A note on transcendence of special values
of functions related to modularity
Abstract.
In this note, we study the arithmetic nature of values of modular functions, meromorphic modular forms and meromorphic quasi-modular forms with respect to arbitrary congruence subgroups, that have algebraic Fourier coefficients. This approach unifies many of the known results, and leads to generalizations of the theorems of Schneider, Nesterenko and others.
Key words and phrases:
Values of modular functions, values of modular forms, Nesterenko’s theorem, Schneider’s theorem2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11J91, 11F03, 11F111. Introduction
The study of the arithmetic nature of values of special transcendental functions at algebraic arguments has been a well-established theme in number theory. Continuing in this spirit, this note focuses on the transcendental nature and algebraic independence of values of functions arising in the modular world, such as modular functions, modular forms and quasi-modular forms (see Section 2 for definition of the functions appearing below). The genesis of this study can be traced back to a 1937 theorem of Schneider [15], namely,
Theorem 1.1 (Schneider).
If is algebraic but not imaginary quadratic, then is transcendental.
It is known from the theory of complex multiplication that if generates an imaginary quadratic field ( is a CM point), then is an algebraic number. Therefore, Schneider’s theorem translates to the statement: if is algebraic, then is algebraic if and only if is CM. A further conjecture by Mahler [9] in this regard, proved by Barré-Sirieix, Diaz, Gramain and Philibert [2] states that
Theorem 1.2 (Barré-Sirieix, Diaz, Gramain, Philibert).
For any , at least one of the two numbers and is transcendental.
This can be derived as a consequence of a remarkable theorem of Nesterenko [13] with several applications.
Theorem 1.3 (Nesterenko).
If , then at least three of the numbers
are algebraically independent over .
Although the above theorems are about specific functions of “level ”, it is the aim of this note to highlight that they are sufficient to deduce the corresponding results for functions associated with arbitrary congruence subgroups. The authors believe that this fact may be known to experts, but is not well-documented. Often, the congruence subgroup in question is restricted to be the group . The results in this paper apply to functions satisfying appropriate modularity properties with respect to , and hence, arbitrary congruence subgroups.
A detailed investigation of algebraic independence of values of modular forms and quasi-modular forms was carried out by S. Gun, M. R. Murty and P. Rath [12] in 2011. Their results on values of modular forms were further elaborated upon for higher level in [7] by A. Hamieh and M. R. Murty111A small correction in their statement of Theorem 1.2 is required. The conclusion should read as is algebraic, without the term.. These theorems will follow from our discussion later. In the context of quasimodular forms, it was proven independently by Gun, Murty and Rath [12, Theorem 7] and C. Y. Chang [3] that
Theorem 1.4 (Gun-Murty-Rath and Chang).
If is a quasi-modular form of non-zero weight for with algebraic Fourier coefficients and is such that , then either or is transcendental.
The above statement is also proved for quasimodular forms with respect to in [12].
Another instance of investigation is a recent paper of D. Jeon, S.-Y. Kang and C. H. Kim [5, Theorem 2.4], where they prove the following. Let , genus of , the modular curve obtained as the quotient of the extended upper half plane by . Suppose that and is an integer. Let denote the unique modular function with respect to constructed in [6] such that is holomorphic on the upper half plane and
with the coefficients of powers of being algebraic numbers. Then, they show the following.
Theorem 1.5 (Jeon, Kang, Kim).
Let be a non-zero meromorphic modular form with respect to with algebraic Fourier coefficients. If is either a zero or a pole of , then is algebraic for all .
As a corollary, they deduce that any zero or pole of should be either CM or transcendental.
In this note, we first give an exposition of the algebraic structure of modular functions of higher level, following Shimura [17]. Building upon this and using Schneider’s theorem, we prove
Theorem 1.6.
Let be a non-constant modular function with respect to a congruence subgroup of level , with algebraic Fourier coefficients at .
-
(a)
If is either a zero or a pole of , then is algebraic, and hence, is either CM or transcendental.
