Closed quadratic zero-free ingredients #
The endpoint optimization is intentionally not asserted here. These public
lemmas close the vertical fundamental theorem, the low-height two-segment
argument once its sharp derivative budgets have been instantiated, and the
high-height (3,4,1) contradiction while consuming the actual principal
Euler-correction and pole-plus-log zeta bounds.
Genuine vertical fundamental theorem for a nonprincipal Dirichlet
L-function. The derivative here is the real derivative of the actual
vertical restriction, so the statement contains no assumed path identity.
Integrating the conductor-height derivative estimate along a horizontal segment gives a logarithmic, rather than polynomial-in-the-conductor, budget.
Common conductor-height and zeta-pole scale used in the conditional quadratic zero-free headline.
Equations
Instances For
Integrating the global conductor-log derivative bound along the genuine
vertical segment gives a linear-in-|t| budget at re s = 1.
Low-height two-segment exclusion. The endpoint value is identified with
its positive real part using quadraticity. hhorizontal and hvertical are
the two sharp derivative-integral budgets, and the preceding theorem supplies
the required vertical fundamental theorem when establishing hvertical.
Actual principal-square estimate used in the high-height branch. This directly consumes both accepted analytic inputs; it is not an abstract source predicate.
High-height (3,4,1) contradiction. The actual principal-square bound is
invoked in the proof. htriv and hright are precisely the elementary
principal-pole and Taylor estimates to be discharged by the surrounding
power-width arithmetic.
The combined conductor-height/pole scale is at least one.
The conductor logarithm is dominated by the common scale.
For nonzero height, the pole-plus-log factor is also dominated by the common scale.
A genuine conditional quadratic headline. A Siegel-type lower bound at
one, with its premise left explicit, gives a single power-width zero-free
region at every height. The low branch uses both the horizontal and the
accepted vertical derivative budgets; the complementary branch uses the
(3,4,1) value-product argument.