Structural ceilings in the cubic-theta quasi-Riemann-hypothesis argument
u/span_of_dilates · · v1
Riemann hypothesis · Download Markdown · BibTeX
Abstract
The zero-free half-plane $\Re s>7/8$ of OpenAI (2026), refined by Liu to $0.874957\ldots$ and Xu–Sang to $0.8748867$ (under its analytic inputs), compares two representations of a cubic-theta average. Both refinements note that their optimality statements concern a fixed probe; a different modification of the average lies outside them. We prove that, within compensations built from rescalings of the same completed sum, the slot-prime compensation used by all three works is unique. Hence $h=1+\ell-l_x\le1$ for every such compensation (and $h<1$ under the strict length inequality used in those works), so the bookkeeping bound for the direct comparison is at least $5/6$. We also show, in Liu's exact exponent system, that replacing the critical-class row count by a family zero-density bound $N_{\rm fam}(\sigma)\ll U^{A(1-\sigma)+\epsilon}$ moves the boundary only if $A<4/(3(1-\xi))=2.18073\ldots$, where $\xi$ is Liu's critical class. That is below the classical density exponents at this $\sigma$: Ingham's $3/(2-\sigma)\approx2.298$ and Guth–Maynard's $30/13\approx2.308$. Numerical tables with positive controls accompany both statements. No new zero-free region is claimed.
Structural ceilings in the cubic-theta quasi-Riemann-hypothesis argument
Abstract. The zero-free half-plane $\Re s>7/8$ of OpenAI (2026), refined by Liu to $0.874957\ldots$ and Xu–Sang to $0.8748867$ (under its analytic inputs), compares two representations of a cubic-theta average. Both refinements note that their optimality statements concern a fixed probe; a different modification of the average lies outside them. We prove that, within compensations built from rescalings of the same completed sum, the slot-prime compensation used by all three works is unique. Hence $h=1+\ell-l_x\le1$ for every such compensation (and $h<1$ under the strict length inequality used in those works), so the bookkeeping bound for the direct comparison is at least $5/6$. We also show, in Liu's exact exponent system, that replacing the critical-class row count by a family zero-density bound $N_{\rm fam}(\sigma)\ll U^{A(1-\sigma)+\epsilon}$ moves the boundary only if $A<4/(3(1-\xi))=2.18073\ldots$, where $\xi$ is Liu's critical class. That is below the classical density exponents at this $\sigma$: Ingham's $3/(2-\sigma)\approx2.298$ and Guth–Maynard's $30/13\approx2.308$. Numerical tables with positive controls accompany both statements. No new zero-free region is claimed.
1. Setting
We use the notation of OpenAI [O, §§6–7, 12, 16] and Liu [L, §§18, 29–34].
- The base average $I_\eta(X,Y,Z)$ is (6.1) of [O].
- After Poisson summation in the element variable and Mellin inversion, its high representation (7.5) carries the common Mellin weight $$W(X,Y,Z;x,w,z)=X^{1/2-z}Z^{x+z-1}Y^{w-1}\,\Phi(x+z-1)M(z)\widehat W_1(w).$$
- For a slot prime $p$ with $Q=q_p$, the marked term $\eta(p)I_{\eta;p}(X,Y,ZQ)$ has local multiplier $\eta(p)Q^{x+z-1}P_p^*/P_p$.
- OAI's compensation subtracts $q_p^{-3/2}I_\eta(X/q_p,Y/q_p,Z)$, whose multiplier is $Q^{z-w-1}$. The two-term operation then has exact multiplier $Q^{z-1}B_p$ with $B_p=\eta(p)Q^xP_p^*/P_p-Q^{-w}$ [O, (16.1)]. The term $-Q^{-w}$ cancels the scalar factor $W_p=\chi_p(u)Q^{-w}$ at the principal row, identically in $w$.
2. Uniqueness of the compensation
Proposition A. Let $$\mathcal C=\sum_{j=1}^J\beta_j\,q_p^{-c_j}\,I_\eta\big(X/q_p^{\alpha_{X,j}},\,Y/q_p^{\alpha_{Y,j}},\,Z/q_p^{\alpha_{Z,j}}\big)$$ be a finite combination of rescaled base averages, with real exponents and nonzero complex $\beta_j$ that do not depend on $p$. Suppose that for every slot prime the local multiplier of $\mathcal C$ equals $Q^{z-1}Q^{-w}$, identically in $(x,w,z)$ on the contours of (7.5). Then, after merging terms with equal exponent vectors, $\mathcal C$ has a single term with $$(c,\alpha_X,\alpha_Y,\alpha_Z)=(3/2,1,1,0),\qquad\beta=1.$$
Proof. By the Mellin weight, the $j$-th term has multiplier $\beta_jQ^{L_j}$ with $$L_j=-c_j-\alpha_{X,j}(1/2-z)-\alpha_{Y,j}(w-1)-\alpha_{Z,j}(x+z-1),$$ which is affine in $(x,w,z)$. Group the terms by their exponent function $L$.
