PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 14, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Quantitative Spectral Bounds for the Riemann Zero Log-Gas Laplacian, an Unconditional Prime Sum Identity, and a Program Summary

View Full Paper
DWDevin Wright

Key Points

  • The aim is to establish unconditional results related to the spectral bounds of the Laplacian derived from Riemann zeros.
  • Developed two unconditional results for the graph Laplacian based on the first N Riemann zeros.
  • Proved the identity TrHad(N) = Pfull(N) + 2N¯ BN without assuming the Riemann Hypothesis.
  • Applied Selberg’s zero-gap theorem for lower bounds and introduced new methods for upper bounds on spectral gap.
  • Established lower bound λ2(LN ) ≥ π2/(N2 δ2 j ) using existing theorems.
  • Derive new upper bound λ2(LN ) ≤ 12 j<k (j−k)2/(γj−γk )2/[N(N2 −1)].
  • Identified that the upper bound remains numerically tight for N ≤50.

Abstract

We present two new unconditional results for the weighted graph Laplacian LN of the first N Riemann zeros, introduced in Wright (2026a–e), and use them to close the research program with a precise account of what has been established and what remains open. First (Theorem 2.2), we prove the unconditional identity TrHad(N) = Pfull(N) + 2N¯ BN , where Pfull is a prime sum over the full complex zero positions ρj , without assuming the Riemann Hypothesis (RH). Second (Corollary 3.6), we prove matching bounds on the spectral gap: the lower bound λ2(LN ) ≥ π2/(N2 δ2 j ) follows from Selberg’s zero-gap theorem and a path-graph comparison, and the upper bound λ2(LN ) ≤ 12 j<k (j−k)2/(γj−γk )2/N(N2 −1) is new and follows from the linear test vector vj= j−(N+1)/2. Both bounds are exact in terms of actual zero spacings; using Ingham’s unconditional max-gap bound and the Selberg gap respectively, they give explicit forms C1(log TN )2/N41/12 ≤λ2(LN ) ≤C2(log TN )2/N unconditionally. The upper bound is numerically tight to within a factor of 1.7–2.0 for N ≤50. We close with a complete program summary: the structural reason the framework cannot by itself prove RH, the connection to the Baluyot–Goldston–Suriajaya–Turnage-Butterbaugh unconditional pair correlation program, and a precise statement of what new external mathematics would be required to close the gap.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Devin Wright (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ddd9b1e195c95cdefd7015https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19521037
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper