12 missions · 3 completed
The study of the integers and the structures built from them — prime numbers, and the rational, algebraic, and -adic numbers that extend them. It reaches from analytic number theory, which uses the tools of analysis to understand the distribution of primes, to algebraic number theory, Diophantine equations, and the arithmetic of elliptic curves, modular forms, and -functions.
Determine the exact second-order term in the least possible largest factor in a factorization of $n!$ into distinct integers exceeding $n$, with the proposed rational constant $4029639598/25970038185$.
Every even integer greater than $2$ is the sum of two primes. Christian Goldbach posed it in a 1742 letter to Euler, and it has resisted proof for nearly three centuries while being verified computationally up to $4\times10^{18}$ — making it one of the oldest and most famous open problems in all of mathematics. Its ternary sibling, the weak Goldbach conjecture, was settled by Helfgott in 2013, but the strong form stated here remains wide open: the circle method controls three-prime sums yet loses control at two. This headline mission hosts the conjecture as a machine-checked target for partial results, reductions between its variants, and any future attack.
No problem in mathematics carries more weight than the Riemann hypothesis. In his single eight-page paper of 1859, 'On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude,' Bernhard Riemann linked the seemingly erratic distribution of the primes to the zeros of the analytic continuation of the zeta function ζ(s), and conjectured that every nontrivial zero lies exactly on the critical line where the real part equals 1/2. The truth of this statement would pin down the error term in the prime number theorem and tame the fluctuations of the primes around their expected count, and hundreds of theorems already stand proven only 'conditional on RH,' waiting for it to be settled. David Hilbert placed it in his eighth problem in 1900, alongside Goldbach and the twin primes; in 2000 the Clay Mathematics Institute named it one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems, with a million-dollar reward. G. H. Hardy proved in 1914 that infinitely many zeros lie on the critical line, and trillions more have since been verified by computation to do so — overwhelming evidence that is nonetheless not a proof. After more than 160 years it remains unresolved. This mission takes Mathlib's own definition of the hypothesis as its target.
Formalize Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in Lean 4, decomposed into provable sub-lemmas.
## 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 $n$ as a sum of $s$ terms drawn from a prescribed set — $k$-th powers, primes, values of a polynomial. Its engine is an estimate for **exponential sums**. If a sum $\sum_{x<N} e(\alpha x^k)$, where $e(\theta)=\exp(2\pi i\theta)$, exhibits cancellation for every $\alpha$ 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 $k$. A short timeline of the estimate this mission targets. Weyl (1916) proved the inequality below with the exponent $2^{1-k}$, in the course of his work on uniform distribution. Hardy and Littlewood (1920--1928) built the circle method on it, obtaining $G(k)\le (k-2)2^{k-1}+5$ for Waring's problem. Vinogradov (1935) replaced Weyl differencing by his mean value theorem, superior for large $k$, reducing the bound to $O(k\log k)$; 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 $k$ — 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 $\theta$ write $$e(\theta) \;=\; \exp(2\pi i \theta),$$ the standard additive character of $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$: it satisfies $e(x+y)=e(x)e(y)$, $|e(x)|=1$, and $e(x)=1$ exactly when $x\in\mathbb{Z}$. For a real number $\theta$ write $\|\theta\|$ for the distance from $\theta$ to the nearest integer. It is periodic with period $1$, vanishes exactly on $\mathbb{Z}$, satisfies the triangle inequality, and is at most $\tfrac12$. Given a finite set $A\subseteq\mathbb{Z}$, its generating function is $f_A(\theta)=\sum_{a\in A}e(a\theta)$. The basic identity of the subject is $$\int_0^1 f_A(\theta)^s\,e(-n\theta)\,d\theta \;=\; \#\{(a_1,\dots,a_s)\in A^s : a_1+\cdots+a_s=n\},$$ a consequence of the orthogonality relation $\int_0^1 e(m\theta)\,d\theta=[\,m=0\,]$. A **Weyl sum** of degree $k$ is $\sum_{0\le x<N} e(\alpha x^k)$. The whole difficulty is to bound it for $\alpha$ in the *minor arcs* — those $\alpha$ admitting no rational approximation $a/q$ with $q$ small. ## Target Fix $k\ge 2$. For every $\varepsilon>0$ there is a constant $C=C(k,\varepsilon)$ such that whenever $(a,q)=1$, $q\ge 1$, and $\left|\alpha-\frac{a}{q}\right|\le \frac{1}{q^2}$, $$\left|\sum_{0\le x<N} e(\alpha x^{k})\right| \;\le\; C\,N^{1+\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{N}+\frac{q}{N^{k}}\right)^{2^{1-k}}.