alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Goldbach numbers in intervals of length 4.45log⁡2x4.45 \log^2 x under the Riemann Hypothesis

AI contributions
  • Google Gemini Argon High
  • Anthropic Claude Opus
View details
Ancillary data
1 code link
View

Abstract

Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis, we prove that for every real x≥3x \ge 3 the interval (x,x+4.45log⁡2x)(x, x + 4.45 \log^2 x) contains an even integer that is a sum of two odd primes. The proof combines a weighted mean square bound for the Chebyshev prime counting error in short intervals with a piecewise linear weight in a bilinear identity for short interval prime counts. The deduction is checked in Lean 4 conditionally on the explicit formula ExplicitA, the zero sum bound HadamardK, the zero count BPTN, the HSW zero counts, the bound ∣γ∣≥14|\gamma| \ge 14, and the Goldbach verification to 4⋅10184 \cdot 10^{18}, all stated as hypotheses.

Introduction

Theorem 1.1. Assume the Riemann Hypothesis. For every real x≥3x \ge3 the interval (x,x+4.45log⁡2x)(x,x+4.45\log^{2}x) contains a Goldbach number, that is, an even integer that is a sum of two odd primes.

Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis, Kátai [6] and Montgomery and Vaughan [8] proved that for some constant C>0C > 0 every interval (x,x+Clog⁡2x)(x,x+C\log^{2}x) with xx sufficiently large contains a Goldbach number, and Goldston [4] gave a proof comparing the measure of prime-free short intervals with Selberg’s mean square bound. Cully-Hugill and Dudek [3 Theorem 1.3] made this result explicit with C=9696C = 9696 for all x≥2x \ge2. Chirre and Hagen [2] reduced the constant to C=123C = 123. The binary Goldbach conjecture itself remains open; the result here concerns Goldbach numbers in short intervals under the Riemann Hypothesis.

Our proof follows the mean square framework of Chirre and Hagen [2] and makes three changes. First, in the mean square over [1,x][1,x], we replace the sharp cutoff by the smooth weight W(u)=min⁡(1,u−4)W(u)=\min(1,u^{-4}), which produces the positive kernel 4/(4+(γi−γj)2)4/(4+(\gamma_i-\gamma_j)^2) and bounds the inner sum over zero ordinates directly by log⁡∣γi∣\log|\gamma_i|. Second, we bound the diagonal sum using the exact modulus squared of the short interval coefficient, Taylor majorants for 1−cos⁡1-\cos, and a partition of the scaled mid-range [1,139.984375][1,139.984375] into 2161 pieces with dyadic rational endpoints, reducing the mean square constant from 2.2258 in [2] to 1.0069. Third, instead of deducing the theorem directly from the mean square on an interval [ax,x][ax,x] with δ=h/(2x)\delta=h/(2x) as in [2 Section 5], we integrate A(t)A(x−t)=0A(t)A(x-t)=0 against the weight φ(t)=11t/(5x)\varphi(t)=11t/(5x) on [x/64,5x/11][x/64,5x/11] and φ(t)=1\varphi(t)=1 on [5x/11,x/2][5x/11,x/2], which produces a nonincreasing weight on the quadratic error term and allows direct Abel summation over 256 equal steps. The resulting constants are new as far as we know.

In comparison with [2], each of these three changes replaces a step in their argument to tighten the resulting constants. First, the smooth weight WW replaces their unweighted mean square expansion on [1,x][1,x] and makes every off-diagonal term carry the positive kernel 4/(4+(γi−γj)2)4/(4+(\gamma_i-\gamma_j)^2), so the inner sum is bounded directly by Lemma 2.2. Second, the exact modulus with the 2161 certified pieces replaces their bound for ∣cδ(γ)∣2|c_\delta(\gamma)|^2; together with the smooth weight WW, this lowers the mean square constant from 2.2258 in [2] to 1.0069 here. Third, the weight φ\varphi with 256 step Abel summation replaces their direct deduction from the unweighted short interval mean square, combining with the smaller mean square constant to reduce the interval length constant from C=123C = 123 in [2] to 4.45.

The deduction of Theorem 1.1 from seven stated hypotheses is checked in Lean 4 with Mathlib as the theorem goldbach_445_hsw_gZ. Lean checks the smooth mean square bound, the 2161-piece diagonal certificate, the transfer from ψ\psi to θ\theta, the 256-step Abel summation in the bilinear identity, and the combination with the finite Goldbach verification conditionally on the seven hypotheses ExplicitA, HadamardK, Ordinates14, BPTN, EvenGoldbachUpTo, HSWN70, and HSWHead14. Among these, HadamardK is proved in this paper (Lemma 2.2) but assumed as a hypothesis in Lean, and ExplicitA, HadamardK, and BPTN are assumed under the Riemann Hypothesis. See Table 3 in Appendix A for the full list of hypotheses and their status, and Table 4 for representative pieces of the diagonal certificate.

Lean hypothesisSourceIn this paperIn Lean 4
ExplicitA[9], Equation (12.1), Lemma 2.1CitedAssumed as hypothesis
HadamardKLemma 2.2Proved under RHAssumed as hypothesis
Ordinates14[12], Chapter XV, Lemma 2.3CitedAssumed as hypothesis
BPTN[1], Lemma 1, Lemma 2.4 for T≥1013T \ge10^{13}CitedAssumed as hypothesis
HSWN70[5], Corollary 1.2 for T≥70T \ge70CitedAssumed as hypothesis
HSWHead14[5], Corollary 1.2 for T≥14T \ge14CitedAssumed as hypothesis
EvenGoldbachUpTo[10], Lemma 2.6CitedAssumed as hypothesis

Table 3. Hypotheses of goldbach_445_hsw_gZ in the paper and in Lean 4.

AABBQQλ\lambdaMajorant
11.00292968750.91947890.0029296875pt_norm, lo = 0.99999
5.675781255.68847656250.01113341.7905011127125pt_raw with hu_poly, k = 1
139.6982421875139.9843750.00013994.9456581952875pt_raw with hu_pi, k = 22

Table 4. Three representative pieces from the 2161-piece partition of [1,139.984375][1, 139.984375].

Notation and inputs

Throughout the paper, Λ(n)\Lambda(n) denotes the von Mangoldt function, ψ(x)=∑n≤xΛ(n)\psi(x) = \sum_{n \le x} \Lambda(n), and θ(x)=∑p≤xlog⁡p\theta(x) = \sum_{p \le x} \log p, where pp runs over primes. Under the Riemann Hypothesis, the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function ζ(s)\zeta(s) take the form ρ=1/2+iγ\rho= 1/2 + i\gamma with γ∈R\gamma\in\mathbb{R}. We write N(T)N(T) for the number of nontrivial zeros ρ=β+iγ\rho= \beta+ i\gamma with 0<γ≤T0 < \gamma\le T, counted with multiplicity. For δ>0\delta> 0 and ρ=1/2+iγ\rho= 1/2 + i\gamma, we define the short interval coefficient

cδ(ρ)=cδ(γ)=(1+δ)1/2+iγ−11/2+iγ.(1)c_\delta(\rho) = c_\delta(\gamma) = \frac{(1+\delta)^{1/2+i\gamma}-1}{1/2+i\gamma}. \tag*{(1)}

For x≥2x \ge2 and δ>0\delta> 0, we define the short interval mean squares

Jψ(x,δ)=∫1x(ψ((1+δ)y)−ψ(y)−δy)2 dy,Jθ(x,δ)=∫1x(θ((1+δ)y)−θ(y)−δy)2 dy.(2)J_\psi(x,\delta) = \int_1^x \left(\psi((1+\delta)y)-\psi(y)-\delta y\right)^2\,dy,\qquad J_\theta(x,\delta) = \int_1^x \left(\theta((1+\delta)y)-\theta(y)-\delta y\right)^2\,dy. \tag*{(2)}

We state the inputs used in the formal proof together with their published sources, and we prove the second input, Lemma 2.2, directly.

Lemma 2.1 ([9 Equation (12.1)], Hypothesis ExplicitA). Assume the Riemann Hypothesis. For every δ>0\delta> 0 and almost every y≥2y \ge2,

ψ((1+δ)y)−ψ(y)−δy=−lim⁡T→∞∑∣γ∣≤Tcδ(ρ)y1/2+iγ+12log⁡1−y−21−((1+δ)y)−2.(3)\psi((1+\delta)y)-\psi(y)-\delta y = -\lim_{T\to\infty}\sum_{|\gamma|\le T} c_\delta(\rho)y^{1/2+i\gamma} + \frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1-y^{-2}}{1-((1+\delta)y)^{-2}}. \tag*{(3)}

Equation (3) is the difference of von Mangoldt’s explicit formula [9 Equation (12.1)] at (1+δ)y(1+\delta)y and yy for y≥2y \ge2 when neither endpoint is a prime power. In the Lean formalization, SmoothT2.ExplicitA states (2.3) as the limit of −∑ρ∈Zncδ(ρ)yρ-\sum_{\rho\in Z_n} c_\delta(\rho)y^\rho along truncations ZnZ_n, for almost every y≥2y \ge2, with B(y)=12log⁡1−y−21−((1+δ)y)−2B(y) = \frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1-y^{-2}}{1-((1+\delta)y)^{-2}} included as the function Bf; the main theorem assumes it, under RH, for each 0<δ≤10−130 < \delta\le10^{-13}.

Lemma 2.2 (Hypothesis HadamardK). Assume the Riemann Hypothesis. For every nontrivial zero ordinate γ\gamma of ζ(s)\zeta(s) and every finite family of nontrivial zero ordinates γ′\gamma' counted with multiplicity,

∑γ′44+(γ−γ′)2≤log⁡∣γ∣.(4)\sum_{\gamma'} \frac{4}{4+(\gamma-\gamma')^2} \le\log|\gamma|. \tag*{(4)}

Proof. Since each summand is positive, it suffices to bound the sum over all nontrivial zero ordinates γ′\gamma' counted with multiplicity, where ρ′=1/2+iγ′\rho' = 1/2 + i\gamma'. Setting s=5/2+iγs = 5/2 + i\gamma, we have

∑γ′44+(γ−γ′)2=2∑γ′Re⁡1s−ρ′.(5)\sum_{\gamma'} \frac{4}{4+(\gamma-\gamma')^2}=2\sum_{\gamma'}\operatorname{Re}\frac{1}{s-\rho'}. \tag*{(5)}

By the partial fraction decomposition of ξ′(s)/ξ(s)\xi'(s)/\xi(s) [9 Corollary 10.14],

2∑γ′Re⁡1s−ρ′=Re⁡Γ′Γ(s2+1)−log⁡π+2Re⁡ζ′ζ(s)+2Re⁡1s−1.(6)2\sum_{\gamma'}\operatorname{Re}\frac{1}{s-\rho'}=\operatorname{Re}\frac{\Gamma'}{\Gamma}\left(\frac{s}{2}+1\right)-\log\pi+2\operatorname{Re}\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(s)+2\operatorname{Re}\frac{1}{s-1}. \tag*{(6)}

For Re⁡z>0\operatorname{Re}z>0, Binet’s integral formula gives Γ′Γ(z)=log⁡z−12z−∫0∞f(t)e−tz dt\frac{\Gamma'}{\Gamma}(z)=\log z-\frac{1}{2z}-\int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-tz}\,dt, where f(t)=12−1t+1et−1f(t)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{e^t-1} satisfies f(0)=0f(0)=0 and f′(t)=1t2−14sinh⁡2(t/2)f'(t)=\frac{1}{t^2}-\frac{1}{4\sinh^2(t/2)} decreases monotonically from f′(0)=112f'(0)=\frac{1}{12} to 00 on (0,∞)(0,\infty). Integrating by parts twice gives ∫0∞f(t)e−tz dt=112z2+12z∫0∞f′′(t)e−tz dt\int_0^\infty f(t)e^{-tz}\,dt=\frac{1}{12z^2}+\frac{1}{2z}\int_0^\infty f''(t)e^{-tz}\,dt, which has modulus at most 112∣z∣2+1∣z∣2∫0∞(−f′′(t)) dt=1∣z∣2≤Re⁡z2∣z∣2=Re⁡12z\frac{1}{12|z|^2}+\frac{1}{|z|^2}\int_0^\infty(-f''(t))\,dt=\frac{1}{|z|^2}\le\frac{\operatorname{Re}z}{2|z|^2}=\operatorname{Re}\frac{1}{2z} whenever Re⁡z≥13\operatorname{Re}z\ge\frac{1}{3}, so Re⁡Γ′Γ(z)≤log⁡∣z∣\operatorname{Re}\frac{\Gamma'}{\Gamma}(z)\le\log|z|. Applying this at z=94+iγ2z=\frac{9}{4}+\frac{i\gamma}{2} with ∣γ∣≥14|\gamma|\ge14 from Lemma 2.3 yields

Re⁡Γ′Γ(94+iγ2)≤log⁡∣94+iγ2∣≤log⁡∣γ∣−log⁡2+818γ2.(7)\operatorname{Re}\frac{\Gamma'}{\Gamma}\left(\frac{9}{4}+\frac{i\gamma}{2}\right)\le\log\left|\frac{9}{4}+\frac{i\gamma}{2}\right|\le\log|\gamma|-\log2+\frac{81}{8\gamma^2}. \tag*{(7)}

On the line Re⁡(s)=5/2\operatorname{Re}(s)=5/2, the Dirichlet series for ζ′/ζ\zeta'/\zeta yields Re⁡ζ′ζ(s)≤−ζ′(5/2)ζ(5/2)=0.28874⋯<0.2888\operatorname{Re}\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(s)\le-\frac{\zeta'(5/2)}{\zeta(5/2)}=0.28874\cdots<0.2888, while 2Re⁡1s−1=39/4+γ2<3γ22\operatorname{Re}\frac{1}{s-1}=\frac{3}{9/4+\gamma^2}<\frac{3}{\gamma^2}. For ∣γ∣≥14|\gamma|\ge14, we obtain

−log⁡(2π)+2(0.2888)+1058⋅142=−1.83787⋯+0.5776+0.06696⋯<−1.1933<0,(8)-\log(2\pi)+2(0.2888)+\frac{105}{8\cdot14^2}=-1.83787\cdots+0.5776+0.06696\cdots<-1.1933<0, \tag*{(8)}

so the right-hand side of (6) is at most log⁡∣γ∣−1.1933<log⁡∣γ∣\log|\gamma|-1.1933<\log|\gamma|; the lemma states the weaker bound log⁡∣γ∣\log|\gamma| because that is the form used later. □

Lemma 2.3 ([12 Chapter XV], Hypothesis Ordinates14). Every nontrivial zero ρ=β+iγ\rho=\beta+i\gamma of ζ(s)\zeta(s) satisfies ∣γ∣≥14|\gamma|\ge14.

The lowest nontrivial zero has ordinate γ1=14.134725⋯>14\gamma_1=14.134725\cdots>14.

Lemma 2.4 ([1 Lemma 1], Hypothesis BPTN). For all T≥2πeT\ge2\pi e, the zero counting function N(T)N(T) satisfies

N(T)=T2πlog⁡T2πe+78+Q(T),(9)N(T)=\frac{T}{2\pi}\log\frac{T}{2\pi e}+\frac{7}{8}+Q(T), \tag*{(9)}

where

∣Q(T)∣≤0.137log⁡T+0.443log⁡log⁡T+1.588+0.2T.(10)|Q(T)|\le0.137\log T+0.443\log\log T+1.588+\frac{0.2}{T}. \tag*{(10)}

We use the constants of Lemma 1 of the published version [1]. The Lean formalization only uses Lemma 2.4 for T≥1013T\ge10^{13}, as counts over both signs of the ordinates.

Lemma 2.5 ([11 Corollary 1]). Assume the Riemann Hypothesis. For every real u≥599u\ge599,

∣θ(u)−u∣<ulog⁡2u8π.(11)|\theta(u)-u|<\frac{\sqrt{u}\log^2u}{8\pi}. \tag*{(11)}

In particular, for every real u≥1016u\ge10^{16},

∣θ(u)−u∣≤10−6u.(12)|\theta(u)-u|\le10^{-6}u. \tag*{(12)}

Inequality (12) follows immediately from (11) because u−1/2log⁡2uu^{-1/2}\log^2 u is decreasing for u>e4u > e^4 and equals 5.4005⋯×10−7⋅8π<8π⋅10−65.4005\cdots\times10^{-7}\cdot8\pi< 8\pi\cdot10^{-6} at u=1016u=10^{16}. In the Lean formalization, inequality (11) is not assumed; it is proved under RH for u≥1011u \ge10^{11} from the explicit formula and the zero counting bound of Hasanalizade, Shen, and Wong [5 Corollary 1.2] (assumed as the hypotheses HSWN70 and HSWHead14), together with the numerical fact, taken as the hypothesis Ordinates14 in Lean, that every nontrivial zero has ordinate of absolute value at least 14.

Lemma 2.6 ([10], Hypothesis EvenGoldbachUpTo). Every even integer 2n2n in the range 4≤2n≤4⋅10184 \le2n \le4\cdot10^{18} is a sum of two primes.

The mean square bound

We bound the mean square on [1,x][1,x] of a finite Dirichlet polynomial supported on nontrivial zeros of ζ(s)\zeta(s).

Lemma 3.1. Assume the Riemann Hypothesis. Let γ1,…,γM\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_M be a finite family of nontrivial zero ordinates of ζ(s)\zeta(s), let c1,…,cM∈Cc_1,\ldots,c_M \in\mathbb{C}, and set

P(y)=∑i=1Mciy1/2+iγi.(13)P(y)=\sum_{i=1}^{M}c_i y^{1/2+i\gamma_i}. \tag*{(13)}

For every x≥1x \ge1,

∫1x∣P(y)∣2 dy≤x2∑i=1M∣ci∣2∑j=1M44+(γi−γj)2≤x2∑i=1M∣ci∣2log⁡∣γi∣.(14)\int_1^x |P(y)|^2\,dy \le x^2\sum_{i=1}^{M}|c_i|^2\sum_{j=1}^{M}\frac{4}{4+(\gamma_i-\gamma_j)^2}\le x^2\sum_{i=1}^{M}|c_i|^2\log|\gamma_i|. \tag*{(14)}

Proof. Define W(u)=min⁡(1,u−4)W(u)=\min(1,u^{-4}) for u>0u>0. Since W(u)≥0W(u)\ge0 for all u>0u>0 and W(y/x)=1W(y/x)=1 for 1≤y≤x1\le y\le x, the substitution y=xuy=xu gives

∫1x∣P(y)∣2 dy≤∫0∞∣P(y)∣2W(y/x) dy=x2∑i=1M∑j=1Mcicj‾xi(γi−γj)∫0∞u1+i(γi−γj)W(u) du.(15)\begin{aligned} \int_1^x |P(y)|^2\,dy\le\int_0^\infty|P(y)|^2W(y/x)\,dy \\ &= x^2\sum_{i=1}^{M}\sum_{j=1}^{M}c_i\overline{c_j}x^{i(\gamma_i-\gamma_j)}\int_0^\infty u^{1+i(\gamma_i-\gamma_j)}W(u)\,du. \tag*{(15)} \end{aligned}

For any Δ∈R\Delta\in\mathbb{R}, splitting the integral at u=1u=1 yields

∫0∞u1+iΔW(u) du=∫01u1+iΔ du+∫1∞u−3+iΔ du=12+iΔ+12−iΔ=44+Δ2.(16)\int_0^\infty u^{1+i\Delta}W(u)\,du=\int_0^1u^{1+i\Delta}\,du+\int_1^\infty u^{-3+i\Delta}\,du=\frac{1}{2+i\Delta}+\frac{1}{2-i\Delta}=\frac{4}{4+\Delta^2}. \tag*{(16)}

Since 44+(γi−γj)2>0\frac{4}{4+(\gamma_i-\gamma_j)^2}>0 is symmetric in ii and jj, applying ∣cicj‾xi(γi−γj)∣≤12(∣ci∣2+∣cj∣2)|c_i\overline{c_j}x^{i(\gamma_i-\gamma_j)}|\le\frac{1}{2}(|c_i|^2+|c_j|^2) in (15) gives the first inequality in (14). Applying Lemma 2.2 to the inner sum over jj gives the second inequality. □

We next bound the diagonal sum ∑γ∣cδ(γ)∣2log⁡∣γ∣\sum_\gamma|c_\delta(\gamma)|^2\log|\gamma|.

Lemma 3.2 (Theorem diag_u6806). Assume the Riemann Hypothesis; in Lean, Theorem diag_u6806 is conditional on the hypotheses BPTN and Ordinates14. For every δ\delta in the range 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\le10^{-13},

∑γ∣cδ(γ)∣2log⁡∣γ∣≤Cdiagδlog⁡2(2.0001δ),Cdiag=1.0068.(17)\sum_\gamma|c_\delta(\gamma)|^2\log|\gamma|\le C_{\mathrm{diag}}\delta\log^2\left(\frac{2.0001}{\delta}\right),\qquad C_{\mathrm{diag}}=1.0068. \tag*{(17)}

Proof. By symmetry of the nontrivial zeros with respect to the real axis, ∑γ∣cδ(γ)∣2log⁡∣γ∣=2∑γ>0∣cδ(γ)∣2log⁡γ\sum_{\gamma} |c_{\delta}(\gamma)|^2 \log|\gamma| = 2\sum_{\gamma>0} |c_{\delta}(\gamma)|^2 \log\gamma, and every term has γ≥14\gamma\ge14 by Lemma 2.3. Let η=log⁡(1+δ)\eta= \log(1+\delta) and Λ=log⁡(1/δ)\Lambda= \log(1/\delta). From (1), the exact modulus squared of cδ(γ)c_{\delta}(\gamma) is

∣cδ(γ)∣2=(1+δ)+1−21+δcos⁡(γη)1/4+γ2=(1+δ−1)2+21+δ(1−cos⁡(γη))1/4+γ2.(18)|c_{\delta}(\gamma)|^2 = \frac{(1+\delta)+1-2\sqrt{1+\delta}\cos(\gamma\eta)}{1/4+\gamma^2} = \frac{(\sqrt{1+\delta}-1)^2+2\sqrt{1+\delta}(1-\cos(\gamma\eta))}{1/4+\gamma^2}. \tag*{(18)}

For all real tt, the alternating Taylor series for cos⁡t\cos t gives the degree-6 majorant (one_sub_cos_le)

1−cos⁡t≤t22−t424+t6720.(19)1-\cos t \le\frac{t^2}{2}-\frac{t^4}{24}+\frac{t^6}{720}. \tag*{(19)}

Write v=δ∣γ∣v=\delta|\gamma| for the scaled variable, and set

X=δΛ2,Y=δΛ,E=δ2(Λ+5)2.X=\delta\Lambda^2,\qquad Y=\delta\Lambda,\qquad E=\delta^2(\Lambda+5)^2.

The certified bound is organized in two cases, split at δ=2−188\delta=2^{-188}.

Pieces. The bound on an individual piece is formalized as the lemma piece_sum in LeanLab/ChirreHagen2025/U1263Core.lean, conditional on BPTN (Lemma 2.4) and Ordinates14 (Lemma 2.3). Let 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\le10^{-13}, let 1≤A≤B1\le A\le B, let log⁡B≤λ≤5\log B\le\lambda\le5, let Q≥0Q\ge0, and assume the majorant hypothesis on the piece that ∣cδ(γ)∣2≤Qδ2|c_{\delta}(\gamma)|^2\le Q\delta^2 whenever A/δ<∣γ∣≤B/δA/\delta<|\gamma|\le B/\delta. Then piece_sum states that for any finite set of zero ordinates,

∑A/δ<∣γ∣≤B/δ∣cδ(γ)∣2log⁡∣γ∣≤0.31831Q(B−A)(X+(2λ−1.8)Y+(λ2−1.8λ)δ)+2QE.(20)\sum_{A/\delta<|\gamma|\le B/\delta}|c_{\delta}(\gamma)|^2\log|\gamma| \le0.31831Q(B-A)\bigl(X+(2\lambda-1.8)Y+(\lambda^2-1.8\lambda)\delta\bigr)+2QE. \tag*{(20)}

In the structure of this Lean lemma, the zeros on the piece are counted with Lemma 2.4, log⁡∣γ∣≤Λ+λ\log|\gamma|\le\Lambda+\lambda there because ∣γ∣≤B/δ|\gamma|\le B/\delta and log⁡B≤λ\log B\le\lambda, and the term 2QE2QE collects the lower order part of the count.

To obtain QQ on a piece A/δ<∣γ∣≤B/δA/\delta<|\gamma|\le B/\delta, write t=∣γ∣log⁡(1+δ)t=|\gamma|\log(1+\delta) for the phase; the lemma phase_range gives A(1−10−13)<t≤BA(1-10^{-13})<t\le B on the piece. The majorant hypothesis ∣cδ(γ)∣2≤Qδ2|c_{\delta}(\gamma)|^2\le Q\delta^2 is established by one of two Lean routes in U1263Core.lean: pt_norm for pieces nearest v=1v=1, and pt_raw elsewhere. In pt_norm, for 0≤lo⁡≤A(1−10−13)0\le\operatorname{lo}\le A(1-10^{-13}), QQ satisfies 2(1+10−13)(1/2−lo⁡2/24+B4/720)+10−26≤Q2(1+10^{-13})(1/2-\operatorname{lo}^2/24+B^4/720)+10^{-26}\le Q. In pt_raw, given an upper bound 1−cos⁡t≤u1-\cos t\le u for A(1−10−13)<t≤BA(1-10^{-13})<t\le B, QQ satisfies

10−26+2(1+10−13)uA2≤Q.(21)\frac{10^{-26}+2(1+10^{-13})u}{A^2}\le Q. \tag*{(21)}

The bound uu in pt_raw comes from hu_poly, the degree-6 majorant (19) after shifting tt by 2kπ2k\pi, or from U6743.hu_pi, the majorant 1−cos⁡t≤2−s2/2+s4/241-\cos t\le2-s^2/2+s^4/24 with ss the shift of tt by an odd multiple of π\pi; both use 3.141592<π<3.1415933.141592<\pi<3.141593. The piece endpoints are dyadic rationals; the piece endpoints and λ\lambda were chosen by a numerical search and certified piece by piece. Here λ\lambda is any number with log⁡B≤λ≤5\log B\le\lambda\le5, certified in Lean through a dyadic bound on log⁡B\log B; QQ is a rational number at least the pt_raw or pt_norm bound. For example, the first piece has A=1A=1, B=1.0029296875B=1.0029296875, Q=0.9194789Q=0.9194789, λ=0.0029296875\lambda=0.0029296875, and the last piece has A=139.6982421875A=139.6982421875, B=139.984375B=139.984375, Q=0.0001399Q=0.0001399, λ=4.9456581952875\lambda=4.9456581952875.

Case 2−188<δ≤10−132^{-188}<\delta\le10^{-13}. On the head range ∣γ∣≤1/δ|\gamma|\le1/\delta the sum is at most δΛ2/π≤0.31831X\delta\Lambda^2/\pi\le0.31831X. On the range v>1v>1 it is at most

0.696652249211X+0.294654626964Y+0.112752623673δ+785.028327376E.0.696652249211X+0.294654626964Y+0.112752623673\delta+785.028327376E.

This range consists of 2161 pieces covering 1<v≤139.9843751<v\le139.984375, each bounded by (20), a further range 139.984375<v≤599.734375139.984375<v\le599.734375, and a tail v>599.734375v>599.734375 bounded by 0.002182674424X+0.027980492816Y+0.089673014185δ0.002182674424X+0.027980492816Y+0.089673014185\delta. Table 1 lists the coefficients of X=δΛ2X=\delta\Lambda^2. They sum to 1.014962249211, and the bound 1.0068 δlog⁡2(2.0001/δ)1.0068\,\delta\log^2(2.0001/\delta) follows because log⁡(2.0001/δ)=Λ+log⁡2.0001\log(2.0001/\delta)=\Lambda+\log2.0001 with log⁡2.0001≥0.6931\log2.0001\ge0.6931, and Λ≤130.3116699904\Lambda\le130.3116699904 when δ>2−188\delta>2^{-188}; together these absorb the lower order terms.

RangeMethodCoefficient of δΛ2\delta\Lambda^2
Head ∣γ∣≤1/δ|\gamma|\le1/\deltaBound δΛ2/π\delta\Lambda^2/\pi0.31831
1<v≤139.9843751<v\le139.9843752161 pieces, (3.8)0.690304599302
139.984375<v≤599.734375139.984375<v\le599.734375Certified chain0.004164975485
v>599.734375v>599.734375Tail bound0.002182674424
Total1.014962249211

Table 1. Coefficients of δΛ2\delta\Lambda^2 in the case 2−188<δ≤10−132^{-188}<\delta\le10^{-13} of Lemma 3.2.

Case δ≤2−188\delta\le2^{-188}. The head range is ∣γ∣≤10−20/δ|\gamma|\le10^{-20}/\delta, followed by a dyadic chain of 64 steps, which gives

1.006510467199 X−0.263090165331 Y+0.112752623673 δ+924.581825936 E≤1.0068 δlog⁡2(2.0001/δ).1.006510467199\,X-0.263090165331\,Y+0.112752623673\,\delta+924.581825936\,E\le1.0068\,\delta\log^2(2.0001/\delta).

All of these bounds are certified by exact rational arithmetic and checked in Lean as diag_u6806, conditional on BPTN and Ordinates14. □

The lower order terms and Λ≤130.3116699904\Lambda\le130.3116699904 bring the total to 1.0068 relative to δlog⁡2(2.0001/δ)\delta\log^2(2.0001/\delta).

Combining Lemma 2.1, Lemma 3.1, and Lemma 3.2 with the L2L^2 convergence of the truncated explicit formula as proved in [2 Section 3] yields the short interval mean square bound.

Proposition 3.3 (Theorem theorem2_u6806). Assume the Riemann Hypothesis; in Lean, Theorem theorem2_u6806 is conditional on the hypotheses ExplicitA, HadamardK, Ordinates14, and BPTN. For all x≥1013x\ge10^{13} and 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\le10^{-13},

Jψ(x,δ)≤Jδlog⁡2(2.0001δ)x2,J=1.0069.(22)J_\psi(x,\delta)\le J\delta\log^2\left(\frac{2.0001}{\delta}\right)x^2,\qquad J=1.0069. \tag*{(22)}

Proof. Write V(y)=ψ((1+δ)y)−ψ(y)−δyV(y)=\psi((1+\delta)y)-\psi(y)-\delta y and let

B(y)=12log⁡1−y−21−((1+δ)y)−2(23)B(y)=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1-y^{-2}}{1-((1+\delta)y)^{-2}} \tag*{(23)}

be the secondary term of Lemma 2.1, so V(y)−B(y)V(y)-B(y) is the zero sum. By Lemma 2.1, the L2L^2 limit argument of [2 Section 3], and Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we have

∫2x(V(y)−B(y))2 dy≤1.0068 δlog⁡2(2.0001δ)x2.(24)\int_2^x(V(y)-B(y))^2\,dy\le1.0068\,\delta\log^2\left(\frac{2.0001}{\delta}\right)x^2. \tag*{(24)}

For y≥2y\ge2 and 0<δ≤10<\delta\le1, we have ∣B(y)∣≤δ|B(y)|\le\delta, so ∫2xB(y)2 dy≤δ2x\int_2^xB(y)^2\,dy\le\delta^2x. Since (u+b)2≤(1+η)u2+(1+1/η)b2(u+b)^2\le(1+\eta)u^2+(1+1/\eta)b^2 for every η>0\eta>0, taking η=10−5\eta=10^{-5} with L=log⁡(2.0001/δ)L=\log(2.0001/\delta) gives

∫2xV(y)2 dy≤(1+10−5)⋅1.0068 δL2x2+(1+105)δ2x.(25)\int_2^xV(y)^2\,dy\le(1+10^{-5})\cdot1.0068\,\delta L^2x^2+(1+10^5)\delta^2x. \tag*{(25)}

