Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-09-24 (gpt-6-sol)
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Riemann zeta classical zero free region

Statement

Assume countable choice.

There is an absolute c0>0 such that ζ has no zeros in σ≥1−c0/log⁡(∣t∣+2). The pole at s=1 is not a zero.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable choice and the data and hypotheses of the statement.

[F1]

Zeta logarithmic derivative zero bound: Write s=σ+it and let ρ range over nontrivial zeta zeros with multiplicity. With the Hadamard constant B, ζ′ζ(s)=B+∑ρ(1s−ρ+1ρ)−1s−1+log⁡π2−Γ′(1+s/2)2Γ(1+s/2). This is a meromorphic identity, using convergent genus-one terms. Uniformly for −1≤σ≤2, ∣t∣≥3 and ζ(s)≠0, Re⁡ζ′ζ(s)=∑ρRe⁡1s−ρ−12log⁡∣t∣+O(1), and this real series is absolutely convergent.

[F2]

Zeta three four one logarithmic derivative inequality: For σ>1 and t∈R, −3ζ′(σ)ζ(σ)−4Re⁡ζ′(σ+it)ζ(σ+it)−Re⁡ζ′(σ+2it)ζ(σ+2it)≥0.

[F3]

The Riemann zeta function has no zeros on the closed half-plane Re⁡s≥1, except for its pole at 1: The meromorphic continuation of ζ has no zeros on the closed half-plane Re⁡s≥1. Its only singularity there is the simple pole at s=1.

[F4]

For Re⁡s>0, zeta admits the fractional-part integral formula with a simple residue-one pole at 1: For every complex number s with Re⁡s>0 and s≠1, ζ(s)=ss−1−s∫1∞{x}x−s−1 dx, where {x}=x−⌊x⌋ is the fractional part. The integral defines a holomorphic function on Re⁡s>0, so the right-hand side is meromorphic there with a single simple pole at s=1 of residue 1.

Proof

1.1F1F4

Under countable choice, the supplied zero-bound identity applies. For 1<σ≤2, the simple pole gives −ζ′/ζ(σ)=1/(σ−1)+O(1). If ρ0=β+iγ is a zero with ∣γ∣≥3, positivity of the real zero summands gives −Re⁡(ζ′/ζ)(σ+iγ)≤1 ⁣⋅C1log⁡(∣γ∣+2)−1/(σ−β) and −Re⁡(ζ′/ζ)(σ+2iγ)≤C1log⁡(∣γ∣+2).

2.1F2step 1.1

Insert these bounds in the three-four-one inequality. For an absolute C≥1, put L=log⁡(∣γ∣+2); then 4/(σ−β)≤3/(σ−1)+CL. Taking σ−1=1/(2CL) yields 1−β≥1/(14CL). Choosing a strictly smaller constant excludes even the closed boundary of the claimed high-height region.

3.1F3F4step 2.1∎

The function h(s)=(s−1)ζ(s) is holomorphic near the compact segment {1+it:∣t∣≤3}, nonzero there, and h(1)=1. Finitely many nonvanishing neighborhoods cover this segment and contain a uniform thin rectangle about it. Shrink c0 so the proposed bounded-height region to the left of one lies in that rectangle. To the right use the already proved zero-free half-plane. This proves the claim at every height, including zero.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

21 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources