You are on page 1of 133

a

r
X
i
v
:
1
3
0
5
.
2
8
9
7
v
1


[
m
a
t
h
.
N
T
]


1
3

M
a
y

2
0
1
3
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM
H. A. HELFGOTT
Abstract. The ternary Goldbach conjecture, or three-primes problem, as-
serts that every odd integer n greater than 5 is the sum of three primes. The
present paper proves this conjecture.
Both the ternary Goldbach conjecture and the binary, or strong, Goldbach
conjecture had their origin in an exchange of letters between Euler and Gold-
bach in 1742. We will follow an approach based on the circle method, the
large sieve and exponential sums, supplemented by rigorous computations, in-
cluding a verication of zeros of L-functions due to D. Platt. The improved
estimates on exponential sums are proven in a twin paper by the author.
Contents
1. Introduction 2
1.1. Results 2
1.2. History 2
1.3. Main ideas 4
1.4. Acknowledgments 7
2. Preliminaries 8
2.1. Notation 8
2.2. Dirichlet characters and L functions 8
2.3. Fourier transforms 9
2.4. Mellin transforms 9
3. Preparatory work on major arcs 10
3.1. Decomposition of S

(, x) by characters 11
3.2. The integral over the major arcs 12
4. Optimizing and coordinating smoothing functions 22
4.1. The symmetric smoothing function

23
4.2. The approximation
+
to

24
4.3. The smoothing function

30
5. Mellin transforms and smoothing functions 36
5.1. Exponential sums and L functions 36
5.2. How to choose a smoothing function? 37
5.3. The Mellin transform of the twisted Gaussian 38
5.4. Totals 53
6. Explicit formulas 55
6.1. A general explicit formula 56
6.2. Sums and decay for (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
and

(t) 61
6.3. Sums and decay for
+
(t) 66
6.4. A verication of zeros and its consequences 78
7. The integral of the triple product over the minor arcs 81
7.1. The L
2
norm over arcs: variations on the large sieve for primes 81
7.2. Bounding the quotient in the large sieve for primes 86
7.3. Putting together
2
bounds over arcs and

bounds 92
1
2 H. A. HELFGOTT
8. Conclusion 102
8.1. The
2
norm over the major arcs 102
8.2. The total major-arcs contribution 103
8.3. Minor-arc totals 108
8.4. Conclusion: proof of main theorem 114
Appendix A. Sums over primes 115
Appendix B. Sums involving (q) 117
Appendix C. Validated numerics 120
C.1. Integrals of a smoothing function 120
C.2. Extrema via bisection and truncated series 122
References 130
1. Introduction
1.1. Results. The ternary Goldbach conjecture (or three-prime problem) states
that every odd number n greater than 5 can be written as the sum of three
primes. Both the ternary Goldbach conjecture and the (stronger) binary Gold-
bach conjecture (stating that every even number greater than 2 can be written
as the sum of two primes) have their origin in the correspondence between Euler
and Goldbach (1742).
I. M. Vinogradov [Vin37] showed in 1937 that the ternary Goldbach conjecture
is true for all n above a large constant C. Unfortunately, while the value of C has
been improved several times since then, it has always remained much too large
(C = e
3100
, [LW02]) for a mechanical verication up to C to be even remotely
feasible.
The present paper proves the ternary Goldbach conjecture.
Main Theorem. Every odd integer n greater than 5 can be expressed as the sum
of three primes.
The proof given here works for all n C = 10
30
. The main theorem has
been checked deterministically by computer for all n < 10
30
(and indeed for all
n 8.875 10
30
) [HP].
We are able to set major arcs to be few and narrow because the minor-arc
estimates in [Hel] are very strong; we are forced to take them to be few and
narrow because of the kind of L-function bounds we will rely upon.
At issue are
(1) a fuller use of the close relation between the circle method and the large
sieve;
(2) a combination of dierent smoothings for dierent tasks;
(3) the verication of GRH up to a bounded height for all conductors q
150000 and all even conductors q 300000 (due to David Platt [Plab]);
(4) better bounds for exponential sums, as in [Hel].
All major computations including D. Platts work in [Plab] have been
conducted rigorously, using interval arithmetic.
1.2. History. The following brief remarks are here to provide some background;
no claim to completeness is made. Results on exponential sums over the primes
are discussed more specically in [Hel, 1].
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 3
1.2.1. Results towards the ternary Goldbach conjecture. Hardy and Littlewood
[HL23] proved that every odd number larger than a constant C is the sum of three
primes, conditionally on the generalized Riemann Hypothesis. This showed, as
they said, that the problem was not unergreifbar (as it had been called by Landau
in [Lan12]).
Vinogradov [Vin37] made the result unconditional. An explicit value for C
(namely, C = 3
3
15
) was rst found by Borodzin in 1939. This value was improved
to C = 3.33 10
43000
by J.-R. Chen and T. Z. Wang [CW89] and to C = 2 10
1346
by M.-Ch. Liu and T. Wang [LW02]. (J.-R. Chen had also proven that every
large enough even number is either the sum of two primes or the sum p
1
+ p
2
p
3
of a prime p
1
and the product p
2
p
3
of two primes.)
In [DEtRZ97], the ternary Goldbach conjecture was proven for all n condition-
ally on the generalized Riemann hypothesis.
1.2.2. Checking Goldbach for small n. Numerical verications of the binary Gold-
bach conjecture for small n were published already in the late nineteenth cen-
tury; see [Dic66, Ch. XVIII]. Richstein [Ric01] showed that every even integer
4 n 4 10
14
is the sum of two primes. Oliveira e Silva, Herzog and Pardi
[OeSHP13] have proven that every even integer 4 n 4 10
18
is the sum of two
primes.
The question is then until what point one can establish the ternary Goldbach
conjecture using [OeSHP13]. Clearly, if one can show that every interval of length
4 10
18
within [1, N] contains a prime, then [OeSHP13] implies that every odd
number between 7 and N can be written as the sum of three primes. This was
used in a rst version of [Hel] to show that the best existing result on prime
gaps ([RS03], with [Plaa] as input) implies that every odd number between 7 and
1.23 10
27
is the sum of three primes. A more explicit approach to prime gaps
[HP] now shows that every odd integer 7 n 8.875694 10
30
is the sum of three
primes.
1.2.3. Work on Schnirelmans constant. Schnirelmans constant is a term for
the smallest k such that every integer n > 1 is the sum of at most k primes.
(Thus, Goldbachs binary and ternary conjecture, taken together, are equivalent
to the statement that Schnirelmans constant is 3.) In 1930, Schnirelman [Sch33]
showed that Schnirelmans constant k is nite, developing in the process some of
the bases of what is now called additive or arithmetic combinatorics.
In 1969, Klimov proved that k 6 10
9
; he later improved this result to
k 115 [KP