On [1,2][1,2], since ψ(y)=0\psi(y)=0 for y<2y<2, the difference ψ((1+δ)y)−ψ(y)\psi((1+\delta)y)-\psi(y) is nonzero only for y∈[2/(1+δ),2)y\in[2/(1+\delta),2), an interval of length at most $2\delta$, where it is at most log⁡2\log2; with u=ψ((1+δ)y)−ψ(y)≥0u=\psi((1+\delta)y)-\psi(y)\ge0 and v=δy≥0v=\delta y\ge0 we have (u−v)2≤u2+v2(u-v)^2\le u^2+v^2, so ∫12V(y)2 dy≤2δ(log⁡2)2+73δ2≤3δ\int_1^2V(y)^2\,dy\le2\delta(\log2)^2+\frac{7}{3}\delta^2\le3\delta. For x≥1013x\ge10^{13} and 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\le10^{-13}, we have $L\ge\log(2\cdot 10^{13})>30. Dividing by δL2x2\delta L^{2}x^{2}, the first term is 1.0068(1+10−5)=1.006810071.0068(1+10^{-5})=1.00681007, the second term is at most 105⋅10−13/(900⋅1013)<10−3010^{5}\cdot10^{-13}/(900\cdot10^{13})<10^{-30}, and the third is at most 3/(900⋅1026)<10−283/(900\cdot10^{26})<10^{-28}. The sum is below 1.00691.0069, so Jψ(x,δ)≤1.0069 δL2x2J_{\psi}(x,\delta)\leq1.0069\,\delta L^{2}x^{2}.

We now pass from Jψ(X,δ)J_{\psi}(X,\delta) to Jθ(X,δ)J_{\theta}(X,\delta). Write D(y)=(ψ−θ)((1+δ)y)−(ψ−θ)(y)≥0D(y)=(\psi-\theta)((1+\delta)y)-(\psi-\theta)(y)\geq0 and u=ψ((1+δ)y)−ψ(y)−δyu=\psi((1+\delta)y)-\psi(y)-\delta y, so θ((1+δ)y)−θ(y)−δy=u−D(y)\theta((1+\delta)y)-\theta(y)-\delta y=u-D(y). Applying (u−D)2≤(1+η)u2+(1+1/η)D2(u-D)^{2}\leq(1+\eta)u^{2}+(1+1/\eta)D^{2} with η=0.001\eta=0.001 gives Jθ(X,δ)≤1.001Jψ(X,δ)+1001∫1XD(y)2 dyJ_{\theta}(X,\delta)\leq1.001J_{\psi}(X,\delta)+1001\int_{1}^{X}D(y)^{2}\,dy. By Fubini’s theorem, ∫1XD(y) dy≤δX(ψ−θ)((1+δ)X)\int_{1}^{X}D(y)\,dy\leq\delta X(\psi-\theta)((1+\delta)X). When δy<1\delta\sqrt{y}<1, every interval (y1/k,((1+δ)y)1/k](y^{1/k},((1+\delta)y)^{1/k}] with k≥2k\geq2 has length at most 12δy<1\frac{1}{2}\delta\sqrt{y}<1 and contains at most one prime, so D(y)≤log⁡2((1+δ)y)/log⁡2D(y)\leq\log^{2}((1+\delta)y)/\log2. Multiplying this pointwise bound by the L1L^{1} bound and using (ψ−θ)((1+δ)X)≤(1+δ)Xlog⁡((1+δ)X)≤2(1+δ)Xlog⁡((1+δ)X)(\psi-\theta)((1+\delta)X)\leq(1+\delta)X\log((1+\delta)X)\leq2\sqrt{(1+\delta)X}\log((1+\delta)X) shows that 1001∫1XD(y)2 dy<0.0019 δlog⁡2(2.0001/δ)X21001\int_{1}^{X}D(y)^{2}\,dy<0.0019\,\delta\log^{2}(2.0001/\delta)X^{2} for X≥5⋅1017X\geq5\cdot10^{17} and 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\leq10^{-13}. Thus, if Jψ(X,δ)≤Jδlog⁡2(2.0001/δ)X2J_{\psi}(X,\delta)\leq J\delta\log^{2}(2.0001/\delta)X^{2}, then for X≥5⋅1017X\geq5\cdot10^{17}, 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\leq10^{-13}, and δX<1\delta\sqrt{X}<1, we have

Jθ(X,δ)≤cδlog⁡2(2.0001δ)X2,c=1.001J+0.0019.(26)J_{\theta}(X,\delta)\leq c\delta\log^{2}\left(\frac{2.0001}{\delta}\right)X^{2},\qquad c=1.001J+0.0019. \tag*{(26)}

With J=1.0069J=1.0069 from Proposition 3.3, this gives c=1.0098069c=1.0098069.

The bilinear argument

To prove Theorem 1.1, we split the range of xx at 2⋅10182\cdot10^{18}. For 3≤x≤2⋅10183\leq x\leq2\cdot10^{18}, the interval length satisfies 4.45log⁡2x≥4.45log⁡23>5.364.45\log^{2}x\geq4.45\log^{2}3>5.36, so (x,x+4.45log⁡2x)(x,x+4.45\log^{2}x) contains an even integer 2n2n in [6,4⋅1018][6,4\cdot10^{18}], which is a sum of two odd primes by Lemma 2.6. The analytic argument runs for x≥1.1⋅1018x\geq1.1\cdot10^{18}, where log⁡x≥41\log x\geq41.

Let x≥1.1⋅1018x\geq1.1\cdot10^{18} and fix HH with 4≤H≤61.54\leq H\leq61.5. Put h=Hlog⁡2xh=H\log^{2}x and δ=h/x\delta=h/x, so 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\leq10^{-13} and δx<1\delta\sqrt{x}<1. Let

A(t)=θ((1+δ)t)−θ(t),E(t)=A(t)−δt.(27)A(t)=\theta((1+\delta)t)-\theta(t),\qquad E(t)=A(t)-\delta t. \tag*{(27)}

As observed by Goldston [4, p. 285], if no Goldbach number lies in (x,x+h](x,x+h], then for every t∈[x/64,x/2]t\in[x/64,x/2] the intervals (t,(1+δ)t](t,(1+\delta)t] and (x−t,(1+δ)(x−t)](x-t,(1+\delta)(x-t)] cannot both contain an odd prime, and since t≥x/64>1016>2t\geq x/64>10^{16}>2, we have

A(t)A(x−t)=0for all t∈[x/64,x/2].(28)A(t)A(x-t)=0\qquad\text{for all }t\in[x/64,x/2]. \tag*{(28)}

We weight (28) by the continuous piecewise linear function

φ(t)={11t5x,x64≤t≤5x11,1,5x11≤t≤x2.(29)\varphi(t)= \begin{cases} \dfrac{11t}{5x}, & \dfrac{x}{64}\leq t\leq\dfrac{5x}{11},\\ 1, & \dfrac{5x}{11}\leq t\leq\dfrac{x}{2}. \end{cases} \tag*{(29)}

Substituting A(t)=δt+E(t)A(t)=\delta t+E(t) and A(x−t)=δ(x−t)+E(x−t)A(x-t)=\delta(x-t)+E(x-t) into 0=∫x/64x/2φ(t)A(t)A(x−t) dt0=\int_{x/64}^{x/2}\varphi(t)A(t)A(x-t)\,dt gives the weighted identity

δ2∫x/64x/2φ(t)t(x−t) dt+δ∫x/64x/2φ(t)(tE(x−t)+(x−t)E(t)) dt=−∫x/64x/2φ(t)E(t)E(x−t) dt.(30)\delta^{2}\int_{x/64}^{x/2}\varphi(t)t(x-t)\,dt+\delta\int_{x/64}^{x/2}\varphi(t)\bigl(tE(x-t)+(x-t)E(t)\bigr)\,dt=-\int_{x/64}^{x/2}\varphi(t)E(t)E(x-t)\,dt. \tag*{(30)}

By the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, for every t∈[x/64,x/2]t\in[x/64,x/2] we have

∣φ(t)E(t)E(x−t)∣≤12E(t)2+12φ(t)2E(x−t)2.(31)\left|\varphi(t)E(t)E(x-t)\right|\leq\frac{1}{2}E(t)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\varphi(t)^{2}E(x-t)^{2}. \tag*{(31)}

Integrating (31) over t∈[x/64,x/2]t \in[x/64,x/2] and substituting u=x−tu=x-t in the second term yields

∣∫x/64x/2φ(t)E(t)E(x−t) dt∣≤∫x/6463x/64w(u)E(u)2 du.(32)\left|\int_{x/64}^{x/2}\varphi(t)E(t)E(x-t)\,\mathrm{d}t\right|\leq\int_{x/64}^{63x/64}w(u)E(u)^2\,\mathrm{d}u. \tag*{(32)}

where the combined weight w(u)w(u) on [x/64,63x/64][x/64,63x/64] is

w(u)={12,x64≤u≤6x11,12150(1−ux)2,6x11≤u≤63x64.(33)w(u)= \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}, & \frac{x}{64}\leq u\leq\frac{6x}{11},\\ \frac{121}{50}\left(1-\frac{u}{x}\right)^2, & \frac{6x}{11}\leq u\leq\frac{63x}{64}. \end{cases} \tag*{(33)}

At the junction u=6x/11u=6x/11, both expressions in (33) equal 1/21/2. Thus w(u)w(u) is positive, continuous, and nonincreasing on [x/64,63x/64][x/64,63x/64].

