We prove that the irrationality exponent of Apéry's constant satisfies μ(ζ(3)) < 5.513747. This improves the bound 5.513891 of Rhin and Viola (2001) and the bound 5.5138800 announced in a preprint of September 2026 (arXiv:2609.26980), and is, to the author's knowledge, the smallest upper bound obtained so far. The proof is an application of Theorem 5.1 of Rhin and Viola ("The group structure for ζ(3)", Acta Arith. 97, 2001) at the new parameter point (h,j,k,l,m,q,r,s) = (1167, 1240, 1386, 1094, 875, 802, 656, 948) = 73·(16,17,19,15,12,11,9,13) − (1,…,1), using the thirty left cosets of level 4. The method is not new; the point is. It was not found by enumeration: the five numerical coincidences that make the Rhin–Viola point exceptional are preserved exactly on one line through it, the previous record lies on that line on one side, and the minimum of the bound lies on the other side. Along this line the bound follows a simple logarithmic law, k·(B(k·RV ± 1) − B(RV)) ≈ α± − β·log k with the same slope β ≈ 0.01087 on both sides, which is documented numerically. The note is self-contained as regards the statement applied: it recalls the Rhin–Viola construction, lists the thirty transformation formulae, and includes a short stand-alone Python program (standard library + mpmath) that recomputes every constant of the proof from the eight integers. All published constants of Rhin–Viola and of the 2026 preprint are reproduced, and the new bound was computed by several independent programs, including rigorous ball arithmetic (Arb). Status: this is a numerical application of a published theorem at a new point; it has not yet been peer reviewed. AI disclosure: the literature survey, the computations, the search, the verification and the drafting of this note were carried out with an artificial-intelligence system (Claude, Anthropic; session model identifier claude-fable-5-1, with a sub-agent on the Opus model tier), under the author's direction. Section 8 of the note states precisely what was done by it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jorge Vicente Romero (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: