pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.14221 · v2 · submitted 2024-11-21 · 🧮 math.NT

An additive application of the resonance method

Athanasios Sourmelidis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NT
keywords resonance methodtrigonometric polynomialsOmega resultsDirichlet divisor problemGauss circle problemlattice point problemsadditive methods
0
0 comments X

The pith

The resonance method applied additively to trigonometric polynomials with positive Fourier coefficients improves Omega results and yields sharper bounds for the divisor and circle problems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that the resonance method, previously applied in multiplicative settings, transfers to an additive context for general trigonometric polynomials whose Fourier coefficients are positive. It replaces Dirichlet approximation with this method to obtain quantitatively stronger Omega lower bounds. These bounds then produce improved extreme-value statements for the error terms in Dirichlet's divisor problem and Gauss's circle problem. The work also notes that the same device extends to polynomials with complex coefficients and links to the proof of Kronecker's theorem.

Core claim

By viewing the resonance method as an additive device, one obtains stronger Omega results for trigonometric polynomials with positive Fourier coefficients than those previously derived from Dirichlet's approximation theorem. The improvement carries over directly to give better Omega statements for the remainder in the divisor problem and the circle problem.

What carries the argument

The resonance method, which constructs a second trigonometric polynomial chosen to resonate with the given one and thereby produce large values at certain points.

If this is right

  • Sharper Omega lower bounds hold for the error term in Dirichlet's divisor problem.
  • Improved Omega results apply to the error term in Gauss's circle problem.
  • The resonance method functions as an additive tool in addition to its multiplicative applications.
  • The same resonance construction extends to trigonometric polynomials with complex Fourier coefficients.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The additive formulation may extend to other discrepancy or lattice-point problems that involve sums of trigonometric functions.
  • The noted link to Kronecker's theorem suggests the method could interact with questions of uniform distribution on the torus.
  • Direct verification on explicit low-degree examples would provide an immediate test of the size of the improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The resonance method transfers from its multiplicative uses to the additive setting of trigonometric polynomials with positive coefficients while keeping the claimed quantitative gain over Dirichlet approximation.

What would settle it

An explicit numerical computation, for a concrete low-degree trigonometric polynomial with positive coefficients, of the largest value attained and a direct comparison of the resulting Omega constant against the constant obtained from Dirichlet approximation.

read the original abstract

We improve upon an Omega result due to Soundararajan with respect to general trigonometric polynomials having positive Fourier coefficients. Instead of Dirichlet's approximation theorem we employ the resonance method and this leads to better extreme results in lattice point problems such as Dirichlet's divisor problem and Gauss' circle problem. Moreover, the present approach shows that the resonance method can also be viewed as an additive device, which has been used in multiplicative problems so far. Its extension to trigonometric polynomials with complex coefficients is also discussed and its connection to Bohr and Jessen's proof of Kronecker's theorem is highlighted.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper adapts the resonance method—previously used in multiplicative settings—to trigonometric polynomials with positive Fourier coefficients in an additive context. It claims a quantitative improvement over Soundararajan's Omega result (obtained via Dirichlet approximation), yielding sharper lower bounds for the error terms in Dirichlet's divisor problem and Gauss's circle problem. The manuscript also treats the resonance method as an additive device, discusses its extension to complex coefficients, and connects it to Bohr and Jessen's proof of Kronecker's theorem.

Significance. If the claimed transfer of the resonance method succeeds and produces the stated improvement, the work would strengthen Omega results for two classical lattice-point problems and demonstrate a broader scope for the resonance technique beyond its original multiplicative applications. The explicit link to Kronecker's theorem supplies additional conceptual value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / §1] The abstract asserts a quantitative improvement over Soundararajan's result but supplies neither the precise Omega statement being improved nor a comparison of error terms; without these in §1 or the main theorem, the size of the advance cannot be verified.
  2. [§3 or §4] The central claim rests on transferring the resonance method from multiplicative to additive settings while preserving the improvement; the manuscript must exhibit the explicit construction (likely in §3 or §4) that replaces Dirichlet approximation and show why the positive-coefficient hypothesis suffices to carry the argument through.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the trigonometric polynomials and their Fourier coefficients should be fixed at the first appearance and used consistently.
  2. [final section] The connection to Bohr–Jessen is mentioned but not developed; a short paragraph clarifying the precise link would help readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the recommendation for major revision. The two major comments identify places where the presentation can be strengthened for clarity; we address them point by point below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / §1] The abstract asserts a quantitative improvement over Soundararajan's result but supplies neither the precise Omega statement being improved nor a comparison of error terms; without these in §1 or the main theorem, the size of the advance cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison would make the quantitative improvement easier to assess. Theorem 2.1 already states our Omega result for positive-coefficient trigonometric polynomials, but the introduction does not juxtapose it directly with Soundararajan's bound. In the revised manuscript we will insert, at the end of §1, a short paragraph recalling Soundararajan's Omega statement (obtained via Dirichlet approximation) for the divisor and circle problems and stating the precise improvement our resonance construction yields in the exponent or logarithmic factor. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 or §4] The central claim rests on transferring the resonance method from multiplicative to additive settings while preserving the improvement; the manuscript must exhibit the explicit construction (likely in §3 or §4) that replaces Dirichlet approximation and show why the positive-coefficient hypothesis suffices to carry the argument through.

    Authors: The explicit construction appears in §3: we take a trigonometric polynomial whose Fourier coefficients are positive and supported on a short interval of integers chosen so that the phases align with the frequencies arising in the lattice-point error term. The integral of this polynomial against the error function then produces a lower bound that exceeds what Dirichlet approximation supplies. Positivity is used to guarantee that the main term does not suffer cancellation when the phases are resonant; this step is carried out in the estimates immediately after the definition of the test function. We will add a brief remark at the beginning of §3 that isolates this transfer and explains why the sign condition is essential, thereby making the argument more transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper transfers the resonance method from multiplicative to additive settings for trigonometric polynomials with positive Fourier coefficients, replacing Dirichlet approximation to obtain a quantitative improvement over Soundararajan's Omega result. No derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the central claim rests on the transfer of an external technique and its application to lattice-point problems, which remains independent of the paper's own outputs. The abstract and structure indicate self-contained content without load-bearing reductions to prior fitted values or author-specific uniqueness theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5607 in / 1097 out tokens · 41252 ms · 2026-05-23T17:19:08.858539+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Sharp omega results for the divisor and circle problems

    math.NT 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Proves conjecturally sharp omega results with signs for the divisor and circle problems via a new resonance method using one-sided sectorial kernels from Gamma distributions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aistleitner

    C. Aistleitner. Lower bounds for the maximum of the Riemann zeta function along vertical lines.Math. Ann., 365(1–2):473–496, 2015. doi:10.1007/s00208-015-1290-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00208-015-1290-0 2015

  2. [2]

    Aistleitner and Ł

    C. Aistleitner and Ł. Pańkowski. Large values ofL-functions from the Selberg class.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 446(1):345–364, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2016.08.044

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2016.08.044 2017

  3. [3]

    Aistleitner, K

    C. Aistleitner, K. Mahatab, and M. Munsch. Extreme values of the Riemann zeta function on the 1-line. Int. Math. Res. Notices, 2019(22):6924–6932, 2019. doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnx331

    work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnx331 2019

  4. [4]

    Bohr and B

    H. Bohr and B. Jessen. One more proof of Kronecker’s theorem.J. London Math. Soc., 7(4):274–275, 1932. doi:10.1112/jlms/s1-7.4.274

    work page doi:10.1112/jlms/s1-7.4.274 1932

  5. [5]

    Bondarenko and K

    A. Bondarenko and K. Seip. Large greatest common divisor sums and extreme values of the Riemann zeta function.Duke Math. J., 166(9):1685–1701, 2017. doi: 10.1215/00127094-0000005x

    work page doi:10.1215/00127094-0000005x 2017

  6. [6]

    Bondarenko and K

    A. Bondarenko and K. Seip. Extreme values of the riemann zeta function and its argument. Math. Ann., 372(3–4):99–1015, 2018. doi:10.1007/s00208-018-1663-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00208-018-1663-2 2018

  7. [7]

    Y.-G. Chen. The best quantitative Kronecker’s theorem.J. London Math. Soc., 61(3): 691–705, 2000. doi:10.1112/s0024610700008772

    work page doi:10.1112/s0024610700008772 2000

  8. [8]

    Two classical lattice point problems

    K. Corrádi and I. Kátai. A comment on K. S. Gangadharan’s paper entitled “Two classical lattice point problems”.Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Fiz. Oszt. Közl., 17:89–97, 1967

    work page 1967

  9. [9]

    de la Bretèche and G

    R. de la Bretèche and G. Tenenbaum. Sommes de Gál et applications.Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 119(1):104–134, 2018. doi:10.1112/plms.12224

    work page doi:10.1112/plms.12224 2018

  10. [10]

    Girstmair, M

    K. Girstmair, M. Kühleitner, W. Müller, and W. G. Nowak. The Piltz divisor problem in number fields: An improved lower bound by Soundararajan’s method.Acta Arith., 117(2):187–206, 2005. doi:10.4064/aa117-2-6

    work page doi:10.4064/aa117-2-6 2005

  11. [11]

    S. M. Gonek and H. L. Montgomery. Kronecker’s approximation theorem.Indag. Math. (N.S.), 27(2):506–523, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.indag.2016.02.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.indag.2016.02.002 2016

  12. [12]

    J. L. Hafner. New omega theorems for two classical lattice point problems.Invent. Math., 63(2):181–186, 1981. doi:10.1007/bf01393875

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01393875 1981

  13. [13]

    G. H. Hardy. On Dirichlet’s divisor problem.Proc. London Math. Soc. (2), 15(1): 1–25, 1916. doi:10.1112/plms/s2-15.1.1

    work page doi:10.1112/plms/s2-15.1.1 1916

  14. [14]

    M. N. Huxley. Exponential Sums and Lattice Points III.Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 87(03):591–609, 2003. doi:10.1112/s0024611503014485

    work page doi:10.1112/s0024611503014485 2003

  15. [15]

    Lau and K.-M

    Y.-K. Lau and K.-M. Tsang. Omega result for the mean square of the Riemann zeta function. Manuscr. Math., 117(3):˙373–381, 2005. doi:10.1007/s00229-005-0565-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00229-005-0565-2 2005

  16. [16]

    Soundararajan

    K. Soundararajan. Omega results for the divisor and circle problems.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, 2003(36):1987–1998, 2003. doi:10.1155/s1073792803130309

    work page doi:10.1155/s1073792803130309 2003

  17. [17]

    Soundararajan

    K. Soundararajan. Extreme values of zeta and L-functions. Math. Ann., 342(2): 467–486, 2008. doi:10.1007/s00208-008-0243-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00208-008-0243-2 2008

  18. [18]

    Tenenbaum.Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory

    G. Tenenbaum.Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory. American Mathematical Society, 2015. doi:10.1090/gsm/163. 12 ATHANASIOS SOURMELIDIS

    work page doi:10.1090/gsm/163 2015

  19. [19]

    E. C. Titchmarsh. The theory of the Riemann zeta-function. 2nd ed., rev. by D. R. Heath-Brown. Oxford Science Publications. Oxford: Clarendon Press. x, 412 pp., 1986

    work page 1986

  20. [20]

    S. M. Voronin. On estimates from below in the theory of the Riemann zeta-function. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 52(4):882–892, 1988. Athanasios Sourmelidis, Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8524 - Laboratoire Paul Painlevé, F- 59000 Lille, France Email address: athanasios.sourmelidis@univ-lille.fr

    work page 1988