Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in

Get started

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

Pure Mathematics

31 missions · 12 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

Open19Completed12All31
AnalysisPartial Differential Equations·Captain: mikedeng1

Tasty Bits of Several Complex Variables VI: The Hartogs PhenomenonTextbook

Motivation

In one complex variable every open set is the natural domain of some holomorphic function: 1/z1/z1/z on a punctured disc cannot be continued across the puncture. In two or more variables this fails in a striking way. Hartogs observed in 1906 that a function holomorphic on the complement of a compact set inside a domain always extends across the hole (Hartogs, Math. Ann. 62, 1906). This Hartogs phenomenon is the first place where several complex variables departs from the one-variable theory, and it forces the notions of domain of holomorphy and pseudoconvexity that organize the rest of the subject.

Timeline. Hartogs's original argument (1906) had gaps. A complete proof was given by Fueter in 1939 for n=2n = 2n=2, and independently by Bochner and Martinelli for general nnn in the early 1940s. The proof now standard, via the compactly supported ∂ˉ\bar\partial∂ˉ-problem, is due to Ehrenpreis (Ehrenpreis, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 67, 1961). This mission follows the presentation in §4.1–4.3 of Lebl's textbook (Lebl, version 4.4, 2026).

Setting

Write Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn for nnn-tuples z=(z1,…,zn)z = (z_1, \dots, z_n)z=(z1​,…,zn​) of complex numbers, zk=xk+iykz_k = x_k + i y_kzk​=xk​+iyk​. A domain is a nonempty connected open set. A function on an open set is holomorphic if it is complex differentiable there (for open sets this agrees with the textbook's definition by local boundedness and separate holomorphy).

The Wirtinger derivatives of a differentiable function fff are

∂f∂zˉk=12(∂f∂xk+i ∂f∂yk),k=1,…,n,\frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar z_k} = \frac12\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_k} + i\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial y_k}\right), \qquad k = 1, \dots, n,∂zˉk​∂f​=21​(∂xk​∂f​+i∂yk​∂f​),k=1,…,n,

and in one variable ∂f/∂zˉ=12(∂xf+i ∂yf)\partial f/\partial\bar z = \tfrac12(\partial_x f + i\,\partial_y f)∂f/∂zˉ=21​(∂x​f+i∂y​f). A C1C^1C1 function is holomorphic exactly when all ∂f/∂zˉk\partial f/\partial\bar z_k∂f/∂zˉk​ vanish.

A (0,1)(0,1)(0,1)-form is an expression g=g1 dzˉ1+⋯+gn dzˉng = g_1\,d\bar z_1 + \cdots + g_n\,d\bar z_ng=g1​dzˉ1​+⋯+gn​dzˉn​ with coefficient functions gjg_jgj​. For a smooth ψ\psiψ, ∂ˉψ=∑k∂ψ∂zˉk dzˉk\bar\partial\psi = \sum_k \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\bar z_k}\,d\bar z_k∂ˉψ=∑k​∂zˉk​∂ψ​dzˉk​, so the equation ∂ˉψ=g\bar\partial\psi = g∂ˉψ=g is the system ∂ψ/∂zˉk=gk\partial\psi/\partial\bar z_k = g_k∂ψ/∂zˉk​=gk​ for all kkk. Since mixed partial derivatives commute, a solution can exist only if the compatibility conditions ∂gk/∂zˉℓ=∂gℓ/∂zˉk\partial g_k/\partial\bar z_\ell = \partial g_\ell/\partial\bar z_k∂gk​/∂zˉℓ​=∂gℓ​/∂zˉk​ hold.

In one variable, the area element is written dζ∧dζˉ=(−2i) dAd\zeta\wedge d\bar\zeta = (-2i)\,dAdζ∧dζˉ​=(−2i)dA, where dA=dx dydA = dx\,dydA=dxdy is Lebesgue measure on C\mathbb{C}C.

Formalization targets

Goal: the Hartogs phenomenon (Theorem 4.3.1)

Let n≥2n \ge 2n≥2, U⊂CnU \subset \mathbb{C}^nU⊂Cn a domain, K⊂UK \subset UK⊂U compact with U∖KU \setminus KU∖K connected, and fff holomorphic on U∖KU \setminus KU∖K. Then

∃! F∈O(U) with F∣U∖K=f,\exists!\, F \in \mathcal{O}(U) \text{ with } F|_{U \setminus K} = f,∃!F∈O(U) with F∣U∖K​=f,

where uniqueness means any two such extensions agree on UUU.