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Assume x≥1.1⋅1018x\geq1.1\cdot10^{18}, fix HH with 4≤H≤61.54\leq H\leq61.5, put h=Hlog⁡2xh=H\log^2 x and δ=h/x\delta=h/x, and suppose that no Goldbach number lies in (x,x+h](x,x+h]. Evaluating the main term on the left-hand side of (30) with φ(t)\varphi(t) from (29) gives δ2x3M\delta^2x^3M, where

M=115[(5/11)3−(1/64)33−(5/11)4−(1/64)44]+[(1/2)2−(5/11)22−(1/2)3−(5/11)33]=0.0567215028…(34)\begin{aligned} M=\frac{11}{5}\left[\frac{(5/11)^3-(1/64)^3}{3}-\frac{(5/11)^4-(1/64)^4}{4}\right]+\left[\frac{(1/2)^2-(5/11)^2}{2}-\frac{(1/2)^3-(5/11)^3}{3}\right] \\ &=0.0567215028\ldots \tag*{(34)} \end{aligned}

To bound the cross terms in (30), write R(u)=θ(u)−uR(u)=\theta(u)-u, so E(u)=R((1+δ)u)−R(u)E(u)=R((1+\delta)u)-R(u). Substituting u=x−tu=x-t in ∫x/64x/2φ(t)tE(x−t) dt\int_{x/64}^{x/2}\varphi(t)tE(x-t)\,\mathrm{d}t splits the cross-term integral into four smooth pieces; the first two are written in the variable tt and the last two in u=x−tu=x-t: [x/64,5x/11][x/64,5x/11] with weight 1110⋅2xt(x−t)\frac{11}{10}\cdot\frac{2}{x}t(x-t), [5x/11,x/2][5x/11,x/2] with weight x−tx-t, [6x/11,63x/64][6x/11,63x/64] with weight 1110⋅2x(x−u)2\frac{11}{10}\cdot\frac{2}{x}(x-u)^2, and [x/2,6x/11][x/2,6x/11] with weight x−ux-u. On each piece [ax,bx][ax,bx] with normalized weight g(u)g(u), the substitution v=(1+δ)uv=(1+\delta)u transforms ∫axbxg(u)R((1+δ)u) du\int_{ax}^{bx}g(u)R((1+\delta)u)\,\mathrm{d}u into ∫(1+δ)ax(1+δ)bx11+δg(v1+δ)R(v) dv\int_{(1+\delta)ax}^{(1+\delta)bx}\frac{1}{1+\delta}g\left(\frac{v}{1+\delta}\right)R(v)\,\mathrm{d}v with new limits of integration (1+δ)ax(1+\delta)ax and (1+δ)bx(1+\delta)bx, which gives

∫axbxg(u)E(u) du=∫axbx(11+δg(v1+δ)−g(v))R(v) dv+(∫bx(1+δ)bx−∫ax(1+δ)ax)11+δg(v1+δ)R(v) dv.(35)\begin{aligned} \int_{ax}^{bx}g(u)E(u)\,\mathrm{d}u ={}&\int_{ax}^{bx}\left(\frac{1}{1+\delta}g\left(\frac{v}{1+\delta}\right)-g(v)\right)R(v)\,\mathrm{d}v\\ &+\left(\int_{bx}^{(1+\delta)bx}-\int_{ax}^{(1+\delta)ax}\right)\frac{1}{1+\delta}g\left(\frac{v}{1+\delta}\right)R(v)\,\mathrm{d}v. \tag*{(35)} \end{aligned}

Since 1−(1+δ)−k≤kδ1-(1+\delta)^{-k}\leq k\delta for k=1,2,3k=1,2,3 and 0<u≤x0<u\leq x, the interior factor ∣11+δg(v1+δ)−g(v)∣\left|\frac{1}{1+\delta}g\left(\frac{v}{1+\delta}\right)-g(v)\right| is bounded on [0,x][0,x] by 2(2+3)δx=10δx2(2+3)\delta x=10\delta x for 2xu(x−u)\frac{2}{x}u(x-u), by (1+2)δx=3δx(1+2)\delta x=3\delta x for x−ux-u, and by 2(1+4+3)δx=16δx2(1+4+3)\delta x=16\delta x for 2x(x−u)2\frac{2}{x}(x-u)^2. Since u≥x/64>1016u\geq x/64>10^{16} throughout all four intervals, Lemma 2.5 gives ∣R(v)∣≤10−6v≤10−6x|R(v)|\leq10^{-6}v\leq10^{-6}x on [ax,bx][ax,bx] of length (b−a)x(b-a)x, and ∣R(v)∣≤10−6v≤10−6(1+δ)x≤2⋅10−6x|R(v)|\leq10^{-6}v\leq10^{-6}(1+\delta)x\leq2\cdot10^{-6}x on the boundary intervals [bx,(1+δ)bx][bx,(1+\delta)bx] and [ax,(1+δ)ax][ax,(1+\delta)ax] of lengths δbx\delta bx and δax\delta ax. Summing the four bounds shows that the left-hand side of (30) is at least δ2x3(M−K)\delta^2x^3(M-K), where

K=1106[1110(10(511−164)+2⋅511+264)+(3(12−511)+1+2⋅511)+1110(16(6364−611)+2⋅6364+2⋅611)+(3(611−12)+2⋅611+1)]=1106(46980+4522+3549320+4922)=2.122585…⋅10−5<2.1226⋅10−5.(36)\begin{aligned} K={}&\frac{1}{10^6}\left[\frac{11}{10}\left(10\left(\frac{5}{11}-\frac{1}{64}\right)+2\cdot\frac{5}{11}+\frac{2}{64}\right)+\left(3\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{5}{11}\right)+1+2\cdot\frac{5}{11}\right)\right.\\ &\left.+\frac{11}{10}\left(16\left(\frac{63}{64}-\frac{6}{11}\right)+2\cdot\frac{63}{64}+2\cdot\frac{6}{11}\right)+\left(3\left(\frac{6}{11}-\frac{1}{2}\right)+2\cdot\frac{6}{11}+1\right)\right]\\ ={}&\frac{1}{10^6}\left(\frac{469}{80}+\frac{45}{22}+\frac{3549}{320}+\frac{49}{22}\right)=2.122585\ldots\cdot10^{-5}<2.1226\cdot10^{-5}. \tag*{(36)} \end{aligned}

To bound the right-hand side of (32), take 256 equal steps

sj=611+309j180224,wj=12150(1−sj)2for j=0,…,256,(37)s_j = \frac{6}{11} + \frac{309j}{180224}, \qquad w_j = \frac{121}{50}(1-s_j)^2 \qquad\text{for } j=0,\ldots,256, \tag*{(37)}

so s0=6/11s_0=6/11, s256=63/64s_{256}=63/64, and w0=1/2w_0=1/2. The weight w(u)w(u) on E(u)2E(u)^2 in (33) is 1/21/2 on [x/64,6x/11][x/64,6x/11] and at most wjw_j on [sjx,sj+1x][s_jx,s_{j+1}x]. Since sjx≥(6/11)x>6⋅1017>5⋅1017s_jx \ge(6/11)x > 6\cdot10^{17} > 5\cdot10^{17}, ww is nonincreasing, and