S72] (with G. Z. Piltay and T. A. Sheptiskaya) and k 55. Results


by Vaughan [Vau77] (k = 27), Deshouillers [Des77] (k = 26) and Riesel-Vaughan
[RV83] (k = 19) then followed.
Ramare showed in 1995 that every even n > 1 is the sum of at most 6 primes
[Ram95]. Recently, Tao [Tao] established that every odd number n > 1 is the
sum of at most 5 primes. These results imply that k 6 and k 5, respectively.
The present paper implies that k 4.
1.2.4. Other approaches. Since [HL23] and [Vin37], the main line of attack on
the problem has gone through exponential sums. There are proofs based on
cancellation in other kinds of sums ([HB85], [IK04, 19]), but they have not
been made to yield practical estimates. The same goes for proofs based on other
principles, such as that of Schnirelmans result or the recent work of X. Shao
4 H. A. HELFGOTT
[Sha]. (It deserves to be underlined that [Sha] establishes Vinogradovs three-
prime result without using L-function estimates at all; the constant C is, however,
extremely large.)
1.3. Main ideas. We will limit the discussion here to the general setup, the
estimates for major arcs and the ecient usage of exponential-sum estimates on
the minor arcs. The development of new exponential-sum estimates is the subject
of [Hel].
In the circle method, the number of representations of a number N as the
sum of three primes is represented as an integral over the circle R/Z, which is
partitioned into major arcs M and minor arcs m = (R/Z) M:
(1.1)

n
1
+n
2
+n
3
=N
(n
1
)(n
2
)(n
3
) =
_
R/Z
(S(, x))
3
e(N)d
=
_
M
(S(, x))
3
e(N)d +
_
m
(S(, x))
3
e(N)d,
where S(, x) =

x
n=1
(n)e(n). The aim is to show that the sum of the
integral over M and the integral over m is positive; this will prove the three-
primes theorem.
The major arcs M = M
r
0
consist of intervals (a/q cr
0
/qx, a/q + cr
0
/qx)
around the rationals a/q, q r
0
, where c is a constant. In previous work
1
, r
0
grew with x; in our setup, r
0
is a constant. Smoothing changes the left side of
(1.1) into a weighted sum, but, since we aim at an existence result rather than
at an asymptotic for the number of representations p
1
+ p
2
+ p
3
of N, this is
obviously acceptable.
Typically, work on major arcs yields rather precise estimates on the integral
over
_
M
in (1.1), whereas work on minor arcs gives upper bounds on the absolute
value of the integral over
_
m
in (1.1). Exponential-sum estimates, such as those
in [Hel], provide upper bounds for max
m
[S(, x)[.
1.3.1. Major arc bounds. We will be working with smoothed sums
(1.2) S

(, x) =

n=1
(n)(n)e(n/x)(n/x).
Our integral will actually be of the form
(1.3)
_
M
S

+
(, x)
2
S

(, x)e(N)d,
where
+
and

are two dierent smoothing functions to be discussed soon.


Estimating the sums (1.2) on M reduces to estimating the sums
(1.4) S

(/x, x) =

n=1
(n)(n)e(n/x)(n/x)
for varying among all Dirichlet characters modulo q r
0
and for [[ cr
0
/q,
i.e., [[ small. Using estimates on (1.4) eciently in the estimation of (1.3) is
a delicate task; this is the subject of 3. Let us now focus on how to obtain
estimates on (1.4).
1
Ramares work [Ram10] is in principle strong enough to allow r0 to be an unspecied large
constant. Taos work [Tao] reaches this standard only for x of moderate size.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 5
Sums such as (1.4) are estimated using Dirichlet L-functions L(s, ). An ex-
plicit formula gives an expression
(1.5) S
,
(/x, x) = I
q=1
()x

()x

+ small error,
where I
q=1
= 1 if q = 1 and I
q=1
= 0 otherwise. Here runs over the complex
numbers with L(, ) = 0 and 0 < () < 1 (non-trivial zeros). The function
F

is the Mellin transform of e(t)(t) (see 2.4).


The questions are then: where are the non-trivial zeros of L(s, )? How fast
does F

() decay as () ?
Write = (s), = (s). The belief is, of course, that = 1/2 for every
non-trivial zero (Generalized Riemann Hypothesis), but this is far from proven.
Most work to date has used zero-free regions of the form 1 1/C log q[[, C
a constant. This is a classical zero-free region, going back, qualitatively, to de la
Vallee-Poussin (1899). The best values of C known are due to McCurley [McC84]
and Kadiri [Kad05].
These regions seem too narrow to yield a proof of the three-primes theorem.
What we will use instead is a nite verication of GRH up to T
q
, i.e., a com-
putation showing that, for every Dirichlet character of conductor q r
0
(r
0
a
constant, as above), every non-trivial zero = + i with [[ T
q
satises
() = 1/2. Such verications go back to Riemann; modern computer-based
methods are descended in part from a paper by Turing [Tur53]. (See the histori-
cal article [Boo06].) In his thesis [Pla11], D. Platt gave a rigorous verication for
r
0
= 10
5
, T
q
= 10
8
/q. In coordination with the present work, he has extended
this to
all odd q 3 10
5
, with T
q
= 10
8
/q,
all even q 4 10
5
, with T
q
= max(10
8
/q, 200 + 7.5 10
7
/q).
This was a major computational eort, involving, in particular, a fast implemen-
tation of interval arithmetic (used for the sake of rigor).
What remains to discuss, then, is how to choose in such a way F

() decreases
fast enough as [[ increases, so that (1.5) gives a good estimate. We cannot hope
for F

() to start decreasing consistently before [[ is at least as large as a multiple


of 2[[. Since varies within (cr
0
/q, cr
0
/q), this explains why T
q
is taken
inversely proportional to q in the above. As we will work with r
0
150000, we
also see that we have little margin for maneuver: we want F

() to be extremely
small already for, say, [[ 80[[. We also have a Scylla-and-Charybdis situation,
courtesy of the uncertainty principle: roughly speaking, F

() cannot decrease
faster than exponentially on [[/[[ both for [[ 1 and for large.
The most delicate case is that of large, since then [[/[[ is small. It turns
out we can manage to get decay that is much faster than exponential for large,
while no slower than exponential for small. This we will achieve by working
with smoothing functions based on the (one-sided) Gaussian

(t) = e
t
2
/2
.
The Mellin transform of the twisted Gaussian e(t)e
t
2
/2
is a parabolic cylinder
function U(a, z) with z purely imaginary. Since fully explicit estimates for U(a, z),
z imaginary, have not been worked in the literature, we will have to derive them
ourselves. This is the subject of 5.
6 H. A. HELFGOTT
We still have some freedom in choosing
+
and

, though they will have to be


based on

(t) = e
t
2
/2
. The main term in our estimate for (1.3) is of the form
(1.6) C
0
_

0
_

0

+
(t
1
)
+
(t
2
)

_
N
x
(t
1
+t
2
)
_
dt
1
dt
2
,
where C
0
is a constant. Our upper bound for the minor-arc integral, on the other
hand, will be proportional to [
+
[
2
2
[

[
1
. The question is then how to make (1.6)
divided by [
+
[
2
2
[

[
1
as large as possible. A little thought will show that it is
best for
+
to be symmetric, or nearly symmetric, around t = 1 (say), and for

be concentrated on a much shorter interval than


+
, while x is set to be x/2 or
slightly less.
It is easy to construct a function of the form t h(t)

(t) symmetric around


t = 1, with support on [0, 2]. We will dene
+
= h
H
(t)

(t), where h
H
is an
approximation to h that is band-limited in the Mellin sense. This will mean that
the decay properties of the Mellin transform of e(t)
+
(t) will be like those of
e(t)

(t), i.e., very good.


How to choose

? The bounds in [Hel] were derived for


2
= (2I
[1/2,1]
)
M
(2I
[1/2,1]
), which is nice to deal with in the context of combinatorially avored
analytic number theory, but it has a Mellin transform that decays much too
slowly.
2
The solution is to use a smoothing that is, so to speak, Janus-faced, viz.,

= (
2

M
)(t), where (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
and is a large constant. We estimate
sums of type S

(, x) by estimating S

2
(, x) if S

2
(, x) if lies on a minor arc,
or by estimating S

(, x) if lies on a major arc. (The Mellin transform of is


just a shift of that of

.) This is possible because


2
has support bounded away
from zero, while is also concentrated away from 0.
1.3.2. Minor arc bounds: exponential sums and the large sieve. Let m
r
be the
complement of M
r
. In particular, m = m
r
0
is the complement of M= M
r
0
. Ex-
ponential sum-estimates, such as those in [Hel], give bounds on max
mr
[S(, x)[
that decrease with r.
We need to do better than
(1.7)
_
m

S(, x)
3
e(N)

d (max
m
[S(, x)[

)
_
m
[S(, x)[
2
d
(max
m
[S(, x)[

)
_
[S[
2
2

_
M
[S(, x)[
2
d
_
,
as this inequality involves a loss of a factor of log x (because [S[
2
2
xlog x).
Fortunately, minor arc estimates are valid not just for a xed r
0
, but for the
complement of M
r
, where r can vary within a broad range. By partial summation,
these estimates can be combined with upper bounds for
_
Mr
[S(, x)[
2
d
_
Mr
0
[S(, x)[
2
d.
Giving an estimate for the integral over M
r
0
(r
0
a constant) will be part of our
task over the major arcs. The question is how to give an upper bound for the
integral over M
r
that is valid and non-trivial over a broad range of r.
2
This parallels the situation in the transition from Hardy and Littlewood [HL23] to Vino-
gradov [Vin37]. Hardy and Littlewood used the smoothing (t) = e
t
, whereas Vinogradov
used the brusque (non-)smoothing (t) = I
[0,1]
. Arguably, this is not just a case of technological
decay; I
[0,1]
has compact support and is otherwise easy to deal with in the minor-arc regime.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 7
The answer lies in the deep relation between the circle method and the large
sieve. (This was obviously not available to Vinogradov in 1937; the large sieve
is a slightly later development (Linnik [Lin41], 1941) that was optimized and
fully understood later still.) A large sieve is, in essence, an inequality giving a
discretized version of Plancherels identity. Large sieves for primes show that the
inequality can be sharpened for sequences of prime support, provided that, on
the Fourier side, the sum over frequencies is shortened. The idea here is that
this kind of improvement can be adapted back to the continuous context, so as
to give upper bounds on the L
2
norms of exponential sums with prime support
when is restricted to special subsets of the circle. Such an L
2
norm is nothing
other than
_
Mr
[S(, x)[
2
d.
The rst version of [Hel] used an idea of Heath-Browns
3
that can indeed be
understood in this framework. In 7.1, we shall prove a better bound, based on a
large sieve for primes due to Ramare [Ram09]. We will re-derive this sieve using
an idea of Selbergs. We will then make it fully explicit in the crucial range (7.2).
(This, incidentally, also gives fully explicit estimates for Ramares large sieve in
its original discrete context, making it the best large sieve for primes in a wide
range.)
The outcome is that
_
Mr
[S(, x)[
2
d is bounded roughly by 2xlog r, rather
than by xlog x (or by 2e

xlog r, as was the case when Heath-Browns idea was


used). The lack of a factor of log x makes it possible to work with r
0
equal to a
constant, as we have done; the factor of e

reduces the need for computations by


more than an order of magnitude.
1.4. Acknowledgments. The author is very thankful to D. Platt, who, work-
ing in close coordination with him, provided GRH verications in the necessary
ranges, and also helped him with the usage of interval arithmetic. He is also
much indebted to O. Ramare for his help and feedback, especially regarding 7
and Appendix B. Special thanks are also due to A. Booker, B. Green, R. Heath-
Brown, H. Kadiri, T. Tao and M. Watkins for discussions on Goldbachs problem
and related issues.
Warm thanks are also due to A. C ordoba and J. Cilleruelo, for discussions on
the method of stationary phase, and to V. Blomer and N. Temme, for further help
with parabolic cylinder functions. Additional references were graciously provided
by R. Bryant, S. Huntsman and I. Rezvyakova.
Travel and other expenses were funded in part by the Adams Prize and the
Philip Leverhulme Prize. The authors work on the problem started at the Univer-
site de Montreal (CRM) in 2006; he is grateful to both the Universite de Montreal
and the

Ecole Normale Superieure for providing pleasant working environments.
The present work would most likely not have been possible without free and
publicly available software: PARI, Maxima, Gnuplot, VNODE-LP, PROFIL /
BIAS, SAGE, and, of course, L
A
T
E
X, Emacs, the gcc compiler and GNU/Linux in
general. Some exploratory work was done in SAGE and Mathematica. Rigorous
calculations used either D. Platts interval-arithmetic package (based in part on
Crlibm) or the PROFIL/BIAS interval arithmetic package underlying VNODE-
LP.
The calculations contained in this paper used a nearly trivial amount of re-
sources; they were all carried out on the authors desktop computers at home
3
Communicated by Heath-Brown to the author, and by the author to Tao, as acknowledged
in [Tao]. The idea is based on a lemma by Montgomery (as in, e.g., [IK04, Lemma 7.15]).
8 H. A. HELFGOTT
and work. However, D. Platts computations [Plab] used a signicant amount
of resources, kindly donated to D. Platt and the author by several institutions.
This crucial help was provided by MesoPSL (aliated with the Observatoire de
Paris and Paris Sciences et Lettres), Universite de Paris VI/VII (UPMC - DSI -
P ole Calcul), University of Warwick (thanks to Bill Hart), University of Bristol,
France Grilles (French National Grid Infrastructure, DIRAC instance), Univer-
site de Lyon 1 and Universite de Bordeaux 1. Both D. Platt and the author would
like to thank the donating organizations, their technical sta, and all academics
who helped to make these resources available to us.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Notation. As is usual, we write for the Moebius function, for the von
Mangoldt function. We let (n) be the number of divisors of an integer n and
(n) the number of prime divisors. For p prime, n a non-zero integer, we dene
v
p
(n) to be the largest non-negative integer such that p

[n.
We write (a, b) for the greatest common divisor of a and b. If there is any risk
of confusion with the pair (a, b), we write gcd(a, b). Denote by (a, b

) the divisor

p|b
p
vp(a)
of a. (Thus, a/(a, b

) is coprime to b, and is in fact the maximal


divisor of a with this property.)
As is customary, we write e(x) for e
2ix
. We write [f[
r
for the L
r
norm of a
function f. Given x R, we let
sgn(x) =
_

_
1 if x > 0,
0 if x = 0,
1 if x < 0.
We write O

(R) to mean a quantity at most R in absolute value.


2.2. Dirichlet characters and L functions. A Dirichlet character : Z C
of modulus q is a character of (Z/qZ)

lifted to Z with the convention that


(n) = 0 when (n, q) ,= 1. Again by convention, there is a Dirichlet character of
modulus q = 1, namely, the trivial character
T
: Z C dened by
T
(n) = 1
for every n Z.
If is a character modulo q and

is a character modulo q

[q such that (n) =

(n) for all n coprime to q, we say that

induces . A character is primitive if


it is not induced by any character of smaller modulus. Given a character , we
write

for the (uniquely dened) primitive character inducing . If a character


mod q is induced by the trivial character
T
, we say that is principal and
write
0
for (provided the modulus q is clear from the context). In other words,

0
(n) = 1 when (n, q) = 1 and
0
(n) = 0 when (n, q) = 0.
A Dirichlet L-function L(s, ) ( a Dirichlet character) is dened as the ana-
lytic continuation of

n
(n)n
s
to the entire complex plane; there is a pole at
s = 1 if is principal.
A non-trivial zero of L(s, ) is any s C such that L(s, ) = 0 and 0 < (s) <
1. (In particular, a zero at s = 0 is called trivial, even though its contribution
can be a little tricky to work out. The same would go for the other zeros with
(s) = 0 occuring for non-primitive, though we will avoid this issue by working
mainly with primitive.) The zeros that occur at (some) negative integers are
called trivial zeros.
The critical line is the line (s) = 1/2 in the complex plane. Thus, the gen-
eralized Riemann hypothesis for Dirichlet L-functions reads: for every Dirichlet
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 9
character , all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) lie on the critical line. Veriable nite
versions of the generalized Riemann hypothesis generally read: for every Dirichlet
character of modulus q Q, all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) with [(s)[ f(q)
lie on the critical line (where f : Z R
+
is some given function).
2.3. Fourier transforms. The Fourier transform on R is normalized as follows:

f(t) =
_

e(xt)f(x)dx
for f : R C.
The trivial bound is [

f[

[f[
1
. Integration by parts gives that, if f is
dierentiable k times outside nitely many points, then
(2.1)

f(t) = O

_
[

f
(k)
[

2t
_
= O

_
[f
(k)
[
1
(2t)
k
_
.
It could happen that [f
(k)
[
1
= , in which case (2.1) is trivial (but not false).
In practice, we require f
(k)
L
1
. In a typical situation, f is dierentiable k
times except at x
1
, x
2
, . . . , x
k
, where it is dierentiable only (k 2) times; the
contribution of x
i
(say) to [f
(k)
[
1
is then [ lim
xx
+
i
f
(k1)
(x)lim
xx

i
f
(k1)
(x)[.
2.4. Mellin transforms. The Mellin transform of a function : (0, ) C is
(2.2) M(s) :=
_

0
(x)x
s1
dx.
In general, M(f
M
g) = Mf Mg and
(2.3) M(f g)(s) =
1
2i
_
+i
i
Mf(z)Mg(s z)dz [GR00, 17.32]
provided that z and sz are within the strips on which Mf and Mg (respectively)
are well-dened.
The Mellin transform is an isometry, in the sense that
(2.4)
_

0
[f(t)[
2
t
2
dt
t
=
1
2
_

[Mf( +it)[
2
dt.
provided that + iR is within the strip on which Mf is dened. We also know
that, for general f,sear
(2.5)
M(tf

(t))(s) = s Mf(s),
M((log t)f(t))(s) = (Mf)

(s)
(as in, e.g., [BBO10, Table 1.11]).
Since (see, e.g., [BBO10, Table 11.3] or [GR00, 16.43])
(MI
[a,b]
)(s) =
b
s
a
s
s
,
we see that
(2.6) M
2
(s) =
_
1 2
s
s
_
2
, M
4
(s) =
_
1 2
s
s
_
4
.
10 H. A. HELFGOTT
Let f
z
= e
zt
, where (z) > 0. Then
(Mf)(s) =
_

0
e
zt
t
s1
dt =
1
z
s
_

0
e
t
dt
=
1
z
s
_
z
0
e
u
u
s1
du =
1
z
s
_

0
e
t
t
s1
dt =
(s)
z
s
,
where the next-to-last step holds by contour integration, and the last step holds
by the denition of the Gamma function (s).
3. Preparatory work on major arcs
Let
(3.1) S

(, x) =

n
(n)e(n)(n/x),
where R/Z, is the von Mangoldt function and : R C is of fast enough
decay for the sum to converge.
Our ultimate goal is to bound from below
(3.2)

n
1
+n
2
+n
3
=N
(n
1
)(n
2
)(n
3
)
1
(n/x)
2
(n/x)
3
(n/x),
where
1
,
2
,
3
: R C. As can be readily seen, (3.2) equals
(3.3)
_
R/Z
S

1
(, x)S

2
(, x)S

3
(, x)e(N)d.
In the circle method, the set R/Z gets partitioned into the set of major arcs
M and the set of minor arcs m; the contribution of each of the two sets to the
integral (3.3) is evaluated separately.
Our object here is to treat the major arcs: we wish to estimate
(3.4)
_
M
S

1
(, x)S

2
(, x)S

3
(, x)e(N)d
for M= M

0
,r
, where
(3.5)
M

0
,r
=
_
qr
q odd
_
a mod q
(a,q)=1
_
a
q


0
r
2qx
,
a
q
+

0
r
2qx
_

_
q2r
q even
_
a mod q
(a,q)=1
_
a
q


0
r
qx
,
a
q
+

0
r
qx
_
and
0
> 0, r 1 are given.
In other words, our major arcs will be few (that is, a constant number) and
narrow. While [LW02] used relatively narrow major arcs as well, their number,
as in all previous proofs of Vinogradovs result, is not bounded by a constant.
(In his proof of the ve-primes theorem, [Tao] is able to take a single major arc
around 0; this is not possible here.)
What we are about to see is the general framework of the major arcs. This is
naturally the place where the overlap with the existing literature is largest. Two
important dierences can nevertheless be singled out.
The most obvious one is the presence of smoothing. At this point, it im-
proves and simplies error terms, but it also means that we will later need
estimates for exponential sums on major arcs, and not just at the middle
of each major arc. (If there is smoothing, we cannot use summation by
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 11
parts to reduce the problem of estimating sums to a problem of counting
primes in arithmetic progressions, or weighted by characters.)
Since our L-function estimates for exponential sums will give bounds that
are better than the trivial one by only a constant even if it is a rather
large constant we need to be especially careful when estimating error
terms, nding cancellation when possible.
3.1. Decomposition of S

(, x) by characters. What follows is largely clas-


sical; compare to [HL23] or, say, [Dav67, 26]. The only dierence from the
literature lies in the treatment of n non-coprime to q.
Write (, b) for the Gauss sum
(3.6) (, b) =

a mod q
(a)e(ab/q)
associated to a b Z/qZ and a Dirichlet character with modulus q. We let
() = (, 1). If (b, q) = 1, then (, b) = (b
1
)().
Recall that

denotes the primitive character inducing a given Dirichlet char-


acter . Writing

mod q
for a sum over all characters of (Z/qZ)

), we see
that, for any a
0
Z/qZ,
(3.7)
1
(q)

mod q
(, b)

(a
0
) =
1
(q)

mod q

a mod q
(a,q)=1
(a)e(ab/q)

(a
0
)
=

a mod q
(a,q)=1
e(ab/q)
(q)

mod q

(a
1
a
0
) =

a mod q
(a,q)=1
e(ab/q)
(q)

mod q

(a
1
a
0
),
where q

= q/ gcd(q, a

0
). Now,

mod q
(a
1
a
0
) = 0 unless a = a
0
(in which
case

mod q
(a
1
a
0
) = (q

)). Thus, (3.7) equals


(q

)
(q)

a mod q
(a,q)=1
aa
0
mod q

e(ab/q) =
(q

)
(q)

k mod q/q

(k,q/q

)=1
e
_
(a
0
+kq

)b
q
_
=
(q

)
(q)
e
_
a
0
b
q
_

k mod q/q

(k,q/q

)=1
e
_
kb
q/q

_
=
(q

)
(q)
e
_
a
0
b
q
_
(q/q

)
provided that (b, q) = 1. (We are evaluating a Ramanujan sum in the last step.)
Hence, for = a/q +/x, q x, (a, q) = 1,
1
(q)

(, a)

(n)(n)e(n/x)(n/x)
equals

n
((q, n

))
((q, n

))
(n)e(n)(n/x).
12 H. A. HELFGOTT
Since (a, q) = 1, (, a) = (a)(). The factor ((q, n

))/((q, n

)) equals 1
when (n, q) = 1; the absolute value of the factor is at most 1 for every n. Clearly

n
(n,q)=1
(n)
_
n
x
_
=

p|q
log p

_
p

x
_
.
Recalling the denition (3.1) of S

(, x), we conclude that


(3.8)
S

(, x) =
1
(q)

mod q
(a)()S
,

x
, x
_
+O

_
_
2

p|q
log p

_
p

x
_
_
_
,
where
(3.9) S
,
(, x) =

n
(n)(n)e(n)(n/x).
Hence S

1
(, x)S

2
(, x)S

3
(, x)e(N) equals
(3.10)
1
(q)
3

3
(
1
)(
2
)(
3
)
1
(a)
2
(a)
3
(a)e(Na/q)
S

1
,

1
(/x, x)S

2
,

2
(/x, x)S

3
,

3
(/x, x)e(N/x)
plus an error term of absolute value at most
(3.11) 2
3

j=1

=j
[S

(, x)[

p|q
log p

j
_
p

x
_
.
We will later see that the integral of (3.11) over S
1
is negligible for our choices
of
j
, it will, in fact, be of size O(x(log x)
A
), A a constant. (In (3.10), we have
reduced our problems to estimating S
,
(/x, x) for primitive; a more obvious
way of reaching the same goal would have multiplied made (3.11) worse by a
factor of about

q. The error term O(x(log x)
A
) should be compared to the
main term, which will be of size about a constant times x
2
.)
3.2. The integral over the major arcs. We are to estimate the integral (3.4),
where the major arcs M

0
,r
are dened as in (3.5). We will use
1
=
2
=
+
,

3
(t) =

(t), where
+
and

will be set later.


We can write
(3.12)
S
,
(/x, x) = S

(/x, x) =
_

0
(t/x)e(t/x)dt +O

(err
,
(, x)) x
= () x +O

(err
,
T
(, x)) x
for =
T
the trivial character, and
(3.13) S
,
(/x) = O

(err
,
(, x)) x
for primitive and non-trivial. The estimation of the error terms err will come
later; let us focus on (a) obtaining the contribution of the main term, (b) using
estimates on the error terms eciently.
The main term: three principal characters. The main contribution will be
given by the term in (3.10) with
1
=
2
=
3
=
0
, where
0
is the principal
character mod q.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 13
The sum (
0
, n) is a Ramanujan sum; as is well-known (see, e.g., [IK04,
(3.2)]),
(3.14) (
0
, n) =

d|(q,n)
(q/d)d.
This simplies to (q/(q, n))((q, n)) for q square-free. The special case n = 1
gives us that (
0
) = (q).
Thus, the term in (3.10) with
1
=
2
=
3
=
0
equals
(3.15)
e(Na/q)
(q)
3
(q)
3
S

+
,

0
(/x, x)
2
S
,

0
(/x, x)e(N/x),
where, of course, S
,

0
(, x) = S

(, x) (since

0
is the trivial character). Sum-
ming (3.15) for = a/q +/x and a going over all residues mod q coprime to q,
we obtain

_
q
(q,N)
_
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
3
S

+
,

0
(/x, x)
2
S
,

0
(/x, x)e(N/x).
The integral of (3.15) over all of M= M

0
,r
(see (3.5)) thus equals
(3.16)

qr
q odd
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N))
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
S
2

+
,

0
(, x)S
,

0
(, x)e(N)d
+

q2r
q even
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N))
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
S
2

