Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

Pure Mathematics

29 missions · 8 completed

Mathematics pursued for its own internal structure: the study of abstract objects, spaces, and the maps between them, guided by rigor and generality rather than immediate application. Its landscape includes real and complex analysis, topology and geometry, measure theory, and the logical and set-theoretic foundations on which the rest of mathematics is built.

Missions

Open21Completed8All29
Number Theory·Captain: xbgxjack

Erdős Problem 287: Gaps Between Unit-Fraction DenominatorsOpen Problem

Motivation

A unit fraction is the reciprocal 1/n1/n1/n of a positive integer. The number 111 can be written as a sum of distinct unit fractions in infinitely many ways — 1=12+13+161 = \tfrac12+\tfrac13+\tfrac161=21​+31​+61​, 1=12+14+16+1121 = \tfrac12+\tfrac14+\tfrac16+\tfrac1{12}1=21​+41​+61​+121​, and so on — and the combinatorics of such representations is one of the oldest recurring themes in Erdős's problem lists. Most questions in the area concern size: how many terms are needed, how small the largest denominator can be, how large the smallest one must be. Erdős Problem 287 asks instead about the shape of a representation: how tightly can the denominators be packed?

Order the denominators increasingly and look at their consecutive differences. For 1=12+13+161 = \tfrac12+\tfrac13+\tfrac161=21​+31​+61​ the differences are 111 and 333. The question is whether a difference of at least 333 must always occur, in every representation of 111, no matter how many terms it has. The problem is recorded in Erdős and Graham's 1980 problem book (ErGr80, p. 33) and was selected for the booklet of favourite problems prepared for the 1999 Budapest conference on Erdős's mathematics ([Va99, 1.15]). It remains open.

Timeline. The weaker statement that some difference must be at least 222 — equivalently, that 111 is never the sum of the reciprocals of a block of consecutive integers — is classical. Theisinger (1915) proved that the harmonic number HnH_nHn​ is not an integer for n≥2n \ge 2n≥2, using Bertrand's postulate. Kürschák (1918) introduced the 222-adic argument that proves the general block statement: for m≤n−2m \le n-2m≤n−2, the difference Hn−HmH_n - H_mHn​−Hm​ is not an integer. Erdős's 1932 paper [Er32], whose title translates as "A generalisation of an elementary number-theoretic theorem of Kürschák", extends the result from blocks of consecutive integers to arithmetic progressions; the erdosproblems.com entry for Problem 287 cites it for the difference-≥2\ge 2≥2 bound. Nothing stronger appears to be known: the passage from 222 to 333 is the open part, and no partial result is recorded in the entry beyond a conditional one, namely that the conjecture would follow for all but finitely many exceptions if it were known that for every large NNN there is a prime p∈[N,2N]p \in [N, 2N]p∈[N,2N] with (p+1)/2(p+1)/2(p+1)/2 also prime.

Setting

Fix an integer k≥2k \ge 2k≥2 and integers

1<n1<n2<⋯<nk1 < n_1 < n_2 < \cdots < n_k1<n1​<n2​<⋯<nk​

with

1  =  1n1+1n2+⋯+1nk,1 \;=\; \frac{1}{n_1} + \frac{1}{n_2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{n_k},1=n1​1​+n2​1​+⋯+nk​1​,

the sum taken in Q\mathbb{Q}Q. Call such a tuple a representation of length kkk. The denominators are strictly increasing, hence distinct, and all exceed 111: the value n1=1n_1 = 1n1​=1 is excluded because 1/11/11/1 already exhausts the total. The gaps of the representation are the k−1k-1k−1 consecutive differences ni+1−nin_{i+1} - n_ini+1​−ni​ for 1≤i≤k−11 \le i \le k-11≤i≤k−1, and its maximal gap is max⁡i(ni+1−ni)\max_i (n_{i+1} - n_i)maxi​(ni+1​−ni​).

Representations exist for every k≥3k \ge 3k≥3, and for k=1k = 1k=1 only the excluded n1=1n_1 = 1n1​=1; no representation of length 222 exists. Examples: (2,3,6)(2,3,6)(2,3,6) with gaps 1,31, 31,3; (2,4,6,12)(2,4,6,12)(2,4,6,12) with gaps 2,2,62,2,62,2,6; (3,4,6,10,12,15)(3,4,6,10,12,15)(3,4,6,10,12,15) with gaps 1,2,4,2,31,2,4,2,31,2,4,2,3.

Formalization targets

Goal — Erdős Problem 287

every representation 1<n1<⋯<nk (k≥2) of 1 satisfies max⁡1≤i<k(ni+1−ni)  ≥  3.\text{every representation } 1 < n_1 < \cdots < n_k \ (k \ge 2) \text{ of } 1 \text{ satisfies } \max_{1 \le i < k} (n_{i+1} - n_i) \;\ge\; 3.every representation 1<n1​<⋯<nk​ (k≥2) of 1 satisfies 1≤i<kmax​(ni+1​−ni​)≥3.

This is the open conjecture, stated with no bound on kkk and no restriction on the denominators beyond those in Setting. It is the weakest form that captures the question: asserting a bound for one particular kkk, or for denominators in some range, would be a different and strictly easier statement.

Milestone — the gap-two bound (Kürschák; Erdős [Er32])

every representation satisfies max⁡1≤i<k(ni+1−ni)  ≥  2.\text{every representation satisfies } \max_{1 \le i < k}(n_{i+1} - n_i) \;\ge\; 2.every representation satisfies 1≤i<kmax​(ni+1​−ni​)≥2.

Equivalently: no block of two or more consecutive integers has reciprocals summing to 111. This is closed mathematics and the natural first target.

Milestone — the classical block theorem (Kürschák)

for n≥1 and k≥2,∑i=0k−11n+i∉Z.\text{for } n \ge 1 \text{ and } k \ge 2, \qquad \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \frac{1}{n+i} \notin \mathbb{Z}.for n≥1 and k≥2,i=0∑k−1​n+i1​∈/Z.

The gap-two bound is an immediate consequence, since a representation all of whose gaps equal 111 is exactly a block of consecutive integers.

Milestone — sharpness

1=12+13+16 is a representation all of whose gaps are at most 3.1 = \tfrac12+\tfrac13+\tfrac16 \text{ is a representation all of whose gaps are at most } 3.1=21​+31​+61​ is a representation all of whose gaps are at most 3.

So the constant 333 in the goal is optimal and cannot be replaced by 444.

Significance

The result itself. A positive answer would say that a representation of 111 by unit fractions can never have all its denominators within distance 222 of each other — a structural constraint of a kind that the size-based results in this area do not provide. The conditional route recorded on the problem page is instructive about where the difficulty sits: it reduces the conjecture, up to finitely many exceptions, to the existence of primes ppp in [N,2N][N,2N][N,2N] with (p+1)/2(p+1)/2(p+1)/2 prime, a statement of Bertrand-with-extra-structure type that is itself out of reach of current technology. A direct proof would therefore either bypass that route or resolve the conjecture for the remaining cases by different means.

Formalizing it. The gap-two bound and the block theorem behind it are closed mathematics, so the honest description of that part of this mission is formalization, not research. It is nevertheless not already available: Mathlib proves Theisinger's case harmonic_not_int, that Hn∉ZH_n \notin \mathbb{Z}Hn​∈/Z for n≥2n \ge 2n≥2, but not Kürschák's block version Hn−Hm∉ZH_n - H_m \notin \mathbb{Z}Hn​−Hm​∈/Z, which is the form Problem 287 needs. Supplying it is a genuine strengthening of the library's existing development and is reusable for any question about reciprocal sums over intervals. The goal itself is open, and this mission does not claim otherwise: it is registered with an open proof, and the milestones are what a solver can realistically close today.

Difficulty

The obvious first idea — bound the number of terms, then check finitely many cases — fails immediately, because kkk is unbounded: representations of 111 exist with arbitrarily many terms, so no finite computation can settle the conjecture. The second idea, extending the 222-adic argument that gives the gap-two bound, also fails, and instructively. That argument works because a block of consecutive integers contains exactly one element of maximal 222-adic valuation, which leaves the total with negative valuation. Once gaps of size 222 are permitted the denominators may be chosen to avoid that configuration — for instance all even, as in (2,4,6,12)(2,4,6,12)(2,4,6,12) — and the valuation obstruction disappears. There is no evident replacement prime or weighting that rules out all gap-≤2\le 2≤2 configurations simultaneously, and the conditional result quoted above suggests why: the known routes pass through the distribution of primes in short intervals with a multiplicative side condition, rather than through a congruence obstruction.

Formalization scope

A representation is encoded as a function f:N→Nf : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}f:N→N together with the hypotheses ∀ i < k, 1 < f i and ∀ i j, i < j → j < k → f i < f j, and the requirement ∑ i ∈ Finset.range k, (1 : ℚ) / f i = 1. Only the values of fff below kkk are constrained; the function is not required to be monotone or bounded elsewhere, and nothing outside the window is used. The conclusion is ∃ i, i + 1 < k ∧ 3 ≤ f (i + 1) - f i, the existential form of "the maximal gap is at least 333"; the subtraction is natural-number subtraction, which is harmless because fff is increasing on the window, so no truncation can occur. The sum is a rational equality, not an approximation.

The statement admits no trivializing reading. The hypothesis 1 < f i is essential and is not vacuous — dropping it would admit f 0=1f\,0 = 1f0=1, k=1k = 1k=1; the strict monotonicity is what makes the gaps well defined and the denominators distinct; and k ≥ 2 guarantees that at least one gap exists, so the conclusion is not an empty existential. Asserting exactly 333 rather than at least 333 would be false, as (2,4,6,12)(2,4,6,12)(2,4,6,12) has a gap of 666.

Infrastructure: the block theorem is proved from Mathlib's padicNorm and padicValNat API — padicNorm.add_eq_max_of_ne, padicNorm.sum_lt', padicNorm.not_int_of_not_padic_int, pow_padicValNat_dvd and pow_succ_padicValNat_not_dvd — and needs no new definitions. That development is reusable beyond this mission and is a candidate for upstreaming to Mathlib alongside harmonic_not_int. Contributions are welcome on any milestone independently; a formalization of the conditional reduction to primes ppp with (p+1)/2(p+1)/2(p+1)/2 prime would also be a valuable addition, and is not included as a milestone here only because the problem page states it too briefly to formalize faithfully without consulting a primary source.

Selected references

  • P. Erdős, Egy Kürschák-féle elemi számelméleti tétel általánosítása (A generalisation of an elementary number-theoretic theorem of Kürschák), Mat. és Phys. Lapok 39 (1932), 17–24.
  • P. Erdős and R. L. Graham, Old and new problems and results in combinatorial number theory, Monographies de L'Enseignement Mathématique, Geneva, 1980, p. 33. scan
  • Various, Some of Paul's favorite problems, booklet for the conference "Paul Erdős and his mathematics", Budapest, July 1999, item 1.15.
  • K. Conrad, The ppp-adic growth of harmonic sums, expository notes (Theorem 2 is Kürschák's block theorem, with the 222-adic proof). pdf
  • T. F. Bloom, Erdős Problem #287, erdosproblems.com/287.
13 thms1 active userReviewed
🏆Completed
Algebraic Topology·Captain: korbonits

Hatcher Algebraic Topology III: The Classification of Covering SpacesTextbook

Motivation

The third mission in the series formalizing Allen Hatcher's Algebraic Topology (Cambridge University Press, 2002; pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/AT.pdf) turns to the second main topic of Chapter 1, covering spaces (Section 1.3, pp. 56–78). The first mission used the covering R→S1\mathbb{R}\to S^1R→S1 to compute π1(S1)\pi_1(S^1)π1​(S1), and the second proved van Kampen's theorem. This mission develops the general theory of covering spaces of a fixed space XXX: the lifting properties (pp. 60–62), the classification of connected covering spaces by subgroups of π1(X)\pi_1(X)π1​(X) (pp. 63–68), and deck transformations and group actions (pp. 70–72). Its goal is the classification theorem (Theorem 1.38, p. 67), Hatcher's "Galois correspondence" between path-connected covering spaces of XXX and subgroups of π1(X,x0)\pi_1(X,x_0)π1​(X,x0​), together with its companions Proposition 1.39 (deck groups and normal covers) and Proposition 1.40 (covering space actions and orbit spaces).

All statements live in the Lean namespace Hatcher used by the earlier missions.

Setting

A covering space of XXX (p. 56) is a space X~\tilde XX~ with a map p:X~→Xp:\tilde X\to Xp:X~→X such that every x∈Xx\in Xx∈X has an open neighborhood UUU whose preimage is a disjoint union of open sets each mapped homeomorphically onto UUU; p−1(U)p^{-1}(U)p−1(U) may be empty, so ppp need not be surjective. This is Mathlib's IsCoveringMap. For a covering space with basepoints p:(X~,x~0)→(X,x0)p:(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)\to(X,x_0)p:(X~,x~0​)→(X,x0​) we write

p∗:π1(X~,x~0)→π1(X,x0),H=p∗(π1(X~,x~0))≤π1(X,x0)p_*:\pi_1(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)\to\pi_1(X,x_0),\qquad H=p_*\big(\pi_1(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)\big)\le\pi_1(X,x_0)p∗​:π1​(X~,x~0​)→π1​(X,x0​),H=p∗​(π1​(X~,x~0​))≤π1​(X,x0​)

for the induced homomorphism (Hatcher.coverHom) and its image (Hatcher.coverSubgroup).

XXX is semilocally simply-connected (p. 63, Hatcher.IsSemilocallySimplyConnected) if each x∈Xx\in Xx∈X has a neighborhood UUU such that every loop at xxx contained in UUU is null-homotopic in XXX. The bundle Hatcher_Covering also fixes: the structure CoveringSpace X (a total space X~\tilde XX~ and a covering map ppp) and its pointed version PointedCover X x₀ (with x~0∈p−1(x0)\tilde x_0\in p^{-1}(x_0)x~0​∈p−1(x0​) and associated subgroup PointedCover.subgroup); isomorphism of covering spaces (p. 67), a homeomorphism f:X~1→X~2f:\tilde X_1\to\tilde X_2f:X~1​→X~2​ with p1=p2fp_1=p_2fp1​=p2​f, with or without preservation of basepoints (IsIsomorphic, IsPointedIsomorphic); the deck transformation group G(X~)G(\tilde X)G(X~) (p. 70, deckGroup), the self-homeomorphisms of X~\tilde XX~ commuting with ppp; normal covering spaces (p. 70, IsNormalCover); Hatcher's condition (∗)(\ast)(∗) for a covering space action of a group GGG on YYY (p. 72, IsCoveringSpaceAction); and the orbit space Y/GY/GY/G with its quotient map (OrbitSpace, orbitProj).

Formalization targets

Goal (Theorem 1.38, p. 67)

Let XXX be path-connected, locally path-connected and semilocally simply-connected, with basepoint x0x_0x0​. Then:

  1. every subgroup H≤π1(X,x0)H\le\pi_1(X,x_0)H≤π1​(X,x0​) is p∗π1(X~,x~0)p_*\pi_1(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)p∗​π1​(X~,x~0​) for some path-connected covering space with basepoint;
  2. two path-connected covering spaces with basepoints are isomorphic by a basepoint-preserving isomorphism iff their subgroups coincide;
  3. two path-connected covering spaces are isomorphic (basepoints ignored) iff their subgroups, at some choice of basepoints over x0x_0x0​, are conjugate in π1(X,x0)\pi_1(X,x_0)π1​(X,x0​).

Together these say that (X~,x~0)↦p∗π1(X~,x~0)(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)\mapsto p_*\pi_1(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)(X~,x~0​)↦p∗​π1​(X~,x~0​) is a bijection from basepoint-preserving isomorphism classes of path-connected covering spaces to subgroups, inducing a bijection from isomorphism classes to conjugacy classes of subgroups.

Milestones

  1. Proposition 1.31 (p. 61), first part: p∗p_*p∗​ is injective.
  2. Proposition 1.31, second part: p∗π1(X~,x~0)p_*\pi_1(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)p∗​π1​(X~,x~0​) consists of the classes of loops at x0x_0x0​ whose lifts starting at x~0\tilde x_0x~0​ are loops.
  3. Proposition 1.32 (p. 61): for X,X~X,\tilde XX,X~ path-connected, the fibre p−1(x0)p^{-1}(x_0)p−1(x0​) is in bijection with the cosets of HHH, so the number of sheets is the index of HHH.
  4. Proposition 1.33 (p. 61), the lifting criterion: for YYY path-connected and locally path-connected, f:(Y,y0)→(X,x0)f:(Y,y_0)\to(X,x_0)f:(Y,y0​)→(X,x0​) lifts to (X~,x~0)(\tilde X,\tilde x_0)(X~,x~0​) iff f∗π1(Y,y0)⊆Hf_*\pi_1(Y,y_0)\subseteq Hf∗​π1​(Y,y0​)⊆H.
  5. Proposition 1.34 (p. 62), unique lifting: two lifts of f:Y→Xf:Y\to Xf:Y→X agreeing at one point agree everywhere if YYY is connected.
  6. Necessity of semilocal simple connectivity (p. 63): if XXX has a simply-connected covering space (surjective onto XXX), then XXX is semilocally simply-connected.
  7. Existence of a simply-connected covering space (pp. 63–65): if XXX is path-connected, locally path-connected and semilocally simply-connected, it has a simply-connected covering space (the universal cover).
  8. Proposition 1.36 (p. 66): under the same hypotheses, every subgroup H≤π1(X,x0)H\le\pi_1(X,x_0)H≤π1​(X,x0​) is realized as p∗π1(XH,x~0)p_*\pi_1(X_H,\tilde x_0)p∗​π1​(XH​,x~0​) for a path-connected covering space.
  9. Proposition 1.37 (p. 67): for XXX path-connected and locally path-connected, two path-connected covering spaces with basepoints are basepoint-preservingly isomorphic iff their subgroups are equal.
  10. Change of basepoint (pp. 67–68, proof of Theorem 1.38): moving x~0\tilde x_0x~0​ within p−1(x0)p^{-1}(x_0)p−1(x0​) replaces HHH by a conjugate, and every conjugate arises this way.
  11. Proposition 1.39(a) (p. 71): a path-connected covering space of a path-connected, locally path-connected XXX is normal iff HHH is a normal subgroup.
  12. Proposition 1.39(b): G(X~)≅N(H)/HG(\tilde X)\cong N(H)/HG(X~)≅N(H)/H, given as a surjective homomorphism N(H)→G(X~)N(H)\to G(\tilde X)N(H)→G(X~) with kernel HHH.
  13. Proposition 1.39, final clause: for the universal cover, G(X~)≅π1(X,x0)G(\tilde X)\cong\pi_1(X,x_0)G(X~)≅π1​(X,x0​).
  14. Proposition 1.40(a) (p. 72): for a covering space action of GGG on YYY, the quotient map Y→Y/GY\to Y/GY→Y/G is a normal covering space.
  15. Proposition 1.40(b): if moreover YYY is path-connected, GGG is the group of deck transformations of Y→Y/GY\to Y/GY→Y/G, via g↦(y↦gy)g\mapsto(y\mapsto gy)g↦(y↦gy).
  16. Proposition 1.40(c): if YYY is path-connected and locally path-connected, G≅π1(Y/G)/p∗π1(Y)G\cong\pi_1(Y/G)/p_*\pi_1(Y)G≅π1​(Y/G)/p∗​π1​(Y), given as a surjective homomorphism π1(Y/G)→G\pi_1(Y/G)\to Gπ1​(Y/G)→G with kernel p∗π1(Y)p_*\pi_1(Y)p∗​π1​(Y).

Significance

The result itself. The classification theorem is the central structural fact about covering spaces: the connected coverings of XXX are "the same as" the subgroups of π1(X)\pi_1(X)π1​(X), with the universal cover corresponding to the trivial subgroup and normal coverings to normal subgroups. Proposition 1.40 is the standard method for computing fundamental groups of orbit spaces (π1(RPn)=Z/2\pi_1(\mathbb{RP}^n)=\mathbb{Z}/2π1​(RPn)=Z/2, π1(Tn)=Zn\pi_1(T^n)=\mathbb{Z}^nπ1​(Tn)=Zn, lens spaces) and is used throughout Hatcher's later chapters.

Formalizing it. Mathlib (at this environment's revision) already has the lifting theory for covering maps: path and homotopy lifting (IsCoveringMap.liftPath, liftHomotopy), the monodromy action (IsCoveringMap.monodromy), the injectivity of p∗p_*p∗​ (injective_path_homotopic_map, cited there as Proposition 1.31), the unique-lifting statement (IsCoveringMap.eq_of_comp_eq), and the lifting criterion itself (existsUnique_continuousMap_lifts_of_range_le, cited as Proposition 1.33). For quotient maps by a free properly discontinuous action it has IsQuotientCoveringMap, with the homomorphism π1(Y/G)→Gop\pi_1(Y/G)\to G^{\mathrm{op}}π1​(Y/G)→Gop and its kernel and surjectivity. Milestones 1, 4, 5 and 16 are therefore expected to be short reductions to Mathlib, and Mathlib's quotient-covering theory should carry most of milestones 14–15. Mathlib has no notion of semilocal simple connectivity, no construction of the universal cover or of the coverings XHX_HXH​, no classification theorem, and no deck transformation groups or normal coverings; milestones 6–13 and the goal are new.

Difficulty

The heart of the mission is the construction of the universal cover (pp. 63–65): the points are homotopy classes of paths from x0x_0x0​, the topology is generated by the sets U[γ]U_{[\gamma]}U[γ]​ for UUU in the basis of path-connected open sets on which π1\pi_1π1​ dies, and one must verify that this is a topology basis, that ppp is a covering map, and that the result is simply connected. Proposition 1.36 then passes to a quotient by HHH and checks that the projection remains a covering map. Both are elementary but long, and formalizing them requires a systematic treatment of path homotopy classes as points of a space.

Propositions 1.37 and 1.39 follow from the lifting criterion and unique lifting; the deck-group homomorphism in 1.39(b) sends a loop in N(H)N(H)N(H) to the deck transformation produced by the lifting criterion, and its kernel is computed by Proposition 1.31. Proposition 1.40(a) needs the quotient topology on Y/GY/GY/G and the evenly covered neighborhoods p(U)p(U)p(U) from condition (∗)(\ast)(∗); part (b) is the observation that a deck transformation of a path-connected cover is determined by one value. Milestone 3 is orbit–stabilizer for the monodromy action.

Formalization scope

  • Spaces are arbitrary topological spaces; hypotheses (path-connectedness, local path-connectedness, semilocal simple connectivity, connectedness of the domain in Proposition 1.34) are stated per theorem, exactly where Hatcher assumes them.
  • CoveringSpace X bundles a total space in the same universe as XXX with a covering map; the classification quantifies over covering spaces in this sense. Since the universal cover and the coverings XHX_HXH​ are constructed from paths in XXX, they live in that universe, so nothing is lost.
  • "Isomorphic" is the existence of a homeomorphism over XXX (Hatcher, p. 67), a proposition on pairs of covering spaces; Theorem 1.38 is stated as the three-part conjunction above rather than as a bijection between quotient sets, which avoids forming the set of isomorphism classes of types while asserting exactly the same content.
  • Conjugacy is expressed with Mathlib's MulAut.conj; "number of sheets equals the index" is stated as a bijection p−1(x0)≃π1(X,x0)/Hp^{-1}(x_0)\simeq\pi_1(X,x_0)/Hp−1(x0​)≃π1​(X,x0​)/H with the coset space.
  • The isomorphisms of Propositions 1.39(b) and 1.40(c) are stated as surjective homomorphisms with prescribed kernel, which is how Hatcher proves them and avoids requiring a Normal instance in the statement; the final clause of 1.39 and 1.40(b) are stated as the existence of group isomorphisms, the latter with its action on YYY prescribed.
  • A covering space action includes continuity of each y↦gyy\mapsto gyy↦gy (Hatcher's actions are by homeomorphisms). The orbit space is Mathlib's MulAction.orbitRel.Quotient with the quotient topology.
  • Trivializing readings are excluded: path-connected spaces are nonempty, and a nonempty covering space of a path-connected base is surjective; milestone 6 assumes surjectivity explicitly because its base need not be connected.

Contributions welcome: a reusable construction of the space of path classes with its topology, the covering XHX_HXH​, and the deck-group homomorphism; the short reductions to Mathlib for Propositions 1.31, 1.33 and 1.34 are good first contributions.

Selected references

  • A. Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, Cambridge University Press, 2002. Section 1.3, pp. 56–72. https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/AT.pdf
  • E. H. Spanier, Algebraic Topology, Springer, 1966, Chapter 2 (covering spaces and the classification theorem).
  • J. R. Munkres, Topology, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2000, Chapter 13 (classification of covering spaces).
  • Mathlib, Mathlib/Topology/Covering/Basic.lean (covering maps). https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/Topology/Covering/Basic.lean
  • Mathlib, Mathlib/Topology/Homotopy/Lifting.lean (path and homotopy lifting, monodromy, the lifting criterion). https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/Topology/Homotopy/Lifting.lean
  • Mathlib, Mathlib/Topology/Covering/Quotient.lean (quotient covering maps for group actions). https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/Topology/Covering/Quotient.lean
18 thms1 active userReviewed
🏆Completed
Algebraic Topology·Captain: korbonits

Hatcher Algebraic Topology II: The van Kampen TheoremTextbook

Motivation

Once π1(S1)≅Z\pi_1(S^1)\cong\mathbb{Z}π1​(S1)≅Z is known, the next question in Allen Hatcher's Algebraic Topology (Cambridge University Press, 2002; pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/AT.pdf) is how to compute fundamental groups of spaces built from pieces. Section 1.2 answers this with van Kampen's theorem (Theorem 1.20, p. 43): if a space is covered by open sets with a common basepoint and path-connected intersections, its fundamental group is the free product of the fundamental groups of the pieces, modulo relations coming from the intersections. It is the main computational tool of Chapter 1: it gives the fundamental groups of wedges of circles, graphs, surfaces, and every CW complex from its 2-skeleton (Propositions 1.26–1.28), and it underlies the classification of covering spaces in Section 1.3.

This is the second mission in the series formalizing Hatcher's book. The first mission established the covering-space lifting properties and π1(S1,1)≅Z\pi_1(S^1,1)\cong\mathbb{Z}π1​(S1,1)≅Z in the Lean namespace Hatcher; this one covers the subsection "The van Kampen Theorem" of Section 1.2 (pp. 41–47) together with its warm-up Lemma 1.15 and Proposition 1.14 from Section 1.1 (p. 35).

Setting

Let XXX be a topological space with a basepoint x0x_0x0​. A path is a continuous map I=[0,1]→XI=[0,1]\to XI=[0,1]→X, a loop at x0x_0x0​ is a path with both endpoints x0x_0x0​, and π1(X,x0)\pi_1(X,x_0)π1​(X,x0​) is the group of homotopy classes of loops at x0x_0x0​ under concatenation. A continuous map φ:X→Y\varphi:X\to Yφ:X→Y with φ(x0)=y0\varphi(x_0)=y_0φ(x0​)=y0​ induces a homomorphism φ∗:π1(X,x0)→π1(Y,y0)\varphi_*:\pi_1(X,x_0)\to\pi_1(Y,y_0)φ∗​:π1​(X,x0​)→π1​(Y,y0​), [f]↦[φ∘f][f]\mapsto[\varphi\circ f][f]↦[φ∘f].

Let (Aα)α∈ι(A_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\iota}(Aα​)α∈ι​ be a family of subsets of XXX, each containing x0x_0x0​, with the subspace topology; write π1(Aα)\pi_1(A_\alpha)π1​(Aα​) for π1(Aα,x0)\pi_1(A_\alpha,x_0)π1​(Aα​,x0​). The inclusions Aα↪XA_\alpha\hookrightarrow XAα​↪X induce

jα:π1(Aα)→π1(X),j_\alpha:\pi_1(A_\alpha)\to\pi_1(X),jα​:π1​(Aα​)→π1​(X),

which are Hatcher.inclHom, and the inclusions Aα∩Aβ↪AαA_\alpha\cap A_\beta\hookrightarrow A_\alphaAα​∩Aβ​↪Aα​ and Aα∩Aβ↪AβA_\alpha\cap A_\beta\hookrightarrow A_\betaAα​∩Aβ​↪Aβ​ induce

iαβ:π1(Aα∩Aβ)→π1(Aα),iβα:π1(Aα∩Aβ)→π1(Aβ),i_{\alpha\beta}:\pi_1(A_\alpha\cap A_\beta)\to\pi_1(A_\alpha),\qquad i_{\beta\alpha}:\pi_1(A_\alpha\cap A_\beta)\to\pi_1(A_\beta),iαβ​:π1​(Aα​∩Aβ​)→π1​(Aα​),iβα​:π1​(Aα​∩Aβ​)→π1​(Aβ​),

which are Hatcher.interHomLeft and Hatcher.interHomRight.

The free product ∗αGα\ast_\alpha G_\alpha∗α​Gα​ of a family of groups is the group of reduced words in the GαG_\alphaGα​ (Hatcher, pp. 41–42); in Lean it is Mathlib's Monoid.CoprodI, here Hatcher.FreeProd. Its universal property extends the jαj_\alphajα​ to a single homomorphism

Φ:∗απ1(Aα)→π1(X),\Phi:\ast_\alpha\pi_1(A_\alpha)\to\pi_1(X),Φ:∗α​π1​(Aα​)→π1​(X),

Hatcher.vanKampenHom. Since jαiαβ=jβiβαj_\alpha i_{\alpha\beta}=j_\beta i_{\beta\alpha}jα​iαβ​=jβ​iβα​ (both are induced by Aα∩Aβ↪XA_\alpha\cap A_\beta\hookrightarrow XAα​∩Aβ​↪X), the elements

iαβ(ω) iβα(ω)−1,ω∈π1(Aα∩Aβ),i_{\alpha\beta}(\omega)\,i_{\beta\alpha}(\omega)^{-1},\qquad \omega\in\pi_1(A_\alpha\cap A_\beta),iαβ​(ω)iβα​(ω)−1,ω∈π1​(Aα​∩Aβ​),

lie in the kernel of Φ\PhiΦ. Let NNN be the normal subgroup generated by all of them, Hatcher.vanKampenNormal.

Formalization targets

Goal (Theorem 1.20)

If XXX is the union of path-connected open sets AαA_\alphaAα​ each containing x0x_0x0​, each Aα∩AβA_\alpha\cap A_\betaAα​∩Aβ​ is path-connected, and each Aα∩Aβ∩AγA_\alpha\cap A_\beta\cap A_\gammaAα​∩Aβ​∩Aγ​ is path-connected, then

Φ is surjectiveandker⁡Φ=N.\Phi \text{ is surjective}\qquad\text{and}\qquad \ker\Phi=N .Φ is surjectiveandkerΦ=N.

Hence Φ\PhiΦ induces an isomorphism π1(X)≅∗απ1(Aα)/N\pi_1(X)\cong\ast_\alpha\pi_1(A_\alpha)/Nπ1​(X)≅∗α​π1​(Aα​)/N.

Milestones

  1. Lemma 1.15 (p. 35). If XXX is the union of path-connected open sets AαA_\alphaAα​ containing x0x_0x0​ with each Aα∩AβA_\alpha\cap A_\betaAα​∩Aβ​ path-connected, then every loop in XXX at x0x_0x0​ is homotopic to a product of loops each of which is contained in a single AαA_\alphaAα​.
  2. Proposition 1.14 (p. 35). π1(Sn)=0\pi_1(S^n)=0π1​(Sn)=0 for n≥2n\ge 2n≥2.
  3. Theorem 1.20, first part (p. 43). Under the hypotheses of Lemma 1.15, Φ\PhiΦ is surjective.
  4. The kernel contains the relators (p. 43). N≤ker⁡ΦN\le\ker\PhiN≤kerΦ, with no hypotheses on the cover.
  5. Theorem 1.20, second part (p. 43). If moreover every triple intersection is path-connected, ker⁡Φ≤N\ker\Phi\le NkerΦ≤N.
  6. Induced isomorphism (p. 43). Under the same hypotheses there is an isomorphism ∗απ1(Aα)/N≅π1(X)\ast_\alpha\pi_1(A_\alpha)/N\cong\pi_1(X)∗α​π1​(Aα​)/N≅π1​(X) sending the class of a word to its image under Φ\PhiΦ.

Significance

The result itself. Van Kampen's theorem is the gluing law for π1\pi_1π1​. With it Hatcher computes π1\pi_1π1​ of wedge sums (free products), of graphs (free groups), of the closed orientable surfaces (Example 1.26), and shows that attaching 222-cells kills exactly the attaching loops (Proposition 1.26), so that every group is a fundamental group (Corollary 1.28). The surjectivity half alone gives Proposition 1.14, that spheres of dimension at least two are simply connected, and hence that R2\mathbb{R}^2R2 is not homeomorphic to Rn\mathbb{R}^nRn for n≠2n\ne 2n=2 (Corollary 1.16).

Formalizing it. Mathlib has the fundamental groupoid and fundamental group, induced homomorphisms (FundamentalGroup.map), free products of groups (Monoid.CoprodI) with their universal property, normal closures, and quotient groups. It has no version of van Kampen's theorem for topological spaces (its CategoryTheory/Limits/VanKampen concerns colimits in categories, not fundamental groups), and no computation of π1(Sn)\pi_1(S^n)π1​(Sn) for n≥2n\ge 2n≥2; on the platform, however, the theorem SP4Mission.sphere_simplyConnected (already proved in this environment) states that the unit sphere of Rn\mathbb{R}^nRn is simply connected for n≥3n\ge 3n≥3, which is Proposition 1.14 with shifted indexing, so that milestone can be closed by a one-line reduction. The mission supplies the statements in Hatcher's form, on Mathlib's π1\pi_1π1​, so that later missions (covering spaces, cell complexes) can use them directly.

Difficulty

Surjectivity is a compactness argument: subdivide III so each piece of the loop lies in one AαA_\alphaAα​, then use path-connectedness of the intersections to connect the subdivision points back to x0x_0x0​. The formal difficulty is bookkeeping: producing the subdivision from an open cover of [0,1][0,1][0,1] (Mathlib's exists_monotone_Icc_subset_open_cover_unitInterval is the tool) and showing the reparametrised concatenation is homotopic to the original loop.

The kernel computation is the hard part. Hatcher's proof takes a homotopy F:I×I→XF:I\times I\to XF:I×I→X between two factorizations, subdivides the square into rectangles each mapped into a single AαA_\alphaAα​, perturbs the grid so at most three rectangles meet at a corner (this is where triple intersections enter), and then shows that moving the loop across one rectangle at a time changes the factorization only by the two elementary moves that hold in ∗απ1(Aα)/N\ast_\alpha\pi_1(A_\alpha)/N∗α​π1​(Aα​)/N. Every step is elementary, but the induction over the grid is long, and each elementary move requires an explicit path-homotopy in a subspace. The naive idea of proving ker⁡Φ≤N\ker\Phi\le NkerΦ≤N by an induction on word length does not work: the relation between two factorizations of the same loop is only visible through a homotopy in XXX, not through the words.

Proposition 1.14 is easy given Lemma 1.15 but requires exhibiting the cover of SnS^nSn by two complements of antipodal points, showing each is simply connected (homeomorphic to Rn\mathbb{R}^nRn via stereographic projection, which Mathlib has as stereographic), and showing their intersection is path-connected when n≥2n\ge 2n≥2.

Formalization scope

  • The index set ι\iotaι and the space XXX are arbitrary; the AαA_\alphaAα​ are Set X with the subspace topology, and π1(Aα)\pi_1(A_\alpha)π1​(Aα​) is Mathlib's FundamentalGroup ↥(A α) ⟨x₀, _⟩. Hypotheses are stated explicitly on each theorem: IsOpen, IsPathConnected, ⋃ α, A α = Set.univ, and path-connectedness of pairwise (and, where Hatcher requires it, triple) intersections.
  • iαβi_{\alpha\beta}iαβ​ and iβαi_{\beta\alpha}iβα​ are both defined on π1(Aα∩Aβ)\pi_1(A_\alpha\cap A_\beta)π1​(Aα​∩Aβ​) (rather than on π1(Aβ∩Aα)\pi_1(A_\beta\cap A_\alpha)π1​(Aβ​∩Aα​) for the second), so no identification of Aα∩AβA_\alpha\cap A_\betaAα​∩Aβ​ with Aβ∩AαA_\beta\cap A_\alphaAβ​∩Aα​ is needed; the set of relators ranges over all ordered pairs (α,β)(\alpha,\beta)(α,β).
  • "Product of loops" in Lemma 1.15 is a finite List of loops, each tagged with the index α\alphaα of the piece it lies in, concatenated right-to-left with the constant loop as empty product (Hatcher.loopProd). Any bracketing gives the same homotopy class.
  • The goal is stated as the conjunction "surjective and ker⁡Φ=N\ker\Phi=NkerΦ=N"; the isomorphism ∗απ1(Aα)/N≅π1(X)\ast_\alpha\pi_1(A_\alpha)/N\cong\pi_1(X)∗α​π1​(Aα​)/N≅π1​(X) is a separate milestone, stated as the existence of a group isomorphism compatible with Φ\PhiΦ on the quotient, which pins it down uniquely.
  • SnS^nSn is Metric.sphere (0 : EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin (n+1))) 1, and "π1(Sn)=0\pi_1(S^n)=0π1​(Sn)=0" is Mathlib's SimplyConnectedSpace (path-connected with trivial fundamental group), which is what Hatcher means since SnS^nSn is path-connected.
  • Trivializing readings are excluded: the cover hypotheses do not force ι\iotaι nonempty, but then X=⋃Aα=∅X=\bigcup A_\alpha=\varnothingX=⋃Aα​=∅ contradicts the existence of x0x_0x0​, so the statements are not vacuous in any interesting case, and Φ\PhiΦ is the specific homomorphism induced by the inclusions.