∫1sjxE(u)2 du≤Jθ(sjx,δ)≤c δlog⁡2(2.0001/δ)sj2x2\int_1^{s_jx} E(u)^2\,\mathrm{d}u \le J_\theta(s_jx,\delta) \le c\,\delta\log^2(2.0001/\delta)s_j^2x^2

by (26), Abel summation bounds the right-hand side of (32) by c δlog⁡2(2.0001/δ)x2Uc\,\delta\log^2(2.0001/\delta)x^2U, where

U=∑j=1255(wj−1−wj)sj2+w255s2562=0.2492140⋯<0.24922.(38)U=\sum_{j=1}^{255}(w_{j-1}-w_j)s_j^2+w_{255}s_{256}^2=0.2492140\cdots<0.24922. \tag*{(38)}

Since h≥2.0001h\ge2.0001, we have log⁡(2.0001/δ)≤log⁡x\log(2.0001/\delta)\le\log x. Using δ=Hlog⁡2x/x\delta=H\log^2x/x and dividing by δx2log⁡2x\delta x^2\log^2x, no Goldbach number in (x,x+h](x,x+h] forces H(M−K)≤c⋅0.24922H(M-K)\le c\cdot0.24922. Thus it is enough that

(1.001J+0.0019)⋅0.24922<H(M−K).(39)(1.001J+0.0019)\cdot0.24922<H(M-K). \tag*{(39)}

With J=1.0069J=1.0069 from Proposition 3.3, the left-hand side of (39) is 0.2516641, and H=4.44H=4.44 gives right-hand side 0.2517492; the smallest HH that works is Hmin⁡=4.43850H_{\min}=4.43850. This gives a Goldbach number nn with x<n≤x+4.44log⁡2xx<n\le x+4.44\log^2x, and the extra 0.01log⁡2x0.01\log^2x in the theorem gives the strict upper bound in (x,x+4.45log⁡2x)(x,x+4.45\log^2x). □

By (39), Hmin⁡=(1.001J+0.0019)⋅0.24922/(M−K)H_{\min}=(1.001J+0.0019)\cdot0.24922/(M-K), so Hmin⁡H_{\min} is proportional to cc and the mean square constant JJ is the main limiting input; at J=1.0069J=1.0069 the weight scan gives about 4.43, and the 4.43 figure is a numerical scan of this weight family at J=1.0069J=1.0069, not a proven lower limit. Lowering the order of the interval length below log⁡2x\log^2x from the Riemann Hypothesis alone would require an upper bound on the pair correlation of zeros of ζ(s)\zeta(s) that is not known; under the Riemann Hypothesis together with Montgomery’s pair correlation conjecture [7], Goldston [4] already reaches (2+ϵ)log⁡x(2+\epsilon)\log x.

Numerical verification

All numerical constants in Lemma 3.2, Proposition 3.3, and the proof of Theorem 1.1 are certified in the Lean 4 kernel conditionally on the seven hypotheses of goldbach_445_hsw_gZ. The certification uses finite grids with explicit rational parameters: in Lemma 3.2, the case 2−188<δ≤10−132^{-188}<\delta\le10^{-13} uses 2161 pieces on 1<v≤139.9843751<v\le139.984375, a further range 139.984375<v≤599.734375139.984375<v\le599.734375, and a tail v>599.734375v>599.734375, while the case δ≤2−188\delta\le2^{-188} uses a head range ∣γ∣≤10−20/δ|\gamma|\le10^{-20}/\delta and a dyadic chain of 64 steps; in Section 4, the interval [6/11,63/64][6/11,63/64] is split into 256 equal Abel steps in u/xu/x. Every constant is a decimal or rational number checked by norm_num and linarith in the Lean kernel, so no floating point arithmetic enters the certificate and no rounding error analysis is needed; transcendental quantities enter only through certified bounds such as 3.141592<π<3.1415933.141592<\pi<3.141593, log⁡2.0001≥0.6931\log2.0001\ge0.6931, and dyadic bounds on log⁡B\log B. The Lean build completes successfully in 9183 jobs with exit code 0, and #print axioms for goldbach_445_hsw_gZ, theorem2_u6806, and goldbach_445_of_J_hsw lists only the standard foundational axioms propext, Classical.choice, and Quot.sound. Table 2 records the certified parameters and margin checks around Hmin⁡=4.43850H_{\min}=4.43850.

QuantityCertified valueRole in proof
End of the 2161 pieces139.984375In v=δ∣γ∣v=\delta|\gamma|, Lemma 3.2
Pieces2161Dyadic rational endpoints on 1<v≤139.9843751<v\le139.984375
Diagonal constant CdiagC_{\mathrm{diag}}1.0068Bound in (17) for 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\le10^{-13}
Mean square constant JJ1.0069Bound in (22) for x≥1013x\ge10^{13}
Transfer constant cc1.0098069c=1.001J+0.0019c=1.001J+0.0019 in (26) for X≥5⋅1017X\ge5\cdot10^{17}
Abel summation steps256Equal steps in u/xu/x from 6/116/11 to 63/6463/64 in (37)
Main term constant MM0.0567215028 . . .Exact integral in (34) with weight φ\varphi
Cross-term constant KK2.1226⋅10−52.1226\cdot10^{-5}Cross-term bound in (36)
Abel constant UU0.2492140⋯<0.249220.2492140\cdots<0.24922Upper bound factor in (38)
Minimum admissible Hmin⁡H_{\min}4.43850Threshold in (39); 4.44 gives 0.2517492 > 0.2516641

Table 2. Certified constants and margin checks for the main theorem.

Appendix A. Formal verification

The deduction of Theorem 1.1 from the seven stated hypotheses is formalized in Lean 4 with Mathlib at https://github.com/sthubbar/lean-lab-preprints, commit 74c2d1a. The diagonal estimate of Lemma 3.2 is formalized conditionally on BPTN and Ordinates14 as diag_u6806, the short interval mean square bound of Proposition 3.3 conditionally on ExplicitA, HadamardK, Ordinates14, and BPTN as theorem2_u6806, and the main result Theorem 1.1 conditionally on all seven hypotheses as goldbach_445_hsw_gZ in LeanLab/Routes/U1508Compose445.lean. The proof of Lemma 2.2 (HadamardK) uses the partial fraction expansion of ξ′(s)/ξ(s)\xi'(s)/\xi(s) over all zeros and Binet’s formula for the digamma function. These ingredients were not formalized in this project, so HadamardK enters Lean as a hypothesis.

The headline theorem is in file LeanLab/Routes/U1508Compose445.lean, namespace LeanLab.Routes.U1508, and has the exact statement:

theorem goldbach_445_hsw_gZ {Z : N → Finset ZIdx}
(hE : RiemannHypothesis → ∀ δ, 0 < δ → δ ≤ 1 / 10 ^ 13 →
  SmoothT2.ExplicitA gZ Z δ)
(hH : RiemannHypothesis → SmoothT2.HadamardK gZ)
(h14 : SmoothT2.Ordinates14 gZ)
(hB : RiemannHypothesis → Lemma26B.BPTN gZ)
(hEv : EvenGoldbachUpTo (4 * 10 ^ 18))
(hN : HSWN70 gZ) (hHd : HSWHead14 gZ) :
RiemannHypothesis → ∀ x : R, 3 ≤ x →
  ∃ n : N, IsGoldbachNumber n ∧ x < n ∧
  (n : R) < x + 4.45 * Real.log x ^ 2

Here gZ is the family of ordinates of the nontrivial zeros of ζ(s)\zeta(s) with multiplicity; ExplicitA states (3) of Lemma 2.1 as the limit of −∑ρ∈Zncδ(ρ)yρ-\sum_{\rho\in Z_n}c_\delta(\rho)y^\rho along truncations ZnZ_n, for almost every y≥2y\ge2, with B(y)B(y) included as the function Bf, assumed under RH for each 0<δ≤10−130<\delta\le10^{-13}; HadamardK is Lemma 2.2; Ordinates14 states that every ordinate has absolute value at least 14; BPTN is Lemma 2.4 for T≥1013T\ge10^{13}; HSWN70 and HSWHead14 are [5 Corollary 1.2] read as counts of ordinates of both signs, for T≥70T\ge70 and T≥14T\ge14; and EvenGoldbachUpTo is Lemma 2.6. The bound SchoenfeldTheta is not a hypothesis of this theorem. Table 3 lists the status of each hypothesis in the paper and in Lean; the formal verification is conditional on these seven hypotheses, and the main theorem assumes ExplicitA, HadamardK, and BPTN under RH.

