 M 2,ψ 0,ψ 1 ψ 2 ) = const. E (N,ψ 1 ψ 2) 2, where ψ 0 is the principal character. Now assume on the contrary that [g,h] m is an a.e. eigenform. Applying W N/QM2 to [g,h] m and using Lemma 4.2, we see that [ g W N/QM2,h W N/QM2 ]m S (N,χ QM2 χ N/QM2 ψ 1 ψ 2 ) is an a.e. eigenform. Since the W-operator is an isomorphism and taes a newform space to a newform space, dim S (N,χ QM2 χ N/QM2 ψ 1 ψ 2 ) 2. Then applying Remar 4.3 to g W N/QM2 S (N,χ QM2 χ N/QM2 ) and h W N/QM2 = const. E (N,ψ 1 ψ 2) 2, we get a contradiction. This proves (ii). If 2 1 2, then as in the proof of (ii), we apply the operator W N/M2 to h and g and we get h W N/M2 = const. E (N,ψ 1 ψ 2) 2 and g W N/M2 is a form with primitive character. Applying Remar 4.4, we get (iii). If 1 2 2, then interchanging the roles of g and h gives the required result. Acnowledgments I than D. Lanphier for giving useful informations about his papers. I than B. Ramarishnan for useful discussions and maing numerous suggestions. I also than Sanoli Gun for her useful comments. Finally, I than the referee for meticulously reading the manuscript and maing numerous suggestions which improved the presentation.

10 JABAN MEHER References [1] J. Beyerl, K. James, C. Trentacoste, H. Xue, Products of nearly holomorphic eigenforms, Ramanujan J. 27 (2012), 377 386. [2] J. H. Bruinier, G. van der Geer, G. Harder, D. Zagier, The 1-2-3of Modular Forms, Springer, 2008. [3] W. Due, When is the product of two Hece eigenforms an eigenform?, In Number theory in progress, Vol. 2 (Zaopane-Kościeliso, 1997), de Gruyter, Berlin,(1999), 737 741. [4] E. Ghate, On monomial relations between Eisenstein series, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. 15, (2000), 71 79. [5] E. Ghate, On products of eigenforms, Acta Arith. 102 (2002), 27 44. [6] A. Ghitza, Distinguishing Hece eigenforms, Int. J. Number Theory 7 (2011), No. 5, 1247 1253. [7] D.Lanphier, Combinatorics of Maass-Shimura operators, J. Number Theory 128 (2008), no.8, 2467 2487. [8] D. Lanphier, R. Taloo-Bighash, On Ranin-Cohen bracets of eigenforms, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. 19 (2004), no. 4, 253 259. [9] W. W. Li, Newforms and functional equations, Math. Ann. 212 (1975), 285 315. [10] T. Miyae, Modular Forms, Springer, 1989. [11] D.Zagier, Modular forms whose Fourier coefficients involve zeta-functions of quadratic fields, in Modular Functions of One Variable IV, Lect. Notes in Math. 627, Springer, Berlin, 1977, 105 169. Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad 211 019, India. E-mail address: jaban@hri.res.in