Milestones

  1. Cauchy–Pompeiu formula (Theorem 4.1.1), on a disc UUU: for fff continuous on U‾\overline UU with bounded continuous partial derivatives in UUU and z∈Uz \in Uz∈U,
f(z)=12πi∫∂Uf(ζ)ζ−z dζ+12πi∫U∂f/∂ζˉ(ζ)ζ−z dζ∧dζˉ.f(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial U}\frac{f(\zeta)}{\zeta - z}\,d\zeta + \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_U \frac{\partial f/\partial\bar\zeta(\zeta)}{\zeta - z}\,d\zeta\wedge d\bar\zeta.f(z)=2πi1​∫∂U​ζ−zf(ζ)​dζ+2πi1​∫U​ζ−z∂f/∂ζˉ​(ζ)​dζ∧dζˉ​.
  1. One-variable ∂ˉ\bar\partial∂ˉ (Lemma 4.4.6), on a disc UUU: for ggg smooth near U‾\overline UU, ψ(z)=12πi∫Ug(ζ)ζ−z dζ∧dζˉ\psi(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_U \frac{g(\zeta)}{\zeta - z}\,d\zeta\wedge d\bar\zetaψ(z)=2πi1​∫U​ζ−zg(ζ)​dζ∧dζˉ​ is smooth on UUU with ∂ψ/∂zˉ=g\partial\psi/\partial\bar z = g∂ψ/∂zˉ=g.
  2. Compactly supported ∂ˉ\bar\partial∂ˉ-problem (Theorem 4.2.1): for n≥2n \ge 2n≥2 and compactly supported smooth g1,…,gng_1, \dots, g_ng1​,…,gn​ satisfying the compatibility conditions, there is a unique compactly supported smooth ψ\psiψ with ∂ˉψ=g\bar\partial\psi = g∂ˉψ=g.
  3. Zero sets (Corollary 4.3.2): for n≥2n \ge 2n≥2 and fff holomorphic on a domain, a nonempty zero set f−1(0)f^{-1}(0)f−1(0) is never compact.

Significance

The result. The Hartogs phenomenon shows that isolated singularities, and more generally compact singular sets, do not exist for holomorphic functions of several variables. Direct consequences include Corollary 4.3.2, the fact that the complement of a bounded domain of holomorphy is connected, and the extension of CR functions from the boundary of a bounded domain (the Hartogs–Bochner and Severi theorems). It is the reason the domain of a holomorphic function in Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn carries geometric information, which leads to pseudoconvexity and the Levi problem. Theorem 4.2.1 is the simplest solvability statement for the ∂ˉ\bar\partial∂ˉ-equation, a model for the Dolbeault and Hörmander L2L^2L2 theories.

Formalizing it. All results here are classical and proved in the book; none is formalized. Mathlib has the one-variable Cauchy integral formula on discs, but it has no Cauchy–Pompeiu formula, no Cauchy transform with a ∂ˉ\bar\partial∂ˉ identity, and no ∂ˉ\bar\partial∂ˉ-problem in Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn. A complete development would provide a reusable one-variable ∂ˉ\bar\partial∂ˉ solution operator, differentiation under a singular integral, and the removable-compact-set theorem for holomorphic functions of several variables.

Difficulty

The first idea, extending fff one complex line at a time by one-variable Cauchy integrals, works only for special shapes of KKK (Hartogs figures): for a general compact KKK with connected complement the one-variable slices of U∖KU \setminus KU∖K can be complicated, and patching slice-wise extensions into one holomorphic function is where the historical proofs had gaps. The milestones carry their own analytic difficulties. The kernel 1/(ζ−z)1/(\zeta - z)1/(ζ−z) is singular, so the area integrals must first be shown to converge, and a zˉ\bar zzˉ-derivative cannot be moved naively under the integral (doing so would give 000, contradicting Lemma 4.4.6). In Theorem 4.2.1 the delicate point is compact support of the solution, which is where n≥2n \ge 2n≥2 enters: for n=1n = 1n=1 the equation is solvable but in general has no compactly supported solution.

Formalization scope

  • Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn is Fin n → ℂ; functions are total, and only their values on the sets named in the hypotheses matter. Holomorphic is DifferentiableOn ℂ on an open set. A domain is IsOpen U ∧ IsConnected U. "K⊂⊂UK \subset\subset UK⊂⊂U compact" is IsCompact K ∧ K ⊆ U. The hypothesis n≥2n \ge 2n≥2 is 2 ≤ n and is essential.
  • wirtingerBar k f is 12(∂xkf+i ∂ykf)\tfrac12(\partial_{x_k}f + i\,\partial_{y_k}f)21​(∂xk​​f+i∂yk​​f) built from real one-variable derivs; dbar f is its one-variable analogue. Smooth means real C∞C^\inftyC∞ (ContDiff ℝ ∞), not analytic; compact support is HasCompactSupport.
  • In Theorem 4.1.1 and Lemma 4.4.6 the book allows any bounded open set with piecewise-C1C^1C1 boundary; the formalization restricts to open discs, since Mathlib has no boundary integral over such sets. The boundary integral is circleIntegral, and ∫U⋯dζ∧dζˉ\int_U \cdots d\zeta\wedge d\bar\zeta∫U​⋯dζ∧dζˉ​ is (−2i)(-2i)(−2i) times the Lebesgue (Bochner) integral over the disc. Integrability of the singular integrand is part of the conclusion, so a vanishing Bochner integral cannot make a statement hold vacuously.
  • Uniqueness in the goal is agreement on UUU of any two holomorphic extensions (values off UUU are unconstrained); in Theorem 4.2.1 it is ∃! among compactly supported smooth functions.
  • Trivializations ruled out: the goal is not stated for n=1n = 1n=1, it does not assume fff already holomorphic on UUU, and it does not replace "extends" by the existence of some function on UUU without the agreement F=fF = fF=f on U∖KU \setminus KU∖K.
  • Omitted: Corollary 4.3.3 (Severi), which needs real-analytic hypersurfaces and CR functions.
  • Needed infrastructure: Green's theorem on a disc or an equivalent polar-coordinate argument, local integrability of 1/∣ζ∣1/|\zeta|1/∣ζ∣ in the plane, differentiation under the integral sign, smooth cutoff functions, and the identity theorem in Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn. Reusable contributions in any of these are welcome.

Selected references

  • J. Lebl, Tasty Bits of Several Complex Variables, version 4.4, 2026, §4.1–4.3, pp. 130–137. https://www.jirka.org/scv/scv.pdf
  • F. Hartogs, Zur Theorie der analytischen Funktionen mehrerer unabhängiger Veränderlichen, insbesondere über die Darstellung derselben durch Reihen, welche nach Potenzen einer Veränderlichen fortschreiten, Math. Ann. 62 (1906), 1–88.
  • L. Ehrenpreis, A new proof and an extension of Hartog's theorem, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 67 (1961), 507–509.
  • L. Hörmander, An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables, 3rd ed., North-Holland, 1990, Theorem 2.3.2.
7 thms1 active userReviewed
AnalysisDifferential Geometry·Captain: mikedeng1

Tasty Bits of Several Complex Variables III: Hartogs Figures, the Levi Form and the Tomato Can PrincipleTextbook

Motivation

In one complex variable every domain is the natural domain of some holomorphic function. In several variables this fails: there are open sets U⊂CnU \subset \mathbb{C}^nU⊂Cn, n≥2n \ge 2n≥2, on which every holomorphic function extends past part of the boundary. The first example is the Hartogs figure (Hartogs, 1906). The question of which domains are natural domains of holomorphic functions, the domains of holomorphy, drove the development of the subject for half a century. E. E. Levi (1911) found a necessary condition for domains with smooth boundary: a sign condition on a Hermitian form attached to the boundary, now called the Levi form. The converse, the Levi problem, was settled in the 1950s by Oka, Bremermann and Norguet. Hörmander's L2L^2L2 approach is a later proof (Hörmander, An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables).

This mission follows §2.1–2.3 of J. Lebl, Tasty Bits of Several Complex Variables (version 4.4, 2026, jirka.org/scv). Those sections go from the Hartogs figure and the continuity principle, through tangent vectors and the Levi form of a smooth boundary, to the tomato can principle. That principle is the easy direction of the Levi problem: a domain of holomorphy with smooth boundary has no negative Levi eigenvalue.

Setting

Write Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn for nnn-tuples z=(z1,…,zn)z = (z_1, \dots, z_n)z=(z1​,…,zn​) with zℓ=xℓ+iyℓz_\ell = x_\ell + i y_\ellzℓ​=xℓ​+iyℓ​, and D={ξ∈C:∣ξ∣<1}\mathbb{D} = \{\xi \in \mathbb{C} : |\xi| < 1\}D={ξ∈C:∣ξ∣<1}. A function on an open set is holomorphic if it is complex differentiable at every point, and O(U)\mathcal{O}(U)O(U) is the set of holomorphic functions on UUU. Δs(p)\Delta_s(p)Δs​(p) is the polydisc of radius sss about ppp, the set where every coordinate satisfies ∣zℓ−pℓ∣<s|z_\ell - p_\ell| < s∣zℓ​−pℓ​∣<s.

A domain is a nonempty connected open set. A domain UUU is a domain of holomorphy if there are no nonempty open sets V,WV, WV,W with WWW connected, V⊂U∩WV \subset U \cap WV⊂U∩W and W⊄UW \not\subset UW⊂U such that every f∈O(U)f \in \mathcal{O}(U)f∈O(U) agrees on VVV with some F∈O(W)F \in \mathcal{O}(W)F∈O(W).

Identify Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn with R2n\mathbb{R}^{2n}R2n. An open set UUU has smooth boundary if every p∈∂Up \in \partial Up∈∂U has an open neighbourhood VVV and a C∞C^\inftyC∞ function r:V→Rr : V \to \mathbb{R}r:V→R with the following properties:

  • the derivative of rrr never vanishes on VVV;
  • ∂U∩V={r=0}\partial U \cap V = \{ r = 0 \}∂U∩V={r=0};
  • r<0r < 0r<0 on U∩VU \cap VU∩V and r>0r > 0r>0 on V∖U‾V \setminus \overline{U}V∖U.

Such an rrr is a defining function at ppp. With the Wirtinger derivatives ∂/∂zℓ=12(∂/∂xℓ−i ∂/∂yℓ)\partial/\partial z_\ell = \tfrac12(\partial/\partial x_\ell - i\,\partial/\partial y_\ell)∂/∂zℓ​=21​(∂/∂xℓ​−i∂/∂yℓ​) and ∂/∂zˉℓ=12(∂/∂xℓ+i ∂/∂yℓ)\partial/\partial \bar z_\ell = \tfrac12(\partial/\partial x_\ell + i\,\partial/\partial y_\ell)∂/∂zˉℓ​=21​(∂/∂xℓ​+i∂/∂yℓ​), the holomorphic tangent space is

Tp(1,0)∂U={a∈Cn:∑kak∂r∂zk(p)=0},T^{(1,0)}_p \partial U = \Big\{ a \in \mathbb{C}^n : \sum_{k} a_k \tfrac{\partial r}{\partial z_k}(p) = 0 \Big\},Tp(1,0)​∂U={a∈Cn:k∑​ak​∂zk​∂r​(p)=0},

and the Levi form is the Hermitian form

L(Xp,Xp)=∑k,ℓ=1naˉkaℓ ∂2r∂zˉk∂zℓ(p),Xp=∑kak∂∂zk∣p∈Tp(1,0)∂U.\mathcal{L}(X_p, X_p) = \sum_{k,\ell=1}^n \bar a_k a_\ell \,\frac{\partial^2 r}{\partial \bar z_k \partial z_\ell}(p), \qquad X_p = \sum_k a_k \frac{\partial}{\partial z_k}\Big|_p \in T^{(1,0)}_p\partial U.L(Xp​,Xp​)=k,ℓ=1∑n​aˉk​aℓ​∂zˉk​∂zℓ​∂2r​(p),Xp​=k∑​ak​∂zk​∂​​p​∈Tp(1,0)​∂U.

UUU is pseudoconvex at ppp if L≥0\mathcal{L} \ge 0L≥0 there, and strongly pseudoconvex if L>0\mathcal{L} > 0L>0 on nonzero vectors. The inertia of L\mathcal{L}L is its number of positive and negative eigenvalues, the largest dimensions of subspaces of Tp(1,0)∂UT^{(1,0)}_p\partial UTp(1,0)​∂U on which it is positive or negative definite.

Formalization targets

Goal: the tomato can principle (Theorem 2.3.11)

If UUU has smooth boundary, p∈∂Up \in \partial Up∈∂U, and L(Xp,Xp)<0\mathcal{L}(X_p, X_p) < 0L(Xp​,Xp​)<0 for some Xp∈Tp(1,0)∂UX_p \in T^{(1,0)}_p\partial UXp​∈Tp(1,0)​∂U, then there is a connected open W∋pW \ni pW∋p with

∀f∈O(U) ∃F∈O(W): F=f on U∩W,\forall f \in \mathcal{O}(U)\ \exists F \in \mathcal{O}(W):\ F = f \text{ on } U \cap W,∀f∈O(U) ∃F∈O(W): F=f on U∩W,

and, if UUU is connected, UUU is not a domain of holomorphy.

The path to the goal

  • Theorem 2.1.4 (Hartogs figure). For 0<a,b<10 < a, b < 10<a,b<1, every function holomorphic on H={(z,w)∈Dm+k:∣zℓ∣>a ∀ℓ}∪{(z,w)∈Dm+k:∣wℓ∣<b ∀ℓ}H = \{(z,w) \in \mathbb{D}^{m+k} : |z_\ell| > a\ \forall \ell\} \cup \{(z,w) \in \mathbb{D}^{m+k} : |w_\ell| < b\ \forall \ell\}H={(z,w)∈Dm+k:∣zℓ​∣>a ∀ℓ}∪{(z,w)∈Dm+k:∣wℓ​∣<b ∀ℓ} extends holomorphically to Dm+k\mathbb{D}^{m+k}Dm+k.
  • Corollary 2.1.5. For n≥2n \ge 2n≥2, UUU open and p∈Up \in Up∈U, every f∈O(U∖{p})f \in \mathcal{O}(U \setminus \{p\})f∈O(U∖{p}) extends holomorphically to UUU.
  • Theorem 2.1.7 (continuity principle). Closed analytic discs φk→φ\varphi_k \to \varphiφk​→φ uniformly, with φk(D‾)⊂U\varphi_k(\overline{\mathbb{D}}) \subset Uφk​(D)⊂U and φ(∂D)⊂U\varphi(\partial\mathbb{D}) \subset Uφ(∂D)⊂U, give an s>0s > 0s>0 such that every f∈O(U)f \in \mathcal{O}(U)f∈O(U) continues holomorphically to Δs(p)\Delta_s(p)Δs​(p) for each p∈φ(D)p \in \varphi(\mathbb{D})p∈φ(D). The continuation agrees with fff on a nonempty open subset of U∩Δs(p)U \cap \Delta_s(p)U∩Δs​(p).
  • Proposition 2.3.6. The inertia of the Levi form does not depend on the defining function.
  • Theorem 2.3.8. The inertia of the Levi form is invariant under local biholomorphisms that map UUU to U′U'U′ near the boundary points.
  • Lemma 2.3.9. Near any point, after a local biholomorphic change of coordinates, a smooth real hypersurface has the form Im⁡w=∑k≤α∣zk∣2−∑α<k≤α+β∣zk∣2+E\operatorname{Im} w = \sum_{k \le \alpha}|z_k|^2 - \sum_{\alpha < k \le \alpha+\beta}|z_k|^2 + EImw=∑k≤α​∣zk​∣2−∑α<k≤α+β​∣zk​∣2+E with EEE vanishing to order three. For a boundary, α\alphaα and β\betaβ are the Levi inertia and UUU is the side >>>.

Significance

The tomato can principle is the necessity half of the solution of the Levi problem: pseudoconvexity is a local, computable condition on the boundary that every domain of holomorphy with smooth boundary satisfies. Together with its converse, it lets one decide whether a smooth domain is a domain of holomorphy by computing second derivatives of a defining function. The Hartogs figure and the continuity principle are the standard ways to extend holomorphic functions, and later chapters use them for the Hartogs phenomenon and for Hartogs pseudoconvexity. The invariance results make the Levi form's inertia a biholomorphic invariant of a boundary point. The normal form is the usual starting point for local computations in CR geometry.

All results are classical and proved in the source, except Proposition 2.3.6, which the book leaves as an exercise. None of them is formalized in Mathlib or on the platform: Mathlib has holomorphic functions of several variables, but no Hartogs extension, no Levi form and no pseudoconvexity. The platform's ray_hartogs is Hartogs's theorem on separate analyticity, a different result. The mission produces faithful statements of this chain, together with definitions of smooth boundaries, holomorphic tangent vectors and the Levi form that later missions of the series need.

Difficulty

The goal combines three independent pieces of machinery. The Hartogs figure needs holomorphy of Cauchy integrals over a torus with a holomorphic parameter, and the identity theorem on a polydisc. Reducing to the normal form needs the implicit function theorem for real hypersurfaces, second-order Taylor expansion in Wirtinger coordinates, a polynomial holomorphic change of coordinates, and Sylvester's law of inertia. The inertia results need the chain rule for Wirtinger derivatives of r∘fr \circ fr∘f, and the fact that two defining functions differ by a positive smooth factor. That last fact is itself a division lemma for smooth functions vanishing on a hypersurface.

The naive formalization of "the Levi form has a negative eigenvalue" as a negative eigenvalue of the complex Hessian on all of Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn is wrong. The complex Hessian changes under the choice of defining function, and only its restriction to Tp(1,0)∂UT^{(1,0)}_p\partial UTp(1,0)​∂U has invariant signs.

Formalization scope

Cn\mathbb{C}^nCn is Fin n → ℂ. Its Mathlib norm is the sup norm, so Metric.ball p s is exactly the polydisc Δs(p)\Delta_s(p)Δs​(p). No Euclidean ball occurs in these statements. Holomorphic on an open set is DifferentiableOn ℂ, which is equivalent there to the book's Definition 1.1.2. Functions are ambient maps whose values off the relevant set are irrelevant.

Smooth means ContDiffOn ℝ ∞ on the open neighbourhood VVV. Real partial derivatives are fderiv ℝ in the directions eℓe_\elleℓ​ and ieℓi e_\ellieℓ​, and Wirtinger derivatives are built from them. Tp(1,0)∂UT^{(1,0)}_p\partial UTp(1,0)​∂U is the submodule holTangent r p of coefficient vectors, computed from the defining function in use. The Levi form is compared through its real part. The inertia is the pair leviPosIndex, leviNegIndex: suprema over ℕ of dimensions of definite subspaces, nonempty (the zero subspace) and bounded by nnn. The book's O(3)O(3)O(3) is VanishesToOrder 3: the function and its derivatives of order at most two vanish at the point. It is not Mathlib's IsBigO.

Conventions and restrictions:

  • The goal assumes the negative Levi value for one defining function, the weakest form of the hypothesis. "Extends to a neighbourhood of ppp" is read literally: F=fF = fF=f on the whole overlap U∩WU \cap WU∩W, with WWW fixed before fff is chosen. Agreement on a mere nonempty open subset of U∩WU \cap WU∩W would be a weaker statement and is not what is asked. The second conjunct adds connectedness of UUU, because Definition 2.1.1 applies only to domains.
  • In Theorem 2.1.7, "some open subset" is read as a nonempty open subset. The empty set would make the conclusion vacuous.
  • Lemma 2.3.9 is stated in Cm+1\mathbb{C}^{m+1}Cm+1, with zzz the first mmm coordinates and www the last one. Nothing is lost, because C0\mathbb{C}^0C0 contains no hypersurface.
  • In Definition 2.2.1, "r>0r > 0r>0 for points not in UUU" is read as "not in U‾\overline{U}U", since r=0r = 0r=0 on ∂U\partial U∂U.

A trivializing formalization is excluded: the Levi form is restricted to holTangent r p, never the full complex Hessian, and the defining function must carry the sign condition. So neither a hypothesis that fails for every open set nor one that holds for every open set can make the goal vacuous or trivial.

A complete development needs parameter-dependent Cauchy integrals on polydiscs, a real implicit function theorem for hypersurfaces, a smooth division lemma, a Wirtinger chain rule, and Sylvester's law of inertia for Hermitian forms restricted to subspaces. These pieces are reusable across the series, and contributions of any of them are welcome.

Selected references

  • J. Lebl, Tasty Bits of Several Complex Variables, version 4.4, 2026. https://www.jirka.org/scv/scv.pdf
  • L. Hörmander, An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables, 3rd ed., North-Holland, 1990.
  • S. G. Krantz, Function Theory of Several Complex Variables, 2nd ed., AMS Chelsea, 2001.
  • S. Ivashkovich, Discrete and continuous versions of the continuity principle, J. Geom. Anal. 32 (2022), Paper No. 226.
22 thms1 active userReviewed
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