Structure of the Lean formalization

The formal proof is organized along the following chain of Lean 4 files and theorems; items 1 to 4 are in LeanLab/ChirreHagen2025/ and items 5 and 6 in LeanLab/Routes/:

  1. U1263Core.lean (namespace LeanLab.ChirreHagen2025.U1263) proves piece_sum (the piece bound (20)), pt_raw, pt_norm, and one_sub_cos_le, while U6743Core.lean provides U6743.hu_pi:

lemma piece_sum (hN : BPTN γ) (h14 : Ordinates14 γ) {δ : ℝ} (hδ : 0 < δ)
(hδ1 : δ ≤ 1 / 10 ^ 13) (A B Q lam : R) (hA : 1 ≤ A) (hAB : A ≤ B)
(hlam : Real.log B ≤ lam) (hlam5 : lam ≤ 5) (hQ : 0 ≤ Q)
(hc : ∀ i, A / δ < |γ i| → |γ i| ≤ B / δ →
  ∥cδ γ δ i∥ ^ 2 ≤ Q * δ ^ 2)
(s : Finset ι) :
∑ i ∈ s.filter (fun i => A / δ < |γ i| ∧ |γ i| ≤ B / δ),
  ∥cδ γ δ i∥ ^ 2 * Real.log |γ i|
  ≤ 0.31831 * (Q * (B - A)) * (δ * Real.log (1 / δ) ^ 2
      + (2 * lam - 1.8) * (δ * Real.log (1 / δ))
      + (lam ^ 2 - 1.8 * lam) * δ)
    + 2 * Q * (δ ^ 2 * (Real.log (1 / δ) + 5) ^ 2)
lemma pt_raw ... (A B Q u : R) (hA : 1 ≤ A)
  (hu : ∀ t, A * (1 - 1 / 10 ^ 13) < t → t ≤ B →
    1 - Real.cos t ≤ u)
  (hQ : (1 / 10 ^ 26 + 2 * (1 + 1 / 10 ^ 13) * u) / A ^ 2 ≤ Q) :
  ∀ i, A / δ < |γ i| → |γ i| ≤ B / δ → ∥cδ γ δ i∥ ^ 2 ≤ Q * δ ^ 2
lemma pt_norm ... (A B lo Q : R) (hA : 1 ≤ A) (hlo0 : 0 ≤ lo)
  (hlo : lo ≤ A * (1 - 1 / 10 ^ 13))
  (hQ : 2 * (1 + 1 / 10 ^ 13) *
    (1 / 2 - lo ^ 2 / 24 + B ^ 4 / 720) + 1 / 10 ^ 26 ≤ Q) : ...
lemma one_sub_cos_le (x : R) :
  1 - cos x ≤ x ^ 2 / 2 - x ^ 4 / 24 + x ^ 6 / 720

(2) The 2161 pieces on [1,139.984375][1, 139.984375] are spread over nine split files U6806DiagASpS1.lean to U6806DiagASpS3.lean, U6806DiagBSpS1.lean to U6806DiagBSpS3.lean, and U6806DiagCSpS1.lean to U6806DiagCSpS3.lean, with 241, 240, 240, 240, 240, 240, 259, 259, and 202 applications of piece_sum, respectively. Table 4 gives three representative pieces exactly as certified in Lean.

(3) U6806DiagCSpS3.lean (namespace LeanLab.ChirreHagen2025.U6806) assembles the diagonal bound diag_u6806, conditional on BPTN and Ordinates14:

theorem diag_u6806 (hN : BPTN γ) (h14 : Ordinates14 γ) {δ : R}
  (hδ : 0 < δ) (hδ1 : δ ≤ 1 / 10 ^ 13) (s : Finset ι) :
  ∑ i ∈ s, ∥cδ γ δ i∥ ^ 2 * Real.log |γ i|
    ≤ 1.0068 * δ * Real.log (2.0001 / δ) ^ 2

(4) U6806Theorem2Sp.lean (namespace LeanLab.ChirreHagen2025.SmoothT2) proves the short interval mean square bound theorem2_u6806:

theorem theorem2_u6806 {γ : ι → R} {Z : N → Finset ι}
  (hE : ∀ δ, 0 < δ → δ ≤ 1 / 10 ^ 13 → ExplicitA γ Z δ)
  (hH : HadamardK γ) (h14 : Ordinates14 γ)
  (hN : Lemma26B.BPTN γ) :
  ∀ x δ : R, 10 ^ 13 ≤ x → 0 < δ → δ ≤ 1 / 10 ^ 13 →
    ψψ x δ ≤ 1.0069 * δ * Real.log (2.0001 / δ) ^ 2 * x ^ 2

(5) U1505Theta6HSW.lean (namespace LeanLab.Routes.U1505) proves the bilinear reduction theorem goldbach_445_of_J_hsw.

(6) U1508Compose445.lean (namespace LeanLab.Routes.U1508) applies LeanLab.Routes.U1505.goldbach_445_of_J_hsw to SmoothT2.theorem2_u6806 to obtain the headline theorem goldbach_445_hsw_gZ.

Running #print axioms for goldbach_445_hsw_gZ, theorem2_u6806, and goldbach_445_of_J_hsw in Lean 4 prints only the standard foundational axioms of Lean and Mathlib: propext, Classical.choice, and Quot.sound. The Lean code was written with AI assistance and checked by the Lean kernel.

Use of AI

The argument and the text of this paper were developed with AI tools; the main deduction is checked in Lean 4 as described in the appendix.

Data availability

The Lean source of every theorem named in this paper, with its full import closure and the original build log, is public at https://github.com/sthubbar/lean-lab-preprints, commit 74c2d1a; the headline theorem is in LeanLab/Routes/U1508Compose445.lean and Papers/GoldbachRH445.lean prints its statement and axioms. The README states exactly what the Lean proves and which inputs are hypotheses.

References

Email address: [email protected]

References

  1. [1]R. P. Brent, D. J. Platt, and T. S. Trudgian, The mean square of the error term in the prime number theorem, J. Number Theory 238 (2022), 740–762.arxiv.org/abs/2008.06140
  2. [2]A. Chirre and M. Valås Hagen, On Goldbach numbers in short intervals, Research in Number Theory 12 (2026), article 82, doi:10.1007/s40993-026-00767-6, arXiv:2512.23534.DOI
  3. [3]M. Cully-Hugill and A. W. Dudek, An explicit mean-value estimate for the prime number theorem in intervals, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 117 (2024), no. 1, 1–15.
  4. [4]D. A. Goldston, Linnik’s theorem on Goldbach numbers in short intervals, Glasgow Math. J. 32 (1990), no. 3, 285–297.DOI
  5. [5]E. Hanaszlide, Q. Shen, and P.-J. Wong, Counting zeros of the Riemann zeta function, preprint, arXiv:2107.06506, 2021.
  6. [6]I. Kátai, A remark on a paper of Ju. V. Linnik, Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Fiz. Oszt. Közl. 17 (1967), 99–100.
  7. [7]H. L. Montgomery, The pair correlation of zeros of the zeta function, in Analytic Number Theory, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. 24, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1973, 181–193.DOI
  8. [8]H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan, The exceptional set in Goldbach’s problem, Acta Arith. 27 (1975), 353–370.DOI
  9. [9]H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan, Multiplicative Number Theory. I. Classical Theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 97, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
  10. [10]T. Oliveira e Silva, S. Herzog, and S. Pardi, Empirical verification of the even Goldbach conjecture and computation of prime gaps up to 4 · 10¹⁸, Math. Comp. 83 (2014), no. 288, 2033–2060.DOI
  11. [11]L. Schoenfeld, Sharper bounds for the Chebyshev functions θ(x) and ψ(x). II, Math. Comp. 30 (1976), no. 134, 337–360.DOI
  12. [12]E. C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function, 2nd ed., revised by D. R. Heath-Brown, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.

Paper details

vlnc:W_nx5mk576
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 4

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Google Gemini Argon High, Anthropic Claude Opus · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents