Pith. Sign in

REVIEW

An explicit elementary proof of no Landau--Siegel zeros

Number Theory · Submitted 21 Oct 2026 · 13 references

Pith's verdict: A careful, explicit elementary proof for Landau–Siegel zero gap with constant 1/100, building on recent Frobenius method works; soft spots are the numeric inequality verification, but the logic holds together.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 23, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

  1. T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
  2. T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
  3. T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
  4. T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
  5. T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →
Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2610.30476 (version 1)
Pith ID3XGFSYRO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationVictor Zhenyu Guo. "An explicit elementary proof of no Landau--Siegel zeros." arXiv:2610.30476 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3XGFSYRO
Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper
Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Referee report
The paper

The paper claims

An elementary proof establishes that Landau–Siegel zeros cannot exist, with an explicit gap constant of 1/100.

The reading

The paper proves that for every primitive quadratic Dirichlet character of conductor $q \ge 3$, any real zero $\beta \in (0,1)$ of $L(s,\chi)$ must satisfy $(1-\beta)\log q > 1/100$, thereby ruling out Landau–Siegel zeros with an explicit uniform constant. The proof is carried out entirely with elementary arithmetic and real analysis, avoiding complex analysis, analytic continuation, and the functional equation. It combines integer coefficient counting, polynomial congruences, a paired-tail hyperbola estimate that cancels a $1/(1-\beta)$ factor, and a logarithmic weight comparison that eliminates the need for a lower bound on $L(1,\chi)$. All constants are explicit, and a single set of parameters works for every conductor.

What carries the argument

The proof rests on three interacting engines: (1) an arithmetic bound on $S_-(x,\chi)$ via the injectivity of an evaluation map $\iota$ on integer-coefficient polynomials, leveraging a triangular basis change (Lemma 3.2, Lemma 3.3) and prime-power divisibility coming from the congruence $z^p \equiv w \pmod{p}$ at the grid points; (2) a paired-tail hyperbola estimate (Proposition 4.1) that controls $H_\beta(t)$ with an error $O((q+\log t)t^{1/2-\beta})$ free of a $1/(1-\beta)$ factor, achieved by combining two tail series before estimating; and (3) a logarithmic weight comparison (Lemma 5.1) that eliminates any dependence on a lower bound for $L(1,\chi)$ by using the positivity of $a(n)$ and an injection $(n,p)\mapsto np$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1: For every primitive quadratic Dirichlet character $\chi$ of conductor $q \ge 3$, any real zero $\beta \in (0,1)$ of $L(s,\chi)$ satisfies $(1-\beta)\log q > 1/100$. The proof proceeds in three main parts. The arithmetic input (Proposition 3.1) gives an explicit upper bound for $S_-(x,\chi) = \sum_{p\le x,\, \chi(p)=-1} (\log p)/p$, obtained via an injective evaluation map on integer-coefficient polynomials and a triangular basis that supplies prime-power divisibility. The real-variable part (Proposition 4.1) estimates the sum $H_\beta(t) = \sum_{n\le t} a(n)/n^\beta$ at a real zero, with an error term that avoids a factor $1/(1-\beta)$ by pairing the tails of two series. Finally, Lemma 5.1 converts these estimates into a logarithmically weighted prime-sum comparison; assuming $(1-\beta)\log q \le 1/100$ leads to an explicit numerical contradiction. The same argument with adjusted exponents (Appendix A) yields the stronger constant $1/64$. The entire proof uses only elementary methods and a single set of parameters for all conductors.

Load-bearing premise

The constant $1/100$ in Theorem 1.1 depends critically on the existence of an odd prime $p_0$ with $\chi(p_0)=-1$ satisfying $p_0 \ge 10000$ and $p_0 \ge 4q$ when such a prime is the largest contributing one; the explicit numerical bounds derived under those conditions drive the final contradiction, and the small-case covering arguments are separate but consistent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Landau–Siegel zeros are definitively ruled out for all primitive quadratic Dirichlet characters with an explicit uniform gap of $1/100$ in the zero-free region.
  • The proof is fully elementary, requiring no analytic continuation, complex analysis, or functional equation, and uses only real summation, polynomial arithmetic, and standard inequalities.
  • The constant $1/100$ can be improved to $1/64$ by adjusting the exponent choices (Appendix A), and further optimization is possible without changing the elementary framework.
  • All numerical constants in the proof are explicit, making the argument verifiable by direct calculation and independent of any unproven hypotheses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paired-tail technique in Proposition 4.1, which cancels the $1/(1-\beta)$ factor, may be applicable to other problems in analytic number theory where a zero of an $L$-function leads to large errors in truncated sums.
  • The elementary nature of the proof suggests that similar zero-free region estimates could be obtained for other families of $L$-functions, such as those attached to higher-degree characters or automorphic forms, using analogous polynomial congruences and coefficient counting.
  • The parameter choices $(q^6, q^{70})$ are not optimized; a systematic search over exponents could yield a larger constant than $1/64$ while retaining the elementary framework.
Original abstract

We give an elementary proof of the absence of Landau--Siegel zeros with the explicit constant $c=1/100$. For every primitive quadratic Dirichlet character $\chi$ of conductor $q\ge3$, each real zero $\beta\in(0,1)$ of $L(s,\chi)$ satisfies $(1-\beta)\log q>c$. The proof combines integer coefficient counting, polynomial congruences, a paired-tail hyperbola estimate, and a logarithmically weighted comparison of positive sums. All required constants are explicit, and one choice of parameters covers every conductor. The argument uses elementary arithmetic and real summation and integration, without separate zero computations for small conductors.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-23: 1 request, 4,249 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.09 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.01 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.16 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We give an elementary proof of the absence of Landau--Siegel zeros with the explicit constant $c=1/100$. For every primitive quadratic Dirichlet character $\chi$ of conductor $q\ge3$, each real zero $\beta\in(0,1)$ of $L(s,\chi)$ satisfies $(1-\beta)\log q>c$. The proof combines integer coefficient counting, polynomial congruences, a paired-tail hyperbola estimate, and a logarithmically weighted comparison of positive sums. All required constants are explicit, and one choice of parameters covers every conductor. The argument uses elementary arithmetic and real summation and integration, without separate zero computations for small conductors.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We give an elementary proof of the absence of Landau--Siegel zeros with the explicit constant $c=1/100$. contribution 0.68 0.96 0.96 asserted 1.00
s1 For every primitive quadratic Dirichlet character $\chi$ of conductor $q\ge3$, each real zero $\beta\in(0,1)$ of $L(s,\chi)$ satisfies $(1-\beta)\log q>c$. result 1.00 0.85 0.61 asserted 1.00
s2 The proof combines integer coefficient counting, polynomial congruences, a paired-tail hyperbola estimate, and a logarithmically weighted comparison of positive sums. method 1.00 0.92 0.03 asserted 1.00
s3 All required constants are explicit, and one choice of parameters covers every conductor. contribution 0.64 0.92 0.05 asserted 1.00
s4 The argument uses elementary arithmetic and real summation and integration, without separate zero computations for small conductors. method 0.97 0.92 0.03 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.