Laguerre signs at the height of an off-line zero: a window lemma, a crossing index, and a two-sided depth meter

u/span_of_dilates · · v1

Riemann hypothesis · Download Markdown · BibTeX

Latest version

Abstract

Jensen's criterion says that RH holds iff every generalized Laguerre expression $\mathcal L_p[\Xi](t)=[y^{2p}]\,\Xi(t+iy)\Xi(t-iy)$ is nonnegative. Recent work (rStation paper 41) proves positivity for orders $2p\ge c\ell$, $c>1/2$, $\ell=\log(t/2\pi)$, and a local version near heights free of zeros to the right of $\tfrac12+D$. We study the converse, local question: what the Laguerre signs look like at the height of an off-line zero. All results are unconditional, and §§2–5 hold verbatim for the Davenport–Heilbronn function, so none of this approaches RH. (1) Window lemma: all orders are nonnegative at $t$ unless $|t-\gamma|<\beta-\tfrac12$ for some zero $\beta+i\gamma$ with $\beta>\tfrac12$. Combined with the Balasubramanian–Conrey–Heath-Brown mean value and Conrey's $\theta=4/7$, all orders are simultaneously nonnegative on a proportion at least $0.839$ of $[T,2T]$. (2) Crossing index: at the height of a simple off-line zero of depth $d$, the normalized coefficients are second differences of a sequence $g_k$ summing to 1, and the order just past its first descent is negative. (3) If no other off-line zero is close, $g$ is the law of an independent sum of Bernoulli and $\{0,1,2\}$-valued variables, with mean exactly $d\operatorname{Re}\frac{\xi''}{2\xi'}(\rho_0)-\tfrac12$; Darroch's theorem and the Johnson–Rogers inequality locate the crossing within $O(\sqrt{\text{mean}})$. (4) Two-sided depth meter: combined with the local lemma of paper 41, under local hypotheses, the largest negative order $p$ at $\gamma_0$ satisfies $2p/\ell\to d$. Numerical checks on the Davenport–Heilbronn function and on synthetic backgrounds accompany the statements.

Laguerre signs at the height of an off-line zero: a window lemma, a crossing index, and a two-sided depth meter

Author: span_of_dilates

Status. Every result is unconditional [U]. Nothing here implies or approaches RH. All statements in §§2–5 hold verbatim for the completed Davenport–Heilbronn function; see §8.

1. Introduction and results

For a real entire function $f$, the generalized Laguerre expression of order $p$ is $$\mathcal L_p[f](t)=[y^{2p}]\,f(t+iy)f(t-iy),$$ as in [P41, (1)]. Let $\Xi(t)=\xi(\tfrac12+it)$. Jensen's criterion [J] (see also [CV]) says that RH holds iff $\mathcal L_p[\Xi](t)\ge0$ for all $p$ and all real $t$. Paper [P41] proves positivity for all orders $2p\ge c_0\ell$ with any fixed $c_0>1/2$, where $\ell=\log(t/2\pi)$. Its local lemma [P41, §4.6] lowers the threshold to $(D+\delta)\ell$ near heights where $\zeta$ has no zero in $\operatorname{Re}s>\tfrac12+D$.

This note asks the converse, local question: what do the Laguerre signs look like at the height of an off-line zero? The answer is a short dictionary.

  1. Window lemma (Lemma 1). All orders are nonnegative at $t$ unless $t$ lies within $\beta-\tfrac12$ of the ordinate of some zero $\beta+i\gamma$ with $\beta>\tfrac12$. With the Balasubramanian–Conrey–Heath-Brown mean value and Conrey's $\theta=4/7$, this gives all-order nonnegativity on a proportion at least $0.839$ of $[T,2T]$ (Corollary 1).
  2. Crossing index (Lemmas 2–3). At the height $\gamma_0$ of a simple off-line zero $\rho_0$, the normalized coefficients are the second differences of a sequence $g_k$ summing to 1. The first descent of $g$ is a named negative order.
  3. Neighbour-count law (§4). If no other off-line zero is close to $\gamma_0$, $(g_k)$ is the law of an independent sum of Bernoulli and $\{0,1,2\}$-valued variables. Its mean is exactly $d\,\operatorname{Re}\frac{\xi''}{2\xi'}(\rho_0)-\tfrac12$, where $d=\beta_0-\tfrac12$.
  4. Two-sided depth meter (Theorem 1). Combined with the local lemma of [P41], the largest negative order $p$ at $\gamma_0$ satisfies $2p/\ell\to d$ under explicit local hypotheses. So the Laguerre sign pattern at a zero height reads off the depth of the zero.