+
,

0
(, x)S
,

0
(, x)e(N)d.
The main term in (3.16) is
(3.17)
x
3

qr
q odd
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N))
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
(
+
(x))
2

(x)e(N)d
+x
3

q2r
q even
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N))
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
(
+
(x))
2

(x)e(N)d.
We would like to complete both the sum and the integral. Before, we should
say that we will want to be able to use smoothing functions
+
whose Fourier
transform are not easy to deal with directly. All we want to require is that there
be a smoothing function

, easier to deal with, such that

be close to
+
in
2
norm.
Assume, then, that
[
+

[
2

0
[

[,
14 H. A. HELFGOTT
where

is thrice dierentiable outside nitely many points and satises


(3)


L
1
. Then (3.17) equals
(3.18)
x
3

qr
q odd
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N))
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
(

(x))
2

(x)e(N)d
+x
3

q2r
q even
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N))
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
(

(x))
2

(x)e(N)d.
plus
(3.19) O

_
x
2

q
(q)
2
(q)
2
_

[(
+
())
2
(

())
2
[[

()[d
_
.
Here (3.19) is bounded by 2.82643x
2
(by (B.4)) times
[

()[

[
+
()

()[
2
d
_

[
+
() +

()[
2
d
[

[
1
[
+

[
2
[
+
+

[
2
= [

[
1
[
+

[
2
[
+
+

[
2
[

[
1
[
+

[
2
(2[

[
2
+ [
+

[
2
) = [

[
1
[

[
2
2
(2 +
0
)
0
.
Now, (3.18) equals
(3.20)
x
3
_

(x))
2

(x)e(N)

q
(q,2)
min


0
r
2||x
,r

(q)
2
=1
((q, N))
(q)
3
((q, N))d
= x
3
_

(x))
2

(x)e(N)d
_
_

q1
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N))
_
_
x
3
_

(x))
2

(x)e(N)

q
(q,2)
>min


0
r
2||x
,r

(q)
2
=1
((q, N))
(q)
3
((q, N))d.
The last line in (3.20) is bounded
4
by
(3.21) x
2
[

()[
2

q
(q,2)
>min


0
r
2||
,r

(q)
2
(q)
2
d.
By (2.1) (with k = 3), (B.11) and (B.12), this is at most
x
2
[

[
1
_

0
/2

0
/2
[

[
2

4.31004
r
d + 2x
2
[

[
1
_

0
/2
_
[
(3)

[
1
(2)
3
_
2
8.62008[[

0
r
d
[

[
1
_
4.31004
0
[

[
2
1
+ 0.00113
[
(3)

[
2
1

5
0
_
x
2
r
.
4
This is obviously crude, in that we are bounding ((q, N))/(q) by 1. We are doing so in
order to avoid a potentially harmful dependence on N.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 15
It is easy to see that

q1
((q, N))
(q)
3
(q)
2
((q, N)) =

p|N
_
1
1
(p 1)
2
_

pN
_
1 +
1
(p 1)
3
_
.
Expanding the integral implicit in the denition of

f,
(3.22)
_

(x))
2

(x)e(N)d =
1
x
_

0
_

0

(t
1
)

(t
2
)

_
N
x
(t
1
+t
2
)
_
dt
1
dt
2
.
(This is standard. One rigorous way to obtain (3.22) is to approximate the inte-
gral over (, ) by an integral with a smooth weight, at dierent scales;
as the scale becomes broader, the Fourier transform of the weight approximates
(as a distribution) the function. Apply Plancherel.)
Hence, (3.17) equals
(3.23)
x
2

_

0
_

0

(t
1
)

(t
2
)

_
N
x
(t
1
+t
2
)
_
dt
1
dt
2

p|N
_
1
1
(p 1)
2
_

pN
_
1 +
1
(p 1)
3
_
.
(the main term) plus
(3.24)
_
_
_2.82643[

[
2
2
(2 +
0
)
0
+
4.31004
0
[

[
2
1
+ 0.00113
|
(3)

|
2
1

5
0
r
_
_
_[

[
1
x
2
Here (3.23) is just as in the classical case [IK04, (19.10)], except for the fact
that a factor of 1/2 has been replaced by a double integral. We will later see
how to choose our smoothing functions (and x, in terms of N) so as to make the
double integral as large as possible.
What remains to estimate is the contribution of all the terms of the form
err
,
(, x) in (3.12) and (3.13). Let us rst deal with another matter bounding
the
2
norm of [S

(, x)[
2
over the major arcs.
The
2
norm. We can always bound the integral of [S

(, x)[
2
on the whole
circle by Plancherel. If we only want the integral on certain arcs, we use the
bound in Prop. 7.2 (based on work by Ramare). If these arcs are really the major
arcs that is, the arcs on which we have useful analytic estimates then we can
hope to get better bounds using L-functions. This will be useful both to estimate
the error terms in this section and to make the use of Ramares bounds more
ecient later.
16 H. A. HELFGOTT
By (3.8),

a mod q
gcd(a,q)=1

_
a
q
+

x
,
_

2
=
1
(q)
2

()(

)
_
_
_
_
_

a mod q
gcd(a,q)=1
(a)

(a)
_
_
_
_
_
S
,
(/x, x)S
,
(/x, x)
+O

_
2(1 +

q)(log x)
2
[[

max

[S

(, x)[ +
_
(1 +

q)(log x)
2
[[

_
2
_
=
1
(q)

[()[
2
[S
,
(/x, x)[
2
+K
q,1
(2[S

(0, x)[ +K
q,1
),
where
K
q,1
= (1 +

q)(log x)
2
[[

.
As is well-known (see, e.g., [IK04, Lem. 3.1])
() =
_
q
q

_
q
q

_
(

),
where q

is the modulus of

(i.e., the conductor of ), and


[(

)[ =
_
q

.
Using the expressions (3.12) and (3.13), we obtain

a mod q
(a,q)=1

_
a
q
+

x
, x
_

2
=

2
(q)
(q)
[ ()x +O

(err
,
T
(, x) x)[
2
+
1
(q)
_
_

=
T

2
_
q
q

_
q

_
[ err
,
(, x)[
2
x
2
_
_
_
+K
q,1
(2[S

(0, x)[ +K
q,1
)
=

2
(q)x
2
(q)
_
[ ()[
2
+O

([err
,
T
(, x)(2[[
1
+ err
,
T
(, x))[)
_
+O

_
q max
=
T
[ err
,
(, x)[
2
x
2
+K
q,2
x
_
,
where K
q,2
= K
q,1
(2[S

(0, x)[/x +K
q,1
/x).
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 17
Thus, the integral of [S

(, x)[
2
over M (see (3.5)) is
(3.25)

qr
q odd

a mod q
(a,q)=1
_ a
q
+

0
r
2qx
a
q

0
r
2qx
[S

(, x)[
2
d +

q2r
q even

a mod q
(a,q)=1
_ a
q
+

0
r
qx
a
q

0
r
qx
[S

(, x)[
2
d
=

qr
q odd

2
(q)x
2
(q)
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
[ (x)[
2
d +

q2r
q even

2
(q)x
2
(q)
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
[ (x)[
2
d
+O

2
(q)x
2
(q)

gcd(q, 2)
0
r
qx
_
ET
,

0
r
2
(2[[
1
+ET
,

0
r
2
)
_
_
+

qr
q odd

0
rx
q
O

_
_
_
_
_
_
q max
mod q
=
T
||
0
r/2q
[ err
,
(, x)[
2
+
K
q,2
x
_
_
_
_
_
_
+

q2r
q even
2
0
rx
q
O

_
_
_
_
_
_
q max
mod q
=
T
||
0
r/q
[ err
,
(, x)[
2
+
K
q,2
x
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
where
ET
,s
= max
||s
[ err
,
T
(, x)[
and
T
is the trivial character. If all we want is an upper bound, we can simply
remark that
x

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
[ (x)[
2
d +x

q2r
q even

2
(q)
(q)
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
[ (x)[
2
d

_
_
_
_

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
+

q2r
q even

2
(q)
(q)
_
_
_
_
[ [
2
2
= 2[[
2
2

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
.
If we also need a lower bound, we proceed as follows.
Again, we will work with an approximation

such that (a) [

[
2
is small,
(b)

is thrice dierentiable outside nitely many points, (c)


(3)

L
1
. By (B.6),
x

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
[ (x)[
2
d
=

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
_

0
r
2q

0
r
2q
[

()[
2
d +O

_
1
2
log r + 0.85
_
([

[
2
2
[ [
2
2
).
18 H. A. HELFGOTT
Also,
x

q2r
q even

2
(q)
(q)
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
[ (x)[
2
d = x

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
[ (x)[
2
d.
By (2.1) and Plancherel,
_

0
r
2q

0
r
2q
[

()[
2
d =
_

()[
2
d O

_
2
_

0
r
2q
[
(3)

[
2
1
(2)
6
d
_
= [

[
2
2
+O

_
[
(3)

[
2
1
q
5
5
6
(
0
r)
5
_
,
Hence

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
_

0
r
2q

0
r
2q
[

()[
2
d = [

[
2
2

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
+O

_
_
_
_

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
[
(3)

[
2
1
q
5
5
6
(
0
r)
5
_
_
_
_
.
Using (B.13), we get that

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
[
(3)

[
2
1
q
5
5
6
(
0
r)
5

1
r

qr
q odd

2
(q)q
(q)

[
(3)

[
2
1
5
6

5
0

[
(3)

[
2
1
5
6

5
0

_
0.64787 +
log r
4r
+
0.425
r
_
.
Going back to (3.25), we use (B.2) to bound

2
(q)x
2
(q)
gcd(q, 2)
0
r
qx
2.59147
0
rx.
We also note that

qr
q odd
1
q
+

q2r
q even
2
q
=

qr
1
q

q
r
2
1
2q
+

qr
1
q
2 log er log
r
2
log 2e
2
r.
We have proven the following result.
Lemma 3.1. Let : [0, ) R be in L
1
L

. Let S

(, x) be as in (3.1) and
let M= M

0
,r
be as in (3.5). Let

: [0, ) R be thrice dierentiable outside


nitely many points. Assume
(3)

L
1
.
Assume r 182. Then
(3.26)
_
M
[S

(, x)[
2
d = L
r,
0
x +O

_
5.19
0
xr
_
ET
,

0
r
2

_
[[
1
+
ET
,
0
r/2
2
___
+O

0
xr
_
2 +
3 log r
2
_
E
2
,r,
0
+
0
r(log 2e
2
r)K
r,2
_
,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 19
where
(3.27)
E
,r,
0
= max
mod q
qrgcd(q,2)
||gcd(q,2)
0
r/2q

q[ err
,
(, x)[, ET
,s
= max
||s
[ err
,
T
(, x)[,
K
r,2
= (1 +

2r)(log x)
2
[[

(2[S

(0, x)[/x + (1 +

2r)(log x)
2
[[

/x)
and L
r,
0
satises both
(3.28) L
r,
0
2[[
2
2

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
and
(3.29)
L
r,
0
= 2[

[
2
2

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
+O

(log r + 1.7) ([

[
2
2
[ [
2
2
)
+O

_
2[
(3)

[
2
1
5
6

5
0
_

_
0.64787 +
log r
4r
+
0.425
r
_
.
The error term xrET
,
0
r
will be very small, since it will be estimated using
the Riemann zeta function; the error term involving K
r,2
will be completely
negligible. The term involving xr(r + 1)E
2
,r,
0
; we see that it constrains us to
have [ err
,
(x, N)[ less than a constant times 1/r if we do not want the main
term in the bound (3.26) to be overwhelmed.
3.2.1. The triple product and its error terms. There are at least two ways we can
evaluate (3.4). One is to substitute (3.10) into (3.4). The disadvantages here
are that (a) this can give rise to pages-long formulae, (b) this gives error terms
proportional to xr[ err
,
(x, N)[, meaning that, to win, we would have to show
that [ err
,
(x, N)[ is much smaller than 1/r. What we will do instead is to use
our
2
estimate (3.26) in order to bound the contribution of non-principal terms.
This will give us a gain of almost

r on the error terms; in other words, to win,
it will be enough to show later that [ err
,
(x, N)[ is much smaller than 1/

r.
The contribution of the error terms in S

3
(, x) (that is, all terms involving
the quantities err
,
in expressions (3.12) and (3.13)) to (3.4) is
(3.30)

qr
q odd
1
(q)

3
mod q
(
3
)

a mod q
(a,q)=1

3
(a)e(Na/q)
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
S

+
( +a/q, x)
2
err
,

3
(x, x)e(N)d
+

q2r
q even
1
(q)

3
mod q
(
3
)

a mod q
(a,q)=1

3
(a)e(Na/q)
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
S

+
( +a/q, x)
2
err
,

3
(x, x)e(N)d.
20 H. A. HELFGOTT
We should also remember the terms in (3.11); we can integrate them over all of
R/Z, and obtain that they contribute at most
_
R/Z
2
3

j=1

=j
[S

(, x)[ max
qr

p|q
log p

j
_
p

x
_
d
2
3

j=1

=j
[S

(, x)[
2
max
qr

p|q
log p

j
_
p

x
_
= 2

2
(n)
2
+
(n/x) log r max
pr

_
p

x
_
+ 4

2
(n)
2
+
(n/x)

