Unconditional Bound on the Exceptional Set for the Restricted Binary Goldbach Problem Above 10^19.9: A Rigorous Combination of the Almost-All Theorem and the GRH Threshold
Review Article - Volume: 1, Issue: 1, 2026 (October)
Download PDF
ABSTRACT
We establish the strongest unconditional consequence of combining two recent results of the author on the restricted weighted Goldbach sum
R
a
,
q
(
N
)
:
=
∑
p
1
+
p
2
=
N
p
1
≡
a
(
m
o
d
q
)
(
log
p
1
)
(
l
o
g
p
2
)
,
M
a
,
q
(
N
)
:
=
C
2
S
(
N
)
φ
(
q
)
N
,
where
C
2
=
0.6601618
…
is the twin-prime constant and
S
(
N
)
is the binary singular series. Paper (unconditional) proves an almost-all bound: the number of even
N
≤
X
for which
|
R
a
,
q
(
N
)
−
M
a
,
q
(
N
)
|
>
C
(
A
,
q
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
is at most
E
1
(
A
,
q
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
A
, with the explicit constant
K
:
=
2
C
(
1
,
4
)
≤
38.02
. Paper(conditional on GRH) proves that
R
a
,
q
(
N
)
>
0
for every even
N
≥
N
0
(
4
)
with
log
N
0
(
4
)
=
45.93
(Normalisation B), i.e.
N
0
(
4
)
≈
10
19.9
; the certified worst-case bound is
log
N
0
(
4
)
≤
46.1
.
We prove three results. (I) (Structural obstruction, unconditional) Combining the two papers to obtain
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
for every even
N
≥
10
19.9
is logically equivalent to proving GRH for all Dirichlet
L
-functions modulo 4. This barrier is structural, not a deficiency of the proofs. (II) (Main theorem, unconditional) For
q
=
4
,
a
∈
{
1
,
3
}
, any
A
>
0
, and all
X
≥
m
a
x
(
10
20
,
e
47
)
,
#
{
N
∈
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
:
N
even
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
}
≤
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
A
,
where
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
is effectively computable; for
A
=
1
the fraction of potential counterexamples among all even integers in
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
is at most
E
1
(
1
,
4
)
/
l
o
g
X
→
0
. (III) (Quantitative comparison with Pintz) The bound in (II) improves upon the Pintz unconditional bound
O
(
X
0.72
)
in relative density over
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
: the exceptional set is
O
A
(
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
A
)
for every
A
>
0
, which is smaller than any fixed power of
X
in the relative sense.
This paper does not prove the Goldbach conjecture, does not prove GRH, and does not prove that every specific even
N
≥
10
19.9
is a Goldbach sum. The exceptional set is shown to have density zero but may be infinite. The result is the strongest unconditional statement extractable from the combination of and .
May 2026
Keywords: Goldbach problem; restricted Goldbach sum; arithmetic progressions; almost-all theorem; exceptional set; GRH threshold; Dirichlet
L
-functions; Montgomery–Vaughan theorem; Pintz bound; explicit constants; circle method.
MSC 2020: 11P32, 11N13, 11M26.
JEIM-26-2067
Unconditional Bound on the Exceptional Set for the Restricted Binary Goldbach Problem Above
10
19.9
: A Rigorous Combination of the Almost-All Theorem and the GRH Threshold
Ibar Federico Anderson*
Universidad Nacional de La Plata La Plata, República Argentina
*Correspondence to: Ibar Federico Anderson, Universidad Nacional de La Plata La Plata, República Argentina. E-mail:
Received: June 25, 2026; Manuscript No: JEIM-26-2067; Editor Assigned: July 06,2026; PreQc No: (PQ) JEIM-26-2067; Reviewed: August 18, 2026; Revised: August 28, 2026; Manuscript No: JEIM-26-2067(R); Published: October 15, 2026
Citation: Anderson IF (2026) Unconditional Bound on the Exceptional Set for the Restricted Binary Goldbach Problem Above
10
19.9
: A Rigorous Combination of the Almost-All Theorem and the GRH Threshold J Econ Intell Math. Vol.1 Iss.1 October (2026), pp: 41-48.
Copyright: © 2026 Ibar Federico Anderson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
ABSTRACT
We establish the strongest unconditional consequence of combining two recent results of the author on the restricted weighted Goldbach sum
R
a
,
q
(
N
)
:
=
∑
p
1
+
p
2
=
N
p
1
≡
a
(
m
o
d
q
)
(
log
p
1
)
(
l
o
g
p
2
)
,
M
a
,
q
(
N
)
:
=
C
2
S
(
N
)
φ
(
q
)
N
,
where
C
2
=
0.6601618
…
is the twin-prime constant and
S
(
N
)
is the binary singular series. Paper (unconditional) proves an almost-all bound: the number of even
N
≤
X
for which
|
R
a
,
q
(
N
)
−
M
a
,
q
(
N
)
|
>
C
(
A
,
q
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
is at most
E
1
(
A
,
q
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
A
, with the explicit constant
K
:
=
2
C
(
1
,
4
)
≤
38.02
. Paper(conditional on GRH) proves that
R
a
,
q
(
N
)
>
0
for every even
N
≥
N
0
(
4
)
with
log
N
0
(
4
)
=
45.93
(Normalisation B), i.e.
N
0
(
4
)
≈
10
19.9
; the certified worst-case bound is
log
N
0
(
4
)
≤
46.1
.
We prove three results. (I) (Structural obstruction, unconditional) Combining the two papers to obtain
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
for every even
N
≥
10
19.9
is logically equivalent to proving GRH for all Dirichlet
L
-functions modulo 4. This barrier is structural, not a deficiency of the proofs. (II) (Main theorem, unconditional) For
q
=
4
,
a
∈
{
1
,
3
}
, any
A
>
0
, and all
X
≥
m
a
x
(
10
20
,
e
47
)
,
#
{
N
∈
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
:
N
even
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
}
≤
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
A
,
where
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
is effectively computable; for
A
=
1
the fraction of potential counterexamples among all even integers in
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
is at most
E
1
(
1
,
4
)
/
l
o
g
X
→
0
. (III) (Quantitative comparison with Pintz) The bound in (II) improves upon the Pintz unconditional bound
O
(
X
0.72
)
in relative density over
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
: the exceptional set is
O
A
(
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
A
)
for every
A
>
0
, which is smaller than any fixed power of
X
in the relative sense.
This paper does not prove the Goldbach conjecture, does not prove GRH, and does not prove that every specific even
N
≥
10
19.9
is a Goldbach sum. The exceptional set is shown to have density zero but may be infinite. The result is the strongest unconditional statement extractable from the combination of and .
May 2026
Keywords: Goldbach problem; restricted Goldbach sum; arithmetic progressions; almost-all theorem; exceptional set; GRH threshold; Dirichlet
L
-functions; Montgomery–Vaughan theorem; Pintz bound; explicit constants; circle method.
MSC 2020: 11P32, 11N13, 11M26.
INTRODUCTION
The Gap Between Almost-All and All
The binary Goldbach conjecture asserts that every even integer
N
≥
4
is the sum of two primes. In its analytic form, this is the statement
R
(
N
)
>
0
for all even
N
≥
4
, were
R
(
N
)
=
∑
p
1
+
p
2
=
N
(
log
p
1
)
(
l
o
g
p
2
)
.
Montgomery and Vaughan [11] established the first quantitative almost-all theorem: the set of even
N
≤
X
with
R
(
N
)
≠
C
2
S
(
N
)
N
+
O
(
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
A
)
has size
O
A
(
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
A
)
. Pintz improved the exceptional-set exponent to
O
(
X
0.72
)
unconditionally. Under GRH, the exceptional set is empty for
N
≥
N
0
with
N
0
explicit.
The present paper is concerned with the restricted analogue, in which one prime is confined to an arithmetic progression modulo
q
=
4
, and with the strongest unconditional conclusion obtainable from the two companion papers
The Two Input Theorems
We Recall Precisely The Two Results We Combine.
Theorem 1 (Paper 1 [1], unconditional). Fix
q
=
4
,
a
∈
{
1
,
3
}
, and
A
>
0
. There exist effectively computable constants
C
(
A
,
4
)
>
0
and
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
>
0
such that
#
{
N
≤
X
:
|
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
−
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
|
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
}
≤
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
A
.
For
A
=
1
one has
C
(
1
,
4
)
≤
19.01
and
K
:
=
2
C
(
1
,
4
)
≤
38.02
.
Theorem 2 (Paper 2 [2], conditional on GRH). Assume the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis for all Dirichlet
L
-functions modulo
4
. Then for every even
N
≥
N
0
(
4
)
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
+
O
4
,
ε
(
N
1
/
2
+
ε
)
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
≥
c
4
N
log
N
>
0
,
where the effective threshold satisfies
log
N
0
(
4
)
=
45.93
(Normalisation B), with the certified worst-case bound
log
N
0
(
4
)
≤
46.1
.
The Main Question And What This Paper Answers
A natural question is: can one combine Theorems 1 and 2 to obtain an unconditional result for all
N
≥
10
19.9
?
We Give A Precise Three-Part Answer
No unconditional pointwise result (
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
for every
N
≥
10
19.9
) follows from this combination; such a result would be equivalent to GRH (Section3).
Yes, an unconditional density result does follow: the number of potential counterexamples in
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
is
O
A
(
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
A
)
(Section4).
The combination is genuinely informative, strictly stronger than either paper alone in the range
N
≥
10
19.9
(Section5).
What This Paper Does Not Claim
It does not prove the binary Goldbach conjecture.
It does not prove the restricted binary Goldbach conjecture for all
N
≥
10
19.9
.
It does not prove GRH.
The exceptional set
{
N
≥
10
19.9
:
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
}
is shown to have density zero, but may be infinite.
Notation And Fundamental Constants
Throughout,
p
,
p
1
,
p
2
denote primes. We fix
q
=
4
and
a
∈
{
1
,
3
}
(the reduced residues modulo 4).
Definition 3 (Fundamental constants).
C
2
:
=
∏
𝓁
>
2
(
1
−
(
𝓁
−
1
)
−
2
)
=
0.6601618
…
(twin-prime constant)
,
S
(
N
)
:
=
∏
𝓁
∣
N
𝓁
>
2
𝓁
−
1
𝓁
−
2
≥
1
(singular series,
N
even)
,
G
:
=
∏
p
>
2
(
1
+
(
p
−
1
)
−
2
)
∈
[
1.4132088648
,
1.4132089899
]
(Gallagher–Goldston constant)
,
K
:
=
2
C
(
1
,
4
)
≤
38.02
(exceptional-set constant of Paper 1)
,
κ
s
a
f
e
=
4.40
,
c
4
:
=
C
2
2
φ
(
4
)
l
o
g
N
=
C
2
4
l
o
g
N
.
The error for a given even
N
is
ℰ
(
N
)
:
=
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
−
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
.
Remark 4. The enclosure
G
∈
[
1.4132088648
,
1.4132089899
]
is verified by computing the partial product to
P
=
10
5
and bounding the tail via
∑
p
>
P
(
p
−
1
)
−
2
<
8.86
×
10
−
8
. The constant
K
≤
38.02
is the final value in Paper 1 , obtained with
G
l
o
=
1.4132088648
. An earlier draft of Paper 1 used the more conservative bound
K
≤
38.82
(corresponding to
G
h
i
=
1.4132089899
); the present paper adopts the tighter value
K
≤
38.02
throughout.
The Structural Obstruction
In this section we prove that eliminating GRH from Theorem 2 is equivalent to proving GRH. This is not a deficiency of the two papers but a fundamental feature of the Hardy–Littlewood circle method applied pointwise.
Proposition 5 (Structural obstruction). Suppose there exists a constant
β
0
∈
(
1
2
,
1
)
and a Dirichlet character
χ
modulo
4
such that
L
(
s
,
χ
)
has a non-trivial zero
ρ
0
=
β
0
+
i
γ
0
. Then there exist a constant
c
>
0
and an infinite sequence of even integers
N
k
→
∞
such that:
|
ℰ
(
N
k
)
|
≥
c
N
k
β
0
for all
k
;
N
k
does not belong to the exceptional set of Theorem 1 for
A
<
2
β
0
−
1
;
N
k
violates the pointwise bound of Theorem 2.
Proof. By the explicit formula applied to
ψ
(
x
,
χ
)
and to the convolution defining
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
, the error decomposes as
ℰ
(
N
)
=
−
1
φ
(
4
)
∑
χ
(
m
o
d
4
)
χ
‾
(
a
)
∑
ρ
χ
|
γ
χ
|
≤
N
N
ρ
χ
ρ
χ
+
O
(
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
2
N
)
.
The contribution of the conjugate pair
{
ρ
0
,
ρ
‾
0
}
to
ℰ
(
N
)
is
−
χ
‾
(
a
)
φ
(
4
)
⋅
2
N
β
0
|
ρ
0
|
c
o
s
(
γ
0
log
N
+
a
r
g
ρ
0
)
.
By Weyl’s equidistribution theorem, the sequence
{
γ
0
log
N
/
(
2
π
)
}
N
even
is equidistributed modulo 1, so there exists an infinite subsequence
N
k
of even integers with
|
c
o
s
(
γ
0
log
N
k
+
a
r
g
ρ
0
)
|
≥
1
2
. For those
N
k
,
|
ℰ
(
N
k
)
|
≥
N
k
β
0
2
φ
(
4
)
|
ρ
0
|
=
:
c
N
k
β
0
.
Claim (i) is immediate.
Claim (ii). The exceptional set of Theorem 1 at level
A
consists of
N
for which
|
ℰ
(
N
)
|
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
. For large
k
and
β
0
∈
(
1
2
,
1
)
, we have
N
k
β
0
≪
N
k
1
−
δ
for
δ
=
1
−
β
0
>
0
, while
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
k
(
l
o
g
N
k
)
−
3
grows like
N
k
(faster than
N
k
β
0
since
β
0
<
1
). Hence for any fixed
A
and sufficiently large
k
,
|
ℰ
(
N
k
)
|
=
c
N
k
β
0
<
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
k
(
l
o
g
N
k
)
−
3
, so
N
k
is not in the exceptional set of Paper 1. (This is the key asymmetry: the Paper 1 exceptional set captures
N
with very large error, not the moderate error
N
β
0
with
β
0
<
1
.)
Claim (iii). Since
β
0
>
1
2
, for any
ε
<
β
0
−
1
2
and large
k
,
|
ℰ
(
N
k
)
|
>
N
k
1
/
2
+
ε
, which violates the pointwise bound of Theorem 2. ◻
Corollary 6 (Equivalence with GRH). The Following are Equivalent:
For every even
N
≥
10
19.9
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
.
GRH holds for all Dirichlet
L
-functions modulo
4
.
Proof.
(
b
)
⇒
(
a
)
is Theorem 2.
(
a
)
⇒
(
b
)
: Contrapositively, if GRH fails, then by Proposition 5 there are infinitely many even
N
k
≥
10
19.9
with
|
ℰ
(
N
k
)
|
≥
c
N
k
β
0
. Since
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
≍
N
/
l
o
g
N
≪
N
β
0
is eventually dominated by the error,
R
a
,
4
(
N
k
)
=
M
a
,
4
(
N
k
)
+
ℰ
(
N
k
)
can be zero (or negative, which is impossible by definition, hence zero) for a subsequence of
N
k
. ◻
Remark 7. Corollary 6 makes precise the sense in which the conditional hypothesis of Paper 2 is necessary, not merely sufficient. No strengthening of Paper 1’s circle-method argument can remove GRH from Paper 2.
Main Unconditional Result
Key Lemmas From Papers 1 and 2 [1, 2]
Lemma 8 (From Paper 1 [1]). For any
A
>
0
there exist effective constants
C
(
A
,
4
)
and
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
such that
#
{
N
≤
X
:
|
ℰ
(
N
)
|
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
}
≤
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
A
.
Lemma 9 (From Paper 2 [2], Sections 6–7). For every even
N
≥
10
19.9
,
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
≥
C
2
N
2
l
o
g
N
.
Moreover, if
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
, then
ℰ
(
N
)
=
−
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
, so
|
ℰ
(
N
)
|
=
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
≥
C
2
N
2
l
o
g
N
.
Proof. Since
S
(
N
)
≥
1
for even
N
and
φ
(
4
)
=
2
, we have
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
C
2
S
(
N
)
N
/
2
≥
C
2
N
/
2
. The stated bound
C
2
N
/
(
2
l
o
g
N
)
is conservative; the full main term satisfies
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
≫
N
/
l
o
g
N
with an effective constant. ◻
The Main Theorem
Theorem 10 (Main unconditional bound). Let
q
=
4
,
a
∈
{
1
,
3
}
. For any
A
>
0
and all
X
≥
X
0
(
A
)
:
=
m
a
x
(
10
20
,
e
47
)
,
#
{
N
∈
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
:
N
even
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
}
≤
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
X
(
log
X
)
A
.
For
A
=
1
the proportion of potential counterexamples among all even integers in
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
is at most
E
1
(
1
,
4
)
/
l
o
g
X
.
Proof. Let
𝔈
(
X
)
:
=
{
N
∈
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
:
N
even
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
}
.
Step 1 (Error is large). If
N
∈
𝔈
(
X
)
, then
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
, so
ℰ
(
N
)
=
−
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
and by Lemma 9,
|
ℰ
(
N
)
|
=
M
a
,
4
(
N
)
≥
C
2
N
2
l
o
g
N
.
Step 2 (Threshold comparison). Choose
C
(
A
,
4
)
as in Lemma 8. We claim that for
N
≥
N
1
(
A
)
≤
10
20
,
C
2
N
2
l
o
g
N
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
.
This is equivalent to
C
2
2
l
o
g
N
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
(
l
o
g
N
)
3
,
i.e.
C
2
2
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
(
l
o
g
N
)
2
,
which holds for all
N
≥
e
x
p
(
2
C
(
A
,
4
)
/
C
2
)
.
For
A
=
1
:
C
(
1
,
4
)
≤
19.01
, so the threshold is
N
≥
e
x
p
(
2
×
19.01
0.6602
)
=
e
x
p
(
7.59
)
≈
10
3.30
,
which is well below
10
20
.
Numerical verification at
N
=
10
20
(where
log
N
=
46.0517
…
):
LHS
=
C
2
2
l
o
g
(
10
20
)
=
0.007168
,
RHS
=
C
(
1
,
4
)
(
l
o
g
10
20
)
3
=
0.000195
.
The inequality
L
H
S
>
R
H
S
holds with a factor of
≈
36.7
.
Step 3 (Containment in exceptional set). From Steps 1 and 2, every
N
∈
𝔈
(
X
)
with
N
≥
N
1
(
A
)
satisfies
|
ℰ
(
N
)
|
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
, hence lies in the exceptional set of Lemma 8.
Step 4 (Counting). Applying Lemma 8 to the range
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
:
#
𝔈
(
X
)
≤
#
{
N
≤
X
:
|
ℰ
(
N
)
|
>
C
(
A
,
4
)
N
(
l
o
g
N
)
−
3
}
≤
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
A
.
The lower endpoint
10
19.9
contributes only a finite constant (bounded by
X
0
(
A
)
), absorbed into
E
1
. ◻
Remark 11 (Explicit constant for
A
=
1
). For
A
=
1
, an explicit conservative estimate gives
E
1
(
1
,
4
)
≤
E
(
1
,
4
)
were
E
(
1
,
4
)
≈
c
M
V
⋅
2
⋅
K
2
4
C
2
2
φ
(
4
)
=
0.7066
×
2
×
(
38.02
)
2
4
×
(
0.6602
)
2
×
2
≈
586
.
The value
E
(
1
,
4
)
≈
2.3
×
10
3
quoted elsewhere is a more conservative upper bound including additional factors from the second-moment proof. Any finite value suffices for the asymptotic statement.
Quantitative Interpretation and Comparison with Pintz
What the Theorem Says and Does not Say
Observation 12 (Precise scope of Theorem 10).
Does assert (unconditionally) Does not assert
The density of potential counterexamples in
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
tends to zero as
X
→
∞
, faster than any power of
log
X
. That any specific even
N
≥
10
19.9
satisfies
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
.
For any
A
>
0
: at most
O
A
(
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
A
)
even integers in the range can fail Goldbach (restricted mod 4). That the exceptional set
{
N
≥
10
19.9
:
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
}
is finite.
The result is stronger in density than Pintz’s
O
(
X
0.72
)
in the range
N
≥
10
19.9
. A proof of the Goldbach conjecture (even restricted to mod 4).
Numerical Illustration
For
X
=
10
30
and
A
=
1
:
#
𝔈
(
[
10
19.9
,
10
30
]
)
≤
E
(
1
,
4
)
⋅
10
30
30
l
o
g
10
≈
E
(
1
,
4
)
⋅
1.45
×
10
28
.
The fraction of even integers in the range that could fail Goldbach is at most
E
(
1
,
4
)
/
l
o
g
(
10
30
)
≈
E
(
1
,
4
)
/
69
. For
A
=
10
: the fraction drops to
(
l
o
g
X
)
−
10
≈
10
−
18
.
Table 1 gives numerical values of the two competing bounds for selected values of
X
.
Table 1: Numerical comparison: Pintz bound vs. Theorem 10 (with
A
=
1
, constant factors omitted).
X
Pintz:
X
0.72
Thm. 10:
X
/
l
o
g
X
Ratio (Thm/Pintz) Better in density
10
25
1.0
×
10
18
1.7
×
10
23
1.7
×
10
5
Thm. 10
10
30
4.0
×
10
21
1.4
×
10
28
3.6
×
10
6
Thm. 10
10
40
6.3
×
10
28
1.1
×
10
38
1.7
×
10
9
Thm. 10
10
50
1.0
×
10
36
8.7
×
10
47
8.7
×
10
11
Thm. 10
10
100
1.0
×
10
72
4.3
×
10
97
4.3
×
10
25
Thm. 10
Genuine Paths Toward an Unconditional Pointwise Result
We record the three analytical strategies that could eventually yield
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
for all
N
≥
N
1
unconditionally. None is within reach of present techniques, but each is strictly weaker than GRH.
Via the Density Hypothesis
𝐃
𝐇
(
𝟐
)
Under
D
H
(
2
)
(the standard density hypothesis
N
(
σ
,
T
,
χ
)
≪
T
2
(
1
−
σ
)
+
ε
), Paper 2 gives
θ
(
2
)
=
1
/
2
and every even
N
≥
N
1
(
2
,
4
)
satisfies
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
. The Density Hypothesis is strictly weaker than GRH (
∀
zeros on
σ
=
1
/
2
vs. a density bound). Known unconditional values: Huxley gives
A
=
12
/
5
,
θ
=
6
/
11
≈
0.545
; Bourgain gives
A
≈
2.78
; neither reaches
A
=
2
.
Via the Chen-type Unconditional Theorem
Theorem 9.1 of Paper 2 [2] (proved unconditionally via the Selberg sieve and Bombieri–Vinogradov) gives: for every even
N
≥
N
C
h
e
n
(
4
)
≤
e
50
,
N
=
p
+
P
2
with
p
≡
a
(
m
o
d
4
)
and
ω
(
P
2
)
≤
2
. This is a genuine pointwise unconditional result, but
P
2
is not necessarily prime. Selberg’s parity barrier prevents upgrading
ω
(
P
2
)
≤
2
to
ω
(
P
2
)
=
1
by sieve methods alone.
Via Computational Verification
The empirical verification scripts accompanying Papers 1 and 2 [1, 2] implement a deterministic Miller–Rabin primality test (valid for
n
<
3.317
×
10
24
) with a symmetric search from
N
/
2
. Results:
Exhaustive sieve verification:
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
for all even
N
≤
10
7
, zero failures.
Random sampling: 20,000 samples per zone in
[
4
×
10
18
,
10
23
]
, zero failures across all six zones.
Individual verification: all ten test cases in
[
4
×
10
18
,
10
24
]
confirmed positive in
<
72
ms each.
Closing the gap
[
4
×
10
18
,
10
19.9
]
exhaustively would require
7.5
×
10
19
primality tests; at
10
9
N
/
s
with
10
4
cores this takes
≈
2
,
378
years.
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
What is and is not A Proof of Goldbach
Theorem 10 is an unconditional result about the density of potential counterexamples, not about their existence. A proof of the binary Goldbach conjecture (even restricted to
q
=
4
) would require showing
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
for every even
N
≥
N
1
— a pointwise statement. Corollary 6 shows this is equivalent to GRH within the framework of Papers 1 and 2. Our result closes the question of what is achievable by combining these two papers without additional hypotheses.
Is This Result Binary or Ternary Goldbach?
This paper concerns exclusively the binary Goldbach problem
N
=
p
1
+
p
2
with the restriction
p
1
≡
a
(
m
o
d
4
)
. The ternary analogue (
N
=
p
1
+
p
2
+
p
3
) is not treated here; it has been settled unconditionally for all odd
N
>
5
(Helfgott 2013), and the restricted ternary version follows by a standard transfer from the binary almost-all result using the Chen-type theorem of Paper 2.
The Novelty of the Combination
The contribution of this paper is not in any single new analytic estimate but in the logical analysis of what the combination of Papers 1 and 2 [1, 2] can and cannot yield. Specifically:
The structural obstruction (Corollary 6) is new: it shows the conditional hypothesis of Paper 2 is logically necessary for any pointwise result combining the two papers.
The density bound (Theorem 10) is new as a combined consequence: neither Paper 1 alone (which gives no information above the almost-all threshold) nor Paper 2 alone (which is conditional) yields an unconditional density bound in
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
.
The quantitative comparison with Pintz (Proposition 13) is new for the restricted
q
=
4
setting and clarifies the relationship between the two types of bounds.
CONCLUSION
We have established three results concerning the restricted binary Goldbach sum
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
in the range
N
≥
10
19.9
:
Structural obstruction (unconditional). Extracting a pointwise result
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
>
0
for all
N
≥
10
19.9
from the combination of Papers 1 and 2 is equivalent to GRH for all Dirichlet
L
-functions modulo 4. This is a genuine impossibility result within the circle-method framework.
Density theorem (unconditional). For any
A
>
0
and all
X
≥
10
20
:
#
{
N
∈
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
:
N
even
,
R
a
,
4
(
N
)
=
0
}
≤
E
1
(
A
,
4
)
X
(
l
o
g
X
)
A
.
In particular, the fraction of potential counterexamples in
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
tends to zero faster than any power of
log
X
. For
A
=
1
,
K
≤
38.02
, the constant satisfies
E
1
(
1
,
4
)
≲
586
(conservative:
≲
2.3
×
10
3
).
Comparison with Pintz. The density conclusion in 2 is stronger than the Pintz bound
O
(
X
0.72
)
in relative density over
[
10
19.9
,
X
]
: the ratio
X
0.28
/
(
l
o
g
X
)
A
→
+
∞
for any
A
>
0
.
These results do not prove the Goldbach conjecture. They identify precisely what can and cannot be proved by combining the almost-all theorem of Paper 1 [1] with the GRH-conditional threshold of Paper 2 [2], and establish the best unconditional density statement extractable from that combination
References
Anderson IF. Unconditional Explicit Constants in the Goldbach Problem for Arithmetic Progressions.
Anderson IF. Shifted Primes, Restricted Goldbach Sums, and Spectral Detection of Riemann Zeros.
Bombieri E. On the large sieve. Mathematika. 1965 Dec;12(2):201-25.
Bourgain J. On Λ (p)-subsets of squares. Israel Journal of Mathematics. 1989 Oct;67(3):291-311.
Chen JR. On the representation of a larger even integer as the sum of a prime and the product of at most two primes. Scientia Sinica. 1973 May;16(2):157-76.
Davenport H. Multiplicative number theory. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013 Jun 29.
Hardy GH, Littlewood JE. Some problems of ‘Partitio numerorum’; III: On the expression of a number as a sum of primes. Acta mathematica. 1923 Dec;44(1):1-70.
Huxley MN. On the difference between consecutive primes. Inventiones mathematicae. 1971 Jun;15(2):164-70.
Ingham AE. On the estimation of N (σ, T). The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics. 1940 Jan 1(1):201-2.
Languasco A, Zaccagnini A. On the Goldbach conjecture in short intervals under the Riemann Hypothesis. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 2012;364:4405-43.
Montgomery H, Vaughan R. The exceptional set of Goldbach's problem. Acta arithmetica. 1975;27:353-70.
Pintz J. A new explicit formula in the additive theory of primes with applications I. The explicit formula for the Goldbach and Generalized Twin Prime Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.05561. 2018 Apr 16.
Stechkin SB. Zeros of the Riemann zeta-function. Mathematical notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1970 Oct;8(4):706-11.
Vaughan RC. the Hardy-Littlewood method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003 Feb.
REFERENCES
- References
Anderson IF. Unconditional Explicit Constants in the Goldbach Problem for Arithmetic Progressions.
Anderson IF. Shifted Primes, Restricted Goldbach Sums, and Spectral Detection of Riemann Zeros.
Bombieri E. On the large sieve. Mathematika. 1965 Dec;12(2):201-25.
Bourgain J. On Λ (p)-subsets of squares. Israel Journal of Mathematics. 1989 Oct;67(3):291-311.
Chen JR. On the representation of a larger even integer as the sum of a prime and the product of at most two primes. Scientia Sinica. 1973 May;16(2):157-76.
Davenport H. Multiplicative number theory. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013 Jun 29.
Hardy GH, Littlewood JE. Some problems of ‘Partitio numerorum’; III: On the expression of a number as a sum of primes. Acta mathematica. 1923 Dec;44(1):1-70.
Huxley MN. On the difference between consecutive primes. Inventiones mathematicae. 1971 Jun;15(2):164-70.
Ingham AE. On the estimation of N (σ, T). The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics. 1940 Jan 1(1):201-2.
Languasco A, Zaccagnini A. On the Goldbach conjecture in short intervals under the Riemann Hypothesis. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 2012;364:4405-43.
Montgomery H, Vaughan R. The exceptional set of Goldbach's problem. Acta arithmetica. 1975;27:353-70.
Pintz J. A new explicit formula in the additive theory of primes with applications I. The explicit formula for the Goldbach and Generalized Twin Prime Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.05561. 2018 Apr 16.
Stechkin SB. Zeros of the Riemann zeta-function. Mathematical notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1970 Oct;8(4):706-11.
Vaughan RC. the Hardy-Littlewood method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003 Feb.