-
(b)
If is such that is not a pole of , then . Thus, at least one of and is transcendental for any .
In the context of meromorphic modular forms, we establish a generalization of Theorem 1.5 to arbitrary modular forms and arbitrary modular functions.
Theorem 1.7.
Let be a non-constant meromorphic modular form of weight with respect to a congruence subgroup of level and be a non-constant modular function with respect to a congruence subgroup of level . Suppose that both and have algebraic Fourier coefficients at . Let be a zero or a pole of . Then either has a pole at or is algebraic.
Furthermore, we generalize the theorems in [12] and [7] to the setting of meromorphic modular forms. In particular, we show the following.
Theorem 1.8.
Let be a non-constant meromorphic modular form with respect to a congruence subgroup of level . Suppose that has algebraic Fourier coefficients at . Suppose that is not a pole of .
-
(a)
If is such that is algebraic, then is transcendental.
-
(b)
If is such that , then there exists a transcendental number which depends only on and is -linearly independent with , such that . Therefore, is either zero or transcendental.
With regard to quasi-modular forms, we extend the previously known results to meromorphic quasi-modular forms and prove
Theorem 1.9.
Let be a non-constant meromorphic quasi-modular form with depth , with respect to a congruence subgroup of level . Suppose that has algebraic Fourier coefficients at and that is not a pole of .
-
(a)
If is such that is algebraic, then is transcendental.
-
(b)
Let
Here denotes the space of meromorphic modular forms of weight , level and algebraic Fourier coefficients at . If is such that , then
Moreover, if , then is transcendental.
Let . From the above results, we deduce the following interesting corollary.
Corollary 1.10.
Let be the set of zeros and poles of modular functions of arbitrary level with algebraic Fourier coefficients, be the set of zeros and poles of meromorphic modular forms of arbitrary level with algebraic Fourier coefficients and be the set of zeros and poles of meromorphic quasi-modular forms of arbitrary level with algebraic Fourier coefficients. Then
In particular, zeros and poles of quasi-modular forms, modular forms and modular functions are either CM or transcendental.
Finally, we have the following generalization of Theorem 1.3.
Theorem 1.11.
Let be a non-constant meromorphic modular form of weight with respect to a congruence subgroup of level , be a non-constant modular function with respect to a congruence subgroup of level and be a non-constant meromorphic quasi-modular function of depth at least , with respect to a subgroup of level . Suppose that , and have algebraic Fourier coefficients at . If is such that , and is not a pole of , and , then
This theorem is in the same spirit as [19, Theorem 1.2], where W. Wang considers the algebraic independence of the values of three algebraically independent quasi-modular forms. However, Theorem 1.11 allows one to also compare values of modular functions with those of quasi-modular forms. It can be shown that a modular function, a modular form of non-zero weight and a quasi-modular form of positive depth are algebraically independent. We include a proof of this assertion in Theorem 2.14 for completeness.
We also remark that in Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.11, one can replace a meromorphic modular form by a half-integer weight modular form with algebraic Fourier coefficients since the square of a half-integer weight modular form is an integer weight modular form.
2. Preliminaries
The aim of this section is to study the algebraic structure of the field of modular functions and to record the required results from transcendental number theory. For the sake of completeness and clarity of exposition, a brief account of the proofs is included, and appropriate references are given.
2.1. Modular and quasi-modular forms
For each ,
with . A subgroup of is said to be congruence subgroup if there exists such that . The smallest such is said to be the level of .
A holomorphic modular form of integer weight with respect to a congruence subgroup is a holomorphic function on the upper half-plane which satisfies
-
(i)
for all
-
(ii)
is holomorphic at for all .
The function is said to be a weakly holomorphic modular form if is allowed to have poles at , that is, is meromorphic at the cusps. More generally, is called a meromorphic modular form if it is meromorphic on and also at cusps.
