Mathematica doesn't seem to have built-in tools to deal with the Eisenstein series:

$$\begin{align*} E_{2}(\tau)&= 1-24 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{n e^{2 \pi i n \tau}}{1-e^{2 \pi i n \tau}}\\ E_{4}(\tau)&= 1+240 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{n^{3} e^{2 \pi i n \tau}}{1-e^{2 \pi i n \tau}} \end{align*}$$

I'm wondering what is the best way to deal with this. Just messing around, informally, on Wolfram, it seems like these series all converge pretty fast. Can I carry out the sums manually in Mathematica including a small number of terms? Or is there a better way? I'm worried this is prone to severe inaccuracy for $\Im(\tau)$ either large or small, both cases I'm interested in.

If it simplifies anything, I only need the cases $\Re(\tau) \in \mathbb{Z}$ where the series outputs real numbers.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you can wait until Saturday, I can post the routine I have for evaluating Eisenstein series. Note that WeierstrassInvariants[] is of course a scaled version of $E_4$ and $E_6$. $\endgroup$ – J. M. is away Jul 29 '15 at 14:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ in the meantime, Eisenstein Series, Elliptic Invariants, Wolfram Search, GL(n)pack Home Page $\endgroup$ – user9660 Jul 29 '15 at 15:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @J. M. I can happily wait. Thanks $\endgroup$ – Benighted Jul 29 '15 at 19:15

Since EllipticTheta[] is a built-in function, and since the Eisenstein series $E_4(q)$ and $E_6(q)$ are expressible in terms of theta functions (I use the nome $q$ as the argument in this answer, but you can convert to your convention by using the relation with the period ratio $\tau$: $q=\exp(2\pi i \tau)$), and since the higher-order Eisenstein series (note that they are only defined for even orders!) can be generated from $E_4(q)$ and $E_6(q)$ through a recurrence (see e.g. Apostol's book), it is relatively straightforward to write Mathematica routines for these functions:

SetAttributes[EisensteinE, {Listable, NHoldFirst}];

EisensteinE[4, q_] := (EllipticTheta[2, 0, q]^8 + EllipticTheta[3, 0, q]^8 +
                       EllipticTheta[4, 0, q]^8)/2

EisensteinE[6, q_] := With[{q2 = EllipticTheta[2, 0, q]^4,
                            q3 = EllipticTheta[3, 0, q]^4,
                            q4 = EllipticTheta[4, 0, q]^4}, 
                           (q2 + q3) (q3 + q4) (q4 - q2)/2

EisensteinE[n_Integer?EvenQ, q_] /; n > 2 := (6/((6 - n) (n^2 - 1) BernoulliB[n]))
Sum[Binomial[n, 2 k + 4] (2 k + 3) (n - 2 k - 5)
    BernoulliB[2 k + 4] BernoulliB[n - 2 k - 4]
    EisensteinE[2 k + 4, q] EisensteinE[n - 2 k - 4, q], {k, 0, n/2 - 4}]

Here are a few examples:

(* "equianharmonic case" *)
{ω1, ω3} = {1, (1 + I Sqrt[3])/2};
N[WeierstrassInvariants[{ω1, ω3}]] // Quiet // Chop
   {0, 12.825381829368068}

2 {60, 140} Zeta[{4, 6}] EisensteinE[{4, 6}, Exp[I π ω3/ω1]]/(2 ω1)^{4, 6}
// N // Chop
   {0, 12.825381829368068}

(* "lemniscatic case" *)
{ω1, ω3} = {1, I};
N[WeierstrassInvariants[{ω1, ω3}]] // Quiet // Chop
   {11.817045008077123, 0}

2 {60, 140} Zeta[{4, 6}] EisensteinE[{4, 6}, Exp[I π ω3/ω1]]/(2 ω1)^{4, 6}
// N // Chop
   {11.817045008077123, 0}

Using techniques similar to the one used in this answer, here are domain-colored plots of $E_4(q)$ (left) and $E_6(q)$ (right) over the unit disk, using the DLMF coloring scheme:

domain-colored plots of the Eisenstein series

Now, one may ask: what about $E_2(q)$? This function is what is termed as a "quasi-modular" form, whose behavior with respect to modular transformations is completely different from the other $E_{2k}(q)$. Due to this unusual state of affairs (i.e. not expressible entirely in terms of theta functions), one needs a different formula for $E_2(q)$; one useful formula can be found hidden deep within Abramowitz and Stegun:

