Current task: —

← Session 18 — Lean tier (ii): finite-height proof + certified base points

#790 assistant 2026-08-20 20:05:27.799 UTC · 1949→8250 tok open ⤢
thinking (9165 chars)
I have the full picture now. §6 Formal verification (528–~595) I've seen. Let me check the tail (bibliography lines) — lines 595–602 presumably. I read 528–557 earlier plus my edits. The remaining bit after my new paragraph: remaining-tiers paragraph + bibliography. Fine. **Split plan:** **paperA.tex** — "An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, machine-verified modulo one named contour bound" (title TBD): - Preamble (same packages + theorem styles) - Title/author/date block — authorship: carry over as-is (user's domain). Fix the "fromAnthropic" typo? It's in the thanks footnote: "harness fromAnthropic" → "harness from Anthropic". It's a typo fix, safe. - Abstract: Paper-A-only (contribution 1), rewritten. - §1 Introduction — retargeted: keep the RH framing + Li criterion; the contribution list becomes one item (R-004) + a paragraph noting the companion Paper B (spectral line) briefly. Reference to Paper B as "a companion note" — careful not to overclaim Paper B's state. - §2 Background — the Weil-form certificate method: mostly keep (it's the launchpad + sanity gate context) but trim the "Two features" paragraph's forward references to §3.2/§3.3 → point to the companion note instead. - §3.1 R-004 (the full proof sketch) — as-is (with today's reconciliations). - §4 Obstruction analysis — Paper A relevance: the six-wall ceiling map (Track A) is context for the certificate method; G-001/G-003 are Li/density-adjacent... G-003 (density→de Bruijn–Newman) is Track C. The λ-channel G-004 is Paper B. Keep the obstruction section but trim to what delimits Paper A's story: Track A ceiling + G-001 + G-003 are fine; the ξ⁽ᵏ⁾ route is fine; G-004 (ground-state channel) belongs to Paper B. Simplest: keep the section with a lead-in that these delimit the method, moving the G-004 bullet to Paper B. Hmm — or keep all of §4 in Paper A except the G-004 bullet. Let me keep: certificate ceiling, multiple-zero symmetry, density→Λ, ξ⁽ᵏ⁾ routes. Move G-004 to Paper B. - Appendix A: §A.1 Li-coefficient machinery (keep); §A.2 spectral-measure program → move to Paper B. - Appendix B Formal verification — keep, but its text mentions the valley/Suzuki tiers (iii)/(iv)... The "remaining tiers" paragraph mentions (iii) valley and (iv) Wiener–Hopf — in Paper A, reframe: those are the companion note's tiers. Adjust wording minimally: "(iii) the valley theorem ... (iv) the Wiener–Hopf reduction ..." → mark as "companion-note material". Also the first paragraph of Appendix B is fine. The tier-(ii′) paragraph fine. - References: all of references.bib entries used by Paper A stay (bibtex will include only cited ones ✓ automatic). **paperB.tex** — skeleton: "The Suzuki operator line: exact factorization, spectral-measure equilibrium, and the valley theorem (research note, in progress)": - Same preamble. - Front page: STANDING ITEMS box (per the mathematician): Theorem 3's hedged tag (trace the tempered-FT bookkeeping or demote to Proposition), L3/L4 open (converse direction = proof skeleton), authorship policy note. - Abstract (draft, honest tags). - §3.2 + §3.3 content as-is, §A.2 spectral numerics, obstruction G-004 bullet. - A "status" section stating what remains (the (★) opening, tier iv formalization skeleton). **draft.tex** — mark as FROZEN/superseded with a header comment, keep compiling. Actually — should I keep it or replace? Decision: keep draft.tex as the combined archive copy, add a header comment "% SUPERSEDED 2026-08-20 by paperA.tex + paperB.tex (session 013 split); frozen at the split state." — hmm, but wait: if paperA/paperB are the living ones, draft.tex frozen means future edits go to the split files. The website (RH-WEBSITE) might reference draft.pdf — memory says website reads the research archive read-only... not my concern for the build. Keep draft.tex frozen. Also: NGUYEN.md §8.1 archive map says "paper/draft.tex — living LaTeX paper + references.bib" — update to mention paperA/paperB. STATE.md, journal-013, db. **Mechanics:** create paperA.tex fresh (Write tool) with the assembled content — I'll compose it from the pieces I've read, with retargeted intro/abstract. paperB.tex similarly. Then compile both (pdflatex+bibtex). Then docs + commit. The mathematician's note said "§3.1 + Appendices A.1/B is now a complete, self-contained, genuinely novel artifact". So Paper A = intro + background + §3.1 + (obstruction context) + App A.1 + App B. Title for Paper A: "An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem: λ_n > 0 for n ≤ 9×10²⁴, machine-verified modulo one named contour bound" — something like: "An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, machine-verified" — let me draft: \title{An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem\\with a machine-verified assembly} Subtitle-ish. Abstract: honest single-contribution version of the current abstract item (1) + the Lean status. Author block: keep the same three authors/thanks (user's domain — carry verbatim except the typo fix "fromAnthropic" → "from Anthropic"). Hmm — should I touch the author block at all? The mathematician flagged authorship as a policy-wall issue. Changing authorship is 100% the user's call. I'll carry it over verbatim INCLUDING fixing only the obvious missing-space typo, and flag both the typo fix and the policy note to the user in my summary. Actually — safest: carry over EXACTLY as-is (even the typo), and flag the typo in my report. No — a missing space in the author footnote of a paper we're finalizing... fixing an obvious typo is standard editorial work, not an authorship decision. I'll fix it and report it clearly. If they disagree, git reverts in one step. Let me also reconsider the date: "Started: 2026-08-17; revised 2026-08-19" → Paper A: "2026-08-20" revision date. Today's date is 2026-08-20 per context. Now compose paperA.tex. Key retargeting decisions for the intro: - Keep first paragraph (RH + density result + Weil positivity + Li criterion framing) verbatim — perfect setup. - Second paragraph: "This paper reports..." → retarget: "This paper reports one theorem-level outcome of a systematic research program on RH: an explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, assembled with every constant traced and with its reduction machine-verified in Lean 4 modulo one named analytic hypothesis and a declared computational perimeter. A companion note (in preparation) covers the spectral-line results (Suzuki operator factorization, valley theorem) of the same program." - Contribution item 1 stays, expanded slightly with the Lean headline. - Items 2–3 removed → replaced by the companion-note pointer. - Section-4 pointer stays; appendix pointers stay. Background section: keep whole; adjust the "Two features" paragraph: "any reformulation of the Weil form — as an operator family ... or reproducing-kernel ... — inherits..." — those forward refs (Section 3.2/3.3) become "(the companion note)". And "each of the three main theorems of this paper has been required to pass this gate" → "the main theorem of this paper has been required to pass this gate structurally (project file D-053)". §3.1 stays verbatim (it's Paper A's core). The \section{Results} wrapper: Paper A can have the R-004 subsection promoted to a section or keep "Results" with one subsection — keep the structure minimal: make §3.1 a \section. Let me restructure: \section{The finite-height Li theorem (R-004)} directly (drop the subsection level). Adjust \subsection → \section. §4 obstruction: keep 4 of 5 bullets; move G-004 bullet to Paper B. Appendix A: rename to keep only Li machinery subsection. Appendix B: formal verification — adjust the remaining-tiers paragraph: (iii)/(iv) described as companion-note formalization targets. Wait — one more check on Appendix B's first paragraph: "The inherited density theorem is formally verified... this project performed a full lake rebuild..." ✓ Paper A keeps. "The new results of this paper are being formalized..." — "new results of this paper" — in Paper A the only new result is R-004 ✓ still accurate. The tier description "(ii′) the contour estimate inside SfBoundProp ... (iii) the valley theorem ... (iv) the Wiener–Hopf reduction (Section~3.2)" — the Section 3.2 reference breaks in Paper A → change to "(the companion note)". Also the abstract of Paper A: ``` An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem. [proved, conditional on computation] The Keiper--Li coefficients satisfy λ_n > 0 for all 1 ≤ n ≤ (T₀−1)² ≈ 9×10²⁴, conditional on the interval-arithmetic verification of RH to height T₀ = 3×10¹² (Platt–Trudgian) and on finite Li-coefficient computations, with every constant traced (first assembled explicit chain; by Voros's sharpening this is the maximal content of the Li route short of RH). The full reduction is machine-verified in Lean 4: the theorem is proved from exactly three named hypotheses — the two computational certificates above and a single named analytic hypothesis (the traced contour bound |S_f(n)| ≤ B(n) on 10⁵ ≤ n ≤ (T₀−1)²) — with axiom profile exactly the three standard axioms and no sorry placeholders. ``` Good. Now compose both files. This is long content — let me write paperA.tex first.
I have the complete picture. Executing the split: `paperA.tex` (the publishable artifact), `paperB.tex` (skeleton with standing items), `draft.tex` frozen with a superseded marker.
tool: Write ok
input
{
  "file_path": "D:\\Python\\Quantum\\research\\paper\\paperA.tex",
  "content": "% ============================================================\n% NGUYEN-RH-1 \u2014 PAPER A (split 2026-08-20, session 013, from draft.tex)\n% An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, machine-verified.\n% Self-contained artifact per the session-012-end-notes review:\n% \u00a73.1 + Appendices A.1/B of the combined draft, retargeted.\n% The spectral-line material lives in paperB.tex (in preparation).\n% ============================================================\n\\documentclass[11pt]{article}\n\\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,mathtools}\n\\usepackage{microtype}\n\\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue]{hyperref}\n\n% The prose is dense with unhyphenatable compounds (Li-positivity,\n% [proved, ...] tags). Give TeX room to spread the slack instead of\n% running past the right margin.\n\\emergencystretch=2em\n\n\\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}\n\\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}\n\\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}\n\\theoremstyle{definition}\n\\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}\n\\theoremstyle{remark}\n\\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}\n\n\\title{An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem\\\\\nwith a machine-verified assembly}\n\\author{Kimi K3\\thanks{model from Moonshot AI}\n\\and Claude Code\\thanks{harness from Anthropic}\n\\and Dan T Nguyen\\thanks{developer from Research Ai}}\n\\date{Started: 2026-08-17; revised 2026-08-20}\n\n\\begin{document}\n\\maketitle\n\n\\begin{abstract}\n[proved, conditional on computation] The Keiper--Li coefficients of the\nRiemann $\\xi$-function satisfy $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all\n$1 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$, conditional on the\ninterval-arithmetic verification of RH to height $T_0 = 3\\times10^{12}$\n(Platt--Trudgian) and on finite Li-coefficient computations, with every\nconstant traced. This is the first assembled explicit chain of its\nkind; by Voros's sharpening it is the maximal content of the Li route\nshort of RH. Moreover the full reduction is machine-verified in Lean~4\n(package \\texttt{NguyenRH1}): the theorem is proved from exactly three\nnamed hypotheses --- the two computational certificates above and a\nsingle named analytic hypothesis, the traced contour bound\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ on $10^5 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2$ --- with axiom\nprofile exactly the three standard axioms (\\texttt{propext},\n\\texttt{Classical.choice}, \\texttt{Quot.sound}) and no \\texttt{sorry}\nanywhere in the development's Li chain.\n\\end{abstract}\n\n\\section{Introduction}\n\nThe Riemann hypothesis (RH) asserts that every nontrivial zero of\n$\\zeta(s)$ has real part $1/2$. The strongest unconditional density\nresult to date is the (machine-verified) theorem that at least $2/3$\nof the nontrivial zeros are simple and on the critical line, and at\nleast $5/6$ of the zeros in a given range are distinct\n\\cite{anthropic2026riemann}; the underlying certificate method has a\ndocumented bandwidth-one ceiling near $0.682$ of the zeros. Two\nclassical reformulations frame most modern attacks: \\emph{Weil\npositivity} --- positivity of the Weil quadratic form on all of\n$C_c^2(\\mathbb R)$ is equivalent to RH \\cite{weil1952fonctions,\nbombieri2000weil}, and the negative index of its truncations counts\noff-line zero pairs \\cite{bombieri2000weil} --- and \\emph{Li's\ncriterion} --- $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $n$ is equivalent to RH\n\\cite{li1997, bombieri1999lagarias}, with Voros's sharpening that\npositivity of any tail $\\{\\lambda_n\\}_{n \\ge N_0}$ already implies RH\n\\cite{voros2006sharpenings}.\n\nThis paper reports one theorem-level outcome of a systematic research\nprogram on RH: an explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem,\nassembled with every constant traced, and with its reduction\nmachine-verified in Lean~4 modulo one named analytic hypothesis and a\ndeclared computational perimeter. A companion note (in preparation)\ncovers the spectral-line results of the same program (an exact\nfactorization on Suzuki's operator line and a valley theorem for the\nassociated model spaces). Every claim carries an explicit correctness\ntag, and every numerical input is produced by a deterministic,\narchived script.\n\n\\begin{theorem}[R-004; conditional on computation]\n\\label{thm:finite-height-li-intro}\nAssume the Riemann hypothesis verified to height\n$T_0 = 3\\times 10^{12}$ (Platt--Trudgian \\cite{platt2021riemann},\ninterval arithmetic). Then the Keiper--Li coefficients satisfy\n$\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $1 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$.\n\\end{theorem}\n\nBy Voros's sharpening no infinite-range partial statement exists, so\nthis is the maximal content of the Li route short of RH; the explicit\nchain --- Lagarias's contour argument \\cite{lagarias2007li} with\nTrudgian's explicit zero-counting bounds \\cite{trudgian2014}, an\nelementary archimedean lower bound, a proved margin convexity, and the\nfinite verifications --- appears not to have been assembled before.\n\nSection~2 recalls the certificate-method background and the sanity\ngate. Section~3 states and proves the theorem. Section~4 collects the\nobstruction analysis delimiting the method. Appendix~A describes the\nnumerical machinery; Appendix~B the formal-verification status.\n\n\\section{Background: the Weil-form certificate method}\n\nWe recall the machinery behind the state-of-the-art density theorem\n\\cite{anthropic2026riemann}, which is the launchpad and the sanity\ngate for everything below; details and notation follow that paper.\n\n\\emph{The Weil explicit formula} \\cite{weil1952fonctions} expresses,\nfor a test function $\\psi$ supported in $[-\\tfrac12,\\tfrac12]$ (the\n\\emph{bandwidth-one} class), a quadratic form on the zeros as a\nfunctional of the primes. Compressing it via a Gabor (Gaussian\nwindowed exponential) frame at the critical density $h = 2\\pi/L$\nyields a finite matrix identity $\\tilde G = P + Q$: a zero-side\nmatrix $\\tilde G$ built from the zeros in a window of size $L$\ndecomposes into a prime-side matrix $P$ (computed unconditionally\nfrom Montgomery's second moment / pair-correlation input\n\\cite{montgomery1973pair}) and a controlled remainder $Q$.\n\n\\emph{The rank--trace inequality.} Writing $\\tilde G$ in inertia form,\na rank--trace comparison between the positive eigenspace of $\\tilde G$\nand the positive part of $P$ converts the second-moment input\n$\\|\\tilde G\\|_{HS}^2 = (R(\\psi) + o(1))\\,N$ into a lower bound on the\nnumber of simple on-line zeros in the window. The strength of the\ncertificate is governed by the \\emph{window ratio}\n\\[\nR(\\psi) \\;=\\; \\frac{\\int \\psi^2 \\;+\\;\n\\iint |u-v|\\,\\psi(u)\\psi(v)\\,du\\,dv}{\\bigl(\\int \\psi\\bigr)^2}\n\\qquad (\\psi \\in C([-\\tfrac12,\\tfrac12]) \\text{ even}, \\ \\psi > 0),\n\\]\nwith $R(\\psi_0) = 4/3$ for the flat window\n$\\psi_0 = \\mathbf 1_{[-1/2,1/2]}$ and\n$R(\\psi_{MT}) = \\tfrac12 + \\tfrac{1}{\\sqrt2}\\cot\\tfrac{1}{\\sqrt2}\n= 1.32749\\ldots$ for the Montgomery--Taylor window (both verified\nsymbolically and against $60$-digit reference values in this project,\nE-001), giving the certified fractions $2 - R(\\psi)$: $0.6725$ of\nzeros simple and on the line, $0.83625$ distinct. A sharpness analysis\nlocates the bandwidth-one ceiling of the method at $\\approx 0.682$,\nand shows the obstructions to going further are structural\n(Section~4).\n\nOne feature of this machinery matters here: the certificate fails, as\nit must, for the Davenport--Heilbronn and Epstein zeta functions\n(which violate the RH-analogue); the main theorem of this paper has\nbeen required to pass this gate structurally (project file D-053).\n\n\\section{The finite-height Li theorem (R-004)}\n\nLet $\\lambda_n = \\sum_{\\rho}{}'\\,\\bigl[1-\\bigl(1-\\tfrac1\\rho\\bigr)^n\\bigr]$\nbe the Keiper--Li coefficients of the Riemann $\\xi$-function. Li's\ncriterion states $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $n \\geq 1$ if and only if the\nRiemann hypothesis holds \\cite{li1997,bombieri1999lagarias}. Voros\n\\cite{voros2006sharpenings} showed that ``$\\lambda_n > 0$ for all\n$n \\geq N_0$'' is already equivalent to RH for any $N_0$, so no\npartial infinite-range statement exists; the maximal content of the Li\nroute short of RH is an \\emph{explicit finite-height} statement.\n\n\\begin{theorem}[R-004; conditional on computation]\n\\label{thm:finite-height-li}\nAssume the Riemann hypothesis verified to height\n$T_0 = 3\\times 10^{12}$ (Platt--Trudgian \\cite{platt2021riemann},\ninterval arithmetic). Then\n\\[\n\\lambda_n > 0 \\qquad \\text{for all } 1 \\le n \\le N_1 := (T_0-1)^2\n= 8\\,999\\,999\\,999\\,994\\,000\\,000\\,000\\,001 \\approx 9.0\\times 10^{24}.\n\\]\n\\end{theorem}\n\n\\begin{proof}[Proof sketch (full assembly: D-037)]\nBombieri--Lagarias \\cite{bombieri1999lagarias} give\n$\\lambda_n = S_\\infty(n) - S_f(n) + 1$ with $S_\\infty$ the archimedean\nand $S_f$ the finite-place contribution.\n\n\\emph{Step 1 (archimedean lower bound).} From Lagarias's formula\n\\cite[(4.11)]{lagarias2007li},\n$S_\\infty(n) = \\sum_{j=1}^n (-1)^j \\binom{n}{j} a_j$ with\n$a_1 = (\\log 4\\pi + \\gamma)/2$ and $a_j = (1-2^{-j})\\zeta(j)\n= \\sum_{m \\text{ odd}} m^{-j}$ ($j \\ge 2$), the $j$-sum is a finite\ndifference and one obtains the \\emph{exact} identity\n$S_\\infty(n) = (1-a_1)n - 1 + \\sum_{m \\ge 3,\\, m \\text{ odd}}\n\\bigl[(1-\\tfrac1m)^n - 1 + \\tfrac{n}{m}\\bigr]$.\nBernoulli's inequality and the explicit harmonic bounds\n$\\log M + \\gamma + \\tfrac{1}{2M} - \\tfrac{1}{12M^2} \\le H_M \\le\n\\log M + \\gamma + \\tfrac{1}{2M}$ give, for $n \\ge 20$,\n\\[\nS_\\infty(n) \\;\\ge\\; \\tfrac12 n\\log n + (C_1 - \\tfrac{\\gamma}{2})\\,n - 4,\n\\qquad C_1 = \\tfrac{\\gamma - 1 - \\log 2\\pi}{2}.\n\\]\n(Machine-validated against exact values for $20 \\le n \\le 5000$.)\n\n\\emph{Step 2 (finite-part upper bound).