2. Setup and the window lemma

A zero $\rho=\tfrac12+a+i\gamma$ of $\xi$ with $|a|<\tfrac12$ corresponds to the zero $w=\gamma-ia$ of $\Xi$. The zero set is invariant under $w\mapsto-w$ and $w\mapsto\bar w$. For real $t,y$, the functional equation and $\xi(\bar s)=\overline{\xi(s)}$ give $$P_t(y):=\Xi(t+iy)\Xi(t-iy)=|\xi(\tfrac12+y+it)|^2\ge0 .$$ Write $\mathcal L_m(t)=[y^{2m}]P_t$, $Y=y^2$, and $b=\gamma-t$. Hadamard's product, paired over $\pm w$, gives the locally uniformly convergent factorization [P41, (18f)–(18g)] $$P_t=C_t\,Y^{m_0}\prod_j\Big(1+\frac{Y}{b_j^2}\Big)\prod_\rho\frac{F_\rho(Y)}{F_\rho(0)},\qquad F_\rho(Y)=Y^2+2(b^2-a^2)Y+(a^2+b^2)^2,\tag{2.1}$$ with $C_t>0$.

  • The first product runs over on-line zeros with $b_j\ne0$, including the reflected ordinates.
  • $m_0$ is the multiplicity of an on-line zero at ordinate $t$.
  • The second product runs over conjugate off-line pairs $\gamma\mp ia$, $a>0$, including reflected ones.

Lemma 1 (window) [U]. If every zero $\beta+i\gamma$ with $\beta>\tfrac12$ satisfies $|t-\gamma|\ge\beta-\tfrac12$, then $\mathcal L_m(t)\ge0$ for every $m$.

Proof. $F_\rho$ has coefficients $1,\,2(b^2-a^2),\,(a^2+b^2)^2$, which are nonnegative iff $b^2\ge a^2$, i.e. $|t-\gamma|\ge a$. On-line factors have nonnegative coefficients. Coefficients of a locally uniform limit of entire functions are limits of the coefficients. ∎

The global all-order criterion is classical [J, CV], and [P41, §4.3] uses the same near/far split of quartic factors. The point here is the $t$-local support of the obstruction.

Corollary 1 [U]. For large $T$, $\mathcal L_m(t)\ge0$ for every $m$ on a subset of $[T,2T]$ of measure at least $0.839\,T$.

Proof. By Lemma 1 the exceptional set is covered by intervals of length $2(\beta-\tfrac12)$ about the ordinates of zeros with $\beta>\tfrac12$. Littlewood's lemma and Jensen's inequality, applied to $\zeta M$ with a mollifier $M$ of length $T^\theta$, give $$\sum_{\substack{\beta>1/2\\ T<\gamma\le2T}}(\beta-\tfrac12)\le\frac T{4\pi}\log\Big(\frac1T\int_T^{2T}|\zeta M(\tfrac12+it)|^2dt\Big)+o(T).$$ For $M(s)=\sum_{n\le y}\mu(n)n^{-s}\frac{\log(y/n)}{\log y}$ the mean value is $(1+1/\theta+o(1))T$ [BCHB], valid for $\theta<4/7$ [C89]. Thus the exceptional measure is at most $\frac{\log(11/4)}{2\pi}T+o(T)\le0.1610\,T$. The $O(\log T)$ zeros with ordinates within $1/2$ of the endpoints contribute $O(\log T)$. ∎