$$ 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 $d(n)\ll_\varepsilon n^\varepsilon$, Hua's fourth-moment inequality for $k=2$, 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 $q$ in the range $N^{\delta}\le q\le N^{k-\delta}$ it gives a power saving over the trivial bound $N$, 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 $e$, the norm $\|\cdot\|$, the geometric sum bound $\left|\sum_{x<N}e(x\theta)\right|\le\min\!\left(N,\frac{1}{2\|\theta\|}\right)$, both orthogonality relations, both forms of Dirichlet's theorem, and the basic theory of $f_A$, 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 $\left|\sum_{x<N}e(\alpha x^k)\right|$ by comparing it to the linear case, where the geometric series gives $\min(N,\frac{1}{2\|\alpha\|})$ outright. But for $k\ge2$ the summand is not a geometric progression and there is no closed form. Weyl's device is to square and difference: $\left|\sum_x e(\phi(x))\right|^2=\sum_{x,y}e(\phi(x)-\phi(y))$, and the substitution $y=x+h$ turns the inner polynomial into one of degree $k-1$ in $x$. Iterating $k-1$ times reduces to a linear sum, at the cost of raising the estimate to the power $2^{1-k}$ — which is why the saving is so weak for large $k$, 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 $[0,N)$ and must be handled uniformly; (ii) the divisor bound $d(n)\ll_\varepsilon n^\varepsilon$, needed to count the $h$ for which the resulting linear coefficient is close to an integer, and which is not currently in Mathlib in this form; (iii) tracking the $\varepsilon$-dependent constants through $k-1$ 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: - $\|\theta\|$ 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 $0\le x<N$, and $N$ 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: $X\ll_\varepsilon Y$ 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 $C$ to depend on $N$, $q$ or $\alpha$. - Exponents such as $N^{1+\varepsilon}$ and $2^{1-k}$ 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 $C$ permitted to depend on $N$, since then $C=N$ 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](https://doi.org/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](https://doi.org/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](https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2016.184.2.7)
Erdős Problem 788 asks how large a set can always be retained when prescribed distinct pair-sums are forbidden. This mission formalizes the repository’s strengthened version of Theorem 1.1: an explicit lower bound valid for every $n\ge 3$, an eventual quantitative upper bound, the conclusion $f(n)=n^{1/2+o(1)}$, and the exact affirmative answer to the original upper-bound question.
Among the most enduring mysteries in number theory is whether the primes keep producing twins — pairs like (11, 13) or (17, 19) that differ by exactly two — no matter how far out one looks. The general form was set down by Alphonse de Polignac in 1849, and the first deep theorem came from Viggo Brun in 1915, who proved that the reciprocals of the twin primes converge to a finite value, now called Brun's constant; in doing so he invented modern sieve theory and showed that twins must thin out even if there are infinitely many. Hardy and Littlewood went further, conjecturing a precise density of about 2C₂·x/(ln x)² for the count of twins below x. For nearly a century the infinitude itself stood untouched, until Yitang Zhang's stunning announcement on 17 April 2013 that some gap below 70 million recurs infinitely often — the first finite bound ever proved. A Polymath collaboration led by Terence Tao, together with James Maynard's independent multidimensional sieve, soon drove that bound down to 246, where it still stands. Closing the gap all the way to 2 — the twin prime conjecture itself — remains open. This mission states it cleanly: the set of primes p for which p + 2 is also prime is infinite.
Which whole numbers are the area of a right triangle with rational sides? This is the congruent number problem, and it is astonishingly old — tabulated in tenth-century Arabic manuscripts (5 and 6 were among the first known cases), taken up by Fibonacci in the thirteenth century, and the subject of Fermat's celebrated infinite-descent proof that 1 is not congruent. The modern reformulation is a jewel of arithmetic geometry: n is congruent precisely when the elliptic curve y² = x³ − n²x has a rational point of infinite order, that is, positive rank. In 1983 Jerrold Tunnell, writing in Inventiones Mathematicae, turned this into a near-algorithm — counting integer representations of n by certain ternary quadratic forms (which arise as coefficients of weight-3/2 modular forms) yields a simple congruence criterion that settles the question by a finite computation. The catch, and the reason the problem remains officially open, is that the sufficiency of Tunnell's criterion rests on the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, itself a Millennium Prize Problem. This mission formalizes the converse of Tunnell's theorem in the even case: for squarefree even n, the representation-count identity 2|C_n| = |D_n| — where C_n and D_n count integer solutions of n = 8x² + 2y² + 64z² and n = 8x² + 2y² + 16z² — implies that n is a congruent number.
Which whole numbers are the area of a right triangle with rational sides? This is the congruent number problem, and it is astonishingly old — tabulated in tenth-century Arabic manuscripts (5 and 6 were among the first known cases), taken up by Fibonacci in the thirteenth century, and the subject of Fermat's celebrated infinite-descent proof that 1 is not congruent. The modern reformulation is a jewel of arithmetic geometry: n is congruent precisely when the elliptic curve y² = x³ − n²x has a rational point of infinite order, that is, positive rank. In 1983 Jerrold Tunnell, writing in Inventiones Mathematicae, turned this into a near-algorithm — counting integer representations of n by certain ternary quadratic forms (which arise as coefficients of weight-3/2 modular forms) yields a simple congruence criterion that settles the question by a finite computation. The catch, and the reason the problem remains officially open, is that the sufficiency of Tunnell's criterion rests on the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, itself a Millennium Prize Problem. This mission formalizes the converse of Tunnell's theorem in the odd case: for squarefree odd n, the representation-count identity 2|A_n| = |B_n| — where A_n and B_n count integer solutions of n = 2x² + y² + 32z² and n = 2x² + y² + 8z² — implies that n is a congruent number.
In 1993 the Texas banker and self-taught number theorist Andrew Beal, tinkering on his own with generalizations of Fermat's Last Theorem, noticed a striking pattern: whenever A^x + B^y = C^z holds in positive integers with every exponent exceeding two, the bases A, B, C seem forced to share a common prime factor. Fermat's Last Theorem is exactly the slice x = y = z of this statement, so Beal's conjecture sweepingly generalizes one of history's most famous theorems. Beal backed his question with money, raising the prize from $5,000 in 1997 to $1,000,000, now held in trust by the American Mathematical Society. The conjecture is intimately tied to the Fermat–Catalan conjecture and the theory of the generalized Fermat equation, where 1/x + 1/y + 1/z < 1 forces only finitely many primitive solutions; individual exponent families such as (2,3,n) have been settled, often with the same Frey-curve and modularity machinery behind Wiles's proof, yet the full statement remains open. A clean formal statement turns this celebrated amateur's question into a shared, verifiable goal.
Formulated in 1985 by Joseph Oesterlé and David Masser as an arithmetic distillation of Szpiro's conjecture on elliptic curves, the abc conjecture makes a deceptively simple claim about coprime triples with a + b = c: the three numbers cannot all be built from many repeated small primes at once, so c can only rarely exceed rad(abc)^(1+ε). Dorian Goldfeld called it 'the most important unsolved problem in Diophantine analysis,' and for good reason — a single proof would cascade through number theory, delivering Fermat's Last Theorem for all large exponents almost for free, along with Roth's theorem, the Mordell–Faltings theorem, the Fermat–Catalan conjecture, infinitely many non-Wieferich primes, and all but finitely many counterexamples to Beal's conjecture. Since 2012 Shinichi Mochizuki has claimed a proof via inter-universal Teichmüller theory, published in 2021, but the community has not accepted it: in 2018 Peter Scholze and Jakob Stix identified a gap they regarded as fatal. A precise formal statement gives everyone a shared, machine-checkable target around which to organize verified progress.
A complete formal proof of Fermats Last Theorem for exponent 5: for all positive natural numbers a,b,c, a^5 + b^5 != c^5. The proof follows the classical Legendre-Dirichlet approach (1825-1830): Case 1 (5 does not divide a,b,c) is dispatched by congruences, and Case 2 (5 divides one of them) uses infinite descent through the ring Z[zeta_5]. The open hard leaf is the Z[zeta_5] PID step (flt5_zeta5_ring_witnesses).