Catalan’s Constant and periods

There is a 60th birthday conference in honour of Frits Beukers in Utrech in July; I’m hoping to swing by there on the way to Oberwolfach. Thinking about matters Beukers made me reconsider an question that I’ve had for while.

There is a fairly well known explanation of why \zeta(3) should be irrational (and linearly independent of \pi^2) in terms of Motives. There is also a fairly good proof that \zeta(3) \ne 0 in terms of the non-vanishinjg of Borel’s regulator map on K_5(\mathbf{Z}). (I guess there are also more elementary proofs of this fact.) A problem I would love to solve, however, is to show that, for all primes p, the Kubota-Leopoldt p-adic zeta function \zeta_p(3) is non-zero. Indeed, this is equivalent to the injectivity of Soule’s regulator map

K_5(\mathbf{Z}) \otimes \mathbf{Z}_p \rightarrow K_5(\mathbf{Z}_p).

(Both these groups have rank one, and the cokernel is (at least for p > 5) equal to \mathbf{Z}_p/\zeta_p(3) \mathbf{Z}_p by the main conjecture of Iwasawa theory.) It is somewhat of a scandal that we can’t prove that \zeta_p(3) is zero or not; it rather makes a mockery out of the idea that the “main conjecture” allows us to “compute” eigenspaces of class groups, since one can’t even determine if there exists an unramified non-split extension

0 \rightarrow \mathbf{Q}_p(3) \rightarrow V \rightarrow \mathbf{Q}_p \rightarrow 0

or not. Well, this post is about something related to this but a little different. Namely, it is about the vaguely formed following question:

What is the relationship between a real period and its p-adic analogue?

Since one number is (presumably) in \mathbf{R} \setminus \mathbf{Q} and the other in \mathbf{Q}_p \setminus \mathbf{Q}, it’s not entirely clear what is meant by this. So let me give an example of what I would like to understand. One could probably do this example with \zeta(3), but I would prefer to consider the “simpler” example of Catalan’s constant. Here

G = \displaystyle{\frac{1}{1} - \frac{1}{3^2} + \frac{1}{5^2} - \frac{1}{7^2} \ldots } = L(\chi_4,2) \in \mathbf{R},

is the real Catalan’s constant, and

G_2 = L_2(\chi_4,2) \in \mathbf{Q}_2

is the 2-adic analogue. (There actual definition of the Kubota-Leopoldt zeta function involves an unnatural twist so that one could conceivably say that L_2(\chi_4,2) = 0 and that the non-zero number is \zeta_2(2), but this is morally wrong, as the examples below will hopefully demonstrate. Morally, of course, they both relate to the motive \mathbf{Q}(2)(\chi_4).)

So what do I mean is the “relation” between G and G_2. Let me give two relations. The first is as follows. Consider the recurrence relation (think Apéry/Beukers):

n^2 u_n = (4 - 32 (n-1)^2) u_{n-1} - 256 (n-2)^2 u_{n-2}.

It has two linearly independent solutions with a_1 = 1 and a_2 = -3, and b_1 = -2 and b_2 = 14. One fact concerning these solutions is that b_n \in \mathbf{Z}, and a_n \cdot \mathrm{gcd}(1,2,3,\ldots,n)^2 \in \mathbf{Z}. Moreover one has that:

\displaystyle{ \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_n}{b_n}} = G_2 \in \mathbf{Q}_2.

The convergence is very fast, indeed fast enough to show that G_2 \notin \mathbf{Q}. What about convergence in \mathbf{R}, does it converge to the real Catalan constant? Well, a numerical test is not very promising; for example, when n = 40000 one gets 0.625269 \ldots, which isn’t anything like G = 0.915966 \ldots; for contrast, for this value of n one has a_n/b_n - G_2 = O(2^{319965}), which is pretty small. There are, however, two linearly independent solutions over \mathbf{R} given analytically by

\displaystyle{\frac{(-16)^n}{n^{3/2}}  \left( 1 + \frac{5}{256} \frac{1}{n^2} - \frac{903}{262144} \frac{1}{n^4}  + \frac{136565}{67108864} \frac{1}{n^6} - \frac{665221271}{274877906944} \frac{1}{n^8} + \ldots \right)},

\begin{aligned}  \frac{(-16)^n \cdot \log n}{n^{3/2}}  \left( 1 + \frac{5}{256} \frac{1}{n^2} - \frac{32261}{7864320} \frac{1}{n^4}  + \frac{136565}{67108864} \frac{1}{n^6} - \frac{665221271}{274877906944} \frac{1}{n^8} + \ldots \right)\\  +\frac{(-16)^n}{n^{3/2}} \left( -\frac{1}{768} \frac{1}{n^2} + \frac{32261}{7864320} \frac{1}{n^4}  - \frac{30056525}{8455716864}  \frac{1}{n^6} + \frac{1778169492137}{346346162749440}  \frac{1}{n^8} + \ldots \right) \end{aligned},

from which one can see that a_n/b_n must converge very slowly, and indeed, one has (caveat: I have some idea on how to prove this but I’m not sure if it works or not):

\displaystyle{\frac{a_n}{b_n} = G -  \frac{1}{(0.2580122754655 \ldots) \cdot \log n + 0.7059470639 \ldots}}

So one has a naturally occurring sequence which converges to G in \mathbf{R} and G_2 in \mathbf{Q}_2. So that is some sort of “relationship” alluded to in the original question. Here’s another connection. Wadim Zudilin pointed out to me the following equality of Ramanujan:

\displaystyle{G = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{4^k}{(2k + 1)^2 \displaystyle{\binom{2k}{k}}}} \in \mathbf{R}.

This sum also converges 2-adically. So, one can naturally ask whether

\displaystyle{G_2 =^{?} \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{4^k}{(2k + 1)^2 \displaystyle{\binom{2k}{k}}}} \in \mathbf{Q}_2.

(It seems to be so to very high precision.) These are not random sums at all. Indeed, they are equal to

\displaystyle{ \frac{1}{2} \cdot F \left( \begin{array}{c} 1,1,1/2 \\ 3/2,3/2 \end{array} ; z \right)}

at z = 1. Presumably, both of these connections between G and G_2 must be the same, and must be related to the Picard-Fuchs equation/Gauss-Manin connection for X_0(4). This reminds me of another result of Beukers in which one compares values of hypergeometric functions related to Gauss-Manin connections and elliptic curves, and finds that they converge in \mathbf{R} and \mathbf{Q}_p for various p to algebraic (although sometimes different!) values. Of course, things are a little different here, since the values are (presumably) both transcendental. Yet it would be nice to understand this better, and see to what extent there is a geometric interpretation of (say) the non-vanishing of L_p(\chi,2) for some odd quadratic character \chi. Of course, one always has to be careful not to accidentally prove Leopoldt’s conjecture in these circumstances.

This entry was posted in Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s