We will say that has algebraic Fourier coefficients if the Fourier coefficients of at are algebraic numbers. Denote the space of all holomorphic, weakly holomorphic and meromorphic modular forms, with algebraic Fourier coefficients by , and respectively. Clearly, .
For even integer , define the normalized Eisenstein series of weight for by
Here, is the -th Bernoulli number. Define
For , the function and . But is not a modular form (see [10], Chapter ), as
This motivates the definition of a quasi-modular form, of which there are several equivalent formulations. We use the following characterization, which was established for holomorphic quasi-modular forms in [20, Proposition 20] and meromorphic quasi-modular forms in [18, Theorem 4.2].
Theorem 2.1.
Every meromorphic quasi-modular form for a congruence subgroup is a polynomial in with modular coefficients. More precisely, if is a meromorphic quasi-modular form of weight and depth with respect to , then can be uniquely written as , where is a meromorphic modular form with respect to of weight for all and .
A quasi-modular form is said to have algebraic Fourier coefficients if all the modular coefficients in the above expression of have algebraic Fourier coefficients.
2.2. The Weierstrass -function
Let be a two-dimensional lattice in with . The Weierstrass -function associated to , given by
(1) |
defines a meromorphic function on . It satisfies the differential equation
(2) |
where
For the lattice with ,
Define the discriminant of a lattice,
In particular, we have for all .
The Weierstrass zeta-function associated to is defined by
Note that is a periodic function with each point of as a period. Hence, the functions
are constants. These constants are denoted by and respectively and are called quasi-periods. Moreover, for and , it is known that
(3) |
The reader is referred to ([8], chapter ) for proof of these results.
The Weierstrass -function satisfies the following addition formula ([11], chapter ).
Theorem 2.2.
For such that we have
Using the addition formula of the Weierstrass -function, Schneider [16] proved that
Theorem 2.3.
Let be a lattice such that both , are algebraic. If is an algebraic number with , then is transcendental.
The addition formula also implies the following important proposition (see [11]). Two generators and of a lattice are said to be primitive if both have minimal absolute value among all generators of .
Proposition 2.4.
Let be such that both and are algebraic. Assume that and are primitive generators of . Then, for any natural number , the numbers and are algebraic. Moreover, any non-zero period of is necessarily transcendental.
2.3. Modular functions
A meromorphic function on is said to be a modular function if it satisfies
(4) |
that is, , and is also meromorphic at all the cusps. In particular, we call a modular function on the congruence subgroup to a be modular function of level . Note that if is a modular function with respect to , which is of level , then is a modular function of level .
An example of modular function of level one is given by
which has the following Fourier expansion at
where .
More specifically, for any modular function (or form) , define
The -function is a canonical example of a modular function of level one, and governs properties of modular functions of higher levels as well. This is made precise in the following series of propositions.
Proposition 2.5.
Let be a non-constant modular function of level one. Let denote the standard fundamental domain for the action of on . Suppose that the poles of in are . Then is a rational function in with coefficients in the field .
Proof.
By the compactness of , we know that has only finitely many poles in . Consider the function
where order of the pole of at . Then is holomorphic on .
Suppose has pole of order at . Then the Fourier expansion of at has the form
Note that the modular function is holomorphic on and its Fourier expansion starts with at most a polar term of order . Iterating this process, we can subtract a polynomial in to get a holomorphic modular function that vanishes at , and hence is identically zero. Thus, is a polynomial in over , and so is a rational function of over . ∎
One can also conclude the following important fact from the above proof.
Corollary 2.6.
If is a modular function of level one which is holomorphic on with a pole of order at , then is a polynomial in of degree with coefficients in .
The -function is sufficient to ‘generate’ all higher level modular functions as well. This is proved below.
Theorem 2.7.
Let be a modular function with respect to a congruence subgroup and let be the poles of in . Set
Then there exists a monic polynomial such that .
Proof.
Let and be a complete set of right coset representatives so that
For all , define the functions
Each is independent of the choice of coset representatives as is -invariant. Moreover, each is a modular function with respect to and the Fourier expansion of at is precisely the expansion of at the cusp . For any , we have for some with such that , i.e., the set gets permuted under the action of This observation implies that any elementary symmetric polynomial in is a modular function of level one, and is in by Theorem 2.5. Note that the polynomial
is satisfied by as and has coefficients that are elementary symmetric polynomials in . This proves the theorem. ∎
Corollary 2.8.
Let be a modular function with respect to a congruence subgroup which is holomorphic on and . Then the monic polynomial satisfied by has coefficients in .
Proof.
The coefficients of constructed in the proof above are modular functions of level one, holomorphic on with Fourier coefficients in . The result now follows from Corollary 2.6. ∎
Remark.
An important point to note here is that if is a modular function with respect that has algebraic Fourier coefficients, Theorem 2.7 does not guarantee that the coefficients of are algebraic, unless is holomorphic in .
To that effect, we now study the structure of the field of modular functions of a fixed level . For any field , let
Theorem 2.7 implies that is an algebraic extension of .
Following [17, Chapter 6], we consider explicit modular function of level whose Fourier coefficients have good rationality properties. Let , consider the function
which is holomorphic on . The following properties can be checked routinely, and we leave the proof to the reader.
Proposition 2.9.
Let denotes the set . Let , and be as defined above. For and , let . Then
-
(a)
if and only if ,
-
(b)
for , for all .
Therefore, all elements in satisfy modularity with respect to .
In order to conclude that the functions are modular functions, we study their Fourier expansions at the cusp. But first, we need to understand the behaviour of the Weierstrass -function.
Lemma.
Fix and denote . For , we have
where
Proof.
From the definition of the -function, we have
Recall the Lipschitz summation formula, which states
For a proof, see [10, Theorem 4.2.2]. Applying this, we obtain
This implies the result. ∎
Using the above expansion, the interpretation of , and in terms of Eisenstein series, we get for ,
(5) |
Here . Since the Fourier series of begins with , the Fourier expansion of begins with a rational multiple of . Thus, has pole of order at for all . If is any other cusp, then there exists such that . Since , which has pole of order at , we conclude that is meromorphic at all cusps, with pole of order . Thus, is a modular function of level for all .
This helps us to conclude the following.
Theorem 2.10.
For all , the Fourier coefficients of with respect to all cusps belong to , where .
Proof.
Recall that Fourier coefficients of and are integers. Hence, from (5), it follows that the Fourier coefficients of at lie in for all . If is any other cusp, then there exists such . But also has Fourier coefficients in with respect to . This completes the proof. ∎
These modular functions, together with the -function serve to generate all modular functions of level . That is,
Theorem 2.11.
We have and is a finite Galois extension of .
Proof.
Let . Then is a Galois extension of . Indeed, for each , the modular function is holomorphic on with algebraic Fourier coefficients at all cusps. Hence, by Corollary 2.8 we get a polynomial , which is satisfied by . Thus, is an algebraic extension. Moreover, this extension is normal because each conjugate of is of the form , which is equal to for some . Since is obtained from by adjoining finite number of elements, is a finite Galois extension.
Now we show that . To begin with, observe that and are linearly disjoint over . This can be seen as follows. Suppose is an arbitrary -linearly independent subset of . If there exists such that for all with
then
The linear independence of over implies that all for all , and hence, . Thus, we have Suppose there exists . Since , we get a -linearly independent subset such that
(6) |
with at least one of the . Since , the set is -linearly independent subset of and hence, -linearly independent. This contradicts (6). Therefore, and is a finite Galois extension. ∎
Corollary 2.12.
Let . Then the Fourier coefficients of with respect to all cusps are algebraic numbers and satisfies a polynomial over .
2.4. Algebraic independence of modular, quasi-modular forms and modular functions
The aim of the discussion below is to establish the algebraic independence (as functions) of the three functions arising from modular considerations - modular functions, modular forms and quasi-modular forms. For the basic theory of quasi-modular forms, we refer the reader to [14]. To begin with, we prove the following lemma.
Lemma 2.13.
A sum of meromorphic quasi-modular forms of distinct weights is not identically zero, unless, each of these quasi-modular forms is identically zero.
Proof.
Suppose are non-identically zero meromorphic quasi-modular forms of weights with respect to the congruence subgroups of level respectively. Let be the greatest depth of these quasi-modular forms. Suppose that for each , they have the following transformation formulae:
i.e., |
for every and . Here the functions are the components of , and in particular, for all . Then we consider and such that for each , the matrix . For all such matrices we have
Suppose that . Then for and , we have
From the above transformation formula for each , we obtain
(7) |
For a fixed , multiplying (7) by , where , we get
which holds for each . This shows that for any fixed , the polynomial
has infinitely many roots, and hence is identically zero. Note that even if any of the ’s are negative, the maximum exponent of occurring in is . Thus, the leading coefficient of is . Since , we get . This is true for any . Hence, , which is a contradiction, proving the lemma. ∎
We are now ready to prove the main theorem in this context.
Theorem 2.14.
Let a non-constant meromorphic modular form of non-zero weight. Let and be a modular function and a meromorphic quasi-modular form of positive depth and non-zero weight, respectively. Assume that , and are of arbitrary level. Then the functions , and are algebraically independent.
Proof.
Let be of weight and level , be of level and be of weight and level . Suppose that is such that . Recall that a product of a modular form of weight and level and a quasimodular form of weight and level is a quasimodular form of weight and level . Denote . By grouping the terms of of the same weight, we can rewrite it as
(8) |
As is a polynomial, for all but finitely many , and . As noted above, for each the inner sum in (8) is a meromorphic quasi-modular form of weight and level . Thus, Lemma 2.13 implies that
(9) |
for each .
Fix a and consider the corresponding inner sum from (9). If there exists an integer such that for at least one tuple satisfying , then the term on the left in (9) is a meromorphic quasi-modular form of depth at least . But the uniqueness of depth implies that the term on the left in (9) is of depth . Hence, the coefficient when . If , then , or in other words, . Thus, for all such that , the relation in (9) takes the form
(10) |
as is not identically zero. If , then clearly, and we get
(11) |
Since is a non-constant modular function, must have either a zero or a pole in . Say that the order of at is . Then any function with not all will have order at . Thus, any combination of the form cannot be identically zero. Thus, relations (10) and (11) imply that for all and . Hence and the theorem is proved. ∎
3. Proof of Main Results
3.1. Values of modular functions when
Before proceeding with the proof of the main theorems, we establish the following intermediary observation.
Lemma 3.1.
Let . If such that , then is non-zero.
Proof.
By Theorem 2.11, we know that satisfies a non-trivial polynomial over . On clearing denominators, we can assume that satisfies the irreducible polynomial
Note that is not the identically zero polynomial. Now suppose is such that is transcendental. If is zero, then we get that which contradicts the transcendence of . This completes the proof. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.6(a).
The proof of Theorem 1.6(b) is established in two parts. We first show that if is transcendental, then is as well. The converse implication is proved later.
Proposition 3.2.
Let and be such that it is not a pole of . If is transcendental, then is transcendental.
Proof.
Suppose that . Then the modular function
belongs to and vanishes at . This contradicts Lemma 3.1. Therefore, is transcendental. ∎
3.2. Values of modular functions when
From Theorem 2.11, we have
Hence, for any , the algebraic nature of is determined by the numbers in the set .
For , . Hence, for any , implies that . For , we have to study the nature of the values for all . We start by proving the following important lemma.
Lemma 3.3.
If such that is algebraic, then there exists a unique transcendental number (up to an algebraic multiples) for which and are both algebraic numbers.
Proof.
Note that for any ,
(12) |
because of the homogeneity properties of the , functions. Here and . If we choose such that , then . Given that is algebraic, from (12), we get that is also algebraic. Thus, the numbers and are both algebraic. Moreover, is a period of and both and are algebraic. By Corollary 2.4 we conclude that is transcendental.
To prove uniqueness, consider an arbitrary such that both and are algebraic. By homogeneity of , we have
Then, we get and hence This completes the proof that is unique up to algebraic multiples. ∎
Now recall that
where and . Using homogeneity properties of the functions involved, we can rewrite this as follows:
Lemma 3.4.
If is such that , then for all .
Proof.
Proposition 3.5.
Let and such that . If is not a pole of , then is algebraic.
Propositions 3.2 and 3.5 together complete the proof of Theorem 1.6(b). We now prove the generalization of [5, Theorem 2.4].
Proof of Theorem 1.7.
Let be a meromorphic modular form of weight . Define
The function because the Fourier coefficients of and are algebraic. Moreover, any is a zero or a pole of if and only if it is a zero or a pole of because is non-vanishing and holomorphic on . Thus, if is a zero or pole of , then is non-constant and by Theorem 1.6(a), we deduce that , and by Theorem 1.6(b), that either has a pole at or that . ∎
3.3. Values of modular forms
Recall that for any integer and , we denote , and to be the set of holomorphic, weakly holomorphic and meromorphic modular forms respectively of level with algebraic Fourier coefficients at . By Corollary 2.12, all elements of these sets have algebraic Fourier coefficients with respect to all cusps as well.
Proof of Theorem 1.8(a) .
Let . Consider the modular function
If is a non-zero constant, then for some and all . Since , and is algebraically independent with for such that by Nesterenko’s theorem 1.3, we deduce that is transcendental.
Now suppose that is non-constant. Since , . Note that for such that is algebraic, is transcendental by Theorem 1.2. Such a cannot be a pole of . For if is a pole of , then is a pole of and by Theorem 1.6(a), would be algebraic, leading to a contradiction. As is not a pole of , Theorem 1.6(b) implies that is transcendental. Moreover, by Theorem 2.11, is algebraic over . By Nesterenko’s theorem,
are algebraically independent. Therefore,
Hence, is transcendental, proving the claim. ∎
We remark here that the proof of Theorem 1.8(a) only requires Nesterenko’s theorem and the structure of modular functions of higher level. One also immediately deduces the following.
Proposition 3.6.
If , then is algebraically dependent with and over . In particular, If and is not a pole of , then is algebraic over .
Proof.
Let and consider
By Corollary 2.12, there exists a polynomial such that . More specifically,
Here for all and . Multiplying by for any positive integer and substituting and in terms of and gives
This proves the proposition. ∎
We now consider the complementary case, namely, points such that .
Proof of Theorem 1.8(b).
Fix a such that . From Lemma 3.3, we get a transcendental number such that and are both algebraic. Moreover, we have the formulae
From Nesterenko’s Theorem 1.3, we know that at most one of and is algebraic. The above formulae imply that if , then both and are algebraic, which is a contradiction. Hence, is a transcendental number. Besides, we have
As and both are algebraic, the number . Since is transcendental and is a non-zero algebraic multiple of , we deduce that is transcendental.
Consider the modular function
which lies in . Since , Theorem 3.5 implies that is algebraic, say . Thus, we get that
(13) |
This shows that if , then it is a non-zero algebraic multiple of and hence, is transcendental. ∎
3.4. Values of quasi-modular forms
Let denote the set of all meromorphic quasi-modular forms of weight and depth for with algebraic Fourier coefficients. We study their values at the points , where exactly one of and is algebraic.
Proof of Theorem 1.9(a).
To study values of quasi-modular forms in the complementary case (i.e., for ), we need the following lemma.
Lemma 3.7.
Let be such that is algebraic and be the transcendental number determined in Lemma 3.3 such that and are algebraic. Let be the quasi-period
Then and are algebraically independent over .
Proof.
From the definition of the Weierstrass zeta-function, one gets Using the definition of a quasi-period and the identity (3), we obtain
Thus, we get the following formulae
The above formulae imply that , and are algebraic over . Suppose that are algebraically dependent. This implies that
which contradicts Nesterenko’s Theorem 1.3. ∎
Lemma 3.7 and Theorem 2.1 together allow us to describe values of quasi-modular forms explicitly at the points where the -function is algebraic.
Proof of Theorem 1.9(b).
From Theorem 2.1, we have the expression
Writing the value as in (13) for each coefficient , and using the above formula for , we obtain
(14) |
where each is an algebraic number. If for some satisfying , then (14) gives a non-trivial algebraic relation among and . This contradicts Lemma 3.7. Therefore, the number is either zero, precisely when each , or is transcendental. ∎
3.5. Algebraic independence of special values
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Prof. Michel Waldschmidt and Dr. Veekesh Kumar for insightful suggestions on an earlier version of the paper. They are also grateful to the referee for helpful comments.
References
- [1] R. Balasubramanian, S. Gun, On zeros of quasi-modular forms, Journal of Number Theory, Vol. 132 (2012) 2228-2241.
- [2] K. Barré-Sirieix, G. Diaz, F. Gramain, G. Philibert, Une preuve de la conjecture de Mahler-Manin, Invent. Math., 124 (1996), 1-9.
- [3] C. Y. Chang, Transcendence of special values of quasi-modular forms, Forum Math. 24 (2012) 539-551.
- [4] H. Cohen and F. Stromberg, Modular Forms, A Classical Approach, Graduate Studies In Mathematics 179.
- [5] D. Jeon, S.-Y. Kang, C.H. Kim, On values of weakly holomorphic modular functions at divisors of meromorphic modular forms, J. Number Theory 239, 183-206.
- [6] D. Jeon, S.-Y. Kang, C.H. Kim, Hecke system of harmonic Maass functions and its applications to modular curves of higher genera, Ramanujan J., Vol. 62, (2023) 675-717.
- [7] Alia Hamieh and M. Ram Murty, A note on -analogues of Dirichlet L-functions, International Journal of Number Theory, Vol. 12 (2016) 765-773.
- [8] Serge Lang, Elliptic Functions, Addision-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
- [9] Kurt Mahler, Remarks on a paper by W. Schwarz., Journal of Number Theory, 1 (1969) 512–521.
- [10] M. R. Murty, M. Dewar and H. Graves, Problems in the Theory of Modular Forms, Hindustan Book Agency.
- [11] M. Ram Murty and P. Rath, Transcendental Numbers Springer-Verlag, (2014).
- [12] S. Gun, M. Ram Murty, P. Rath, Algebraic independence of values of modular forms. Int. J. Number Theory 7(4), 1065–1074 (2011).
- [13] Y. Nesterenko, Modular functions and transcendence questions, Mat. Sb. 187 (9) (1996) 65–96 (in Russian); translation in: Sb. Math. 187 (9) (1996) 1319–1348.
- [14] E. Royer, Quasimodular forms: an introduction, Annales Mathématiques Blaise Pascal, Vol. 19 no. 2 (2012) 297-306.
- [15] T. Schneider, Arithmetische Untersuchungen elliptischer Integrale, Math. Ann. 113 (1937) 1–13.
- [16] T. Schneider, Ein Satz über ganzwertige Funktionen als Prinzip für Transzendenzbeweise, Mathematische Annalen, 121 (1949): 131–140.
- [17] G. Shimura, Introduction to the Arithmetic Theory of Automorphic Functions, (Princeton University Press, ).
- [18] W. Wang and H. Zhang, Meromorphic quasi-modular forms and their -functions, Journal of Number Theory, Vol. 241 (2022) 465-503.
- [19] W. Wang, Algebraic independence of values of quasi-modular forms, Journal of Number Theory, Vol. 255 (2024) 85-97.
- [20] D. Zagier, Elliptic Modular Forms and Their Applications, Lectures at a Summer School in Nordfjordeid, Norway.