EisensteinE[2, q_] := With[{q3 = EllipticTheta[3, 0, q]^2}, 6/π
                           EllipticE[InverseEllipticNomeQ[q]] q3 -
                           q3^2 - EllipticTheta[4, 0, q]^4]


Series[EisensteinE[2, q], {q, 0, 12}]
   1 - 24 q^2 - 72 q^4 - 96 q^6 - 168 q^8 - 144 q^10 - 288 q^12 + O[q]^13

1 - Sum[24 DivisorSigma[1, k] q^(2 k), {k, 1, 6}]
   1 - 24 q^2 - 72 q^4 - 96 q^6 - 168 q^8 - 144 q^10 - 288 q^12

Unfortunately, altho this version is great for symbolic use, it is not too good for numerical evaluation, as can be seen from the following attempt to generate a domain-colored plot from it:

wrong domain-colored plot of E2

The relatively complicated branch cut structure is apparently inherited from the branch cuts of the complete elliptic integral of the second kind $E(m)$ not being canceled out by the inverse nome.

Thus, I shall present another routine for numerically evaluating $E_2(q)$, based on recursing the quasi-modular relation (note the use of $\tau$ instead of $q$)

$$E_2\left(-\frac1{\tau}\right)=\tau^2 E_2(\tau)-\frac{6i\tau}{\pi}$$

before the actual numerical evaluation of the series:

e2[zz_ /; (InexactNumberQ[zz] && Im[zz] > 0)] :=
   Block[{τ = SetPrecision[zz, 1. Precision[zz]], r = False, f, k, pr, q, qp, s},
         τ -= Round[Re[τ]]; pr = Precision[τ];
         If[7 Im[τ] < 6,
            r = True; f = e2[SetPrecision[-1/τ, pr]],
            q = SetPrecision[Exp[2 π I τ], pr]; f = s = 0; qp = 1; 
            k = 0;
            While[k++; qp *= q; f = s + k qp/(1 - qp); s != f, s = f];
            f = 1 - 24 f];
         If[r, (f/τ + 6 I/π)/τ, f] /; NumberQ[f]]

EisensteinE[2, q_?InexactNumberQ] :=
   If[q == 0, N[1, Internal`PrecAccur[q]], e2[Log[q]/(I π)]]

(Note that the subroutine e2[] actually takes the period ratio $\tau$ as the argument; if your preferred convention is to use $\tau$ instead of $q$, you can make that the main routine and skip the conversion to $q$ altogether.)

This now gives a proper-looking plot:

domain-colored plot of E2

(Thanks to მამუკა ჯიბლაძე for convincing me to look further into this.)

Finally, if you prefer the function $G_{2k}(q)$, here is the corresponding formula:

EisensteinG[n_Integer?EvenQ, q_] := 2 Zeta[n] EisensteinE[n, q]
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @kale, I am a chemist by trade, and I can confidently assure you that at least 80% of the mathematics I have ever used here, on math.SE, and MathOverflow, were definitely not taught in the classroom. ;) $\endgroup$ – J. M. is away Aug 1 '15 at 17:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @spietro, all the modular forms depend only on $\tau$, $q$, or any of a number of other possible arguments; in the case of the demonstration with the Weierstrass invariants, you must realize that they satisfy homogeneity relations, thus enabling the mathematician to concentrate entirely on $\tau$ and not have to carry around two complex numbers. $\endgroup$ – J. M. is away Aug 1 '15 at 17:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @J.M. +1. I didn't realize you are a chemist. Good to see fellow chemists here. $\endgroup$ – RunnyKine Aug 1 '15 at 20:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In fact $e^{2\pi i\tau}\frac d{dq}\log\eta(\tau)$ (with $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$) does not seem to have any branch cuts, and only coincides with yours near the origin $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Nov 14 '15 at 16:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @spietro, I've fixed the routine for $E_2$, if you're still interested in this. $\endgroup$ – J. M. is away Jan 8 '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.