} Tracing Lagarias's contour\nargument \\cite[Thm~6.1]{lagarias2007li} with explicit constants\n(Trudgian's $N(T)$ and $S(T)$ bounds \\cite{trudgian2014}, partial\nfractions for $\\zeta'/\\zeta$ with the reference-point estimate\n$|R(s)| \\le 10.5\\log(|t|{+}2) + 48$ for $-5/2 \\le \\sigma \\le 3$,\n$|t| \\ge 10$ (D-056), kernel bounds $e^4+1$, a measured\nshort-segment constant $M_0 = 1.3352$) gives\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ with\n\\[\nB(n) = 2N(\\sqrt n{+}1) + 4T\\bigl[\\tfrac23 C_0(T) + 10.5\\log(T{+}2) + 48\\bigr]\n+ 40M_0 + 2(e^4{+}1)\\bigl[7H(T) + 3.3\\bigr] + I_I + 1,\n\\]\n$T = \\sqrt n + 1$, $C_0(t)$ the explicit unit-interval zero count\n(the honest Trudgian form, including the $\\log\\log$ term),\n$H(T) = 3C_0(T)^2 + 10.5\\log(T{+}2) + 48$, $I_I$ an explicitly\nbounded boundary-integral term (D-037/D-056) and the final $1$ the\ntrivial-zero contribution.\n\n\\emph{Step 3 (bridge).} For $n \\le (T_0-1)^2$ every zero with\n$|\\gamma| \\le \\sqrt n + 1$ is on the line, so\n$|1-(1-1/\\rho)^n| \\le 2$ per zero and\n$|\\lambda_n(T)| \\le 2N(T)$; all other contour terms are\n\\emph{unconditional}.\n\n\\emph{Step 4 (margin).}\n$\\mathrm{margin}(n) := \\tfrac12 n\\log n + (C_1 - \\gamma/2)n - 4 - B(n) + 1$\nis convex for $n \\ge 20$ (proved: chain-rule reduction to eleven\none-variable sign conditions, each discharged elementarily \u2014 D-057),\nand $\\mathrm{margin}(8\\times 10^4) = 15\\,764 > 0$ with\n$\\mathrm{margin}(10^5) > \\mathrm{margin}(8\\times 10^4)$; by convexity\n(secant slopes increase) hence\n$\\mathrm{margin}(n) > 0$ for all $n \\in [10^5, N_1]$\\footnote{The\nmargin value at $8\\times10^4$ has a documented trail: $16\\,020$ with\nthe Trudgian $F + S_b$ zero-count majorant (E-028); $15\\,764$ with the\nmildly enlarged majorant consumed by the machine verification --- a\nnegative-weight term of $F + S_b$ dropped so that every convexity\nblock has provably negative $\\psi$ (the true majorant's $\\psi$ crosses\nzero near $T \\approx 16$), at a traced cost of $\\approx 0.9\\sqrt n$,\ni.e.\\ $256$ of the $16\\,020$; and $\\ge 8\\,001$ as the certified\nrational interval lower bound that the machine discharge actually\nconsumes (\\texttt{NguyenRH1},\n\\texttt{marginTilde\\_FAlt\\_80000\\_pos}).}\n(also computed to $n = 4\\times10^5$ on a unit grid and to $N_1$ on a\nlogarithmic grid; $\\mathrm{margin}(N_1) = 2.458\\times 10^{26}$).\n\n\\emph{Step 5 (finite verification).} $\\lambda_n > 0$ for $n \\le 3000$\nby exact high-precision computation (this project, two independent\nmethods, agreement to $4.8\\times10^{-25}$ relative), and for\n$n \\le 5\\times10^5$ by Misguich--Voros \\cite{voros2017li}. The ranges\noverlap the $n = 10^5$ split by a factor $5$ (and the crossover\n$N_0 = 8\\times 10^4$ by $6.25$).\n\\end{proof}\n\n\\begin{remark}\n(i) Using Lagarias's printed bridge window $n \\le T^2/(4\\log^2 T)$\ninstead of the traced proof gives the conservative\n$N_1^* = 2.73\\times 10^{21}$; the theorem is robust either way.\n(ii) The traced worst-case bound $|S_f|$ is $\\sim 170\\times$ loose\nagainst the measured curve ($|S_f| \\le 13.52$ for $n \\le 5000$); the\nslack is structural to contour constants, not a gap.\n(iii) The dependence on computation is explicit: Platt--Trudgian's\ninterval-arithmetic verification, and the finite Li-coefficient\nverifications.\n\\end{remark}\n\n\\section{Obstruction analysis}\n% Documented dead ends from research/graveyard/ where they\n% delimit the method (contributes to success criterion 4).\n\nThe following routes are closed with documented obstructions\n(full files in the project archive, graveyard G-001--G-003 and\nderivations D-009--D-013):\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item \\emph{Certificate extension past $2/3$ in the bandwidth-one\nframework} (Track A): a six-wall map (D-013) shows $>2/3$ is\nimpossible within the current data class; the window-class optimum is\nsaturated in both the $\\xi$ and $\\xi'$ worlds (D-009, D-030), and\nmoment-ladder certificates cap below $2/3$ at every order (G-002).\n\\item \\emph{Multiple-zero bounds as chain input} (G-001): the\n$s_2/p$ substitution symmetry makes depth$\\to$0 off-line pairs\nindistinguishable from double zeros in all two-moment data.\n\\item \\emph{Density theorems $\\to$ de~Bruijn--Newman $\\Lambda$}\n(G-003): one-sided information \u2014 density theorems lower-bound the\non-line fraction while $\\Lambda$ requires an upper bound on the\ncomplex fraction.\n\\item \\emph{$\\xi^{(k)}$-certificate routes} (T4/T4b, D-022, D-031):\nthe strength mechanism (a perfect-square node in the diagonal law)\ndoes not transfer to $\\xi$, and the $s_2/p$ symmetry caps every\nderivative class below $100\\%$.\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\appendix\n\\section{Numerical experiments}\n% Tables/figures generated from research/numerics/data/ CSVs.\n\nAll experiments are deterministic scripts with CSV+JSON sidecars in the\nproject archive (\\texttt{research/numerics/}); checks as stated.\n\n\\subsection{Li-coefficient machinery (E-011/E-015/E-021/E-023)}\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item $\\lambda_n > 0$ verified for $n \\le 3000$ from the arithmetic\nside (Bombieri--Lagarias Thm~2, zero-free; \\textsc{flint} Stieltjes +\nArb $\\zeta$, 1000--1450-digit working precision), cross-validated\nagainst the zero-side computation (agreement $4.8\\times10^{-25}$\nrelative) and $\\lambda_1$ agreeing with its closed form to better\nthan $10^{-28}$ relative.\n\\item Exact archimedean part: $S_\\infty(n) = \\tfrac12 n\\log n + C_1 n\n- \\tfrac14 - \\tfrac{1}{24n} + o(1/n)$ measured to $n = 5000$\n($c_0 = -1/4$ identified exactly; residuals match $-1/4 - 1/(24n)$ to\nall printed digits), and $|S_f(n)| \\le 13.52$ for $n \\le 5000$\n(max at $n = 3298$) vs the traced worst-case $\\sim 2280$ there \u2014\nthe contour constants are $\\sim 170\\times$ loose, as documented.\n\\item Margin assembly (E-028, fully traced constants $A = 10.5$,\n$B_0 = 48$): crossover at $n = 75\\,451$; adopted $N_0 = 8\\times10^4$\nwith margin $16\\,020$ and positive derivative ($15\\,764$ with the\nformal development's majorant --- Step-4 footnote); convexity proved\n(D-057) and grid-confirmed to $N_1 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$;\n$\\mathrm{margin}(N_1) = 2.458\\times10^{26}$. (First-estimate\nconstants $2/2$: crossover $32\\,871$; measured $0.9/1.0$: $30\\,217$.)\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\section{Formal verification}\n\nThe inherited density theorem \\cite{anthropic2026riemann} is formally\nverified in Lean~4 (repository \\texttt{zeta-23-lean}, tag v1.0); this\nproject performed a full \\texttt{lake} rebuild (9010 jobs) and a live\n\\texttt{\\#print axioms} audit of all comparator statements, confirming\nthe published axiom profile verbatim: no axioms beyond \\texttt{propext},\n\\texttt{Classical.choice}, and \\texttt{Quot.sound}, with \\texttt{sorry}\noccurring only in the trusted challenge-statement stubs.\n\nThe new result of this paper is formalized in the companion\npackage \\texttt{NguyenRH1} (same toolchain, path-linked to the vendored\n\\texttt{zeta-23-lean} and its \\textsc{Mathlib} build; no new axioms are\nintroduced anywhere). The first tier is complete: the archimedean lower\nbound for $S_\\infty(n)$ and the margin convexity are machine-proved\n(\\texttt{sInfty\\_lower\\_bound}, \\texttt{marginTilde\\_convex}, and the\nchain-rule identity \\texttt{chain\\_rule\\_sqrt\\_shift}), each with axiom\nprofile exactly the three standard axioms above. A design note on the\nconvexity proof: the pen-and-paper argument uses eleven one-variable\nsign conditions, but the Lean development proves an eight-block\n$\\psi$-table plus a separate analytic bound for the $I_I$ term\n($\\widetilde B_4$); the divergence from the eleven-row table is that\n$\\widetilde B_4$ is not concave, so it is excluded from the $\\psi$\nmachinery and bounded directly. That direct bound is itself a worked\nexample of this project's measured-to-traced conversion: the grid\ncheck of E-029 (maximum $2n\\,|\\widetilde B_4''(n)| = 0.189$ on\n$[20, 10^4]$, with the decay argument covering the tail) is superseded\nby a fully analytic factor-monotonicity proof of the sufficient\ninequality $\\widetilde\\psi''(s) - \\widetilde\\psi'(s)/s \\le 1.316 < 2$\nfor $s \\ge \\sqrt{20}$, i.e.\\ $\\widetilde B_4''(n) < 1/(2n)$ for all\n$n \\ge 20$ (\\texttt{iimaj\\_bracket\\_bound},\n\\texttt{IIMaj\\_deriv2\\_lt}).\n\nThe second tier is complete in its assembly form. The headline\ntheorem \\texttt{lambda\\_pos\\_finite\\_height\\_verified} is\nmachine-proved from exactly three named hypotheses: the two\ncomputational-perimeter inputs of\nTheorem~\\ref{thm:finite-height-li} (Platt--Trudgian; the Li\nverifications) and a single named analytic hypothesis\n\\texttt{SfBoundProp}: the traced contour bound\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ of Section~3 on the range\n$10^5 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2$. The two elementary evaluations of the\nexplicit margin function that the assembly consumes\n($\\mathrm{margin}(8{\\cdot}10^4) > 0$ and\n$\\mathrm{margin}(10^5) > \\mathrm{margin}(8{\\cdot}10^4)$) are discharged\nin the development itself, by certified rational interval bounds on\n$\\log$, $\\exp$, and $\\sqrt{\\cdot}$ (\\texttt{LiBasePoints.lean}).\nInside \\texttt{SfBoundProp}, the explicit\nzero-counting bounds of \\cite{trudgian2014} are treated as trusted\nperimeter on the same footing as the Platt--Trudgian certificate; the\nremaining content (the rectangle contour identity, the kernel\nestimates, and the reference-point bound for $\\zeta'/\\zeta$) is plain\ncomplex analysis. The margin majorant in the development is a mildly\nenlarged Trudgian-shape function (a negative-weight term dropped, at a\ncost of $\\approx 0.9\\sqrt n$ in the bound) chosen so that every\nconvexity block has provably negative $\\psi$; the axiom profile is\nunchanged --- the three standard axioms, no \\texttt{sorryAx}.\n\nThe remaining formalization target inside this paper is\n(ii$'$) the contour estimate inside \\texttt{SfBoundProp} (requires\nmeromorphic residue machinery on rectangles and partial-fraction bounds\nfor $\\zeta'/\\zeta$ --- a nontrivial but finite library task). The\nfinite-height Li theorem is, by design,\n\\emph{conditional} on computations (Platt--Trudgian's interval\narithmetic; the Li-coefficient verifications); formalizing the\n\\emph{reduction} leaves exactly those computational certificates\nas trusted inputs, which we regard as the honest formal target.\n\n\\bibliographystyle{plain}\n\\bibliography{references}\n\\end{document}\n"