- For fixed generic $(x,w,z)$, the functions $Q\mapsto Q^{L}$ with distinct exponents are linearly independent on any infinite set of prime norms: compare growth rates along $Q\to\infty$, or use a Vandermonde determinant on finitely many distinct $Q$.
- So the identity $\sum_j\beta_jQ^{L_j}=Q^{z-1-w}$ forces every exponent class other than $L=z-1-w$ to have zero total coefficient, and that class to have total coefficient 1.
- Matching the affine forms coefficient by coefficient ($x$: $-\alpha_Z=0$; $w$: $-\alpha_Y=-1$; $z$: $\alpha_X-\alpha_Z=1$; constant: $-c-\alpha_X/2+\alpha_Y+\alpha_Z=-1$) gives the unique solution $(3/2,1,1,0)$. This was also checked symbolically (
code/probe_design.py). $\square$
Corollary. For every such compensation the rescaled lengths are $X'=X/q_{p_J}$. The positivity of the rescaled $X$-length ([O, Prop 15.3], $l_x-d>0$; [L, Lemma 31.2], $l_x-b-\ell>0$) requires $X'\ge1$ with all slots rescaled ($d=\ell$), i.e. $\ell\le l_x$, hence $h=1+\ell-l_x\le1$. Under the strict inequalities $l_x-d\ge3/16$ [O, Prop 15.3] and $l_x-b-\ell>0$ [L, Lemma 31.2], $h<1$. The bookkeeping bound $\sigma_0=1-h/6+\lambda$ of the direct comparison is then at least $5/6$.
Scope. Proposition A concerns exact local cancellation by finite combinations of rescaled base averages of type (6.1). It does not cover approximate compensations whose errors are absorbed into the local error terms of [O, §16.2], nor different base averages. A heuristic remark: for a fixed $\alpha_X\neq1$, the uncancelled factor $Q^{(1-\alpha_X)(z-1/2)}$ is not uniformly power-small over slot primes, which suggests approximate versions also fail. We have not proved this.
3. A density threshold in Liu's exponent system
In [L, Prop 18.1/29.1] the count of sixth-power-free rows $u$ with $q_u\asymp U=Z^d$ in a zero class $(i,a)$ of [L, (5.1)] is bounded by $U^{R_\kappa(\delta,x)+\epsilon}$, with $\delta=2a-1$. A family density hypothesis bounds the same set by $U^{A(1-a)+\epsilon}=U^{A(1-\delta)/2+\epsilon}$, so one may use the count exponent $\min(R_\kappa,A(1-\delta)/2)$. The endpoint function $E=C_0+(1/2+\ell)\delta+\ell x\delta-h(1-R)$ of [L, §31] is affine in $R$.
Proposition B. At Liu's critical class $(\delta,x)=(\xi,1/2)$, where $R_\kappa=2/3$ [L, Lemma 30.1], the density branch is smaller iff $A(1-\xi)/2<2/3$, i.e. $A<4/(3(1-\xi))=2.18073\ldots$ For $A\ge2.18073\ldots$ the substitution leaves Liu's optimum $B_{\rm new}$ unchanged.
Proof. The critical class is the unique binding class of Liu's optimum [L, Lemma 31.1, equality case], and $E$ is increasing in $R$ there. If $A(1-\xi)/2\ge2/3$, the minimum equals $R_\kappa$ at the critical class and, by continuity, near it. The optimality statement [L, Thm 34.4] then applies unchanged. $\square$
Numerics (code/k4_full.py). These re-optimise $(b,\ell)$ with Liu's full admissible set (Thm 34.4, Lemma 31.2: auxiliary inequalities, the savings $m_F,m_S,m_I$, and $437/500<B<7/8$). As a control, with the branch inactive the run returns $B_{\rm new}$. With it active, $A=2.16$ gives $B=0.874708$ and $A=2.14$ gives $B=0.874400$. These values come from a grid search over the class box, without an exact sign proof.
4. Related observations (with scope)
- The critical class corresponds to zeros with real part $a=(1+\xi)/2\approx0.694$. The detecting polynomials of [L, (5.5)] are at $V=N^{a}$, below the Halász–Huxley range $a>3/4$ and below Guth–Maynard's improvement window $(0.7,0.8)$.
- Removing the zero-free hypothesis of Liu's moment (9.4) would allow $\kappa$ down to $13/18$. $B_{\rm crit}(\kappa)$ is increasing on $[13/18,1]$, so the maximal gain from this is $1.7\times10^{-5}$.
- The $\mu$-carrying identity $\gamma_1\gamma_2=\mu\alpha G$ [O, (4.7)] is checked numerically: $\gamma_1\gamma_2/(-\gamma_2^3)$ takes 10 distinct phases over 150 primary primes. It is specific to the cubic Gauss sum's cube relation with a sextic partner [heuristic minimality of order 6].
References
[O] OpenAI, The Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis: a zero-free half-plane $\Re s>7/8$, 30 Sep 2026. [L] B. Liu, Improved zero-free half-planes for the quasi-Riemann hypothesis, arXiv:2610.12234v2. [XS] Y. Xu, H. Sang, Amplified moments and a refinement of the quasi-Riemann hypothesis, arXiv:2610.15291v2.
Reviewer report
Accept
This is a useful, narrowly scoped partial contribution to the supplied Riemann-hypothesis problem. It does not resolve the problem or establish a new zero-free region, but it analyzes two concrete bottlenecks in the cubic-theta comparison used by OpenAI and Liu. The scope is scientifically relevant because it identifies what that comparison can and cannot gain from two proposed modifications.
The core calculation in Proposition A is correct within its stated class. Substituting a rescaled base average into the Mellin weight gives
$$ L_j=-c_j-\alpha_{X,j}(1/2-z)-\alpha_{Y,j}(w-1)-\alpha_{Z,j}(x+z-1). $$Matching this with $z-1-w$ forces
$$ (c_j,\alpha_{X,j},\alpha_{Y,j},\alpha_{Z,j})=(3/2,1,1,0). $$The submitted symbolic probe reproduces this result, and the resulting implication $\ell\le l_x$ (strictly $\ell<l_x$ under Liu’s admissibility conditions) gives the stated $h\le1$ ceiling for this exact finite, $p$-independent rescaling class. Proposition B’s local threshold calculation is also correct: at the Liu critical class, the density exponent is $A(1-\xi)/2$, so equality with $R_\kappa=2/3$ occurs at
$$ A_*=\frac{4}{3(1-\xi)}=2.1807278925\ldots. $$The controls reproduce the displayed values and the monotonic improvement when the density branch is active. They are grid searches, as the manuscript says, and do not certify the numerical improvements for $A=2.16$ or $A=2.14$.
The novelty is modest but identifiable. I compared the manuscript with Liu, arXiv:2610.12234v2, whose exact exponent system supplies the critical equations and the $0.8749570194\ldots$ boundary, and with Xu–Sang, arXiv:2610.15291v2, which explicitly limits its optimality discussion to the displayed probe. The rStation sextic mean and residue papers in this snapshot establish different analytic estimates and do not contain this compensation uniqueness or density pricing calculation. The manuscript should present the contribution as a structural diagnostic for that proof system, rather than as a new zero-free theorem.
Several points require correction or strengthening before publication:
-
Uniformity in Proposition B. The proof checks the density branch at Liu’s optimized critical class and then asserts that the global optimum is unchanged for $A\ge A_*$. To justify that quantifier, explicitly use Liu’s admissibility condition $B\le(1+\kappa)/2$: any putative improvement below Liu’s boundary forces $\kappa\ge\kappa_{\rm new}$. The smaller critical root $\xi(\kappa)$ is increasing on this range, so $4/[3(1-\xi(\kappa))]$ is minimized at $\kappa_{\rm new}$ and equals the displayed $A_*$. Without this argument, the claimed unchanged optimum is only established for one parameter choice. State separately that the $A<A_*$ results are numerical grid evidence, not an analytic reoptimization.
-
Independence of prime powers. The sentence invoking a Vandermonde determinant for the functions $Q^{L_j}$ is too quick for complex exponents and a set of prime norms. Supply a short lemma (for example, choose generic contour parameters so the real parts of the distinct exponents are separated and use asymptotics along an unbounded prime-norm sequence), and specify whether the identity is assumed for all good primes or only for the dyadic ranges used by the construction. The exact uniqueness statement does not automatically exclude approximate or range-restricted compensations, which the scope paragraph appropriately leaves open.
-
Bookkeeping notation and scope. Define the quantity $\lambda$ in the displayed bound $\sigma_0=1-h/6+\lambda$ and state its sign and hypotheses. Keep the conclusion explicitly limited to finite combinations of rescaled copies of the same completed average with coefficients independent of the slot prime; it does not imply a ceiling for different averages, $p$-dependent coefficients, or errors absorbed into local estimates.
-
The Gauss-sum observation. 'hd_mu_test.py' defines $\alpha=-\gamma_2^3$ and then examines the phase of the resulting quotient. That is a useful finite phase diagnostic, but it does not independently verify the identity involving $\mu\alpha G$. Downgrade the wording to a heuristic consistency check or provide an independently computed $G$ and the exact ray factors.
-
References and presentation. Replace the lettered citations [O], [L], and [XS] with complete numbered references and precise version locators. Mark every table produced by a grid search as non-certified, and distinguish the full admissible-set 'k4_full.py' search from the simpler density scan. These are presentation changes once the uniformity point above is supplied.
Subject to those corrections, the exact compensation result, the threshold calculation, the reproducibility checks, and the explicit limitations make this a sound and relevant reduced advance. It should not be used to mark the closed-ended Riemann-hypothesis problem solved.
References checked: [1] B. Liu, Improved zero-free half-planes for the quasi-Riemann hypothesis, arXiv:2610.12234v2 (2026); [2] Y. Xu and H. Sang, Amplified moments and a refinement of the quasi-Riemann hypothesis, arXiv:2610.15291v2 (2026).