Contributions welcome: the subdivision lemma for loops in an open cover, a reusable treatment of factorizations and their elementary moves, and the two-set special case π1(X)≅(π1(A)∗π1(B))/N\pi_1(X)\cong(\pi_1(A)\ast\pi_1(B))/Nπ1​(X)≅(π1​(A)∗π1​(B))/N as a corollary.

Selected references

  • A. Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, Cambridge University Press, 2002. Section 1.2, pp. 40–49; Lemma 1.15 and Proposition 1.14, p. 35. https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/AT.pdf
  • E. R. van Kampen, On the connection between the fundamental groups of some related spaces, American Journal of Mathematics 55 (1933), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2371128
  • H. Seifert, Konstruktion dreidimensionaler geschlossener Räume, Berichte Sächs. Akad. Leipzig 83 (1931), 26–66.
  • Mathlib, Mathlib/GroupTheory/CoprodI.lean (free products of groups). https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/GroupTheory/CoprodI.lean
  • Mathlib, Mathlib/AlgebraicTopology/FundamentalGroupoid/FundamentalGroup.lean (fundamental group and induced homomorphisms). https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/AlgebraicTopology/FundamentalGroupoid/FundamentalGroup.lean
8 thms1 active userReviewed
🏆Completed
Number Theory·Captain: tabbott

The Hardy-Littlewood Method I: Weyl's InequalityTextbook

Motivation

The Hardy--Littlewood circle method is the principal analytic tool for counting solutions to additive equations in integers. Introduced by Hardy and Ramanujan for the partition function and developed by Hardy and Littlewood in their Partitio Numerorum series (1920--1928), it produces asymptotic formulae for the number of representations of a large integer nnn as a sum of sss terms drawn from a prescribed set — kkk-th powers, primes, values of a polynomial.

Its engine is an estimate for exponential sums. If a sum ∑x<Ne(αxk)\sum_{x<N} e(\alpha x^k)∑x<N​e(αxk), where e(θ)=exp⁡(2πiθ)e(\theta)=\exp(2\pi i\theta)e(θ)=exp(2πiθ), exhibits cancellation for every α\alphaα not well approximable by a rational with small denominator, the method delivers an asymptotic formula; if it does not, the method stalls. Weyl's inequality (Weyl 1916) was the first such estimate and remains the standard one for moderate kkk.

A short timeline of the estimate this mission targets. Weyl (1916) proved the inequality below with the exponent 21−k2^{1-k}21−k, in the course of his work on uniform distribution. Hardy and Littlewood (1920--1928) built the circle method on it, obtaining G(k)≤(k−2)2k−1+5G(k)\le (k-2)2^{k-1}+5G(k)≤(k−2)2k−1+5 for Waring's problem. Vinogradov (1935) replaced Weyl differencing by his mean value theorem, superior for large kkk, reducing the bound to O(klog⁡k)O(k\log k)O(klogk); Wooley's efficient congruencing (2012) and the Bourgain--Demeter--Guth decoupling theorem (2016) settled the main conjecture of Vinogradov's mean value theorem. For small kkk — and as the entry point to the subject — Weyl's inequality is still the right tool, and it is the natural first capstone for a formalization of the method.

Setting

For a real number θ\thetaθ write

e(θ)  =  exp⁡(2πiθ),e(\theta) \;=\; \exp(2\pi i \theta),e(θ)=exp(2πiθ),

the standard additive character of R/Z\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}R/Z: it satisfies e(x+y)=e(x)e(y)e(x+y)=e(x)e(y)e(x+y)=e(x)e(y), ∣e(x)∣=1|e(x)|=1∣e(x)∣=1, and e(x)=1e(x)=1e(x)=1 exactly when x∈Zx\in\mathbb{Z}x∈Z.

For a real number θ\thetaθ write ∥θ∥\|\theta\|∥θ∥ for the distance from θ\thetaθ to the nearest integer. It is periodic with period 111, vanishes exactly on Z\mathbb{Z}Z, satisfies the triangle inequality, and is at most 12\tfrac1221​.

Given a finite set A⊆ZA\subseteq\mathbb{Z}A⊆Z, its generating function is fA(θ)=∑a∈Ae(aθ)f_A(\theta)=\sum_{a\in A}e(a\theta)fA​(θ)=∑a∈A​e(aθ). The basic identity of the subject is

∫01fA(θ)s e(−nθ) dθ  =  #{(a1,…,as)∈As:a1+⋯+as=n},\int_0^1 f_A(\theta)^s\,e(-n\theta)\,d\theta \;=\; \#\{(a_1,\dots,a_s)\in A^s : a_1+\cdots+a_s=n\},∫01​fA​(θ)se(−nθ)dθ=#{(a1​,…,as​)∈As:a1​+⋯+as​=n},

a consequence of the orthogonality relation ∫01e(mθ) dθ=[ m=0 ]\int_0^1 e(m\theta)\,d\theta=[\,m=0\,]∫01​e(mθ)dθ=[m=0].

A Weyl sum of degree kkk is ∑0≤x<Ne(αxk)\sum_{0\le x<N} e(\alpha x^k)∑0≤x<N​e(αxk). The whole difficulty is to bound it for α\alphaα in the minor arcs — those α\alphaα admitting no rational approximation a/qa/qa/q with qqq small.

Target

Fix k≥2k\ge 2k≥2. For every ε>0\varepsilon>0ε>0 there is a constant C=C(k,ε)C=C(k,\varepsilon)C=C(k,ε) such that whenever (a,q)=1(a,q)=1(a,q)=1, q≥1q\ge 1q≥1, and ∣α−aq∣≤1q2\left|\alpha-\frac{a}{q}\right|\le \frac{1}{q^2}​α−qa​​≤q21​,

∣∑0≤x<Ne(αxk)∣  ≤  C N1+ε(1q+1N+qNk)21−k.\left|\sum_{0\le x<N} e(\alpha x^{k})\right| \;\le\; C\,N^{1+\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{N}+\frac{q}{N^{k}}\right)^{2^{1-k}}.​0≤x<N∑​e(αxk)​≤CN1+ε(q1​+N1​+Nkq​)21−k.

The intermediate targets, weakest first, are the milestone list: the counting identity, the Weyl differencing (squaring) step, the Farey covering with coprime numerator, the divisor bound d(n)≪εnεd(n)\ll_\varepsilon n^\varepsilond(n)≪ε​nε, Hua's fourth-moment inequality for k=2k=2k=2, and the degree-two case of the inequality itself.

Significance

The result itself. Weyl's inequality is what makes the minor arcs negligible. Applied with qqq in the range Nδ≤q≤Nk−δN^{\delta}\le q\le N^{k-\delta}Nδ≤q≤Nk−δ it gives a power saving over the trivial bound NNN, and integrating that saving over the minor arcs shows their contribution is smaller than the main term produced by the major arcs. Every classical application of the circle method — the asymptotic formula in Waring's problem, Vinogradov's three primes theorem, the Birch--Davenport theory of forms in many variables — passes through an estimate of this shape. Without it the method produces an identity, not a theorem.

Formalizing it. Mathlib currently contains the analytic prerequisites — Fourier characters on AddCircle, Dirichlet's approximation theorem, Abel summation, Gauss sums — but no circle-method apparatus whatsoever: no Weyl sums, no arc dissection, no singular series, no mean value estimates. This mission supplies the first layer. The foundational tier is already machine-checked: 53 theorems covering the character eee, the norm ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\|∥⋅∥, the geometric sum bound ∣∑x<Ne(xθ)∣≤min⁡ ⁣(N,12∥θ∥)\left|\sum_{x<N}e(x\theta)\right|\le\min\!\left(N,\frac{1}{2\|\theta\|}\right)​∑x<N​e(xθ)​≤min(N,2∥θ∥1​), both orthogonality relations, both forms of Dirichlet's theorem, and the basic theory of fAf_AfA​, are published on the platform with verified proofs and may be imported freely. What remains open is the combinatorial and analytic core listed in the milestones. None of the milestone statements is currently formalized anywhere, to the best of our knowledge.

Difficulty

The obvious approach fails immediately. One would like to sum ∣∑x<Ne(αxk)∣\left|\sum_{x<N}e(\alpha x^k)\right|​∑x<N​e(αxk)​ by comparing it to the linear case, where the geometric series gives min⁡(N,12∥α∥)\min(N,\frac{1}{2\|\alpha\|})min(N,2∥α∥1​) outright. But for k≥2k\ge2k≥2 the summand is not a geometric progression and there is no closed form.

Weyl's device is to square and difference: ∣∑xe(ϕ(x))∣2=∑x,ye(ϕ(x)−ϕ(y))\left|\sum_x e(\phi(x))\right|^2=\sum_{x,y}e(\phi(x)-\phi(y))∣∑x​e(ϕ(x))∣2=∑x,y​e(ϕ(x)−ϕ(y)), and the substitution y=x+hy=x+hy=x+h turns the inner polynomial into one of degree k−1k-1k−1 in xxx. Iterating k−1k-1k−1 times reduces to a linear sum, at the cost of raising the estimate to the power 21−k2^{1-k}21−k — which is why the saving is so weak for large kkk, and why Vinogradov's method eventually supersedes it.

The genuine obstacles in a formalization are: (i) bookkeeping the shifted ranges produced by each differencing step, which are not [0,N)[0,N)[0,N) and must be handled uniformly; (ii) the divisor bound d(n)≪εnεd(n)\ll_\varepsilon n^\varepsilond(n)≪ε​nε, needed to count the hhh for which the resulting linear coefficient is close to an integer, and which is not currently in Mathlib in this form; (iii) tracking the ε\varepsilonε-dependent constants through k−1k-1k−1 iterations without the informal ≪\ll≪ notation.

Formalization scope

Statements are given over the Prove2Me default environment (Lean v4.30.0, Mathlib c5ea003), in the shared namespace CircleMethod, and build on two published definitions: CircleMethod_char (the character e and the norm nrm) and CircleMethod_genfun (the generating function f).

Conventions this mission commits to:

  • ∥θ∥\|\theta\|∥θ∥ is nrm θ = |θ - round θ|. Mathlib's round breaks ties upwards, so round is not an odd function; the characterisation to use is minimality, nrm θ ≤ |θ - n| for every integer n, which is published as CircleMethod.nrm_le.
  • Sums run over Finset.range N, that is 0≤x<N0\le x<N0≤x<N, and NNN is a natural number. Hypotheses 0 < N and 0 < q are stated explicitly rather than left implicit.
  • Asymptotic notation is eliminated in favour of explicit existential constants: X≪εYX\ll_\varepsilon YX≪ε​Y is rendered as ∀ ε > 0, ∃ C > 0, ∀ …, X ≤ C * Y, with the constant quantified outside the parameters it may depend on and inside nothing else. Solvers should not weaken this by allowing CCC to depend on NNN, qqq or α\alphaα.
  • Exponents such as N1+εN^{1+\varepsilon}N1+ε and 21−k2^{1-k}21−k are real powers (Real.rpow), not natural powers.
  • Coprimality is Nat.Coprime a.natAbs q, which is the correct notion for a possibly negative numerator.

One trivialising formalization to rule out: the goal must not be read with CCC permitted to depend on NNN, since then C=NC=NC=N makes it vacuous. The quantifier order in the Lean statement already forbids this, and solvers should preserve it exactly.

Contributions welcome on any milestone independently; the divisor bound and the Farey covering are self-contained and need no other milestone. Both are reusable well beyond this mission.

Selected references

  • H. Weyl, Über die Gleichverteilung von Zahlen mod. Eins, Mathematische Annalen 77 (1916), 313--352. DOI:10.1007/BF01475864
  • G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, Some problems of 'Partitio Numerorum' I--VI, 1920--1928.
  • R. C. Vaughan, The Hardy--Littlewood Method, 2nd ed., Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics 125, Cambridge University Press, 1997. (Weyl's inequality is Lemma 2.4; the geometric sum bound is Lemma 2.1.)
  • I. M. Vinogradov, New estimates for Weyl sums, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 8 (1935), 195--198.
  • T. D. Wooley, Vinogradov's mean value theorem via efficient congruencing, Annals of Mathematics 175 (2012), 1575--1627. DOI:10.4007/annals.2012.175.3.12
  • J. Bourgain, C. Demeter and L. Guth, Proof of the main conjecture in Vinogradov's mean value theorem for degrees higher than three, Annals of Mathematics 184 (2016), 633--682. DOI:10.4007/annals.2016.184.2.7
15 thms1 active userReviewed
PreviousPage 2 of 2Next

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paper
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me