Plectis
Erdős problem #1049

Lambert-type series at rational bases

For which rational bases is the corresponding series irrational? The first resistant explicit base is three halves.

The problem

The question

Choose a rational number t>1. Form its powers t,t2,t3,…, subtract 1 from each, and add their reciprocals: F(t)=1/(tβˆ’1)+1/(t2βˆ’1)+1/(t3βˆ’1)+β‹―.

The terms shrink fast enough to give a finite total. Chowla’s question, recorded as ErdΕ‘s #1049, asks whether that total can ever be a fraction of two integers.

An example

At t=2, the sum is 1+1/3+1/7+1/15+β‹―; ErdΕ‘s proved its total irrational. At t=3/2, it starts 2+4/5+8/19+β‹―: for example, (3/2)2βˆ’1=5/4, whose reciprocal is 4/5.

Whether the total at 3/2 is irrational remains unknown. Every finite sum is rational; the question concerns the limit of all the terms.

Let t>1 be a rational number. Is βˆ‘n=1∞1tnβˆ’1=βˆ‘n=1βˆžΟ„(n)tn irrational, where Ο„(n) counts the divisors of n?

The setup in detail

Write the rational base in lowest terms as t=a/b, with integers a>bβ‰₯1. Integer bases are included by taking b=1. For each positive integer n, the term 1/(tnβˆ’1) is a positive rational number. The sum is finite because

tnβˆ’1=(tβˆ’1)(tnβˆ’1+β‹―+1)β‰₯(tβˆ’1)tnβˆ’1,

so its terms are bounded by a geometric series with ratio 1/t<1. A limit of fractions need not be a fraction: finite partial sums alone cannot settle the question.

Irrational means unequal to every ratio r/s of integers with s>0. A useful way to prove this is to construct positive numbers QNF(t)βˆ’PN with integer coefficients that tend to zero. If F(t)=r/s, each such number equals (QNrβˆ’PNs)/s; being positive, it must be at least 1/s. It cannot tend to zero.

ErdΕ‘s proved irrationality for every integer base at least 2 in 1948. Some noninteger rational bases are also settled. The result panel explains a sufficient condition covering 31/4 and all its positive integer powers. It does not cover 3/2, and the question for every rational base remains open.

The example in detail

Why do divisor counts occur in the graph’s version of the sum? At base 2, expand each reciprocal as a geometric series:

12nβˆ’1=12n+122n+123n+β‹―.

Row n contributes at exponents that are multiples of n. For instance, 1/26 appears in rows 1, 2, 3 and 6, because those are exactly the divisors of 6. Its coefficient is therefore Ο„(6)=4. Collecting equal powers gives

1+13+17+115+β‹―=12+222+223+324+225+426+β‹―.

The six terms on the right sum to 100/64=1.5625; their remaining tail brings the total to 1.60669…. The displayed terms on the left and right are not equal finite sums: the equality is between the two infinite totals. All terms are positive, which justifies regrouping them.

The same expansion works with any t>1 in place of 2. Thus F(t)=βˆ‘nβ‰₯1Ο„(n)/tn. This form has predictable denominators and is the starting point for the graph’s clearing calculation.

ErdΕ‘s #1049. Horizontal axis: N, the number of terms of the series made whole by clearing denominators, from 0 to 20. Vertical axis: what is left over, on a logarithmic scale from 1 to 10 to the 7. At the base 2, in blue, the leftover is the expansion read from place N and stays between 1 and 5. At the base 3 over 2, in red, it climbs above the dashed lower bound 2 to the N plus 1, past 8.5 million at N = 20. The drawing shows this one way of clearing only; it does not decide whether the total at 3 over 2 is irrational, which is open. 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 0 5 10 15 20 leftover EN, logarithmic scale N, the number of terms cleared lower bound 2N + 1 at t = 3/2 t = 2 t = 3/2

The crux

The graph tests one approach. Rewrite the total as F(t)=βˆ‘nβ‰₯1Ο„(n)/tn, where Ο„(n) counts divisors: Ο„(6)=4 from 1, 2, 3 and 6. Write t=a/b with integers a>bβ‰₯1, and multiply by aN. Each of the first N products is an integer; the graph plots the positive leftover EN after removing them.

If F(t)=p/q were a fraction, every positive leftover would be at least 1/q; leftovers tending to zero would contradict this. Blue uses base 2; red uses 3/2. Each vertical step is a factor of 10. The red curve grows above the dashed bound 2N+1. This approach fails; the result below finds different combinations that do tend to zero at suitable bases.

For t=a/b, the divisor-count form is F(t)=βˆ‘nβ‰₯1Ο„(n)bn/an. Multiplying by aN makes its first N terms integers. Remove those terms and call what remains EN:

aNF(a/b)=βˆ‘n=1NΟ„(n)bnaNβˆ’n⏟integer+EN,EN=bNβˆ‘mβ‰₯1Ο„(N+m)(b/a)m.

The graph follows EN as N increases from 0 to 20. It is a multiplied tail, not the original sum’s tail. If F(t)=r/s, then sEN is a positive integer. Making EN arbitrarily small would therefore contradict rationality.

At base 2, the blue points stay between 1 and 5 in the displayed range. For example, E1=2F(2)βˆ’1=2.21339…. These points alone provide no contradiction. ErdΕ‘s’s integer-base proof instead uses divisibility of consecutive divisor counts to force special patterns in the base expansion; it needs more than this simple tail.

At base 3/2, the clearing multiplier is 3N. The factor 2N survives in the tail formula. Since every divisor count is at least 1,

ENβ‰₯2Nβˆ‘mβ‰₯1(2/3)m=2N+1.

This is the red dashed lower bound. At N=10 it is 2048, while E10=7165.1…; by N=20 the red points exceed 8.5 million. Each equal vertical step in the graph is a factor of 10. Thus clearing this straightforward expansion makes the leftover larger, rather than giving the small positive expression an irrationality proof would need.

Zudilin’s 2004 construction uses carefully chosen polynomial combinations of the same total. Their small positive remainders compete with the cost of making the coefficients integers. Cancelling common polynomial factors first lowers that cost. The result panel follows this operation at 31/4, where the remainders do tend to zero.

For coprime a>bβ‰₯1, the paper proves irrationality when log⁑b/log⁑a<ΞΈβˆ—=0.4056830213840605…. The simpler strict cutoff 81/200=0.405 is rigorously below ΞΈβˆ—; 4200<3181 places 31/4 inside it. A common positive power preserves the logarithmic ratio. The forms and constants are Zudilin’s; the paper supplies the rational-base degree calculation. Zudilin previously noted rational-base extensions and regards this consequence as hard to classify as a new result. The base 3/2 and the universal question remain open.

ErdΕ‘s #1049. Left, a chart of the actual integer forms L n from Zudilin's 2004 construction, on a logarithmic scale, for n from 1 to 6 at the bases 29 over 4, 31 over 4 and 33 over 4. At 31 over 4, before a common factor is cancelled the cleared forms rise off the chart; after it they fall from 3.1 times 10 to the minus 26, passing a level 1 over s that a rational value r over s would keep every positive form above. At 29 over 4 the forms turn back up; at 33 over 4 they fall faster. Right, rational bases a over b as points (log a, log b): the theorem covers the bases below a red ray of slope theta star, 0.405683, which lies above Bundschuh and VÀÀnΓ€nen's blue ray; the powers of 31 over 4 lie on one ray between the two, and a slit enlarges the row of bases a over 4: 29 over 4 above both rays, 31 over 4 between them, 33 over 4 below both. Q Β· r/s βˆ’ P = (Qr βˆ’ Ps)/s 0 1/s 2/s 3/s 4/s … Ln 10100 1 10βˆ’100 10βˆ’200 1 2 3 4 5 6 n c1L1 Γ·c1 Γ·c2 L1 1/s 31/4 s = 1075 29/4 33/4 3/2 log a log b ΞΈ* ΞΈBV 27 29 31 33 35 a/4 Γ—35 30.48 32.37

At x=31/4, the reciprocal sum F(x)=βˆ‘kβ‰₯11/(xkβˆ’1) starts 4/27+16/945+β‹―. If F(x)=r/s for integers r,s with s>0, every positive QF(x)βˆ’P with integer Q,P is at least 1/s. The ruler shows this forbidden gap above zero. Zudilin builds the coefficients using polynomials in the base. At a fractional base their values are fractions. Multiplying to make them integers enlarges the positive remainders: the uncancelled values rise off the chart. First cancel a common factor from the coefficient polynomials. This reduces the multiplication needed. At 31/4 the first remainder drops from about 7.86Γ—1011 to 3.10Γ—10βˆ’26, with both coefficients still integers. The resulting positive remainders Ln=QnF(31/4)βˆ’Pn tend to zero. They eventually enter the forbidden gap for any proposed denominator s, proving irrationality. The six points illustrate this; the proof establishes the limit. The neighbours show the competition. At 29/4, making coefficients integers costs too much and the remainders turn upwards. At 33/4 they shrink faster. An upward curve gives no rationality conclusion. The condition for a reduced base a/b is log⁑b/log⁑a<ΞΈβˆ—β‰ˆ0.405683. Plot log⁑a horizontally and log⁑b vertically: covered bases lie below the red line. Powers of 31/4 stay on the same ray. The close-up holds the denominator at 4. The base 31/4 lies between this cutoff and Bundschuh–VÀÀnΓ€nen’s earlier cutoff; 33/4 satisfies both. Neither covers 3/2. The question for all rational bases remains open.

Theorem 4.1 proves irrationality of F(a/b) for coprime integers a>bβ‰₯1 satisfying log⁑b/log⁑a<ΞΈβˆ—=C0/C1=0.4056830213840605…. Here logarithms are natural. The rigorous simpler cutoff 81/200=0.405<ΞΈβˆ— also suffices. The exact integer inequality 4200<3181 puts 31/4 below that cutoff. Raising numerator and denominator to the same positive integer power preserves their logarithmic ratio, proving irrationality at every (31/4)r with integer rβ‰₯1.

Cancellation matters because a polynomial of degree W evaluated at a/b needs at most bW to clear its denominators. A small example: the pair (X+1)(X+2),Β (X+1)(X+3) at X=3/2 becomes (35,45) after multiplication by 4. Cancelling X+1 first leaves (X+2,X+3), requiring only multiplication by 2 and giving (7,9). The ratio is unchanged, while both integers are smaller. This illustrates the coefficient operation, not a proof at 3/2. For Zudilin’s actual pair, cancelling a proved common polynomial factor gives Ξ›n(x)=Un(x)F(x)βˆ’Vn(x)>0, with integer-coefficient polynomials Un,Vn of degrees Wn,Wnβˆ’1.

Consequently Ln=bWnΞ›n(a/b)=QnF(a/b)βˆ’Pn has integer Qn,Pn. The degree and size estimates give log⁑Ln=(C1log⁑bβˆ’C0log⁑a)n2+o(n2), with C1=1091/2 and C0β‰ˆ221.300088; the error divided by n2 tends to zero. A negative leading coefficient forces Lnβ†’0. If the total were r/s, then sLn=Qnrβˆ’Pns would be a positive integer tending to zero, which is impossible. This is the connection between the chart’s shrinking remainders and the original question.

The left chart plots log10⁑Ln: a vertical change of 1 is a factor of 10. The illustrative horizontal level uses s=1075; the proof works for any fixed positive denominator. The right chart’s earlier cutoff is 1/2βˆ’1/Ο€2β‰ˆ0.398679. Equality at ΞΈβˆ— gives no decay conclusion, and bases outside either region are not thereby proved rational. The forms and constants are Zudilin’s; the paper makes their rational-base consequence explicit. Zudilin previously noted rational-base extensions and regards this consequence as hard to classify as a new result. The base 3/2 remains open.

Results and open questions

#1049. For positive integers 0<b<a in the exact Zudilin contour region, Lean checks irrationality and the stated irrationality-exponent bound for F(a/b), including every positive integral power of 31/4. The short paper also gives an ordinary proof for coprime a,b under log⁑b/log⁑a<ΞΈβˆ—, where ΞΈβˆ—β‰ˆ0.4056830214, using Zudilin’s 2004 forms and estimates. Zudilin’s prior work is credited; formalisation does not establish novelty. Lean also checks the normalized Hankel determinant’s order and leading coefficient at every rank.

Separately, for each real p>1 and 1≀N≀8, the Lean-checked finite coefficient pencil has a positive definite first matrix, real roots strictly below F(p), and non-strict interlacing at adjacent ranks. The eight unshifted determinant certificates are kernel checked; the shifted eight and 76 cyclotomic residue witnesses remain finite computations. These results give no all-rank coefficient positivity or irrationality at 3/2, which lies outside the contour region. The universal rational-base question remains open. Read the short paper, long record, and selected formal checks.

The prepared E1049_01 Comparator selection contains 25 rational-base contour and measure declarations, including rational_base_threshold. It does not select the later Hankel determinant or finite coefficient-pencil results in the same paper. The caller-side preflight passed at that exact source commit; no registry intake is claimed.

Read the public result guide

Short paper, 20 pages

Hankel Determinants of Geometric Moments and Rational Lambert Values

In this paper

Introduction

Fix q∈(0,1). Write (z;q)m=∏j=0mβˆ’1(1βˆ’zqj) and F(t)=βˆ‘nβ‰₯1(tnβˆ’1)βˆ’1 for t>1. At the auxiliary parameters x=z=1, the normalisation in [5] gives

(1)vmβˆ—(q)=βˆ‘tβ‰₯0q(m+1)t(q;q)m3(qt+1;q)m(qm+1+t;q)m+1,VNβˆ—(q)=det(vi+jβˆ—(q))0≀i,j<N.

The sums converge for 0<q<1. They also define formal series, since the tth summand has q-order (m+1)t.

Theorem 1.1 (the size of VNβˆ— at a fixed base). Fix 0<q<1 and write P=(q;q)∞, BN=N(Nβˆ’1)(2Nβˆ’1)/6 and CN=(N!)2(N+1)!/2N. There is a K(q)>0 with

VNβˆ—(q)∼K(q)CNqBNP2NNβˆ’8F(1/q)(Nβ†’βˆž).

The constant K(q) is the convergent product in (13). Zudilin proved ordq⁑VNβˆ—β‰₯BN and the estimate |VNβˆ—|≀qN3/3exp⁑(Oq(N2)) [5]. TheoremΒ 1.1 determines the factorial, exponential and power factors contained in this estimate. We also recover the exact first formal term CNqBN. The formal calculation fixes N and expands at q=0; the asymptotic fixes q and lets N grow. Neither limit can be substituted for the other: multiplication by (1βˆ’q)N3 preserves the first formal term but changes the fixed-base logarithm by a cubic quantity. No uniformity as qβ†’1 is asserted.

The proof compares the moments with constant-weight geometric moments. We write vmβˆ—=βˆ‘kβ‰₯0akq(m+1)k with ak>0: the measure has mass akqk at qk. Heine’s identity expresses the determinant as a positive sum of squared Vandermondes over choices of N nodes [7]. The first N nodes normalise this sum but do not exhaust it; moving the last node gives a comparable contribution. Partitions encode all such displacements. For each fixed partition, only finitely many weight ratios change, at indices tending to infinity, so those ratios tend to 1. A summable bound independent of N then makes the whole normalised sum asymptotically independent of the weights. Cauchy’s determinant formula evaluates its limit in the constant-weight case.

The weights retain a different contribution. Their factorisation involves two-fold and three-fold convolutions of 1/(q;q)k, with relative corrections βˆ’2F(1/q)/(k+1) and βˆ’6F(1/q)/(k+2). In the logarithm of the weight product these give a harmonic sum, hence Nβˆ’8F(1/q); the summable errors affect only the constant. TheoremΒ 2.1 separates the determinant argument from this calculation and also treats entries (1βˆ’qi+j+1)βˆ’2.

Chowla’s conjecture, recorded by ErdΕ‘s [1], asks whether F(t) is irrational for every rational t>1. This is a related arithmetic question, and the fixed-base asymptotic alone does not answer it. In SectionΒ 4 we instead specialise the polynomial forms of Zudilin’s 2004 construction [4]. They prove irrationality for coprime a>bβ‰₯1 satisfying

log⁑blog⁑a<ΞΈβˆ—=0.4056830213840605…,

where (15) defines ΞΈβˆ— exactly. The constants are inherited from Zudilin; the degree calculation after polynomial cancellation supplies the rational-base estimate. The resulting region includes every positive integral power of 31/4, which lies outside the earlier sufficient region of Bundschuh and VÀÀnΓ€nen [2]. Neither argument here settles 3/2.

SectionsΒ 2–3 prove TheoremΒ 1.1; SectionΒ 4 gives the independent arithmetic argument. SectionΒ 5 links further questions to the companion. All logarithms are natural, empty products and determinants equal 1, and constants in Oq(β‹…) may depend on the fixed q.

Geometric moment determinants

For constant weights, the moments are geometric series: Mm=βˆ‘kβ‰₯0q(m+1)k=(1βˆ’qm+1)βˆ’1. Cauchy’s determinant formula evaluates their determinant exactly. Writing

P=(q;q)∞,M(q)=∏dβ‰₯1(1βˆ’qd)βˆ’d,BN=βˆ‘j<Nj2,

we obtain

(2)DN(0):=det(11βˆ’qi+j+1)0≀i,j<N=qBNΞ”N∏0≀i,j<N(1βˆ’qi+j+1),Ξ”N=∏d=1Nβˆ’1(1βˆ’qd)2(Nβˆ’d).

For each fixed d, the multiplicity of 1βˆ’qd in the denominator increases to d, giving the factor M(q) in the limit. The numerator supplies two more copies:

Ξ”NP2N=∏d<N(1βˆ’qd)βˆ’2d∏dβ‰₯N(1βˆ’qd)βˆ’2N⟢M(q)2.

Indeed, βˆ‘d|log⁑(1βˆ’qd)|<∞, and the logarithm of the second product is Oq(NqN). Thus

(3)DN(0)∼M(q)3qBNP2N.

Replacing the constant weights by ak will contribute ∏k<Nak. The two hypotheses below do different jobs: the ratio limit handles each fixed displacement; the polynomial bound permits summation over all displacements.

Theorem 2.1 (geometric moment determinants). Let 0<q<1 and ak>0 for kβ‰₯0. Suppose that, for fixed constants C>0 and ΞΊβ‰₯0,

(4)ak+hak⟢1(kβ†’βˆž)Β for each fixedΒ hβ‰₯0,ak+hak≀C(1+h)ΞΊ(k,hβ‰₯0).

For Mm=βˆ‘kβ‰₯0akq(m+1)k and DN=det(Mi+j)0≀i,j<N, we have

(5)DN∼M(q)3qBNP2N∏k=0Nβˆ’1ak(Nβ†’βˆž).

For every real s, the weights ak=(k+1)s satisfy (4) with C=1 and ΞΊ=max(s,0), and their first N terms have product (N!)s. Taking s=1 and summing the moments gives

(6)det(1(1βˆ’qi+j+1)2)0≀i,j<N∼M(q)3N!qBNP2N.

The polynomial bound excludes ak=ek, although its adjacent ratio tends to 1. The companion’s ordinary ratio-limit argument allows ak+1/akβ†’Οβˆˆ(0,qβˆ’1) and, at ρ=1, gives (5) without that bound. This broader claim remains unformalised and is not used here: the theorem and its applications retain both hypotheses in (4).

Proof of TheoremΒ 2.1. The bound ah≀Ca0(1+h)ΞΊ makes βˆ‘kβ‰₯0akqkΞ΄qk a finite positive measure with moments Mm. Apply Cauchy–Binet to its finite truncations. The entries, hence the determinants, converge; the nonnegative tuple sums increase. Passing to the limit gives

(7)DN=βˆ‘0≀k0<β‹―<kNβˆ’1∏i<Nakiqki∏i<j<N(qkiβˆ’qkj)2.

The tuple ki=i contributes qBNΞ”N∏i<Nai. It does not account for the whole asymptotic. For example, replace (0,1,…,Nβˆ’2,Nβˆ’1) by (0,1,…,Nβˆ’2,N). The ratio of its contribution to that of the original tuple is

(8)qaNaNβˆ’1∏d=1Nβˆ’1(1βˆ’qd+11βˆ’qd)2=qaNaNβˆ’1(1βˆ’qN1βˆ’q)2⟢q(1βˆ’q)2.

Only pairs involving the moved node change, and their product telescopes. At q=1/2 the displaced tuple is asymptotically twice as large as the normalising tuple.

Subtracting (0,1,…,Nβˆ’1) gives the shifts Ξ»i=kiβˆ’i. Since ki+1β‰₯ki+1, these are nonnegative and weakly increasing; reversing their order gives a partition. For N=4, for example,

(0,1,3,5)⏟(ki)⟼(0,0,1,2)⏟(λi)⟼(2,1,0,0)⏟(μj).

In general, put ΞΌj=Ξ»Nβˆ’j for 1≀j≀N, so that ΞΌ1β‰₯β‹―β‰₯ΞΌNβ‰₯0. Division by the contribution of ki=i turns the summand for this tuple into

(9)WN(ΞΌ)=qβˆ‘j≀N(2jβˆ’1)ΞΌj∏j≀NaNβˆ’j+ΞΌjaNβˆ’jβ‹…βˆ1≀j<k≀N(1βˆ’qkβˆ’j+ΞΌjβˆ’ΞΌk1βˆ’qkβˆ’j)2.

The jth index from the right enters once through the mass qki and twice through each of its jβˆ’1 pairs with later indices. This gives the exponent 1+2(jβˆ’1)=2jβˆ’1. β€œRight” refers to increasing indices, not to the nodes qki, which decrease towards zero.

Set WN(ΞΌ)=0 for partitions with more than N positive parts, giving every sum the same index set. A fixed partition with β„“ positive parts affects only the last β„“ indices of (0,1,…,Nβˆ’1). These indices tend to infinity while their displacements stay fixed, so the weight ratios in (9) tend to 1.

The Vandermonde quotient still contains a growing number of factors, but its dependence on N telescopes. The factors with j<k≀ℓ are fixed, and those with j>β„“ equal 1. For Nβ‰₯β„“ and each j≀ℓ, the remaining factors satisfy

(10)∏k=β„“+1N1βˆ’qkβˆ’j+ΞΌj1βˆ’qkβˆ’j=(qN+1βˆ’j;q)ΞΌj(qβ„“+1βˆ’j;q)ΞΌj⟢1(qβ„“+1βˆ’j;q)ΞΌj.

Thus each WN(ΞΌ) has the same limit as for constant weights.

The fixed-partition limit does not yet control partitions whose length or parts grow with N. For a uniform bound, group the Vandermonde factors by j. Only j≀ℓ contribute; each group’s denominator product is at least P and its numerator product at most 1. The polynomial shift bound therefore gives

WN(ΞΌ)≀(CPβˆ’2)β„“βˆj=1β„“(1+ΞΌj)ΞΊq(2jβˆ’1)ΞΌj.

Let A=βˆ‘uβ‰₯1(1+u)ΞΊquβˆ’1<∞. Dropping the ordering of the positive parts, we obtain

βˆ‘β„“(ΞΌ)=β„“supNWN(ΞΌ)≀(CPβˆ’2)β„“βˆj=1β„“βˆ‘uβ‰₯1(1+u)ΞΊq(2jβˆ’1)u≀(CPβˆ’2A)β„“qβ„“2.

Here q(2jβˆ’1)u≀q2jβˆ’1quβˆ’1 and 1+3+β‹―+(2β„“βˆ’1)=β„“2. The size of each part is absorbed in A; their number is controlled by qβ„“2, which dominates (CPβˆ’2A)β„“. Thus the bound is summable over β„“ and independent of N.

Dominated convergence gives the same limit for βˆ‘ΞΌWN(ΞΌ) as for ak=1. EquationΒ (2) evaluates that limit as M(q), without a separate partition identity. Restoring the normalising tuple supplies the weight product and, through Ξ”N/P2N, the other two copies of M(q). Hence

DNDN(0)∏k<Nak⟢1.

Combining this limit with (3) proves the theorem.Β β—»

The weights of Zudilin’s moments

We apply TheoremΒ 2.1 by collecting the dependence on m in (1) into the single variable w=qm+1. For this purpose, set

(11)Gq(w)=1(w;q)∞3βˆ‘tβ‰₯0wt(q;q)t(qtw2;q)∞(qtw;q)∞2,ak(q)=[wk]P4Gq(w).

The product identities (q;q)m=P/(qm+1;q)∞ and (qa;q)m=(qa;q)∞/(qa+m;q)∞ give

(12)vmβˆ—=P4Gq(qm+1)=βˆ‘kβ‰₯0ak(q)q(m+1)k.

These identities hold formally in Z[[q,w]] and, for fixed 0<q<1, analytically for |w|<1. In the formal identity only finitely many t contribute to any w-coefficient. For the analytic identity, we use the absence of denominator zeros in that disc and the locally uniform bounds on the product tails. The factor wt then gives locally uniform convergence of the sum. The signs of the coefficients are not evident from this product. The finite factorisation below gives positive weights and a uniform shift bound. Its two convolutions then give the accuracy needed to multiply the first N weights.

Positive weights

For rβ‰₯1 and kβ‰₯0, set

Rk(r)(q)=βˆ‘n1+β‹―+nr=k(q;q)k∏j=1r(q;q)nj,

over r nonnegative parts. These are the multivariate Rogers–SzegΕ‘ polynomials at unit arguments, written as sums of Gaussian multinomial polynomials [19]. At q=0, every Gaussian multinomial equals 1, so they count weak compositions (zero parts are allowed), and

ck:=Rk(2)(0)Rk(3)(0)=(k+1)2(k+2)2,∏k<Nck=CN.

Proposition 3.1 (the positive moment weights). For every kβ‰₯0,

ak=P4Rk(2)Rk(3)(q;q)k.

At fixed 0<q<1 these weights satisfy

P5ck≀ak≀Pβˆ’1ck,ak+hak≀Pβˆ’6(1+h)3(k,hβ‰₯0).

Proof. We use the Gaussian binomial coefficients [nj]q=(q;q)n/((q;q)j(q;q)nβˆ’j) for 0≀j≀n, and put E(z)=(z;q)βˆžβˆ’1. Euler’s expansion gives E(z)r=βˆ‘nβ‰₯0Rn(r)zn/(q;q)n. The desired factorisation multiplies two coefficients at the same index k, rather than taking a coefficient of E5. We obtain it by splitting k=n+j: the factor Rk(3) stays fixed, and summing the two factorial denominators supplies Rk(2). To produce this split, use the unnormalised q-difference operator βˆ‚qf(z)=(f(z)βˆ’f(qz))/z. Since βˆ‚qzj=(1βˆ’qj)zjβˆ’1, it cancels the last factor of (q;q)j and shifts the numerator index:

βˆ‚qE=E,βˆ‚qnE(z)3=βˆ‘jβ‰₯0Rn+j(3)(q;q)jzj.

The q-Leibniz rule, obtained by induction from the product rule, is

βˆ‚qn(fg)(z)=βˆ‘j=0n[nj]q(βˆ‚qjf)(qnβˆ’jz)(βˆ‚qnβˆ’jg)(z).

Let hk(z)=βˆ‘j=0k[kj]q(z;q)j. Applying the rule to Eβ‹…E and using E(qmz)=(z;q)mE(z), we obtain βˆ‚qkE(z)2=E(z)2hk(z) (for k=1, both sides equal E(z)2(2βˆ’z)). A second application, this time to Eβ‹…E2, gives

βˆ‚qnE(z)3=E(z)3βˆ‘k=0n[nk]q(z;q)khk(z),

and hence

βˆ‘nβ‰₯0wn(q;q)nβˆ‚qnE(z)3=E(w)E(z)3βˆ‘kβ‰₯0wk(z;q)k(q;q)khk(z).

The left-hand side is βˆ‘n,jβ‰₯0Rn+j(3)wnzj/((q;q)n(q;q)j). Putting z=w collects all pairs with the same sum n+j. The coefficient of wk is consequently Rk(3)βˆ‘j≀k((q;q)j(q;q)kβˆ’j)βˆ’1=Rk(2)Rk(3)/(q;q)k. On the right-hand side, put z=w, expand hk, and write k=j+t. The identity (w;q)j+t=(w;q)j(wqj;q)t gives

E(w)4βˆ‘jβ‰₯0wj(w;q)j2(q;q)jβˆ‘tβ‰₯0(wqj;q)t(q;q)twt.

The inner sum is evaluated by the q-binomial theorem:

βˆ‘tβ‰₯0(wqj;q)t(q;q)twt=(w2qj;q)∞(w;q)∞.

Finally, (w;q)j=(w;q)∞/(wqj;q)∞ cancels two of the five factors E(w), leaving

E(w)3βˆ‘jβ‰₯0wj(q;q)j(w2qj;q)∞(wqj;q)∞2=Gq(w).

We may read each identity coefficientwise, or as an absolutely convergent expansion when |z| and |w| are sufficiently small.

For the bounds, we write bk(r)=[zk](z;q)βˆžβˆ’r, so that Rk(r)=(q;q)kbk(r) and ak=P4(q;q)kbk(2)bk(3). By Euler’s expansion, bk(r) is an r-fold convolution of 1/(q;q)n, whose terms lie in [1,Pβˆ’1]. There are (k+rβˆ’1rβˆ’1) compositions of k into r nonnegative parts, and we deduce

(k+rβˆ’1rβˆ’1)≀bk(r)≀Pβˆ’r(k+rβˆ’1rβˆ’1).

Combining these at r=2,3 with P≀(q;q)k≀1 and ck=(k+1)(k+22) gives P5ck≀ak≀Pβˆ’1ck. The shift bound follows from ck+h/ck≀(1+h)3.Β β—»

Positivity holds at each fixed real q∈(0,1), not coefficientwise in the formal q-series: a0(q)=P4=1βˆ’4q+O(q2). The bounds control shifted ratios, but do not determine the weight product. A relative error of order 1/k accumulates logarithmically; one of order 1/k2 is summable. Computing ak/ck to first order will therefore determine the power of N and give the fixed-shift limit.

The coefficient asymptotic

Proof of TheoremΒ 1.1. Put L=F(1/q), ek=(q;q)kβˆ’1 and E=Pβˆ’1. Replacing every ek by E gives E2(k+1) and E3(k+22), counting nonnegative pairs and triples with sum k. Terms with one deficit Eβˆ’ei give the first correction. That coordinate has two possible positions in a pair and three in a triple; fixing it at i leaves one pair or kβˆ’i+1 triples. Thus the same total deficit produces a constant correction in the first convolution and a linear correction in the second. We calculate it and control its first moment.

Writing dk=Eβˆ’ek, the identity ek+1βˆ’ek=qk+1ek+1 gives

dk=βˆ‘j>kqjej,0≀dk≀Eqk+11βˆ’q.

Thus βˆ‘dk and βˆ‘kdk converge. To evaluate the former, use Euler’s identity E(z)=βˆ‘kβ‰₯0ekzk=(z;q)βˆžβˆ’1 for |z|<1. Tonelli’s theorem and logarithmic differentiation at z=q give

S:=βˆ‘kβ‰₯0dk=βˆ‘jβ‰₯1jqjej=qEβ€²(q)=Eβˆ‘rβ‰₯1qr1βˆ’qr=EL.

In the double sum, qjej occurs once for each k=0,…,jβˆ’1, which explains the factor j. Logarithmic differentiation is justified by locally uniform convergence on |z|<1.

Let bk(r)=[zk]E(z)r. The finite-sum formula in PropositionΒ 3.1 becomes

ak=P4(q;q)kbk(2)bk(3).

We expand each finite convolution using ek=Eβˆ’dk. For two factors,

bk(2)=E2(k+1)βˆ’2Eβˆ‘i=0kdi+βˆ‘i=0kdidkβˆ’i=E2(k+1βˆ’2L)+Oq((k+1)qk).

For three factors, the terms with one di contribute βˆ’3E2βˆ‘i=0k(kβˆ’i+1)di. Here the sum equals (k+1)S+Oq(1) because βˆ‘idi<∞. Terms with two di are bounded by 3ES2, and the term with three is Oq((k+1)2qk). It follows that

bk(3)=E3((k+22)βˆ’3L(k+1))+Oq(1).

Division by (k+22) turns βˆ’3L(k+1) into the relative correction βˆ’6L/(k+2); the two-fold sum gives βˆ’2L/(k+1). Since (q;q)k=P(1+Oq(qk)), the leading constants in ak cancel: P5E5=1. Replacing (k+2)βˆ’1 by (k+1)βˆ’1 costs only Oq((k+1)βˆ’2). The two corrections therefore add, and with ck=(k+1)2(k+2)/2 we obtain

akck=(1βˆ’2Lk+1+Oq(qk))(1βˆ’6Lk+2+Oq((k+1)βˆ’2))(1+Oq(qk))=1βˆ’8Lk+1+Oq((k+1)βˆ’2).

In particular ak+1/ak→1, and multiplication of finitely many adjacent ratios gives ak+h/ak→1 for each fixed h. The uniform shift bound follows from Proposition 3.1, so Theorem 2.1 applies.

Let Ξ³E denote Euler’s constant and put

(13)A(q)=eβˆ’8Ξ³EL∏kβ‰₯0(akcke8L/(k+1)),K(q)=A(q)M(q)3.

For sufficiently large k, log⁑(1+u)=u+O(u2) gives log⁑(ak/ck)+8L/(k+1)=Oq((k+1)βˆ’2). This tail is summable, and the finitely many initial factors are positive by PropositionΒ 3.1. Thus 0<A(q)<∞. Using ∏k<Nck=CN, separate the harmonic sum from this convergent remainder:

log⁑∏k<NakCN=βˆ’8Lβˆ‘k<N1k+1+βˆ‘k<N(log⁑akck+8Lk+1).

The second sum tends to log⁑A(q)+8Ξ³EL. Using βˆ‘k<N(k+1)βˆ’1=log⁑N+Ξ³E+o(1), the Euler-constant terms cancel, giving ∏k<Nak∼A(q)CNNβˆ’8L. Substitution in (5) proves the theorem, or equivalently

log⁑VNβˆ—=BNlog⁑q+log⁑CN+2Nlog⁑Pβˆ’8Llog⁑N+log⁑K(q)+o(1).

β—»

The scales are now separate: the node geometry gives the cubic term BNlog⁑q; the cubic growth of the weights gives log⁑CN of order Nlog⁑N; their first relative correction gives βˆ’8F(1/q)log⁑N. The other terms are linear and constant. In particular, the power correction does not change the cubic rate.

The first nonzero formal term

The order of a nonzero formal series is the least exponent with nonzero coefficient. We now fix N and determine the first term in the formal q-expansion. The shifted term in (8) then has an extra factor of q. More generally, every nonempty partition has positive displacement exponent. Thus a single tuple determines the first formal term, although all partitions were needed for the fixed-base constant.

Theorem 3.2 (the first nonzero term of the Hankel determinant). For every Nβ‰₯1,

ordq⁑VNβˆ—=N(Nβˆ’1)(2Nβˆ’1)6,

and the coefficient of the first nonzero monomial is

[qN(Nβˆ’1)(2Nβˆ’1)/6]VNβˆ—=(N!)2(N+1)!2N.

Proof. At q=0, the t=0 term of Gq(w) is (1βˆ’w2)/(1βˆ’w)5, while the remaining terms sum to w/(1βˆ’w)4. Thus

G0(w)=1+2w(1βˆ’w)4,ak(0)=ck>0.

We compute modulo qM+1 by truncating each moment sum in (12) at k=M. Since all omitted terms are divisible by qM+1, multilinearity leaves the determinant unchanged modulo that power. Applying finite Cauchy–Binet and then allowing M to increase, we obtain the coefficientwise identity

VNβˆ—=βˆ‘k0<β‹―<kNβˆ’1(∏i<Naki(q)qki)∏i<j<N(qkiβˆ’qkj)2.

The order of the summand indexed by (ki) is βˆ‘i<N(2Nβˆ’1βˆ’2i)ki. Because kiβ‰₯i and all the weights 2Nβˆ’1βˆ’2i are positive, we obtain the unique minimum at ki=i, with order and coefficient

βˆ‘i<N(2Nβˆ’1βˆ’2i)i=BN,∏i<Nci=CN.

No other tuple has this order, so no coefficient from another tuple can cancel it. This argument needs the positive constant terms ak(0)=ck, not nonnegativity of all their formal coefficients. For N=2, the pair (0,1) contributes 6q+O(q2), and every other increasing pair has order at least two.Β β—»

This proves equality in Zudilin’s bound [5]. An alternative argument, which computes the first nonzero term of every transformed row, is given in the companion paper.

Rational bases

We now use the 2004 coefficient family. For U,V∈Z[X] of degree at most W, multiplying U(a/b) and V(a/b) by bW makes them integers. This is a sufficient clearing factor, not in general the smallest one. Cancelling a common nonconstant polynomial factor first lowers the degree bound. For example, at 3/2 the pair (X+1)(X+2),(X+1)(X+3) gives (35,45) after clearing to degree 2. After cancelling X+1, clearing to degree 1 gives (7,9). For Zudilin’s forms, let Kn be the original coefficient degree and Wn its degree after cancellation; both grow quadratically with n. The uncancelled remainder stays between positive constants. The normalising multiplier creates the decay, with leading scale xβˆ’(Knβˆ’Wn) at fixed x>1. Clearing at x=a/b then gives

(14)bWn(a/b)βˆ’(Knβˆ’Wn)=bKnaKnβˆ’Wn.

Net degree removal is therefore measured in powers of a, while the original degree costs powers of b. The remaining logarithmic terms are o(n2), so Kn/n2β†’C1 and (Knβˆ’Wn)/n2β†’C0 give C1log⁑b<C0log⁑a. The proof must establish both the degree estimates and cancellation in Z[X], before evaluation.

We use the parameter direction from Zudilin’s construction [4], together with its thirteen intervals and constants C1,C0. At integer bases his theorem gives the irrationality-exponent bound C1/C0=2.46497868… [4]. Let ψ1(u)=βˆ‘kβ‰₯0(k+u)βˆ’2 for u>0, and let I consist of the thirteen intervals listed in the proof. We put

(15)C1=10912,J=βˆ‘[u,v)∈I(ψ1(u)βˆ’Οˆ1(v)),C0=266βˆ’3Ο€2(225βˆ’J).

The intervals are disjoint and lie in [1/14,1), so 0≀Jβ‰€Οˆ1(1/14)βˆ’Οˆ1(1)<196. Together with Ο€>3, these bounds give 0<C0<266<C1/2. Thus ΞΈβˆ—=C0/C1 and ΞΌ=C1/C0 are positive reciprocal constants. The notation ΞΌirr(ΞΎ) instead denotes the irrationality exponent of a value. The estimates below give a sufficient cutoff; its optimality is unknown.

Theorem 4.1 (rational-base region for Zudilin’s forms). Let a>bβ‰₯1 be coprime integers with

bΞΌ<a,equivalentlylog⁑blog⁑a<ΞΈβˆ—,ΞΈβˆ—=C0C1=0.4056830213840605…,ΞΌ=C1C0=2.4649786835749750….

Then F(a/b) is irrational.

Every integer base qualifies, since b=1 gives log⁑b/log⁑a=0. For each fixed b>1, the restriction a>b2.46497868… is much stronger than a>b, but still admits infinitely many coprime numerators. It includes 31/4 and its positive integral powers, whose logarithmic ratio is unchanged. It excludes 3/2, since ΞΈβˆ—<1/2<log⁑2/log⁑3. At equality the quadratic exponent vanishes and the estimates give no conclusion.

Proof of TheoremΒ 4.1. The source forms and polynomial cancellation. Fix nβ‰₯1 and set

a0=14n+1,a1=12n+1,a2=14n+1,Ξ²=27n+2,N=15n.

In this proof N denotes the cyclotomic cutoff. We use the coefficient pair An,Bn of the source identities [4], with Hn=AnFβˆ’Bn. Let Ξ¦β„“ be the cyclotomic polynomial whose roots are the primitive β„“th roots of unity. Put DN(X)=βˆβ„“=1NΞ¦β„“(X), Mn=266n2+34n+1, and

Ξ©n(X)=βˆβ„“=2NΞ¦β„“(X)Ξ½β„“,Ξ½β„“=Ο‰(n/β„“),

where the periodic function

Ο‰(x)=max{0, ⌊14xβŒ‹+⌊13xβŒ‹βˆ’βŒŠ12xβŒ‹βˆ’βŒŠ15xβŒ‹,Β 2⌊14xβŒ‹βˆ’βŒŠ13xβŒ‹βˆ’βŒŠ15xβŒ‹}

has period 1: the coefficients of the floor arguments in each difference have equal sums, 14+13=12+15 and 2β‹…14=13+15. On [0,1) it is zero or one, with support

[1/14,1/12),Β [1/7,1/6),Β [3/14,1/4),Β [2/7,1/3),[5/14,2/5),Β [3/7,7/15),Β [1/2,8/15),Β [4/7,3/5),[9/14,2/3),Β [5/7,11/15),Β [11/14,4/5),[6/7,13/15),Β [13/14,14/15).

These are the intervals I used to define J. The function Ο‰, these thirteen intervals and the exponents Ξ½β„“=Ο‰(n/β„“) of the source’sΒ (22) are printed at [4].

First isolate the part that does not create decay. At x>1, put q=1/x. IdentityΒ (9) on p.Β 156 of the source gives

Hn(x)=βˆ‘tβ‰₯0qa0t(qt+1;q)a1βˆ’1(q;q)a1βˆ’1(q;q)Ξ²βˆ’a2βˆ’1(qa2+t;q)Ξ²βˆ’a2.

The denominator length is Ξ²βˆ’a2, as in the gamma expressionΒ (7) and residuesΒ (8) of [4]; the unnumbered display of R(T) on that page has length Ξ²βˆ’a2βˆ’1 instead. Each finite product lies in [P,1], where P=(q;q)∞>0. The t=0 term gives the lower bound; summing qa0t gives the upper bound:

P2≀Hn(x)≀Pβˆ’21βˆ’qa0.

In particular Hn(x)>0 and log⁑Hn(x)=Ox(1).

The required polynomial integrality is the inclusion in Zudilin’s LemmaΒ 7, displayΒ (23) [4]. Its comparison of cyclotomic valuations under six admissible parameter permutations gives divisibility in Z[X], not merely at integer values of X. Its parameter vector is n(13,14,12,14,15,13), its maximum is 15n, and Ξ²βˆ’a1βˆ’a2=n>0, which is the positivity condition s>0 of the lemma. The conditionsΒ (14) of [4], a1≀a2 and a1+a2≀β≀a0+a2, hold as well, so the exponent inΒ (23) is the integerΒ (16), which equals Mn. LemmaΒ 7 therefore gives, for every nβ‰₯1,

Ξ›n(X)=Xβˆ’MnDN(X)Ξ©n(X)Hn(X)=Un(X)F(X)βˆ’Vn(X),Un,Vn∈Z[X].

This is the polynomial conclusion before integer specialisation in the source’sΒ (24), p.Β 162. The coefficients are the cancelled source coefficients:

Un=Xβˆ’Mn(DN/Ξ©n)An,Vn=Xβˆ’Mn(DN/Ξ©n)Bn.

Indeed, coefficients of F and 1 over Q(X) are unique because F is not a rational function. To see this, we split F(eh) at m=1/h as h↓0. For m≀1/h, the inequalities yβˆ’1βˆ’1≀(eyβˆ’1)βˆ’1≀yβˆ’1 for 0<y≀1 give hβˆ’1βˆ‘m≀1/hmβˆ’1+O(hβˆ’1). Bounding the remaining terms by a geometric tail gives a further O(hβˆ’1), and therefore F(eh)=hβˆ’1log⁑(1/h)+O(hβˆ’1), which has no rational-function pole order at X=1. This establishes uniqueness of the coefficient functions; it assumes nothing about an individual value F(a/b). The cancelled remainder is positive for x>1, since DN/Ξ©n is a product of cyclotomic polynomials positive there.

The degrees after cancellation. The Gaussian binomial polynomial [mk]X=∏j=1k(1βˆ’Xmβˆ’k+j)/(1βˆ’Xj) is monic of degree k(mβˆ’k) for integers 0≀k≀m. The source’sΒ (8) andΒ (10) on p.Β 156 give the coefficient whose degree we need:

An(X)=βˆ‘k=a2Ξ²βˆ’1(βˆ’1)a1+a2+k+1Xa0k+(a12)βˆ’(Ξ²βˆ’a22)+(Ξ²βˆ’k2)[kβˆ’1a1βˆ’1]X[Ξ²βˆ’a2βˆ’1Ξ²βˆ’kβˆ’1]X.

Let dn,k be the degree of the kth summand. Adding the monomial exponent and the degrees of the two Gaussian factors gives

dn,k=a0k+(a12)βˆ’(Ξ²βˆ’a22)+(Ξ²βˆ’k2)+(a1βˆ’1)(kβˆ’a1)+(Ξ²βˆ’kβˆ’1)(kβˆ’a2)=βˆ’k2+80kn+3kβˆ’340n2βˆ’26n2.

Hence dn,k+1βˆ’dn,k=40n+1βˆ’k>0 for a2≀kβ‰€Ξ²βˆ’2=27n. The last summand alone therefore determines the leading term, giving

Kn:=deg⁑An=1091n2+81n+22,Wn:=deg⁑Un=Knβˆ’Mn+βˆ‘β„“β‰€15n(1βˆ’Ξ½β„“)Ο†(β„“).

Here Ο†(β„“)=deg⁑Φℓ is Euler’s totient function, and Ξ½1=Ο‰(n)=0. In particular,

Knβˆ’Wn=Mnβˆ’deg⁑(DN/Ξ©n).

The monomial removes Mn degrees and the surviving cyclotomic product restores deg⁑(DN/Ξ©n); their difference is the net removal Knβˆ’Wn.

To determine the other coefficient’s degree, fix n and let xβ†’βˆž. The bounds for Hn are uniform for xβ‰₯2, since Pβ‰₯∏jβ‰₯1(1βˆ’2βˆ’j)>0 and (1βˆ’xβˆ’a0)βˆ’1≀2. Hence Hn(x)=O(1) and Ξ›n(x)=O(xWnβˆ’Kn). The unique top summand of An has leading coefficient (βˆ’1)a1+a2+Ξ²=(βˆ’1)n. Since the Gaussian factors and DN/Ξ©n are monic, Un has that leading coefficient too. Moreover F(x)=xβˆ’1+O(xβˆ’2) and Knβ‰₯2, so

Vn(x)=Un(x)F(x)βˆ’Ξ›n(x)=(βˆ’1)nxWnβˆ’1+O(xWnβˆ’2).

Here Wnβ‰₯Knβˆ’Mn=(559n2+13n)/2>0. Thus deg⁑Vn=Wnβˆ’1, with the same unit leading coefficient as Un. For every prime p∣b, reduction of the cleared first coordinate gives

bWnUn(a/b)≑(βˆ’1)naWnβ‰’0(modp).

Thus Un(a/b) has reduced denominator exactly bWn, which is the least common clearing denominator for the pair. Any common integer divisor of the cleared pair is coprime to b. This exact cost concerns these coefficients only: common factors at other primes and combinations of rows remain separate questions.

The quadratic degree limits. We now keep the base fixed and let nβ†’βˆž, extracting the quadratic part of the net degree removal. These are the cyclotomic limits of [4]. We use the reciprocal intervals, summatory totient estimate and trigamma function from [3], truncating the block sum before passing to the limit. The elementary summatory estimate βˆ‘β„“β‰€yΟ†(β„“)=3y2/Ο€2+O(ylog⁑y) gives

1n2βˆ‘β„“β‰€15nΟ†(β„“)⟢675Ο€2.

For [u,v)∈I, the condition {n/β„“}∈[u,v) is the disjoint union of intervals n/(k+v)<ℓ≀n/(k+u) for kβ‰₯0. Apply the summatory estimate to finitely many blocks. Instead of summing its errors over all k, bound the omitted blocks together: for kβ‰₯Kβ‰₯1, all their indices satisfy ℓ≀n/(K+u). The bound βˆ‘β„“β‰€yΟ†(β„“)≀y2 gives

1n2βˆ‘β„“β‰€n/(K+u)Ο†(β„“)≀1(K+u)2.

For yβ‰₯1, sum Ο†(β„“)≀ℓ; for 0≀y<1 the sum is empty. The tail bound is uniform in n, so we may let n and then K tend to infinity:

1n2βˆ‘β„“β‰€15nΞ½β„“Ο†(β„“)⟢3Ο€2βˆ‘[u,v)∈Iβˆ‘kβ‰₯0(1(k+u)2βˆ’1(k+v)2)=3JΟ€2.

Here no contributing index exceeds 14n, since uβ‰₯1/14. Consequently

Kn/n2⟢C1,(Knβˆ’Wn)/n2⟢C0.

The cleared remainder. It remains to turn polynomial degrees into values at fixed x>1. Writing ΞΌMob for the MΓΆbius function, we have

log⁑Φℓ(x)βˆ’Ο†(β„“)log⁑x=βˆ‘dβˆ£β„“ΞΌMob(d)log⁑(1βˆ’xβˆ’β„“/d).

Each βˆ’log⁑(1βˆ’xβˆ’d) occurs only for multiples β„“ of d, at most 15n/d times. The total absolute error is therefore at most

15nβˆ‘dβ‰₯1βˆ’log⁑(1βˆ’xβˆ’d)d.

The series converges because βˆ’log⁑(1βˆ’xβˆ’d)≀xβˆ’d/(1βˆ’xβˆ’1), so the error is Ox(n). Using 0≀1βˆ’Ξ½β„“β‰€1 and log⁑Hn(x)=Ox(1) gives

log⁑Λn(x)=βˆ’(Knβˆ’Wn)log⁑x+Ox(n).

At x=a/b, the coefficients bWnUn(a/b) and bWnVn(a/b) are integers, and

log⁑(bWnΞ›n(a/b))=Knlog⁑bβˆ’(Knβˆ’Wn)log⁑a+Oa/b(n)=(C1log⁑bβˆ’C0log⁑a)n2+o(n2).

The quadratic coefficient is negative under the hypothesis. If F(a/b)=r/s with integers r,s and s>0, then sbWnΞ›n(a/b) would be a positive integer tending to zero. This contradiction uses positivity of the same remainder, not independence of successive forms.Β β—»

Corollary 4.2. F((31/4)r) is irrational for every integer rβ‰₯1.

Proof. The exact inequalities 312<45 and 4200<3181 give 2/5<log⁑4/log⁑31<81/200. The first term of each trigamma difference yields

Jβ‰₯βˆ‘[u,v)∈I(uβˆ’2βˆ’vβˆ’2)=201564069025125971865920.

Using Ο€>157/50 gives the rational lower bound

ΞΈβˆ—>23596300095232635820307922172744>81200.

Taking a common positive integer power preserves both the logarithmic ratio and coprimality, so the same criterion applies for every rβ‰₯1.Β β—»

Corollary 4.3 (an irrationality measure uniform over powers). For coprime a>bβ‰₯1 with ΞΈ=log⁑b/log⁑a<ΞΈβˆ— and every integer rβ‰₯1,

ΞΌirr(F((a/b)r))≀1βˆ’ΞΈΞΈβˆ—βˆ’ΞΈ.

Here ΞΌirr(ΞΎ) is the supremum of the exponents Ξ½ for which |ΞΎβˆ’p/q|<qβˆ’Ξ½ has infinitely many reduced rational solutions. In particular, ΞΌirr(F((31/4)r))<301 for every rβ‰₯1.

Proof. We use Zudilin’s passage from linear forms to an exponent bound [4], at each fixed base (a/b)r. Take Un,Vn and Wn=deg⁑Un from TheoremΒ 4.1. A measure needs more than positive remainders tending to zero: it must bound how small they are relative to their coefficients. The logarithmic remainder asymptotic supplies a lower bound; we now bound Un above. In that construction the coefficient of F before cancellation is a sum of O(n) Laurent monomials times two Gaussian binomial polynomials. Each Gaussian polynomial has nonnegative coefficients summing to at most 227n+2. Thus the sum of the absolute coefficients is exp⁑(O(n)). Its largest exponent is Kn=(1091n2+81n+2)/2, so its absolute value at a fixed x>1 is at most xKnexp⁑(O(n)). The cyclotomic estimate in the same proof bounds the normalising multiplier by xWnβˆ’Knexp⁑(Ox(n)). Multiplication gives

|Un(x)|≀xWnexp⁑(Ox(n))(x>1Β fixed).

Set ΞΎ=F(a/b), Qn=bWnUn(a/b) and Pn=bWnVn(a/b). With

Ξ±=(C1βˆ’C0)log⁑a,Ο„=C0log⁑aβˆ’C1log⁑b>0,

we have log⁑(QnΞΎβˆ’Pn)=βˆ’Ο„n2+o(n2) and |Qn|≀exp⁑(Ξ±n2+o(n2)).

Here q denotes an approximation denominator, not the geometric base of SectionsΒ 2 andΒ 3. The comparison uses the integer Apβˆ’Bq, allowing it to vanish. For integers A,B,p,q with q>0, if L=AΞΎβˆ’B and 2q|L|≀1, then

|L|≀|A||ΞΎβˆ’p/q|.

If Apβˆ’Bq=0, this is equality; otherwise 1/q≀|L|+|A||ΞΎβˆ’p/q| gives the inequality. Thus no rational p/q is excluded from the comparison. Fix 0<Ξ·<Ο„ and write

eβˆ’(Ο„+Ξ·)n2≀QnΞΎβˆ’Pn≀eβˆ’(Ο„βˆ’Ξ·)n2,|Qn|≀e(Ξ±+Ξ·)n2

for all sufficiently large n. The upper remainder bound determines our choice: for a sufficiently large denominator q, take n=⌈log⁑(2q)/(Ο„βˆ’Ξ·)βŒ‰. Then 2q(QnΞΎβˆ’Pn)≀1. The preceding integer argument now applies to (A,B)=(Qn,Pn) for every numerator p. Also Qnβ‰ 0: otherwise QnΞΎβˆ’Pn would be an integer strictly between 0 and 1. The lower remainder bound and the coefficient bound now give

|ΞΎβˆ’p/q|β‰₯eβˆ’(Ξ±+Ο„+2Ξ·)n2=qβˆ’(Ξ±+Ο„+2Ξ·)/(Ο„βˆ’Ξ·)βˆ’o(1),

since n2=log⁑(2q)/(Ο„βˆ’Ξ·)+OΞ·(log⁑q+1). The rounding error is o(log⁑q), so it does not change the exponent. This choice covers every sufficiently large approximation denominator q; no monotonicity assumption on the coefficients Qn is used.

Letting η↓0, we deduce the bound 1+Ξ±/Ο„=(1βˆ’ΞΈ)/(ΞΈβˆ—βˆ’ΞΈ). A common power multiplies Ξ± and Ο„ by r, so the quotient is unchanged, although the constants in the approximation inequality may depend on r. For 31/4, the exact interval bounds in the companion record, SectionΒ 2.5, give ΞΈ<0.4036982 and ΞΈβˆ—>0.40568. The quotient increases with ΞΈ and decreases with ΞΈβˆ— in this range, so

1βˆ’ΞΈΞΈβˆ—βˆ’ΞΈ<1βˆ’0.40369820.40568βˆ’0.4036982=29815099909<301.

The same section gives the rational certificates for these bounds and sharper enclosures of the constants.Β β—»

Comparison with earlier criteria

Bundschuh and VÀÀnΓ€nen’s TheoremΒ 2 at Ξ±=βˆ’1 [2] gives irrationality for log⁑b/log⁑a<ΞΈBV:=1/2βˆ’1/Ο€2. Their q is the base a/b>1, not its reciprocal. Their logarithmic derivative is Lq(z)=βˆ‘jβ‰₯1(qj+z)βˆ’1, so the value at z=Ξ±=βˆ’1 is exactly F(a/b). The rational height is h(q)=a, and their parameter Ξ»=log⁑h(q)/log⁑q is 1/(1βˆ’log⁑b/log⁑a), which gives the displayed cutoff. Since Ο€2<10, one has ΞΈBV<2/5<log⁑4/log⁑31, so 31/4 lies outside that sufficient region. The two sufficient regions differ on [ΞΈBV,ΞΈβˆ—). Zudilin also notes an extension to noninteger rational bases p=r/s for the generalized q-logarithm when log⁑|r|>clog⁑|s|, with c>0 computable but unspecified [5]. The value c=ΞΌ here comes from the 2004 forms [4], not from evaluating the unspecified constant in the 2016 construction.

The positive-remainder estimates require x>1, so they give no statement for negative bases. The series diverges at x=1. The companion’s height-criterion section also applies Bundschuh and VÀÀnΓ€nen’s cited theorem at 7/2.

Further questions

The determinant asymptotic still needs a coefficient-denominator estimate to give an integer contradiction. The companion’s rational-value model has the same formal orders, leading coefficients and type of fixed-base power correction, but a rational target value. Its denominator calculation shows why clearing need not yield small nonzero integer forms. The model and its denominator argument have ordinary proofs only and are not used above.

The approximants’ polynomial coefficients pose a separate moment problem. The normalisation matters in Van Assche’s little-q-Legendre construction [12] and the multiple-orthogonality construction of Postelmans and Van Assche [13]. In the 2016 family, the companion paper proves positivity of the first matrix of a coefficient pencil for sizes N≀8, with real, interlacing roots below F(p) for p>1. The shifted minors and coefficientwise positivity are supported by the stated finite polynomial computations. The coefficient-moment section gives the definitions and the precise ranges. Positivity for every N and convergence of the largest root remain open. The general moment criteria of Wang and Zhu [15] and Sokal and Walrad [17], Berg’s factorial-power example [16], and the quadrature construction of Golub and Welsch [18] provide the relevant comparisons. Using a recurrence from another family would require a proof that it holds for these coefficients. The root-of-unity method of Krattenthaler, Rochev, VÀÀnΓ€nen and Zudilin [14], for example, concerns a separate construction.

Congruences and divided forms

For Q∈Z[X] of degree at most W, the homogenised value HW(Q)=2WQ(3/2) is integral. The companion treats its congruences at powers of 2 and 3, including integer rescaling and endpoint congruences and signed sums, with the rank-one case. Smith normal form counts the residue image [6]. To obtain a small nonzero remainder after division, the count must also distinguish nearby real values from repeated ones.

Let M integral rows (Aj,Bj) have remainders ej=AjF(3/2)βˆ’Bj, and let D be a positive integer. Suppose the subset sums βˆ‘j∈I(Aj,Bj) take Q values in (Z/DZ)2, with at most k subsets giving any fixed real remainder within a residue class. Put T=βˆ‘j|ej|. The least and greatest subset remainders are

βˆ‘ej<0ejandβˆ‘ej>0ej;

their difference is T. For a positive integer n, divide this whole range into half-open intervals of width D/n, starting at its least value. At most ⌊nT/DβŒ‹+1 intervals suffice, including a last interval when the greatest value is an endpoint. If every residue–interval pair contained only one remainder value, it would contain at most k subsets. Hence

(16)2M>Qk(⌊nTDβŒ‹+1)

forces two different remainders in one residue–interval pair. Subtracting the subset sums and dividing by D gives an integral linear form of nonzero absolute value less than 1/n: the residue condition gives integrality, the interval gives smallness, and the multiplicity bound prevents a zero difference. The quantitative lemma and its proof state the finite-set result independently of Lambert series. Distinct input rows do not rule out equal subset remainders; k bounds repetitions within a residue class. No family of bounds on Q,T,k satisfying (16) for arbitrarily large n at 3/2 is supplied here.

The elementary integer-base method provides a different comparison. Vandehey [10] and Duverney and Tachiya [11] use integer-base expansions. At a noninteger rational base the cleared-tail recurrence has a growing denominator contribution. The clearing and tail-recurrence calculations in the companion paper include the coordinatewise obstruction at 3/2. They make no assertion about other approximation families. At the function level, Bell and Smertnig [9] exclude Mahler equations for the divisor generating series, while leaving the arithmetic of a single rational argument undecided.

A construction problem.

The unrestricted request for primitive polynomial rows and a signed combination with divided remainder strictly between 0 and 1/n is equivalent to irrationality of the target; the companion’s section on divided linear forms states and proves the equivalence. A more specific problem must prescribe a family: for the 2004 forms, the question is whether a parameter direction improves ΞΈβˆ—. The all-base degree restriction bounds the degree cutoff by 1/2. It assumes one polynomial family, with common leading constants in its degree, coefficient-height and remainder estimates at every fixed real base x>1; errors may depend on x. A cutoff above 1/2 would make remainder decay outpace coefficient growth at a sufficiently large fixed integer base. Consecutive integer row determinants would then tend to zero and eventually vanish, forcing the rational row ratios to stabilise. The remainders would be either zero or bounded away from zero, contradicting nonzero decay. Estimates only at 3/2 do not permit that choice of base.

Under the same hypotheses, the nondecay corollary excludes decay of the denominator-cleared, undivided forms whenever b<a<b2, including 3/2, without assuming a quadratic degree limit. If that limit exists, their absolute values tend to infinity throughout this strict region. Further division by base-dependent content and families outside these hypotheses remain unclassified, as does equality in the cutoff of SectionΒ 4.

Verification and reproducibility

The evidence record lists Lean proofs for all seven numbered results and Comparator checks for six, with their checked revisions. Beside the main source revision, TheoremΒ 2.1 uses the later geometric-moment proof; its Comparator association remains pending. Neither the broader ratio-limit argument nor the rational-value model is a dependency; both have ordinary proofs only. This expository revision changes no result statement and has no fresh Lean or Comparator run or independent review.

Data availability.

The cited source revision contains the Lean sources, toolchain and library manifest. The companion paper supplies the longer algebraic arguments and the precise scope of the finite computations.

Funding and competing interests.

This work received no external funding. The author declares no competing interests.

Acknowledgements.

The problem numbering follows the catalogue maintained by Thomas BloomΒ [8].

References

  1. P.Β ErdΕ‘s, On the irrationality of certain series: problems and results, in A.Β Baker (ed.), New Advances in Transcendence Theory, Cambridge UP, 1988, pp.Β 102–109, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511897184.009.

  2. P.Β Bundschuh and K.Β VÀÀnΓ€nen, Arithmetical investigations of a certain infinite product, Compositio Math. 91 (1994), no.Β 2, 175–199.

  3. W.Β Zudilin, Remarks on irrationality of q-harmonic series, Manuscripta Math. 107 (2002), no.Β 4, 463–477, doi:10.1007/s002290200249.

  4. W.Β Zudilin, Heine’s basic transform and a permutation group for q-harmonic series, Acta Arith. 111 (2004), no.Β 2, 153–164, doi:10.4064/aa111-2-4. Page references are to the printed journal pages.

  5. W.Β Zudilin, On the irrationality of generalized q-logarithm, arXiv:1601.02688; Res. Number Theory 2 (2016), Art.Β 15, doi:10.1007/s40993-016-0042-x. Page references are to arXiv:1601.02688v2. The remark that the results extend to non-integer p=r/s, |p|>1, under an assumption log⁑|r|>clog⁑|s| for a computable c>0, is in SectionΒ 2, p.Β 4, in the paragraph beginning β€œFinally, we remark”; no value of c is computed there, and the remark is made for the generalized q-logarithm of that paper.

  6. R.Β P. Stanley, Smith normal form in combinatorics, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 144 (2016), 476–495, doi:10.1016/j.jcta.2016.06.013; arXiv:1602.00166v1. Page references are to arXiv:1602.00166v1.

  7. W.Β Zudilin, A determinantal approach to irrationality, Constr. Approx. 45 (2017), no.Β 2, 301–310, doi:10.1007/s00365-016-9333-7; arXiv:1507.05697v1. Page and equation references are to arXiv:1507.05697v1.

  8. T.Β F. Bloom, ErdΕ‘s Problem #1049, erdosproblems.com/1049. Accessed 28 July 2026, when the page displayed β€œlast edited 28 September 2025”.

  9. J.Β Bell and D.Β Smertnig, Mahler series with multiplicative coefficient sequences, arXiv:2603.23456v1, 24 March 2026. TheoremΒ 1.3 is on pp.Β 2–3; its stated consequences on p.Β 3 include that the divisor and totient generating series are not k-Mahler for any kβ‰₯2.

  10. J.Β Vandehey, On an incomplete argument of ErdΕ‘s on the irrationality of Lambert series, Integers 13 (2013), Paper A58. Page references are to arXiv:1206.0340v1 (2012).

  11. D.Β Duverney and Y.Β Tachiya, Refinement of the Chowla–ErdΕ‘s method and linear independence of certain Lambert series, Forum Math. 31 (2019), no.Β 6, 1557–1566, doi:10.1515/forum-2018-0299. Page references are to the authors’ version.

  12. W.Β Van Assche, Little q-Legendre polynomials and irrationality of certain Lambert series, Ramanujan J. 5 (2001), no.Β 3, 295–310, doi:10.1023/A:1012930828917. Page references are to arXiv:math/0101187v1.

  13. K.Β Postelmans and W.Β Van Assche, Irrationality of ΞΆq(1) and ΞΆq(2), J. Number Theory 126 (2007), no.Β 1, 119–154, doi:10.1016/j.jnt.2006.11.011. Page references are to arXiv:math/0604312v1 (2006).

  14. C.Β Krattenthaler, I.Β Rochev, K.Β VÀÀnΓ€nen and W.Β Zudilin, On the non-quadraticity of values of the q-exponential function and related q-series, Acta Arith. 136 (2009), no.Β 3, 243–269, doi:10.4064/aa136-3-4; arXiv:0812.2921v1. Page references are to arXiv:0812.2921v1.

  15. Y.Β Wang and B.-X.Β Zhu, Log-convex and Stieltjes moment sequences, Adv. Appl. Math. 81 (2016), 115–127, doi:10.1016/j.aam.2016.06.008. Page references are to arXiv:1612.04114v1.

  16. C.Β Berg, On powers of Stieltjes moment sequences, II, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 199 (2007), 23–38; arXiv:math/0412340v1. Theorem references use the preprint; TheoremΒ 5.1 treats factorial powers.

  17. A.Β D. Sokal and J.Β Walrad, Continued-fraction characterization of Stieltjes moment sequences with support in [ΞΎ,∞), arXiv:2404.12131v1, 2024. The classical Stieltjes criterion is recalled on pp.Β 1–2.

  18. G.Β H. Golub and J.Β H. Welsch, Calculation of Gauss Quadrature Rules, Math. Comp. 23 (1969), no.Β 106, 221–230, doi:10.1090/S0025-5718-69-99647-1.

  19. C.Β R. Vinroot, Multivariate Rogers–SzegΕ‘ polynomials and flags in finite vector spaces, arXiv:1011.0984v1, 3 November 2010, abstract accessed 20 September 2026. Cited for the identification of the sum of all q-multinomial coefficients of fixed degree and length with a flag count, and for its recursion generalising the Galois numbers. The factorisation of the moment weights is proved here.

PDF and source links follow the latest files on GitHub. The web reader shows the edition published here.

Lean source files

127 source files, each a programme or result file. See them in the Lean map.

The programme directory, linked result sources and their local imports. Shared files can appear in more than one programme.

  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ActualAGrowthR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ActualMomentGeneratingR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ActualPositiveMeasureR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ActualSourceAnalyticIdentityR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ActualSourceRemainderR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ActualSourceResiduesR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/AdelicHeightBridge.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/AllRow/Audit.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/AllRow/Filtered.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/AllRow/FiniteStates.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/AllRow/Producer.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/AllRow/Smoke.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/AllRow/SourcePolynomial.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/BezoutPluckerJets.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/CyclotomicCircleHeightR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/FiniteFourierCoefficientR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/FiniteResidueInterpolationR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/FirstNewBaseR10.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/G02ArithmeticR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/G02CyclotomicR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/G02RateCalculusR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/G02SourceRatesR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/G02WeightedBlocksR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/GaussianCircleBoundsR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/GaussianCoefficientsR11.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/GaussianDegreeR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/HermitePadeNoGo.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/InfiniteMomentPositivityR10.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/IrrationalityExponentR11.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/LambertSourceSummationR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/MahlerTriangularR11.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/MeasureConstantsR10.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperAsymptoticsR9.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/AllRowInitialCoefficient.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/GeometricUniversality.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/PrintedContourConstants.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/PrintedLogConstants.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/RationalBaseThreshold.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/RogersFactorisation.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/RogersFactorisationAnalytic.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/SharpFixedBase.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/SharpFixedBaseShort.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/SimultaneousMahlerSystem.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/SimultaneousMahlerSystemUnconditional.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/SourceCoefficientHeights.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCompleteR21/TailPrefixLattice.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperCorrespondenceAudit.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperFiniteAssembliesR7.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperHomogenisationR7.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperLinearFormsR7.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperLongCapR9.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperNoDecayR9.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperOmegaIndicatorR7.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR16/LambertBasic.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR16/MahlerBoundary.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR16/PrimitiveRadial.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR16/R15BoundaryWeights.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR16/RadialGauge.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR16/RootOrders.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR16/RowScaling.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR17/Constants.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR17/SourceConsumers.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR18/QzCarrier.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/CoefficientPencil.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/CoefficientPencilAssembly.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/FinitePencil.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/FinitePencilProposition.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/FiniteRemainderCertificateConsumer.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/FiniteRemainderSummation.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/HankelKroneckerCertificate.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/KernelZeroCorrection.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/KroneckerCoefficientBound.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/LambertPolynomialPartLimit.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/MomentAtInfinity.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/MomentRationalKernel.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/PencilInterlacing.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/PencilRootInterlacing.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/PencilSpectralInertia.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/PolynomialPartUniqueness.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/QuadraticInertia.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/RecoveredProofAudit.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadeAnalytic.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadeAnalyticRemainder.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadeCorrection.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadeGenerating.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadePartialFraction.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadePoleEvaluation.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadeQuotient.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/SourcePadeResidues.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/Sylvester.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/TriangularCertificate.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperR20/TriangularPrefix.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperRankTwoCapR7.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PaperShortCapR9.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PositiveSeriesFubiniR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/PositiveSeriesR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/QAperyDiagonalNonEquivalence.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/QBinomialAnalyticR16.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/QBinomialUnitIdentity.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/QLucasR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/QProductBoundsR10.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/QuadraticMeasureR10.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/QuantitativeSelectorEscape.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/RationalApproximationSeparation.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/RationalBaseContour.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/RationalBaseLambert.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/RationalPadeArithmetic.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ReciprocalPochhammerR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/RootUnityLocalCancellationR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceBCircleR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceBClearingR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceBInitialR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceBMonomialR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceBTopDegreeR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceFiniteTransformR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceHeightRateR14.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceHomogeneousR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceOmegaCancellationR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourcePolynomialR11.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourcePositiveHBoundsR10.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceRootBlocksR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/SourceRootCarriesR13.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/TwoSelectorRemainderEscape.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/WeightedFloorBlocksR12.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ZudilinConeArithmetic.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ZudilinHeightRegion.lean
  • GitHub lean/ErdosProblems/Erdos1049/ZudilinSharpHankelCoefficient.lean
Statements with Lean proofs

Lean is software that verifies a formal proof against its theorem statement and assumptions. These proofs establish only the statements listed here.

  • Lean checks irrationality and the stated irrationality-exponent bound for rational bases in the exact Zudilin contour region, including every positive integral power of 31/4. The contour excludes 3/2.
  • For p>1 and N≀8, Lean checks positive definite coefficient matrices, real finite-pencil roots below F(p), and non-strict interlacing at adjacent ranks. Neither all-rank positivity nor irrationality at 3/2 follows.
  • That a literal coordinatewise transfer of the integer-base clearing argument forces a power-versus-linear inequality, and that this inequality is impossible at base three halves.
  • The exact denominator-cleared rational-base tail recurrence, including its forcing term.
  • That for every noninteger base with denominator at least two the forcing magnitude grows at least exponentially, while at denominator one it collapses to a bounded expression.
  • The complete elementary Archimedean height inequality used by the published Bundschuh-VÀÀnΓ€nen criterion at base seven halves; the analytic irrationality theorem itself remains external.
  • Polynomial bounds on the doubled denominator exponents in the homogenised PadΓ© construction, together with an exact gap identity.
  • The exact exterior-determinant elimination identity, and that rowwise contents scale the PadΓ© errors, exterior determinant, and absolute determinant height by the same factors.
  • The exact Heine-Zudilin cone endpoint exponent arithmetic used to identify the bottom and top coefficient endpoints.
  • That homogeneous evaluation at (3,2) sees only the constant endpoint modulo three and the top endpoint modulo two, so unit endpoints obstruct common local factors.
  • That under unit top and constant endpoint hypotheses, a common multiplier of the two specialised coefficient channels is divisible by neither two nor three; the missing local gain must therefore survive primitive normalisation.
  • That vanishing of the higher bottom and top endpoint jets is exactly divisibility by the corresponding powers of three and two.
  • That the source integer-base ratio inequality implies a strictly negative scalar product-formula margin at three halves.
  • That the four-jet target has exact cardinality (3R)2(2S)2 and, for positive R, any family with n at least 4R+2S forces two distinct binary selectors to collide; their {-1,0,1} difference cancels all four endpoint jets.
  • That the rectangular Hermite-Pade threshold never improves on the classical one in the checked exponent model, with equality characterised exactly.
  • The exact 81/200 height region: 31/4 and every positive power lie inside it and outside the earlier Bundschuh-Vaananen region, while 3/2 lies outside both.
  • At n=0, the Amdeberhan-Zeilberger q-Apery operator applied to Van Assche's moving diagonal has residual βˆ’p(pβˆ’1)2(p+1)(p5+2p4+2p3+2p2+2), which is strictly negative and nonzero for every real p>1.
What these proofs do not establish
  • The universal rational-base conjecture, including the case 3/2, remains open. The checked 31/4 power family settles one region and leaves that conjecture untouched.
  • The published analytic height theorem, which is cited and used as an external result and is not formalised here.
  • The all-scale Heine-Zudilin coefficient construction at rational base three halves; the primary source assumes an integer base.
  • A sufficiently large primitive-normalised, non-collapsed coefficient family meeting the checked nβ‰₯ 4R+2S threshold at the required quadratic depths.
  • That one of the resulting bounded-coefficient collision vectors has a nonzero polynomial pair, lies outside the analytic remainder nullspace, and has sufficient local gain.
  • The elementary PadΓ© pilot checks exponent arithmetic only; it lacks remainder positivity or decay and does not qualify the separate Zudilin contour result.
  • The n=0 q-ApΓ©ry residual gives no general recurrence, lattice, valuation, denominator, or irrationality result; it only blocks the named scalar transfer.
The formal record: 3 main results, 1 open obligation, 6 selected result modules, Comparator review

Main results

Statements and their limits are copied from the public research record. Recorded status: registered_declarations

locally proved result; novelty unassessed family: rational_base_tail_recurrence

The rational-base cleared tail obeys its exact first-order recurrence.

The recurrence is not derived from a rationality contradiction.

locally proved sharp model-specific no-go; novelty unassessed family: height_and_pade_arithmetic

For the explicit rectangular two-function exponent model, with real rho and sigma satisfying 0≀ρ and 1+ρ≀σ, the threshold equals 1/2βˆ’1/Ο€2 exactly when ρ=0 and Οƒ=1.

This is a sharp no-go only for the explicit rectangular two-function model under the stated real hypotheses; it constructs no approximating polynomials or remainders and is not a universal Pade or Hermite-Pade no-go. It proves no irrationality at 3/2 or any general rational-base endpoint, and the analytic remainder/nonvanishing input remains untreated. No novelty, priority, significance, external-review, or endpoint claim is made; ErdΕ‘s #1049 remains open.

Assumptions still needing proofs

Prove any one of these and the corresponding reduction above becomes unconditional.

  • three_halves_growing_rank_endpoint_jet_kernel After rowwise primitive normalisation, exhibit at least 4Rn+2Sn coefficient pairs at positive quadratic depths from a non-collapsed deformation; preserve the two- and three-adic gain; then show that one checked {-1,0,1} collision has a nonzero polynomial pair outside the analytic remainder nullspace, or prove an exact rank obstruction.

Selected Lean proof files

The public result record selects 6 modules. Browse all 127 source files in this programme’s source map, including shared result sources and local imported dependencies.

Comparator review

Comparator runs selected Lean proofs against separately supplied theorem statements using recorded software versions. A successful run establishes that those proofs satisfy those statements; it does not prove the unanswered questions above.

Replayed by the Comparator

Statement and type parity replayed against the pinned toolchain.

  • The coordinatewise corridor forces a power-versus-linear inequality and cannot occur at base 3/2.

    This excludes one proof architecture and proves no irrationality statement.

    coordinatewise_corridor_no_go: targeted

  • The exact rational-base cleared-tail recurrence exposes exponential denominator-base forcing absent at integer bases.

    The recurrence is not derived from a rationality contradiction.

    rational_base_tail_recurrence: targeted

  • For the explicit rectangular two-function exponent model, the cleared gap is nonpositive throughout ρβ‰₯0 and 1+ρ≀σ, and the threshold is at most 1/2βˆ’1/Ο€2 with equality exactly at ρ=0,Οƒ=1. The gap sign and unique-zero mechanism support this sharp threshold no-go within the wider height-and-PadΓ© arithmetic family.

    This is a sharp no-go only for the explicit rectangular two-function exponent model under the stated real hypotheses; it constructs no approximating polynomials or remainders and is not a universal PadΓ© or Hermite-PadΓ© no-go. It proves no irrationality at 3/2 or any general rational-base endpoint, and the analytic remainder/nonvanishing input remains untreated. No novelty, priority, significance, external-review, or endpoint claim is made; ErdΕ‘s #1049 remains open.

    height_and_pade_arithmetic: targeted

Outside the Comparator selection

Stated in the corpus; not part of the replayed interface set.

  • Integer scalar content changes analytic error and exterior determinant by matching factors, yielding no margin by itself.

    The conclusion is scoped to one normalisation strategy.

    scalar_content_no_go: not_selected_scalar_content_scaling_family

  • Endpoint residues at 2 and 3 exclude a common multiplier under unit-endpoint hypotheses.

    Other local or cross-row arithmetic remains possible.

    endpoint_residues: not_selected_endpoint_residue_and_common_multiplier_family

  • Binary selectors collide in the four-jet signature at the stated rank and depth.

    A signed relation is not nonzero analytic data.

    four_jet_collision: not_selected_finite_combinatorial_family

  • Irrationality at 7/2 is obtained from an external analytic criterion whose elementary height hypothesis is checked in Lean.

    Comparator may check the height inequality, not the cited theorem application.

    seven_halves_irrationality: not_applicable_to_external_irrationality_conclusion

  • An explicit positive atomic moment family and integer formal series have all-rank Hankel order βˆ‘j<Nj2 and leading coefficient (N!)2(N+1)!/2N, with the same fixed-base asymptotic shape including Nβˆ’8ΞΎ, while ΞΎ=G2/3(2/3)=1. For nβ‰₯1 the exact reduced moment denominator is 331n+62(3n+1βˆ’2n+1)4; the determinant denominator has logarithmic size Θ(N3), and a proposed rank-two row-product clearer leaves denominator625. These are ordinary proofs with independent exact finite checks and AI proof reviews, not a Lean proof of the infinite family or human peer review.

    These are not Zudilin's actual moments. They refute an inference from the shared signature alone; they do not settle F(3/2) or refute the attributed divisibility-based criterion.

    calibrated_rational_hankel_countermodel: not_applicable_without_exact_Lean_statement

The result statements, their limits and the counts are copied from the public Lean repository’s published records identified by b0ebeb9add157584. These records are copied into the page when the website is built. Introductory explanations and labels are written for this site. The diagram at the top is the exception: a program draws it from numbers the papers print and tests the numerical relationships shown. Its caption and explanation are written for this site.