Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Statement

Setting (Section 3, pp. 7-8). With kK,εk_{K,\varepsilon} and Tn=n(n+1)/2T_n=n(n+1)/2 as on the Theorem 2.8 page, Lemma 3.1 (p. 7) writes kK,εk_{K,\varepsilon} on the unit circle as a cosine series: for every real θ\theta,

eiθkK,ε(εe2iθ)=2∑n=0∞εTnKTncos⁡((2n+1)θ),e^{i\theta}k_{K,\varepsilon}(\varepsilon e^{2i\theta}) =2\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\varepsilon^{T_n}}{K^{T_n}}\cos\bigl((2n+1)\theta\bigr),

so max⁡∣z∣=1∣kK,ε(z)∣\max_{\lvert z\rvert=1}\lvert k_{K,\varepsilon}(z)\rvert is the maximum of the modulus of the right side over θ∈[0,2π)\theta\in[0,2\pi). The paper fixes the exact rationals K0=7137/2000K_0=7137/2000 and α0=198074929/50000000\alpha_0=198074929/50000000, puts ε0=eiα0\varepsilon_0=e^{i\alpha_0}, k0=kK0,ε0k_0=k_{K_0,\varepsilon_0} and A0=max⁡∣z∣=1∣k0(z)∣A_0=\max_{\lvert z\rvert=1}\lvert k_0(z)\rvert, and splits the series into the six-term truncation P(θ)P(\theta) (the terms n=0,…,5n=0,\ldots,5) and the tail R(θ)R(\theta) (the terms n≥6n\ge6), so that A0=max⁡θ∈[0,2π)∣P(θ)+R(θ)∣A_0=\max_{\theta\in[0,2\pi)}\lvert P(\theta)+R(\theta)\rvert.

Lemma 3.2 (p. 8). For all real θ\theta, ∣R(θ)∣≤2K0−21/(1−K0−7)\lvert R(\theta)\rvert\le2K_0^{-21}/(1-K_0^{-7}).

Lemma 3.3 (p. 8). PP is 44-Lipschitz on R\mathbb R: ∣P(θ)−P(φ)∣≤4∣θ−φ∣\lvert P(\theta)-P(\varphi)\rvert\le4\lvert\theta-\varphi\rvert.

Lemma 3.4 (p. 8). With M=2,000,000M=2{,}000{,}000 and θj=2πj/M\theta_j=2\pi j/M for j=0,1,…,M−1j=0,1,\ldots,M-1, max⁡0≤j<M∣P(θj)∣≤1.709176398\max_{0\le j<M}\lvert P(\theta_j)\rvert\le1.709176398. This is a computer-assisted certification in Arb ball arithmetic through python-flint; Appendix A (pp. 10-12) describes the procedure and records the program's output, and the code is in the second author's public repository ep513-arb-certification.

Proposition 3.5 (p. 8). A0<1.70919A_0<1.70919.

Source. Yixin He and Quanyu Tang, "Generalizing the Clunie-Hayman construction in an Erdős maximum-term problem," arXiv:2602.12217v1 (12 February 2026), Section 3, pp. 7-9, and Appendix A, pp. 10-12; Proposition 3.5 is stated on p. 8 and proved on p. 9. The paper is recorded on its source card.

Read depth. Claims checked: Lemmas 3.1-3.4 and the proposition were read clause by clause on the printed pages, and the arithmetic of the proof on p. 9 was followed. The certification of Lemma 3.4 was not rerun for this page; the paper reports one run, with M=2000000M=2000000, 90 decimal digits and one worker, returning a mesh maximum of about 1.70917639741.7091763974 (p. 11). Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Proof pointer

Page 9. Every θ\theta lies within circular distance π/M\pi/M of a mesh point, so Lemmas 3.3 and 3.4 give max⁡θ∣P(θ)∣≤1.709176398+4π/2,000,000<1.709183\max_\theta\lvert P(\theta)\rvert\le1.709176398+4\pi/2{,}000{,}000<1.709183. Lemma 3.2 bounds the tail by less than 5.1×10−125.1\times10^{-12}, and the two bounds add to less than 1.709191.70919. Lemma 3.2 uses T6=21T_6=21 and Tn+1−Tn≥7T_{n+1}-T_n\ge7 for n≥6n\ge6; Lemma 3.3 bounds ∣P′∣\lvert P'\rvert termwise using K0>3.5K_0>3.5.

Dependencies

Lemma 3.1 (p. 7), which uses the absolute convergence of the Laurent series from Lemma 2.1 (p. 3); the computer certification of Lemma 3.4 (Appendix A).

Bears on

  • Problem 513: through Theorem 2.8, the bound gives β(fK0,ε0)=1/A0>100000/170919\beta(f_{K_0,\varepsilon_0})=1/A_0>100000/170919, the lower bound B>0.58507B>0.58507 of Theorem 1.2. It concerns these parameters only and says nothing about an upper bound for BB.