Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The derivation of Wolstenholme determinants in higher corank reveals new mathematical structures and relationships.
We derive, rather than fit, the second layer of the Wolstenholme determinants of Notes 1–4: the mod-p² refinement Λ₂ of the leading-form congruence D_g(p−a)/p2κ₀ ≡ ρ*⁻¹ det(window). Conditionally on Z.-H. Sun's congruences for Bernoulli numbers (Discrete Appl. Math. 105 (2000), including its Remark 5.1, which we verify to modulus p⁴), we mechanize a symbolic engine that reproves amplification, null pairing and the symbol formula of Note 3, discovers a second null pairing (all third digits and all higher products cancel identically), and derives the second layer in closed linear form in the coordinates q_μ = Bp−1−2μ/(2μ+1) and the Kummer defects w_μ = (B2p−2−2μ − ((2μ+2)/(2μ+1)) Bp−1−2μ)/p. For corank κ₀ = 1 the result is a certified schema: the w-coefficients obey the w-law coef(w_μ) = −ρ*⁻¹ c_μ/(2μ+2) — the second-floor symbol is the first-floor symbol on the next Kummer rung — and the q-coefficients decompose with an explicit rational part and a measured residue σ_μ, tabulated exactly for five families and confirmed on a golden-test family never used in the fit (41 fresh primes, zero discrepancies). For κ₀ ≥ 2 we verify a mirrored-adjugate structure with verbatim coefficient transfer between families and the same w-law in every shift. The lattice-reduction (LLL) methodology that anchored the derivation, including a factor-50 negative control and a detection-ceiling lesson, is documented. All computations are exact; every labelled statement is reproducible from the attached scripts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
José Cláudio da Silva (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: