In this problem · publication v3 · Selected context
Bound · Proved
RH is equivalent to Λ ≤ 0. The proved lower bound makes RH equivalent to Λ = 0; it does not prove that upper bound.
Scope: Rodgers and Tao proved Newman’s nonnegativity conjecture: if RH is true, Λ must be exactly zero.
Limit: Λ ≥ 0 alone allows positive Λ, which would make RH false. The required upper bound Λ ≤ 0 remains open.
A distinct scope, not an additive fraction of the conjecture solved.
Relationship not independently reviewed. This concerns its use in this problem.
In this problem · publication v4
Bound · Proved
RH is equivalent to Λ ≤ 0. The proved lower bound makes RH equivalent to Λ = 0; it does not prove that upper bound.
Scope: Rodgers and Tao proved Newman’s nonnegativity conjecture: if RH is true, Λ must be exactly zero.
Limit: Λ ≥ 0 alone allows positive Λ, which would make RH false. The required upper bound Λ ≤ 0 remains open.
A distinct scope, not an additive fraction of the conjecture solved.
Related statements
The two proved inequalities enclose the same normalized constant in [0, 0.2].
An interval containing zero is not a proof that the constant equals zero.
Details & sources
Proved · version 1
For the classical de Bruijn–Newman heat-flow family, Λ ≥ 0. Λ is defined by H_t(z) = ∫₀∞ exp(tu²) Φ(u) cos(zu) du, using the classical Riemann kernel Φ and normalization in the cited paper; all H_t zeros are real exactly when t ≥ Λ.
- Classical Riemann ξ heat flow and the cited normalization.
- No RH assumption.
Scope: Newman’s separate nonnegativity conjecture is proved.
Proved · version 1
In the classical heat-flow normalization, Λ ≤ 0.2. This is Corollary 2 of the finite-verification paper, applying Polymath15’s criterion with the verified height.
- Use the same classical heat-flow normalization as the lower bound.
- The rigorous finite-height verification satisfies the published Polymath15 criterion.
Scope: A published upper bound selected here as a reviewed baseline; newer proposed improvements are separately attributed below.
Relationship not independently reviewed.
Connection in Riemann hypothesis →Relationship not independently reviewed. This concerns its use in this problem.