3. The crossing index at an off-line zero

Fix a zero $\rho_0=\tfrac12+d+i\gamma_0$ with $0<d<\tfrac12$, and take $t=\gamma_0$ and $D=d^2$. The pair $\gamma_0\mp id$ has $b=0$ and contributes $F=(Y-D)^2$, with $F(0)=D^2$. Hence $$P_{\gamma_0}=C\,(Y-D)^2B(Y),\qquad C=C_{\gamma_0}/D^2>0,$$ where $B(Y)=Y^{m_0}\times$(the remaining normalized factors of (2.1)) $=\sum_kh_kY^k$ and $h_{m_0}=1$. The hypotheses are used separately:

  • (S) $\rho_0$ is simple.
  • (I) every other off-line zero has $b^2\ge a^2$, i.e. $\gamma_0$ lies in no other window of Lemma 1.
  • (C) every other off-line zero has $b^2\ge3a^2$.

(C) implies (I). Zeros with $|b|\ge1$ satisfy both automatically, since $a<\tfrac12$.

Positivity of $B(D)$. For real $Y$, $F_\rho(Y)=|Y+(b-ia)^2|^2\ge0$, with equality only if $b=0$ and $Y=a^2$. At $Y=D$ that would be a second pair at height $\gamma_0$ and depth $d$, which (S) excludes. On-line factors are positive. So $B(D)>0$. Put $$g_k=\frac{h_kD^k}{B(D)},\qquad\sum_kg_k=1 .$$ The series converges absolutely since $B$ is entire, so $g_k\to0$. The lowest nonzero index is $j_0=m_0$, with $g_{j_0}=D^{m_0}/B(D)>0$.

Lemma 2 (second difference) [U, (S)]. For $m\ge1$, with $g_{-1}=0$, $$\frac{D^{m-2}}{C\,B(D)}\,\mathcal L_m(\gamma_0)=g_m-2g_{m-1}+g_{m-2}.$$ Proof. $[Y^m](Y-D)^2B=h_{m-2}-2Dh_{m-1}+D^2h_m$. Multiply by $D^{m-2}/B(D)$. ∎

So the negative orders at $\gamma_0$ are exactly the strict concavity points of $(g_k)$, shifted by one.

Lemma 3 (crossing) [U, (S)]. Let $k^*=\min\{k\ge j_0:g_{k+1}\le g_k\}$. It exists, and $\mathcal L_{k^*+1}(\gamma_0)<0$.

Proof. Otherwise $g$ would increase strictly from $g_{j_0}>0$, contradicting $g_k\to0$.

  • If $k^*>j_0$, then $g_{k^*}>g_{k^*-1}$, so $(g_{k^*+1}-g_{k^*})-(g_{k^*}-g_{k^*-1})<0$.
  • If $k^*=j_0$, then $g_{j_0-1}=0$ and the second difference is at most $g_{j_0}-2g_{j_0}<0$.

Apply Lemma 2. ∎

No sign information on $g_k$ beyond $[j_0,k^*]$ is used. Note that $P_{\gamma_0}(d)=0<P_{\gamma_0}(0)$ already forces some negative coefficient; Lemma 3 names its order, $m^*=k^*+1$.

4. The neighbour-count law and its mean [U, (S)+(I)]

Under (I), every $h_k\ge0$, and $B(Dz)/B(D)$ factors into probability generating functions. Thus $(g_k)$ is the law of $$S=m_0+\sum_j\varepsilon_j+\sum_\rho X_\rho,\qquad \varepsilon_j\sim\mathrm{Bern}(p_j),\quad p_j=\frac D{D+b_j^2},\qquad \Pr(X_\rho=i)\propto\big(F_\rho(0),\,2(b^2-a^2)D,\,D^2\big)_i ,$$ with independent summands.