}
result 2026-08-20 20:05:28Z → 2026-08-20 20:05:28Z
{
  "type": "create",
  "filePath": "D:\\Python\\Quantum\\research\\paper\\paperA.tex",
  "content": "% ============================================================\n% NGUYEN-RH-1 \u2014 PAPER A (split 2026-08-20, session 013, from draft.tex)\n% An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, machine-verified.\n% Self-contained artifact per the session-012-end-notes review:\n% \u00a73.1 + Appendices A.1/B of the combined draft, retargeted.\n% The spectral-line material lives in paperB.tex (in preparation).\n% ============================================================\n\\documentclass[11pt]{article}\n\\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,mathtools}\n\\usepackage{microtype}\n\\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue]{hyperref}\n\n% The prose is dense with unhyphenatable compounds (Li-positivity,\n% [proved, ...] tags). Give TeX room to spread the slack instead of\n% running past the right margin.\n\\emergencystretch=2em\n\n\\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}\n\\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}\n\\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}\n\\theoremstyle{definition}\n\\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}\n\\theoremstyle{remark}\n\\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}\n\n\\title{An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem\\\\\nwith a machine-verified assembly}\n\\author{Kimi K3\\thanks{model from Moonshot AI}\n\\and Claude Code\\thanks{harness from Anthropic}\n\\and Dan T Nguyen\\thanks{developer from Research Ai}}\n\\date{Started: 2026-08-17; revised 2026-08-20}\n\n\\begin{document}\n\\maketitle\n\n\\begin{abstract}\n[proved, conditional on computation] The Keiper--Li coefficients of the\nRiemann $\\xi$-function satisfy $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all\n$1 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$, conditional on the\ninterval-arithmetic verification of RH to height $T_0 = 3\\times10^{12}$\n(Platt--Trudgian) and on finite Li-coefficient computations, with every\nconstant traced. This is the first assembled explicit chain of its\nkind; by Voros's sharpening it is the maximal content of the Li route\nshort of RH. Moreover the full reduction is machine-verified in Lean~4\n(package \\texttt{NguyenRH1}): the theorem is proved from exactly three\nnamed hypotheses --- the two computational certificates above and a\nsingle named analytic hypothesis, the traced contour bound\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ on $10^5 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2$ --- with axiom\nprofile exactly the three standard axioms (\\texttt{propext},\n\\texttt{Classical.choice}, \\texttt{Quot.sound}) and no \\texttt{sorry}\nanywhere in the development's Li chain.\n\\end{abstract}\n\n\\section{Introduction}\n\nThe Riemann hypothesis (RH) asserts that every nontrivial zero of\n$\\zeta(s)$ has real part $1/2$. The strongest unconditional density\nresult to date is the (machine-verified) theorem that at least $2/3$\nof the nontrivial zeros are simple and on the critical line, and at\nleast $5/6$ of the zeros in a given range are distinct\n\\cite{anthropic2026riemann}; the underlying certificate method has a\ndocumented bandwidth-one ceiling near $0.682$ of the zeros. Two\nclassical reformulations frame most modern attacks: \\emph{Weil\npositivity} --- positivity of the Weil quadratic form on all of\n$C_c^2(\\mathbb R)$ is equivalent to RH \\cite{weil1952fonctions,\nbombieri2000weil}, and the negative index of its truncations counts\noff-line zero pairs \\cite{bombieri2000weil} --- and \\emph{Li's\ncriterion} --- $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $n$ is equivalent to RH\n\\cite{li1997, bombieri1999lagarias}, with Voros's sharpening that\npositivity of any tail $\\{\\lambda_n\\}_{n \\ge N_0}$ already implies RH\n\\cite{voros2006sharpenings}.\n\nThis paper reports one theorem-level outcome of a systematic research\nprogram on RH: an explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem,\nassembled with every constant traced, and with its reduction\nmachine-verified in Lean~4 modulo one named analytic hypothesis and a\ndeclared computational perimeter. A companion note (in preparation)\ncovers the spectral-line results of the same program (an exact\nfactorization on Suzuki's operator line and a valley theorem for the\nassociated model spaces). Every claim carries an explicit correctness\ntag, and every numerical input is produced by a deterministic,\narchived script.\n\n\\begin{theorem}[R-004; conditional on computation]\n\\label{thm:finite-height-li-intro}\nAssume the Riemann hypothesis verified to height\n$T_0 = 3\\times 10^{12}$ (Platt--Trudgian \\cite{platt2021riemann},\ninterval arithmetic). Then the Keiper--Li coefficients satisfy\n$\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $1 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$.\n\\end{theorem}\n\nBy Voros's sharpening no infinite-range partial statement exists, so\nthis is the maximal content of the Li route short of RH; the explicit\nchain --- Lagarias's contour argument \\cite{lagarias2007li} with\nTrudgian's explicit zero-counting bounds \\cite{trudgian2014}, an\nelementary archimedean lower bound, a proved margin convexity, and the\nfinite verifications --- appears not to have been assembled before.\n\nSection~2 recalls the certificate-method background and the sanity\ngate. Section~3 states and proves the theorem. Section~4 collects the\nobstruction analysis delimiting the method. Appendix~A describes the\nnumerical machinery; Appendix~B the formal-verification status.\n\n\\section{Background: the Weil-form certificate method}\n\nWe recall the machinery behind the state-of-the-art density theorem\n\\cite{anthropic2026riemann}, which is the launchpad and the sanity\ngate for everything below; details and notation follow that paper.\n\n\\emph{The Weil explicit formula} \\cite{weil1952fonctions} expresses,\nfor a test function $\\psi$ supported in $[-\\tfrac12,\\tfrac12]$ (the\n\\emph{bandwidth-one} class), a quadratic form on the zeros as a\nfunctional of the primes. Compressing it via a Gabor (Gaussian\nwindowed exponential) frame at the critical density $h = 2\\pi/L$\nyields a finite matrix identity $\\tilde G = P + Q$: a zero-side\nmatrix $\\tilde G$ built from the zeros in a window of size $L$\ndecomposes into a prime-side matrix $P$ (computed unconditionally\nfrom Montgomery's second moment / pair-correlation input\n\\cite{montgomery1973pair}) and a controlled remainder $Q$.\n\n\\emph{The rank--trace inequality.} Writing $\\tilde G$ in inertia form,\na rank--trace comparison between the positive eigenspace of $\\tilde G$\nand the positive part of $P$ converts the second-moment input\n$\\|\\tilde G\\|_{HS}^2 = (R(\\psi) + o(1))\\,N$ into a lower bound on the\nnumber of simple on-line zeros in the window. The strength of the\ncertificate is governed by the \\emph{window ratio}\n\\[\nR(\\psi) \\;=\\; \\frac{\\int \\psi^2 \\;+\\;\n\\iint |u-v|\\,\\psi(u)\\psi(v)\\,du\\,dv}{\\bigl(\\int \\psi\\bigr)^2}\n\\qquad (\\psi \\in C([-\\tfrac12,\\tfrac12]) \\text{ even}, \\ \\psi > 0),\n\\]\nwith $R(\\psi_0) = 4/3$ for the flat window\n$\\psi_0 = \\mathbf 1_{[-1/2,1/2]}$ and\n$R(\\psi_{MT}) = \\tfrac12 + \\tfrac{1}{\\sqrt2}\\cot\\tfrac{1}{\\sqrt2}\n= 1.32749\\ldots$ for the Montgomery--Taylor window (both verified\nsymbolically and against $60$-digit reference values in this project,\nE-001), giving the certified fractions $2 - R(\\psi)$: $0.6725$ of\nzeros simple and on the line, $0.83625$ distinct. A sharpness analysis\nlocates the bandwidth-one ceiling of the method at $\\approx 0.682$,\nand shows the obstructions to going further are structural\n(Section~4).\n\nOne feature of this machinery matters here: the certificate fails, as\nit must, for the Davenport--Heilbronn and Epstein zeta functions\n(which violate the RH-analogue); the main theorem of this paper has\nbeen required to pass this gate structurally (project file D-053).\n\n\\section{The finite-height Li theorem (R-004)}\n\nLet $\\lambda_n = \\sum_{\\rho}{}'\\,\\bigl[1-\\bigl(1-\\tfrac1\\rho\\bigr)^n\\bigr]$\nbe the Keiper--Li coefficients of the Riemann $\\xi$-function. Li's\ncriterion states $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $n \\geq 1$ if and only if the\nRiemann hypothesis holds \\cite{li1997,bombieri1999lagarias}. Voros\n\\cite{voros2006sharpenings} showed that ``$\\lambda_n > 0$ for all\n$n \\geq N_0$'' is already equivalent to RH for any $N_0$, so no\npartial infinite-range statement exists; the maximal content of the Li\nroute short of RH is an \\emph{explicit finite-height} statement.\n\n\\begin{theorem}[R-004; conditional on computation]\n\\label{thm:finite-height-li}\nAssume the Riemann hypothesis verified to height\n$T_0 = 3\\times 10^{12}$ (Platt--Trudgian \\cite{platt2021riemann},\ninterval arithmetic). Then\n\\[\n\\lambda_n > 0 \\qquad \\text{for all } 1 \\le n \\le N_1 := (T_0-1)^2\n= 8\\,999\\,999\\,999\\,994\\,000\\,000\\,000\\,001 \\approx 9.0\\times 10^{24}.\n\\]\n\\end{theorem}\n\n\\begin{proof}[Proof sketch (full assembly: D-037)]\nBombieri--Lagarias \\cite{bombieri1999lagarias} give\n$\\lambda_n = S_\\infty(n) - S_f(n) + 1$ with $S_\\infty$ the archimedean\nand $S_f$ the finite-place contribution.\n\n\\emph{Step 1 (archimedean lower bound).} From Lagarias's formula\n\\cite[(4.11)]{lagarias2007li},\n$S_\\infty(n) = \\sum_{j=1}^n (-1)^j \\binom{n}{j} a_j$ with\n$a_1 = (\\log 4\\pi + \\gamma)/2$ and $a_j = (1-2^{-j})\\zeta(j)\n= \\sum_{m \\text{ odd}} m^{-j}$ ($j \\ge 2$), the $j$-sum is a finite\ndifference and one obtains the \\emph{exact} identity\n$S_\\infty(n) = (1-a_1)n - 1 + \\sum_{m \\ge 3,\\, m \\text{ odd}}\n\\bigl[(1-\\tfrac1m)^n - 1 + \\tfrac{n}{m}\\bigr]$.\nBernoulli's inequality and the explicit harmonic bounds\n$\\log M + \\gamma + \\tfrac{1}{2M} - \\tfrac{1}{12M^2} \\le H_M \\le\n\\log M + \\gamma + \\tfrac{1}{2M}$ give, for $n \\ge 20$,\n\\[\nS_\\infty(n) \\;\\ge\\; \\tfrac12 n\\log n + (C_1 - \\tfrac{\\gamma}{2})\\,n - 4,\n\\qquad C_1 = \\tfrac{\\gamma - 1 - \\log 2\\pi}{2}.\n\\]\n(Machine-validated against exact values for $20 \\le n \\le 5000$.)\n\n\\emph{Step 2 (finite-part upper bound).} Tracing Lagarias's contour\nargument \\cite[Thm~6.1]{lagarias2007li} with explicit constants\n(Trudgian's $N(T)$ and $S(T)$ bounds \\cite{trudgian2014}, partial\nfractions for $\\zeta'/\\zeta$ with the reference-point estimate\n$|R(s)| \\le 10.5\\log(|t|{+}2) + 48$ for $-5/2 \\le \\sigma \\le 3$,\n$|t| \\ge 10$ (D-056), kernel bounds $e^4+1$, a measured\nshort-segment constant $M_0 = 1.3352$) gives\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ with\n\\[\nB(n) = 2N(\\sqrt n{+}1) + 4T\\bigl[\\tfrac23 C_0(T) + 10.5\\log(T{+}2) + 48\\bigr]\n+ 40M_0 + 2(e^4{+}1)\\bigl[7H(T) + 3.3\\bigr] + I_I + 1,\n\\]\n$T = \\sqrt n + 1$, $C_0(t)$ the explicit unit-interval zero count\n(the honest Trudgian form, including the $\\log\\log$ term),\n$H(T) = 3C_0(T)^2 + 10.5\\log(T{+}2) + 48$, $I_I$ an explicitly\nbounded boundary-integral term (D-037/D-056) and the final $1$ the\ntrivial-zero contribution.\n\n\\emph{Step 3 (bridge).} For $n \\le (T_0-1)^2$ every zero with\n$|\\gamma| \\le \\sqrt n + 1$ is on the line, so\n$|1-(1-1/\\rho)^n| \\le 2$ per zero and\n$|\\lambda_n(T)| \\le 2N(T)$; all other contour terms are\n\\emph{unconditional}.\n\n\\emph{Step 4 (margin).}\n$\\mathrm{margin}(n) := \\tfrac12 n\\log n + (C_1 - \\gamma/2)n - 4 - B(n) + 1$\nis convex for $n \\ge 20$ (proved: chain-rule reduction to eleven\none-variable sign conditions, each discharged elementarily \u2014 D-057),\nand $\\mathrm{margin}(8\\times 10^4) = 15\\,764 > 0$ with\n$\\mathrm{margin}(10^5) > \\mathrm{margin}(8\\times 10^4)$; by convexity\n(secant slopes increase) hence\n$\\mathrm{margin}(n) > 0$ for all $n \\in [10^5, N_1]$\\footnote{The\nmargin value at $8\\times10^4$ has a documented trail: $16\\,020$ with\nthe Trudgian $F + S_b$ zero-count majorant (E-028); $15\\,764$ with the\nmildly enlarged majorant consumed by the machine verification --- a\nnegative-weight term of $F + S_b$ dropped so that every convexity\nblock has provably negative $\\psi$ (the true majorant's $\\psi$ crosses\nzero near $T \\approx 16$), at a traced cost of $\\approx 0.9\\sqrt n$,\ni.e.\\ $256$ of the $16\\,020$; and $\\ge 8\\,001$ as the certified\nrational interval lower bound that the machine discharge actually\nconsumes (\\texttt{NguyenRH1},\n\\texttt{marginTilde\\_FAlt\\_80000\\_pos}).}\n(also computed to $n = 4\\times10^5$ on a unit grid and to $N_1$ on a\nlogarithmic grid; $\\mathrm{margin}(N_1) = 2.458\\times 10^{26}$).\n\n\\emph{Step 5 (finite verification).} $\\lambda_n > 0$ for $n \\le 3000$\nby exact high-precision computation (this project, two independent\nmethods, agreement to $4.8\\times10^{-25}$ relative), and for\n$n \\le 5\\times10^5$ by Misguich--Voros \\cite{voros2017li}. The ranges\noverlap the $n = 10^5$ split by a factor $5$ (and the crossover\n$N_0 = 8\\times 10^4$ by $6.25$).\n\\end{proof}\n\n\\begin{remark}\n(i) Using Lagarias's printed bridge window $n \\le T^2/(4\\log^2 T)$\ninstead of the traced proof gives the conservative\n$N_1^* = 2.73\\times 10^{21}$; the theorem is robust either way.\n(ii) The traced worst-case bound $|S_f|$ is $\\sim 170\\times$ loose\nagainst the measured curve ($|S_f| \\le 13.52$ for $n \\le 5000$); the\nslack is structural to contour constants, not a gap.\n(iii) The dependence on computation is explicit: Platt--Trudgian's\ninterval-arithmetic verification, and the finite Li-coefficient\nverifications.\n\\end{remark}\n\n\\section{Obstruction analysis}\n% Documented dead ends from research/graveyard/ where they\n% delimit the method (contributes to success criterion 4).\n\nThe following routes are closed with documented obstructions\n(full files in the project archive, graveyard G-001--G-003 and\nderivations D-009--D-013):\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item \\emph{Certificate extension past $2/3$ in the bandwidth-one\nframework} (Track A): a six-wall map (D-013) shows $>2/3$ is\nimpossible within the current data class; the window-class optimum is\nsaturated in both the $\\xi$ and $\\xi'$ worlds (D-009, D-030), and\nmoment-ladder certificates cap below $2/3$ at every order (G-002).\n\\item \\emph{Multiple-zero bounds as chain input} (G-001): the\n$s_2/p$ substitution symmetry makes depth$\\to$0 off-line pairs\nindistinguishable from double zeros in all two-moment data.\n\\item \\emph{Density theorems $\\to$ de~Bruijn--Newman $\\Lambda$}\n(G-003): one-sided information \u2014 density theorems lower-bound the\non-line fraction while $\\Lambda$ requires an upper bound on the\ncomplex fraction.\n\\item \\emph{$\\xi^{(k)}$-certificate routes} (T4/T4b, D-022, D-031):\nthe strength mechanism (a perfect-square node in the diagonal law)\ndoes not transfer to $\\xi$, and the $s_2/p$ symmetry caps every\nderivative class below $100\\%$.\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\appendix\n\\section{Numerical experiments}\n% Tables/figures generated from research/numerics/data/ CSVs.\n\nAll experiments are deterministic scripts with CSV+JSON sidecars in the\nproject archive (\\texttt{research/numerics/}); checks as stated.\n\n\\subsection{Li-coefficient machinery (E-011/E-015/E-021/E-023)}\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item $\\lambda_n > 0$ verified for $n \\le 3000$ from the arithmetic\nside (Bombieri--Lagarias Thm~2, zero-free; \\textsc{flint} Stieltjes +\nArb $\\zeta$, 1000--1450-digit working precision), cross-validated\nagainst the zero-side computation (agreement $4.8\\times10^{-25}$\nrelative) and $\\lambda_1$ agreeing with its closed form to better\nthan $10^{-28}$ relative.\n\\item Exact archimedean part: $S_\\infty(n) = \\tfrac12 n\\log n + C_1 n\n- \\tfrac14 - \\tfrac{1}{24n} + o(1/n)$ measured to $n = 5000$\n($c_0 = -1/4$ identified exactly; residuals match $-1/4 - 1/(24n)$ to\nall printed digits), and $|S_f(n)| \\le 13.52$ for $n \\le 5000$\n(max at $n = 3298$) vs the traced worst-case $\\sim 2280$ there \u2014\nthe contour constants are $\\sim 170\\times$ loose, as documented.\n\\item Margin assembly (E-028, fully traced constants $A = 10.5$,\n$B_0 = 48$): crossover at $n = 75\\,451$; adopted $N_0 = 8\\times10^4$\nwith margin $16\\,020$ and positive derivative ($15\\,764$ with the\nformal development's majorant --- Step-4 footnote); convexity proved\n(D-057) and grid-confirmed to $N_1 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$;\n$\\mathrm{margin}(N_1) = 2.458\\times10^{26}$. (First-estimate\nconstants $2/2$: crossover $32\\,871$; measured $0.9/1.0$: $30\\,217$.)\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\section{Formal verification}\n\nThe inherited density theorem \\cite{anthropic2026riemann} is formally\nverified in Lean~4 (repository \\texttt{zeta-23-lean}, tag v1.0); this\nproject performed a full \\texttt{lake} rebuild (9010 jobs) and a live\n\\texttt{\\#print axioms} audit of all comparator statements, confirming\nthe published axiom profile verbatim: no axioms beyond \\texttt{propext},\n\\texttt{Classical.choice}, and \\texttt{Quot.sound}, with \\texttt{sorry}\noccurring only in the trusted challenge-statement stubs.\n\nThe new result of this paper is formalized in the companion\npackage \\texttt{NguyenRH1} (same toolchain, path-linked to the vendored\n\\texttt{zeta-23-lean} and its \\textsc{Mathlib} build; no new axioms are\nintroduced anywhere). The first tier is complete: the archimedean lower\nbound for $S_\\infty(n)$ and the margin convexity are machine-proved\n(\\texttt{sInfty\\_lower\\_bound}, \\texttt{marginTilde\\_convex}, and the\nchain-rule identity \\texttt{chain\\_rule\\_sqrt\\_shift}), each with axiom\nprofile exactly the three standard axioms above. A design note on the\nconvexity proof: the pen-and-paper argument uses eleven one-variable\nsign conditions, but the Lean development proves an eight-block\n$\\psi$-table plus a separate analytic bound for the $I_I$ term\n($\\widetilde B_4$); the divergence from the eleven-row table is that\n$\\widetilde B_4$ is not concave, so it is excluded from the $\\psi$\nmachinery and bounded directly. That direct bound is itself a worked\nexample of this project's measured-to-traced conversion: the grid\ncheck of E-029 (maximum $2n\\,|\\widetilde B_4''(n)| = 0.189$ on\n$[20, 10^4]$, with the decay argument covering the tail) is superseded\nby a fully analytic factor-monotonicity proof of the sufficient\ninequality $\\widetilde\\psi''(s) - \\widetilde\\psi'(s)/s \\le 1.316 < 2$\nfor $s \\ge \\sqrt{20}$, i.e.\\ $\\widetilde B_4''(n) < 1/(2n)$ for all\n$n \\ge 20$ (\\texttt{iimaj\\_bracket\\_bound},\n\\texttt{IIMaj\\_deriv2\\_lt}).\n\nThe second tier is complete in its assembly form. The headline\ntheorem \\texttt{lambda\\_pos\\_finite\\_height\\_verified} is\nmachine-proved from exactly three named hypotheses: the two\ncomputational-perimeter inputs of\nTheorem~\\ref{thm:finite-height-li} (Platt--Trudgian; the Li\nverifications) and a single named analytic hypothesis\n\\texttt{SfBoundProp}: the traced contour bound\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ of Section~3 on the range\n$10^5 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2$. The two elementary evaluations of the\nexplicit margin function that the assembly consumes\n($\\mathrm{margin}(8{\\cdot}10^4) > 0$ and\n$\\mathrm{margin}(10^5) > \\mathrm{margin}(8{\\cdot}10^4)$) are discharged\nin the development itself, by certified rational interval bounds on\n$\\log$, $\\exp$, and $\\sqrt{\\cdot}$ (\\texttt{LiBasePoints.lean}).\nInside \\texttt{SfBoundProp}, the explicit\nzero-counting bounds of \\cite{trudgian2014} are treated as trusted\nperimeter on the same footing as the Platt--Trudgian certificate; the\nremaining content (the rectangle contour identity, the kernel\nestimates, and the reference-point bound for $\\zeta'/\\zeta$) is plain\ncomplex analysis. The margin majorant in the development is a mildly\nenlarged Trudgian-shape function (a negative-weight term dropped, at a\ncost of $\\approx 0.9\\sqrt n$ in the bound) chosen so that every\nconvexity block has provably negative $\\psi$; the axiom profile is\nunchanged --- the three standard axioms, no \\texttt{sorryAx}.\n\nThe remaining formalization target inside this paper is\n(ii$'$) the contour estimate inside \\texttt{SfBoundProp} (requires\nmeromorphic residue machinery on rectangles and partial-fraction bounds\nfor $\\zeta'/\\zeta$ --- a nontrivial but finite library task). The\nfinite-height Li theorem is, by design,\n\\emph{conditional} on computations (Platt--Trudgian's interval\narithmetic; the Li-coefficient verifications); formalizing the\n\\emph{reduction} leaves exactly those computational certificates\nas trusted inputs, which we regard as the honest formal target.\n\n\\bibliographystyle{plain}\n\\bibliography{references}\n\\end{document}\n",
  "structuredPatch": [],
  "originalFile": null
}
raw content_json (database row)
[{"type":"thinking","thinking":"I have the full picture now. §6 Formal verification (528–~595) I've seen. Let me check the tail (bibliography lines) — lines 595–602 presumably. I read 528–557 earlier plus my edits. The remaining bit after my new paragraph: remaining-tiers paragraph + bibliography. Fine.\n\n**Split plan:**\n\n**paperA.tex** — \"An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, machine-verified modulo one named contour bound\" (title TBD):\n- Preamble (same packages + theorem styles)\n- Title/author/date block — authorship: carry over as-is (user's domain). Fix the \"fromAnthropic\" typo? It's in the thanks footnote: \"harness fromAnthropic\" → \"harness from Anthropic\". It's a typo fix, safe.\n- Abstract: Paper-A-only (contribution 1), rewritten.\n- §1 Introduction — retargeted: keep the RH framing + Li criterion; the contribution list becomes one item (R-004) + a paragraph noting the companion Paper B (spectral line) briefly. Reference to Paper B as \"a companion note\" — careful not to overclaim Paper B's state.\n- §2 Background — the Weil-form certificate method: mostly keep (it's the launchpad + sanity gate context) but trim the \"Two features\" paragraph's forward references to §3.2/§3.3 → point to the companion note instead.\n- §3.1 R-004 (the full proof sketch) — as-is (with today's reconciliations).\n- §4 Obstruction analysis — Paper A relevance: the six-wall ceiling map (Track A) is context for the certificate method; G-001/G-003 are Li/density-adjacent... G-003 (density→de Bruijn–Newman) is Track C. The λ-channel G-004 is Paper B. Keep the obstruction section but trim to what delimits Paper A's story: Track A ceiling + G-001 + G-003 are fine; the ξ⁽ᵏ⁾ route is fine; G-004 (ground-state channel) belongs to Paper B. Simplest: keep the section with a lead-in that these delimit the method, moving the G-004 bullet to Paper B. Hmm — or keep all of §4 in Paper A except the G-004 bullet. Let me keep: certificate ceiling, multiple-zero symmetry, density→Λ, ξ⁽ᵏ⁾ routes. Move G-004 to Paper B. \n- Appendix A: §A.1 Li-coefficient machinery (keep); §A.2 spectral-measure program → move to Paper B.\n- Appendix B Formal verification — keep, but its text mentions the valley/Suzuki tiers (iii)/(iv)... The \"remaining tiers\" paragraph mentions (iii) valley and (iv) Wiener–Hopf — in Paper A, reframe: those are the companion note's tiers. Adjust wording minimally: \"(iii) the valley theorem ... (iv) the Wiener–Hopf reduction ...\" → mark as \"companion-note material\". Also the first paragraph of Appendix B is fine. The tier-(ii′) paragraph fine.\n- References: all of references.bib entries used by Paper A stay (bibtex will include only cited ones ✓ automatic).\n\n**paperB.tex** — skeleton: \"The Suzuki operator line: exact factorization, spectral-measure equilibrium, and the valley theorem (research note, in progress)\":\n- Same preamble.\n- Front page: STANDING ITEMS box (per the mathematician): Theorem 3's hedged tag (trace the tempered-FT bookkeeping or demote to Proposition), L3/L4 open (converse direction = proof skeleton), authorship policy note.\n- Abstract (draft, honest tags).\n- §3.2 + §3.3 content as-is, §A.2 spectral numerics, obstruction G-004 bullet.\n- A \"status\" section stating what remains (the (★) opening, tier iv formalization skeleton).\n\n**draft.tex** — mark as FROZEN/superseded with a header comment, keep compiling. Actually — should I keep it or replace? Decision: keep draft.tex as the combined archive copy, add a header comment \"% SUPERSEDED 2026-08-20 by paperA.tex + paperB.tex (session 013 split); frozen at the split state.\" — hmm, but wait: if paperA/paperB are the living ones, draft.tex frozen means future edits go to the split files. The website (RH-WEBSITE) might reference draft.pdf — memory says website reads the research archive read-only... not my concern for the build. Keep draft.tex frozen.\n\nAlso: NGUYEN.md §8.1 archive map says \"paper/draft.tex — living LaTeX paper + references.bib\" — update to mention paperA/paperB. STATE.md, journal-013, db.\n\n**Mechanics:** create paperA.tex fresh (Write tool) with the assembled content — I'll compose it from the pieces I've read, with retargeted intro/abstract. paperB.tex similarly. Then compile both (pdflatex+bibtex). Then docs + commit.\n\nThe mathematician's note said \"§3.1 + Appendices A.1/B is now a complete, self-contained, genuinely novel artifact\". So Paper A = intro + background + §3.1 + (obstruction context) + App A.1 + App B.\n\nTitle for Paper A: \"An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem: λ_n > 0 for n ≤ 9×10²⁴, machine-verified modulo one named contour bound\" — something like:\n\"An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, machine-verified\" — let me draft: \n\\title{An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem\\\\with a machine-verified assembly}\nSubtitle-ish. Abstract: honest single-contribution version of the current abstract item (1) + the Lean status.\n\nAuthor block: keep the same three authors/thanks (user's domain — carry verbatim except the typo fix \"fromAnthropic\" → \"from Anthropic\"). Hmm — should I touch the author block at all? The mathematician flagged authorship as a policy-wall issue. Changing authorship is 100% the user's call. I'll carry it over verbatim INCLUDING fixing only the obvious missing-space typo, and flag both the typo fix and the policy note to the user in my summary. Actually — safest: carry over EXACTLY as-is (even the typo), and flag the typo in my report. No — a missing space in the author footnote of a paper we're finalizing... fixing an obvious typo is standard editorial work, not an authorship decision. I'll fix it and report it clearly. If they disagree, git reverts in one step.\n\nLet me also reconsider the date: \"Started: 2026-08-17; revised 2026-08-19\" → Paper A: \"2026-08-20\" revision date. Today's date is 2026-08-20 per context.\n\nNow compose paperA.tex. Key retargeting decisions for the intro:\n- Keep first paragraph (RH + density result + Weil positivity + Li criterion framing) verbatim — perfect setup.\n- Second paragraph: \"This paper reports...\" → retarget: \"This paper reports one theorem-level outcome of a systematic research program on RH: an explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, assembled with every constant traced and with its reduction machine-verified in Lean 4 modulo one named analytic hypothesis and a declared computational perimeter. A companion note (in preparation) covers the spectral-line results (Suzuki operator factorization, valley theorem) of the same program.\"\n- Contribution item 1 stays, expanded slightly with the Lean headline.\n- Items 2–3 removed → replaced by the companion-note pointer.\n- Section-4 pointer stays; appendix pointers stay.\n\nBackground section: keep whole; adjust the \"Two features\" paragraph: \"any reformulation of the Weil form — as an operator family ... or reproducing-kernel ... — inherits...\" — those forward refs (Section 3.2/3.3) become \"(the companion note)\". And \"each of the three main theorems of this paper has been required to pass this gate\" → \"the main theorem of this paper has been required to pass this gate structurally (project file D-053)\".\n\n§3.1 stays verbatim (it's Paper A's core). The \\section{Results} wrapper: Paper A can have the R-004 subsection promoted to a section or keep \"Results\" with one subsection — keep the structure minimal: make §3.1 a \\section. Let me restructure: \\section{The finite-height Li theorem (R-004)} directly (drop the subsection level). Adjust \\subsection → \\section.\n\n§4 obstruction: keep 4 of 5 bullets; move G-004 bullet to Paper B.\n\nAppendix A: rename to keep only Li machinery subsection. Appendix B: formal verification — adjust the remaining-tiers paragraph: (iii)/(iv) described as companion-note formalization targets.\n\nWait — one more check on Appendix B's first paragraph: \"The inherited density theorem is formally verified... this project performed a full lake rebuild...\" ✓ Paper A keeps. \"The new results of this paper are being formalized...\" — \"new results of this paper\" — in Paper A the only new result is R-004 ✓ still accurate. The tier description \"(ii′) the contour estimate inside SfBoundProp ... (iii) the valley theorem ... (iv) the Wiener–Hopf reduction (Section~3.2)\" — the Section 3.2 reference breaks in Paper A → change to \"(the companion note)\".\n\nAlso the abstract of Paper A: \n```\nAn explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem. [proved, conditional on computation] The Keiper--Li coefficients satisfy λ_n > 0 for all 1 ≤ n ≤ (T₀−1)² ≈ 9×10²⁴, conditional on the interval-arithmetic verification of RH to height T₀ = 3×10¹² (Platt–Trudgian) and on finite Li-coefficient computations, with every constant traced (first assembled explicit chain; by Voros's sharpening this is the maximal content of the Li route short of RH). The full reduction is machine-verified in Lean 4: the theorem is proved from exactly three named hypotheses — the two computational certificates above and a single named analytic hypothesis (the traced contour bound |S_f(n)| ≤ B(n) on 10⁵ ≤ n ≤ (T₀−1)²) — with axiom profile exactly the three standard axioms and no sorry placeholders.\n```\n\nGood. Now compose both files. This is long content — let me write paperA.tex first.","signature":""},{"type":"text","text":"I have the complete picture. Executing the split: `paperA.tex` (the publishable artifact), `paperB.tex` (skeleton with standing items), `draft.tex` frozen with a superseded marker."},{"type":"tool_use","id":"Write_210","name":"Write","input":{"file_path":"D:\\Python\\Quantum\\research\\paper\\paperA.tex","content":"% ============================================================\n% NGUYEN-RH-1 — PAPER A (split 2026-08-20, session 013, from draft.tex)\n% An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem, machine-verified.\n% Self-contained artifact per the session-012-end-notes review:\n% §3.1 + Appendices A.1/B of the combined draft, retargeted.\n% The spectral-line material lives in paperB.tex (in preparation).\n% ============================================================\n\\documentclass[11pt]{article}\n\\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,mathtools}\n\\usepackage{microtype}\n\\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue]{hyperref}\n\n% The prose is dense with unhyphenatable compounds (Li-positivity,\n% [proved, ...] tags). Give TeX room to spread the slack instead of\n% running past the right margin.\n\\emergencystretch=2em\n\n\\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}\n\\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}\n\\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}\n\\theoremstyle{definition}\n\\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}\n\\theoremstyle{remark}\n\\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}\n\n\\title{An explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem\\\\\nwith a machine-verified assembly}\n\\author{Kimi K3\\thanks{model from Moonshot AI}\n\\and Claude Code\\thanks{harness from Anthropic}\n\\and Dan T Nguyen\\thanks{developer from Research Ai}}\n\\date{Started: 2026-08-17; revised 2026-08-20}\n\n\\begin{document}\n\\maketitle\n\n\\begin{abstract}\n[proved, conditional on computation] The Keiper--Li coefficients of the\nRiemann $\\xi$-function satisfy $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all\n$1 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$, conditional on the\ninterval-arithmetic verification of RH to height $T_0 = 3\\times10^{12}$\n(Platt--Trudgian) and on finite Li-coefficient computations, with every\nconstant traced. This is the first assembled explicit chain of its\nkind; by Voros's sharpening it is the maximal content of the Li route\nshort of RH. Moreover the full reduction is machine-verified in Lean~4\n(package \\texttt{NguyenRH1}): the theorem is proved from exactly three\nnamed hypotheses --- the two computational certificates above and a\nsingle named analytic hypothesis, the traced contour bound\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ on $10^5 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2$ --- with axiom\nprofile exactly the three standard axioms (\\texttt{propext},\n\\texttt{Classical.choice}, \\texttt{Quot.sound}) and no \\texttt{sorry}\nanywhere in the development's Li chain.\n\\end{abstract}\n\n\\section{Introduction}\n\nThe Riemann hypothesis (RH) asserts that every nontrivial zero of\n$\\zeta(s)$ has real part $1/2$. The strongest unconditional density\nresult to date is the (machine-verified) theorem that at least $2/3$\nof the nontrivial zeros are simple and on the critical line, and at\nleast $5/6$ of the zeros in a given range are distinct\n\\cite{anthropic2026riemann}; the underlying certificate method has a\ndocumented bandwidth-one ceiling near $0.682$ of the zeros. Two\nclassical reformulations frame most modern attacks: \\emph{Weil\npositivity} --- positivity of the Weil quadratic form on all of\n$C_c^2(\\mathbb R)$ is equivalent to RH \\cite{weil1952fonctions,\nbombieri2000weil}, and the negative index of its truncations counts\noff-line zero pairs \\cite{bombieri2000weil} --- and \\emph{Li's\ncriterion} --- $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $n$ is equivalent to RH\n\\cite{li1997, bombieri1999lagarias}, with Voros's sharpening that\npositivity of any tail $\\{\\lambda_n\\}_{n \\ge N_0}$ already implies RH\n\\cite{voros2006sharpenings}.\n\nThis paper reports one theorem-level outcome of a systematic research\nprogram on RH: an explicit finite-height Li-positivity theorem,\nassembled with every constant traced, and with its reduction\nmachine-verified in Lean~4 modulo one named analytic hypothesis and a\ndeclared computational perimeter. A companion note (in preparation)\ncovers the spectral-line results of the same program (an exact\nfactorization on Suzuki's operator line and a valley theorem for the\nassociated model spaces). Every claim carries an explicit correctness\ntag, and every numerical input is produced by a deterministic,\narchived script.\n\n\\begin{theorem}[R-004; conditional on computation]\n\\label{thm:finite-height-li-intro}\nAssume the Riemann hypothesis verified to height\n$T_0 = 3\\times 10^{12}$ (Platt--Trudgian \\cite{platt2021riemann},\ninterval arithmetic). Then the Keiper--Li coefficients satisfy\n$\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $1 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$.\n\\end{theorem}\n\nBy Voros's sharpening no infinite-range partial statement exists, so\nthis is the maximal content of the Li route short of RH; the explicit\nchain --- Lagarias's contour argument \\cite{lagarias2007li} with\nTrudgian's explicit zero-counting bounds \\cite{trudgian2014}, an\nelementary archimedean lower bound, a proved margin convexity, and the\nfinite verifications --- appears not to have been assembled before.\n\nSection~2 recalls the certificate-method background and the sanity\ngate. Section~3 states and proves the theorem. Section~4 collects the\nobstruction analysis delimiting the method. Appendix~A describes the\nnumerical machinery; Appendix~B the formal-verification status.\n\n\\section{Background: the Weil-form certificate method}\n\nWe recall the machinery behind the state-of-the-art density theorem\n\\cite{anthropic2026riemann}, which is the launchpad and the sanity\ngate for everything below; details and notation follow that paper.\n\n\\emph{The Weil explicit formula} \\cite{weil1952fonctions} expresses,\nfor a test function $\\psi$ supported in $[-\\tfrac12,\\tfrac12]$ (the\n\\emph{bandwidth-one} class), a quadratic form on the zeros as a\nfunctional of the primes. Compressing it via a Gabor (Gaussian\nwindowed exponential) frame at the critical density $h = 2\\pi/L$\nyields a finite matrix identity $\\tilde G = P + Q$: a zero-side\nmatrix $\\tilde G$ built from the zeros in a window of size $L$\ndecomposes into a prime-side matrix $P$ (computed unconditionally\nfrom Montgomery's second moment / pair-correlation input\n\\cite{montgomery1973pair}) and a controlled remainder $Q$.\n\n\\emph{The rank--trace inequality.} Writing $\\tilde G$ in inertia form,\na rank--trace comparison between the positive eigenspace of $\\tilde G$\nand the positive part of $P$ converts the second-moment input\n$\\|\\tilde G\\|_{HS}^2 = (R(\\psi) + o(1))\\,N$ into a lower bound on the\nnumber of simple on-line zeros in the window. The strength of the\ncertificate is governed by the \\emph{window ratio}\n\\[\nR(\\psi) \\;=\\; \\frac{\\int \\psi^2 \\;+\\;\n\\iint |u-v|\\,\\psi(u)\\psi(v)\\,du\\,dv}{\\bigl(\\int \\psi\\bigr)^2}\n\\qquad (\\psi \\in C([-\\tfrac12,\\tfrac12]) \\text{ even}, \\ \\psi > 0),\n\\]\nwith $R(\\psi_0) = 4/3$ for the flat window\n$\\psi_0 = \\mathbf 1_{[-1/2,1/2]}$ and\n$R(\\psi_{MT}) = \\tfrac12 + \\tfrac{1}{\\sqrt2}\\cot\\tfrac{1}{\\sqrt2}\n= 1.32749\\ldots$ for the Montgomery--Taylor window (both verified\nsymbolically and against $60$-digit reference values in this project,\nE-001), giving the certified fractions $2 - R(\\psi)$: $0.6725$ of\nzeros simple and on the line, $0.83625$ distinct. A sharpness analysis\nlocates the bandwidth-one ceiling of the method at $\\approx 0.682$,\nand shows the obstructions to going further are structural\n(Section~4).\n\nOne feature of this machinery matters here: the certificate fails, as\nit must, for the Davenport--Heilbronn and Epstein zeta functions\n(which violate the RH-analogue); the main theorem of this paper has\nbeen required to pass this gate structurally (project file D-053).\n\n\\section{The finite-height Li theorem (R-004)}\n\nLet $\\lambda_n = \\sum_{\\rho}{}'\\,\\bigl[1-\\bigl(1-\\tfrac1\\rho\\bigr)^n\\bigr]$\nbe the Keiper--Li coefficients of the Riemann $\\xi$-function. Li's\ncriterion states $\\lambda_n > 0$ for all $n \\geq 1$ if and only if the\nRiemann hypothesis holds \\cite{li1997,bombieri1999lagarias}. Voros\n\\cite{voros2006sharpenings} showed that ``$\\lambda_n > 0$ for all\n$n \\geq N_0$'' is already equivalent to RH for any $N_0$, so no\npartial infinite-range statement exists; the maximal content of the Li\nroute short of RH is an \\emph{explicit finite-height} statement.\n\n\\begin{theorem}[R-004; conditional on computation]\n\\label{thm:finite-height-li}\nAssume the Riemann hypothesis verified to height\n$T_0 = 3\\times 10^{12}$ (Platt--Trudgian \\cite{platt2021riemann},\ninterval arithmetic). Then\n\\[\n\\lambda_n > 0 \\qquad \\text{for all } 1 \\le n \\le N_1 := (T_0-1)^2\n= 8\\,999\\,999\\,999\\,994\\,000\\,000\\,000\\,001 \\approx 9.0\\times 10^{24}.\n\\]\n\\end{theorem}\n\n\\begin{proof}[Proof sketch (full assembly: D-037)]\nBombieri--Lagarias \\cite{bombieri1999lagarias} give\n$\\lambda_n = S_\\infty(n) - S_f(n) + 1$ with $S_\\infty$ the archimedean\nand $S_f$ the finite-place contribution.\n\n\\emph{Step 1 (archimedean lower bound).} From Lagarias's formula\n\\cite[(4.11)]{lagarias2007li},\n$S_\\infty(n) = \\sum_{j=1}^n (-1)^j \\binom{n}{j} a_j$ with\n$a_1 = (\\log 4\\pi + \\gamma)/2$ and $a_j = (1-2^{-j})\\zeta(j)\n= \\sum_{m \\text{ odd}} m^{-j}$ ($j \\ge 2$), the $j$-sum is a finite\ndifference and one obtains the \\emph{exact} identity\n$S_\\infty(n) = (1-a_1)n - 1 + \\sum_{m \\ge 3,\\, m \\text{ odd}}\n\\bigl[(1-\\tfrac1m)^n - 1 + \\tfrac{n}{m}\\bigr]$.\nBernoulli's inequality and the explicit harmonic bounds\n$\\log M + \\gamma + \\tfrac{1}{2M} - \\tfrac{1}{12M^2} \\le H_M \\le\n\\log M + \\gamma + \\tfrac{1}{2M}$ give, for $n \\ge 20$,\n\\[\nS_\\infty(n) \\;\\ge\\; \\tfrac12 n\\log n + (C_1 - \\tfrac{\\gamma}{2})\\,n - 4,\n\\qquad C_1 = \\tfrac{\\gamma - 1 - \\log 2\\pi}{2}.\n\\]\n(Machine-validated against exact values for $20 \\le n \\le 5000$.)\n\n\\emph{Step 2 (finite-part upper bound).} Tracing Lagarias's contour\nargument \\cite[Thm~6.1]{lagarias2007li} with explicit constants\n(Trudgian's $N(T)$ and $S(T)$ bounds \\cite{trudgian2014}, partial\nfractions for $\\zeta'/\\zeta$ with the reference-point estimate\n$|R(s)| \\le 10.5\\log(|t|{+}2) + 48$ for $-5/2 \\le \\sigma \\le 3$,\n$|t| \\ge 10$ (D-056), kernel bounds $e^4+1$, a measured\nshort-segment constant $M_0 = 1.3352$) gives\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ with\n\\[\nB(n) = 2N(\\sqrt n{+}1) + 4T\\bigl[\\tfrac23 C_0(T) + 10.5\\log(T{+}2) + 48\\bigr]\n+ 40M_0 + 2(e^4{+}1)\\bigl[7H(T) + 3.3\\bigr] + I_I + 1,\n\\]\n$T = \\sqrt n + 1$, $C_0(t)$ the explicit unit-interval zero count\n(the honest Trudgian form, including the $\\log\\log$ term),\n$H(T) = 3C_0(T)^2 + 10.5\\log(T{+}2) + 48$, $I_I$ an explicitly\nbounded boundary-integral term (D-037/D-056) and the final $1$ the\ntrivial-zero contribution.\n\n\\emph{Step 3 (bridge).} For $n \\le (T_0-1)^2$ every zero with\n$|\\gamma| \\le \\sqrt n + 1$ is on the line, so\n$|1-(1-1/\\rho)^n| \\le 2$ per zero and\n$|\\lambda_n(T)| \\le 2N(T)$; all other contour terms are\n\\emph{unconditional}.\n\n\\emph{Step 4 (margin).}\n$\\mathrm{margin}(n) := \\tfrac12 n\\log n + (C_1 - \\gamma/2)n - 4 - B(n) + 1$\nis convex for $n \\ge 20$ (proved: chain-rule reduction to eleven\none-variable sign conditions, each discharged elementarily — D-057),\nand $\\mathrm{margin}(8\\times 10^4) = 15\\,764 > 0$ with\n$\\mathrm{margin}(10^5) > \\mathrm{margin}(8\\times 10^4)$; by convexity\n(secant slopes increase) hence\n$\\mathrm{margin}(n) > 0$ for all $n \\in [10^5, N_1]$\\footnote{The\nmargin value at $8\\times10^4$ has a documented trail: $16\\,020$ with\nthe Trudgian $F + S_b$ zero-count majorant (E-028); $15\\,764$ with the\nmildly enlarged majorant consumed by the machine verification --- a\nnegative-weight term of $F + S_b$ dropped so that every convexity\nblock has provably negative $\\psi$ (the true majorant's $\\psi$ crosses\nzero near $T \\approx 16$), at a traced cost of $\\approx 0.9\\sqrt n$,\ni.e.\\ $256$ of the $16\\,020$; and $\\ge 8\\,001$ as the certified\nrational interval lower bound that the machine discharge actually\nconsumes (\\texttt{NguyenRH1},\n\\texttt{marginTilde\\_FAlt\\_80000\\_pos}).}\n(also computed to $n = 4\\times10^5$ on a unit grid and to $N_1$ on a\nlogarithmic grid; $\\mathrm{margin}(N_1) = 2.458\\times 10^{26}$).\n\n\\emph{Step 5 (finite verification).} $\\lambda_n > 0$ for $n \\le 3000$\nby exact high-precision computation (this project, two independent\nmethods, agreement to $4.8\\times10^{-25}$ relative), and for\n$n \\le 5\\times10^5$ by Misguich--Voros \\cite{voros2017li}. The ranges\noverlap the $n = 10^5$ split by a factor $5$ (and the crossover\n$N_0 = 8\\times 10^4$ by $6.25$).\n\\end{proof}\n\n\\begin{remark}\n(i) Using Lagarias's printed bridge window $n \\le T^2/(4\\log^2 T)$\ninstead of the traced proof gives the conservative\n$N_1^* = 2.73\\times 10^{21}$; the theorem is robust either way.\n(ii) The traced worst-case bound $|S_f|$ is $\\sim 170\\times$ loose\nagainst the measured curve ($|S_f| \\le 13.52$ for $n \\le 5000$); the\nslack is structural to contour constants, not a gap.\n(iii) The dependence on computation is explicit: Platt--Trudgian's\ninterval-arithmetic verification, and the finite Li-coefficient\nverifications.\n\\end{remark}\n\n\\section{Obstruction analysis}\n% Documented dead ends from research/graveyard/ where they\n% delimit the method (contributes to success criterion 4).\n\nThe following routes are closed with documented obstructions\n(full files in the project archive, graveyard G-001--G-003 and\nderivations D-009--D-013):\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item \\emph{Certificate extension past $2/3$ in the bandwidth-one\nframework} (Track A): a six-wall map (D-013) shows $>2/3$ is\nimpossible within the current data class; the window-class optimum is\nsaturated in both the $\\xi$ and $\\xi'$ worlds (D-009, D-030), and\nmoment-ladder certificates cap below $2/3$ at every order (G-002).\n\\item \\emph{Multiple-zero bounds as chain input} (G-001): the\n$s_2/p$ substitution symmetry makes depth$\\to$0 off-line pairs\nindistinguishable from double zeros in all two-moment data.\n\\item \\emph{Density theorems $\\to$ de~Bruijn--Newman $\\Lambda$}\n(G-003): one-sided information — density theorems lower-bound the\non-line fraction while $\\Lambda$ requires an upper bound on the\ncomplex fraction.\n\\item \\emph{$\\xi^{(k)}$-certificate routes} (T4/T4b, D-022, D-031):\nthe strength mechanism (a perfect-square node in the diagonal law)\ndoes not transfer to $\\xi$, and the $s_2/p$ symmetry caps every\nderivative class below $100\\%$.\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\appendix\n\\section{Numerical experiments}\n% Tables/figures generated from research/numerics/data/ CSVs.\n\nAll experiments are deterministic scripts with CSV+JSON sidecars in the\nproject archive (\\texttt{research/numerics/}); checks as stated.\n\n\\subsection{Li-coefficient machinery (E-011/E-015/E-021/E-023)}\n\\begin{itemize}\n\\item $\\lambda_n > 0$ verified for $n \\le 3000$ from the arithmetic\nside (Bombieri--Lagarias Thm~2, zero-free; \\textsc{flint} Stieltjes +\nArb $\\zeta$, 1000--1450-digit working precision), cross-validated\nagainst the zero-side computation (agreement $4.8\\times10^{-25}$\nrelative) and $\\lambda_1$ agreeing with its closed form to better\nthan $10^{-28}$ relative.\n\\item Exact archimedean part: $S_\\infty(n) = \\tfrac12 n\\log n + C_1 n\n- \\tfrac14 - \\tfrac{1}{24n} + o(1/n)$ measured to $n = 5000$\n($c_0 = -1/4$ identified exactly; residuals match $-1/4 - 1/(24n)$ to\nall printed digits), and $|S_f(n)| \\le 13.52$ for $n \\le 5000$\n(max at $n = 3298$) vs the traced worst-case $\\sim 2280$ there —\nthe contour constants are $\\sim 170\\times$ loose, as documented.\n\\item Margin assembly (E-028, fully traced constants $A = 10.5$,\n$B_0 = 48$): crossover at $n = 75\\,451$; adopted $N_0 = 8\\times10^4$\nwith margin $16\\,020$ and positive derivative ($15\\,764$ with the\nformal development's majorant --- Step-4 footnote); convexity proved\n(D-057) and grid-confirmed to $N_1 \\approx 9\\times10^{24}$;\n$\\mathrm{margin}(N_1) = 2.458\\times10^{26}$. (First-estimate\nconstants $2/2$: crossover $32\\,871$; measured $0.9/1.0$: $30\\,217$.)\n\\end{itemize}\n\n\\section{Formal verification}\n\nThe inherited density theorem \\cite{anthropic2026riemann} is formally\nverified in Lean~4 (repository \\texttt{zeta-23-lean}, tag v1.0); this\nproject performed a full \\texttt{lake} rebuild (9010 jobs) and a live\n\\texttt{\\#print axioms} audit of all comparator statements, confirming\nthe published axiom profile verbatim: no axioms beyond \\texttt{propext},\n\\texttt{Classical.choice}, and \\texttt{Quot.sound}, with \\texttt{sorry}\noccurring only in the trusted challenge-statement stubs.\n\nThe new result of this paper is formalized in the companion\npackage \\texttt{NguyenRH1} (same toolchain, path-linked to the vendored\n\\texttt{zeta-23-lean} and its \\textsc{Mathlib} build; no new axioms are\nintroduced anywhere). The first tier is complete: the archimedean lower\nbound for $S_\\infty(n)$ and the margin convexity are machine-proved\n(\\texttt{sInfty\\_lower\\_bound}, \\texttt{marginTilde\\_convex}, and the\nchain-rule identity \\texttt{chain\\_rule\\_sqrt\\_shift}), each with axiom\nprofile exactly the three standard axioms above. A design note on the\nconvexity proof: the pen-and-paper argument uses eleven one-variable\nsign conditions, but the Lean development proves an eight-block\n$\\psi$-table plus a separate analytic bound for the $I_I$ term\n($\\widetilde B_4$); the divergence from the eleven-row table is that\n$\\widetilde B_4$ is not concave, so it is excluded from the $\\psi$\nmachinery and bounded directly. That direct bound is itself a worked\nexample of this project's measured-to-traced conversion: the grid\ncheck of E-029 (maximum $2n\\,|\\widetilde B_4''(n)| = 0.189$ on\n$[20, 10^4]$, with the decay argument covering the tail) is superseded\nby a fully analytic factor-monotonicity proof of the sufficient\ninequality $\\widetilde\\psi''(s) - \\widetilde\\psi'(s)/s \\le 1.316 < 2$\nfor $s \\ge \\sqrt{20}$, i.e.\\ $\\widetilde B_4''(n) < 1/(2n)$ for all\n$n \\ge 20$ (\\texttt{iimaj\\_bracket\\_bound},\n\\texttt{IIMaj\\_deriv2\\_lt}).\n\nThe second tier is complete in its assembly form. The headline\ntheorem \\texttt{lambda\\_pos\\_finite\\_height\\_verified} is\nmachine-proved from exactly three named hypotheses: the two\ncomputational-perimeter inputs of\nTheorem~\\ref{thm:finite-height-li} (Platt--Trudgian; the Li\nverifications) and a single named analytic hypothesis\n\\texttt{SfBoundProp}: the traced contour bound\n$|S_f(n)| \\le B(n)$ of Section~3 on the range\n$10^5 \\le n \\le (T_0-1)^2$. The two elementary evaluations of the\nexplicit margin function that the assembly consumes\n($\\mathrm{margin}(8{\\cdot}10^4) > 0$ and\n$\\mathrm{margin}(10^5) > \\mathrm{margin}(8{\\cdot}10^4)$) are discharged\nin the development itself, by certified rational interval bounds on\n$\\log$, $\\exp$, and $\\sqrt{\\cdot}$ (\\texttt{LiBasePoints.lean}).\nInside \\texttt{SfBoundProp}, the explicit\nzero-counting bounds of \\cite{trudgian2014} are treated as trusted\nperimeter on the same footing as the Platt--Trudgian certificate; the\nremaining content (the rectangle contour identity, the kernel\nestimates, and the reference-point bound for $\\zeta'/\\zeta$) is plain\ncomplex analysis. The margin majorant in the development is a mildly\nenlarged Trudgian-shape function (a negative-weight term dropped, at a\ncost of $\\approx 0.9\\sqrt n$ in the bound) chosen so that every\nconvexity block has provably negative $\\psi$; the axiom profile is\nunchanged --- the three standard axioms, no \\texttt{sorryAx}.\n\nThe remaining formalization target inside this paper is\n(ii$'$) the contour estimate inside \\texttt{SfBoundProp} (requires\nmeromorphic residue machinery on rectangles and partial-fraction bounds\nfor $\\zeta'/\\zeta$ --- a nontrivial but finite library task). The\nfinite-height Li theorem is, by design,\n\\emph{conditional} on computations (Platt--Trudgian's interval\narithmetic; the Li-coefficient verifications); formalizing the\n\\emph{reduction} leaves exactly those computational certificates\nas trusted inputs, which we regard as the honest formal target.\n\n\\bibliographystyle{plain}\n\\bibliography{references}\n\\end{document}\n"},"extra_content":null}]