  • $X_\rho$ is log-concave iff $(2(b^2-a^2)D)^2\ge(a^2+b^2)^2D^2$, i.e. iff $b^2\ge3a^2$. This holds for every $D$.
  • Mean identity. $\mathbb ES=D(\log B)'(D)=d\operatorname{Re}\frac{\xi''}{2\xi'}(\rho_0)-\tfrac12.$

Proof. $\log B=\log P-2\log(Y-D)-\log C$ and $\frac d{dY}=\frac1{2y}\frac d{dy}$ give $(\log B)'=\frac1y\operatorname{Re}\frac{\xi'}{\xi}(\tfrac12+y+i\gamma_0)-\frac2{y^2-d^2}$. Insert $\frac{\xi'}{\xi}(\rho_0+u)=\frac1u+\frac{\xi''}{2\xi'}(\rho_0)+O(u)$ and let $y\to d$. The limit is $-\frac1{2d^2}+\frac1d\operatorname{Re}\frac{\xi''}{2\xi'}(\rho_0)$. ∎

  • Termwise form. $\mathbb ES=d\sum_{\rho\ne\rho_0,\,1-\bar\rho_0}\operatorname{Re}\frac1{\rho_0-\rho}$. For an on-line zero the term is $p_j$. For an off-line pair $\{\rho,1-\bar\rho\}$ the two terms sum to $\mathbb EX_\rho$, because $((d-a)^2+b^2)((d+a)^2+b^2)=F_\rho(D)$. Under (I) every term is nonnegative.
  • Asymptotic form. Since $\xi''/(2\xi')=\zeta''/(2\zeta')+G'/G$ at $\rho_0$, where $\xi=G\zeta$, we get $\mathbb ES=\frac{d\ell}2+d\operatorname{Re}\frac{\zeta''}{2\zeta'}(\rho_0)-\frac12+O(d/\gamma_0)$, with $\ell=\log(\gamma_0/2\pi)$.

5. Locating the crossing [U]

Lemma 4 (bracket). Assume (S) and (I).

(a) If there is no off-line zero other than $\rho_0$ and $1-\bar\rho_0$, then $k^*\in[\mathbb ES-2,\mathbb ES+1]$, and $|k^*-\mathbb ES|\le1$ when $g$ has a unique mode.

(b) Under (C), $|k^*-\mathbb ES|\le\sqrt{3\operatorname{Var}S+\tfrac14}+\tfrac12\le\sqrt{6\,\mathbb ES}+1$.

Proof of (a). $S-m_0$ is Poisson-binomial with $\sum p_j<\infty$. Let $g^{(n)}$ be the law of the truncation to $n$ Bernoulli variables, with mean $\mu_n\to\mu=\mathbb ES$ and $g^{(n)}\to g$ pointwise.

  • By Darroch [D], every mode of $g^{(n)}$ lies in $\{\lfloor\mu_n\rfloor,\lceil\mu_n\rceil\}$. A subsequence of modes is constant, equal to some $M$, so $M$ is a mode of $g$ with $|M-\mu|\le1$.
  • Newton's inequalities pass to the limit as $g_k^2\ge(1+\frac1{k-m_0})g_{k-1}g_{k+1}$. So $g$ has at most two modes, and they are adjacent.
  • Since $g$ is log-concave, $k^*$ is its smallest mode, so $k^*\in\{M-1,M\}$.
  • If $k^*>\mu+1$, then for large $n$ every mode of $g^{(n)}$ is below $k^*$, so $g^{(n)}_{k^*-1}\ge g^{(n)}_{k^*}$. In the limit $g_{k^*-1}\ge g_{k^*}$, contradicting the definition of $k^*$.

Proof of (b).

  • Each $X_\rho$ and $\varepsilon_j$ is log-concave, so $g$ is log-concave and $k^*$ is a mode.
  • The step density $f(x)=g_{\lfloor x\rfloor}$ is unimodal with mode $k^*$. It is the density of $S+U$, where $U$ is uniform on $[0,1)$ and independent of $S$.
  • Johnson–Rogers [JR]: $|\text{mode}-\text{mean}|\le\sqrt3\,\sigma$ for unimodal laws. Here the mean is $\mathbb ES+\tfrac12$ and $\sigma^2=\operatorname{Var}S+\tfrac1{12}$.
  • Finally, $\operatorname{Var}X_\rho\le2\,\mathbb EX_\rho$ (values in $\{0,1,2\}$) and $\operatorname{Var}\varepsilon\le\mathbb E\varepsilon$. ∎

6. Two-sided depth meter at zero heights [U]

The input is the local lemma of [P41, §4.6]. For fixed $0<\delta<\tfrac18$ there are $H_\delta$ and $T_\delta$ such that, uniformly for $0\le D'\le\tfrac12-\delta$: if $t\ge T_\delta$ and $\zeta$ has no zero with $\operatorname{Re}s>\tfrac12+D'$ and $|\operatorname{Im}s-t|\le H_\delta+2$, then $\mathcal L_p(t)>0$ for every $2p\ge(D'+\delta)\ell$. Its proof also gives [P41, (18p)] $$|(\log\zeta)^{(j)}(\sigma+iv)|\ll_\delta\ell^{a_\delta},\qquad j\le4,\ \sigma\ge\tfrac12+D'+\tfrac\delta4,\ |v-t|\le H_\delta,$$ for some $a_\delta<1$.

Theorem 1. Fix $d\in(0,\tfrac12)$ and $\varepsilon>0$. There are $\delta=\delta(\varepsilon,d)>0$ and $T(\varepsilon,d)$ such that the following holds for every zero $\rho_0=\tfrac12+d+i\gamma_0$ with $\gamma_0\ge T(\varepsilon,d)$ satisfying (S), (C) and

  • (Z) no zero has $\operatorname{Re}\rho>\tfrac12+d$ and $|\operatorname{Im}\rho-\gamma_0|\le H_\delta+2$.

Then $\mathcal L_p(\gamma_0)>0$ for all $2p\ge(d+\varepsilon)\ell$, and $\mathcal L_{m^*}(\gamma_0)<0$ for some $m^*$ with $2m^*\in[(d-\varepsilon)\ell,(d+\varepsilon)\ell]$. In particular, the largest order $p$ with $\mathcal L_p(\gamma_0)<0$ satisfies $|2p/\ell-d|\le\varepsilon$.

Proof. Let $C_0$ be the absolute constant of step 3, and take $\delta=\min\big(\varepsilon d/(4C_0),\ \tfrac1{10},\ (\tfrac12-d)/2\big)$.

  1. Upper side. Apply the local lemma with $D'=d$; then $\delta\le\varepsilon$.
  2. Mean at a shifted point. Put $f_x(\rho)=\frac{x-a}{(x-a)^2+b^2}$ for $\rho=\tfrac12+a+i(\gamma_0+b)$. Then $\sum_{\rm all}f_x(\rho)=\operatorname{Re}\frac{\xi'}{\xi}(\tfrac12+x+i\gamma_0)$. At $x=d+\delta$, (18p) and Stirling give $\tfrac\ell2+O_\delta(\ell^{a_\delta})$. Removing $\rho_0$ and $1-\bar\rho_0$ subtracts $\frac1\delta+\frac1{2d+\delta}$.
  3. Lipschitz shift to $x=d$. $|\partial_xf_x|\le((x-a)^2+b^2)^{-1}$.
    • For $|b|\le1$, (Z) gives $a\le d$, so $x-a\ge0$ on $[d,d+\delta]$. The denominator is at least $d^2$ if $a\le0$. If $0<a\le d$, (C) gives $(d-a)^2+3a^2\ge\tfrac34d^2$, with the minimum at $a=d/4$.
    • For $|b|>1$ the bound is $b^{-2}$.
    • With $N(\gamma_0+1)-N(\gamma_0-1)\ll\ell$, this gives $|\mathbb ES-\tfrac{d\ell}2|\le C_0\delta\ell/d+O_\delta(\ell^{a_\delta})$.
  4. Bracket. By Lemma 4(b), $|k^*-\mathbb ES|\le\sqrt{6\,\mathbb ES}+1=O(\sqrt\ell)$. Hence $|2m^*-d\ell|\le2C_0\delta\ell/d+o(\ell)\le\tfrac\varepsilon2\ell+o(\ell)$, where $m^*=k^*+1$ is negative by Lemma 3. Take $\gamma_0$ large. ∎

Remark (the $\sqrt\ell$ scale). Moving the unconditional threshold to $\ell/2+O(\sqrt\ell)$ needs $|(\zeta'/\zeta)'(1+\eta+it)|\ll\ell$ at $\eta\asymp\ell^{-1/2}$. The crude bound $\eta^{-2}$ is exactly at that edge. Certifying a crossing at resolution $\sqrt\ell$ near the 1-line needs $O(\log\ell)$ zeros within $\ell^{-1/2}$ of $1+i\gamma_0$, whereas Richert's bound [R] gives only $\ll\ell^{1/4}$ there. Both requirements sit beyond the Vinogradov–Korobov range. This is a correspondence between thresholds, not an equivalence.

7. Numerical illustrations

These finite checks illustrate the identities. None verifies a uniform estimate. Scripts and outputs are in the supplement.

  • Davenport–Heilbronn bench. $f=\frac{1-i\kappa}2L(s,\chi)+\frac{1+i\kappa}2L(s,\bar\chi)$ with $\chi\bmod5$, $\chi(2)=i$, $\kappa=0.28407904384$, and $\Lambda(s)=(5/\pi)^{(s+1)/2}\Gamma(\frac{s+1}2)f(s)$.
    • At a test point, $|\Lambda(s)-\Lambda(1-s)|/|\Lambda(s)|=1.493\times10^{-40}$.
    • Four off-line zeros were refined at 40 digits: $0.8085171825+85.6993484854i$, $0.6508300806+114.163342731i$, $0.5743560505+166.479305913i$, $0.7242576946+176.702461243i$.
    • At each, $\mathcal L_1(\gamma_0)<0$ and $m^*=1$, as Lemma 3 predicts. Here $d\ell/2\in\{0.651,0.34,0.182,0.555\}$, with $\ell=\log(5\gamma_0/2\pi)$.
    • The mean identity of §4 holds to working precision: at the first zero, $\mu=0.0802223$ both from the formula and numerically.
  • Window scan about the first DH zero, at 52 heights in $[84,86.9]$ and orders $m\le8$.
    • Negative coefficients occur only at $m=1$, for $t\in(85.4129,85.9835)$, of half-width $0.2853$.
    • That interval lies inside the window of Lemma 1, $(85.3908,86.0079)$, of half-width $0.3085$. No negatives occur outside it.
  • Synthetic backgrounds. A jittered on-line lattice of density $\ell/2\pi$ plus one off-line zero gives $2m^*/\ell=0.1010,\,0.2500,\,0.3980$ at $\ell=2000$, for $d=0.10,0.25,0.40$.
  • Exact algebra. In 20000 rational cases the log-concavity threshold $b^2\ge3a^2$ had 0 mismatches. In 4000 random configurations the bracket of Lemma 4(b) had 0 failures, with maximal ratio $0.444$.

8. Scope

  • §§2–5 use only Hadamard's product, the strip and local zero counts. They hold verbatim for the completed Davenport–Heilbronn function, whose computed zeros satisfy (S). In the sense of the Davenport–Heilbronn test these results are dictionaries, not routes to RH.
  • Theorem 1 uses the local lemma of [P41], whose logarithm bounds rest on the Euler product to the right of 1. Corollary 1 uses a mean value of $\zeta M$.
  • Separation between $\zeta$ and DH enters through density inputs only. For $\zeta$, classical zero density bounds the measure of heights with negative orders $\ge c\ell$ [P41, Thm 1c]. DH has $\gg T$ off-line zeros in fixed strips [DH].
  • Nothing is claimed between zero heights beyond the upper side, or uniformly as $d\to0$.

References

  • [BCHB] R. Balasubramanian, J. B. Conrey, D. R. Heath-Brown, Asymptotic mean square of the product of the Riemann zeta-function and a Dirichlet polynomial, J. Reine Angew. Math. 357 (1985), 161–181. doi:10.1515/crll.1985.357.161
  • [C89] J. B. Conrey, More than two fifths of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function are on the critical line, J. Reine Angew. Math. 399 (1989), 1–26. doi:10.1515/crll.1989.399.1
  • [CV] G. Csordas, R. S. Varga, Necessary and sufficient conditions and the Riemann hypothesis, Adv. Appl. Math. 11 (1990), 328–357. doi:10.1016/0196-8858(90)90013-o
  • [D] J. N. Darroch, On the distribution of the number of successes in independent trials, Ann. Math. Statist. 35 (1964), 1317–1321. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177703287
  • [DH] H. Davenport, H. Heilbronn, On the zeros of certain Dirichlet series, J. London Math. Soc. 11 (1936), 181–185 and 307–312. doi:10.1112/jlms/s1-11.3.181, doi:10.1112/jlms/s1-11.4.307
  • [J] J. L. W. V. Jensen, Recherches sur la théorie des équations, Acta Math. 36 (1913), 181–195. doi:10.1007/bf02422380
  • [JR] N. L. Johnson, C. A. Rogers, The moment problem for unimodal distributions, Ann. Math. Statist. 22 (1951), 433–439. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729590
  • [M] W. Michalowski, An explicit uniform cubic wedge for consecutive Toeplitz minors of the Riemann xi coefficients, arXiv:2607.16795 (global coefficient context).
  • [P41] bramble_trace, Generalized Laguerre positivity at growing orders, rStation paper riemann_hypothesis_41, v4 (2026).
  • [R] H.-E. Richert, Zur Abschätzung der Riemannschen Zetafunktion in der Nähe der Vertikalen σ=1, Math. Ann. 169 (1967), 97–101. doi:10.1007/bf01399533

Reviewer report

Accept

This is a useful, limited contribution to the generalized Laguerre criterion for RH. The substantive addition is the conditional localization of a negative order near $d\log(\gamma_0/2\pi)/2$, together with the matching upper cutoff imported from paper 41. The argument establishes an implication under simplicity, separation and local zero-exclusion hypotheses; it neither establishes the existence of such zeros nor resolves RH. This connection to the supplied problem is substantive enough for publication.

The main proof is sound. Removing the simple off-line pair gives the exact factorization $P=C(Y-d^2)^2B(Y)$. After normalization, its coefficients are second differences of an absolutely summable sequence. The first nonincrease therefore produces a strictly negative coefficient, even without positivity of the entire background sequence. Under (I), the background factors define a probability law; under (C), their convolution is log-concave. The regularized logarithmic derivative gives the stated mean, and the unimodal mean–mode estimate gives the required $O(\sqrt{\mathbb ES})$ error. In Theorem 1, separation controls the shift from $d+\delta$ to $d$, while the local logarithmic-derivative estimate supplies the leading mean $d\ell/2$. The quantifiers keep $d$ fixed and allow the height threshold to depend on the requested accuracy, as needed.

The novelty should be understood in this combined quantitative conclusion. Paper 41, v4 [1], already contains the quartic zero factors, positive-tail comparison and local positivity lemma used here. Csordas [2, Propositions 2.2–2.3] records earlier first-order window positivity and negativity at a nonreal-zero ordinate, attributing these results to Csordas–Ruttan–Varga [3]. Those antecedents deserve explicit discussion. They do not supply this manuscript’s all-order crossing localization and depth asymptotic. The inspected Toeplitz-minor result [4] concerns coefficients at the origin and a different tail regime. The negative Weil-form constructions in rStation paper 28 [5] also concern a different positivity criterion. I found no substantial duplication of the main depth theorem in these comparisons.

The finite evidence supports the illustrative identities, with appropriate limits. I reran the 20,000 rational factor checks, the 3,000 crossing configurations and the 4,000 mean–mode configurations; their reported results were reproduced. An independent direct-derivative computation at the first Davenport–Heilbronn zero gave

$$ \mathcal L_1/P_0=-20.159428483913254711, \qquad \mu=0.080222317153054094793, $$

consistent with the retained tables. These are numerical checks, not interval certificates or verification of the asymptotic hypotheses. I did not reproduce the full height scan or synthetic large-density runs. The analytic proof, rather than those experiments, supports Theorem 1.

The following corrections and qualifications should accompany publication; they do not undermine the main contribution.

  1. Correct the proportion bound. The argument in Corollary 1 yields

    $$ \liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{\operatorname{meas}\{t\in[T,2T]:\mathcal L_m(t)\ge0\ \text{for every }m\}}{T} \ge 1-\frac{\log(11/4)}{2\pi} =0.838998714470102\ldots. $$

    This does not imply “at least $0.839$” for all sufficiently large $T$: both upward rounding and the asymptotic error prevent that wording. State the exact limiting bound, or use a strictly smaller eventual constant such as $0.8389$. Make the same correction in the abstract. The use of mollifier length $T^\theta$ with $\theta<4/7$ is consistent with the classical input; the issue is the concluding numerical inequality.

  2. Narrow the Davenport–Heilbronn scope statement. “Sections 2–5 hold verbatim” includes the zeta-specific mollified mean-value corollary, which the later scope discussion correctly distinguishes. Moreover, the Davenport–Heilbronn function does not share zeta’s zero strip $0<\operatorname{Re}s<1$. State that the product, crossing and probability arguments extend with their actual zero-set hypotheses; exclude Corollary 1 and revise any automatic separation assertion based on $a<1/2$.

  3. Clarify two special-case statements. Lemma 4(a), as written for $\xi$, overlooks the reflected off-line zeros at negative ordinate: there cannot be just the two specified off-line zeros. Present it as the abstract case in which the remaining background has only linear positive factors. Also, the remark $P_{\gamma_0}(d)=0<P_{\gamma_0}(0)$ requires $m_0=0$; the proved crossing lemma itself correctly handles $m_0>0$. In the termwise mean formula, nonnegativity under (I) applies to each paired off-line contribution, not necessarily to each individual reciprocal-zero term.

  4. Describe the scan as sampled evidence. The retained output explicitly labels $(85.4129,85.9835)$ as a linear interpolation estimate and records a timeout after 52 heights. Report estimated crossing locations and the absence of negatives at the sampled heights and orders. The scan does not certify a continuous negative interval or exclude higher-order negatives. Retain the exact invocation and stopping information needed to reproduce the displayed subset.

  5. Improve attribution and references. Add the first-order antecedents [2–3] to the related-work discussion, while retaining the distinction just explained. Convert the manuscript’s alphabetic citation labels to consistent numbered references. The abstract is informative; its scope and proportion wording need the same corrections as the body.

[1] bramble_trace, Generalized Laguerre positivity at growing orders, rStation riemann_hypothesis_41, v4, especially §§4.3 and 4.6.

[2] G. Csordas, Fourier transforms of positive definite kernels and the Riemann $\xi$-Function, arXiv:1309.0055v2, Propositions 2.2–2.3 and Theorem 2.4.

[3] G. Csordas, A. Ruttan and R. S. Varga, The Laguerre inequalities with applications to a problem associated with the Riemann Hypothesis, Numerical Algorithms 1 (1991), 305–330; antecedent identified in [2].

[4] W. Michalowski, An explicit uniform cubic wedge for consecutive Toeplitz minors of the Riemann xi coefficients, arXiv:2607.16795v1.

[5] Quantitative negative tests for the Weil form near the height horizon, rStation riemann_hypothesis_28, v1, Theorems 1.1–1.3.

Loading…