2
(n)
2

(n/x) log r max


pr

_
p

x
_
by Cauchy-Schwarz and Plancherel.
The absolute value of (3.30) is at most
(3.31)

qr
q odd

a mod q
(a,q)=1

q
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx

+
( +a/q, x)

2
d max
mod q
||
0
r/2q
[ err
,
(, x)[
+

q2r
q even

a mod q
(a,q)=1

q
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx

+
( +a/q, x)

2
d max
mod q
||
0
r/q
[ err
,
(, x)[

_
M

0
,r

+
()

2
d max
mod q
qrgcd(q,2)
||gcd(q,2)
0
r/q

q[ err
,
(, x)[.
We can bound the integral of [S

+
()[
2
by (3.26).
What about the contribution of the error part of S

2
(, x)? We can obviously
proceed in the same way, except that, to avoid double-counting, S

3
(, x) needs
to be replaced by
(3.32)
1
(q)
(
0
)
3
() x =
(q)
(q)

3
() x,
which is its main term (coming from (3.12)). Instead of having an
2
norm as
in (3.31), we have the square-root of a product of two squares of
2
norms (by
Cauchy-Schwarz), namely,
_
M
[S

+
()[
2
d and
(3.33)

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
2
_

0
r
2qx

0
r
2qx
[

(x)x[
2
d +

q2r
q even

2
(q)
(q)
2
_

0
r
qx

0
r
qx
[

(x)x[
2
d
x[

[
2
2

2
(q)
(q)
2
.
By (B.4), the sum over q is at most 2.82643.
As for the contribution of the error part of S

1
(, x), we bound it in the same
way, using solely the
2
norm in (3.33) (and replacing both S

2
(, x) and S

3
(, x)
by expressions as in (3.32)).
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 21
The total of the error terms is thus
(3.34)
x max
mod q
qrgcd(q,2)
||gcd(q,2)
0
r/q

q [ err
,
(, x)[ A
+ x max
mod q
qrgcd(q,2)
||gcd(q,2)
0
r/q

q [ err

+
,
(, x)[(

A+
_
B
+
)
_
B

,
where A = (1/x)
_
M
[S

+
(, x)[
2
d (bounded as in (3.26)) and
(3.35) B

= 2.82643[

[
2
2
, B
+
= 2.82643[
+
[
2
2
.
In conclusion, we have proven
Proposition 3.2. Let x 1. Let
+
,

: [0, ) R. Assume
+
C
2
,

+
L
2
and
+
,

L
1
L
2
. Let

: [0, ) R be thrice dierentiable outside nitely


many points. Assume
(3)

L
1
and [
+

[
2
<
0
[

[
2
, where
0
0.
Let S

(, x) =

n
(n)e(n)(n/x). Let err
,
, primitive, be given as in
(3.12) and (3.13). Let
0
> 0, r 1. Let M= M

0
,r
be as in (3.5).
Then, for any N 0,
_
M
S

+
(, x)
2
S

(, x)e(N)d
equals
(3.36)
C
0
C
,
x
2
+
_
_
_2.82643[

[
2
2
(2 +
0
)
0
+
4.31004
0
[

[
2
1
+ 0.0012
|
(3)

|
2
1

5
0
r
_
_
_[

[
1
x
2
+O

(E
,r,
0
A

+
+E

+
,r,
0
1.6812(
_
A

+
+ 1.6812[
+
[
2
)[

[
2
) x
2
+O

_
2Z

2
+
,2
(x)LS

(x, r) x + 4
_
Z

2
+
,2
(x)Z

,2
(x)LS

+
(x, r) x
_
,
where
(3.37)
C
0
=

p|N
_
1
1
(p 1)
2
_

pN
_
1 +
1
(p 1)
3
_
,
C
,
=
_

0
_

0

(t
1
)

(t
2
)

_
N
x
(t
1
+t
2
)
_
dt
1
dt
2
,
22 H. A. HELFGOTT
(3.38)
E
,r,
0
= max
mod q
qgcd(q,2)r
||gcd(q,2)
0
r/2q

q [ err
,
(, x)[, ET
,s
= max
||s/q
[ err
,
T
(, x)[,
A

= L
,r,
0
[[
2
2
+ 5.19
0
r
_
ET
,

0
r
2

_
[
1
[ +
ET
,
0
r/2
2
__
+
0
r
_
2 +
3 log r
2
_
E
2
,r,
0
+
0
rx
1
(log 2e
2
r)K
r,2
L
,r,
0
2[[
2
2

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
K
r,2
= (1 +

2r)(log x)
2
[[

(2Z
,1
(x)/x + (1 +

2r)(log x)
2
[[

/x),
Z
,k
(x) =
1
x

k
(n)(n/x), LS

(x, r) = log r max


pr

_
p

x
_
,
and err
,
is as in (3.12) and (3.13).
Here is how to read these expressions. The error term in the rst line of (3.36)
will be small provided that
0
is small and r is large. The third line of (3.36) will
be negligible, as will be the term 2
0
r(log er)K
r,2
in the denition of A

. (Clearly,
Z
,k
(x)

(log x)
k1
and LS

(x, q)

(q) log x for any of rapid decay.)


It remains to estimate the second line of (3.36), and this includes estimating
A

. We see that we will have to give very good bounds for E


,r,
0
when =
+
or
=

. (The same goes for ET

+
,r
0
, for which the same method will work (and
give even better bounds).) We also see that we want to make C
0
C

+
,
x
2
as large
as possible; it will be competing not just with the error terms here, but, more
importantly, with the bounds from the minor arcs, which will be proportional to
[
+
[
2
2
[

[
1
.
4. Optimizing and coordinating smoothing functions
One of our goals is to maximize the quantity C
,
in (3.37) relative to
[

[
2
2
[

[
1
. One way to do this is to ensure that (a)

is concentrated on a very
short
5
interval [0, ), (b)

is supported on the interval [0, 2], and is symmetric


around t = 1, meaning that

(t)

(2 t). Then, for x N/2, the integral


_

0
_

0

(t
1
)

(t
2
)

_
N
x
(t
1
+t
2
)
_
dt
1
dt
2
in (3.37) should be approximately equal to
(4.1) [

[
1

_

0

(t)

_
N
x
t
_
dt = [

[
1

_

0

(t)
2
dt = [

[
1
[

[
2
2
,
provided that
0
(t) 0 for all t. It is easy to check (using Cauchy-Schwarz in
the second step) that this is essentially optimal. (We will redo this rigorously in
a little while.)
At the same time, the fact is that major-arc estimates are best for smoothing
functions of a particular form, and we have minor-arc estimates from [Hel] for
5
This is an idea due to Bourgain in a related context [Bou99].
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 23
a dierent specic smoothing
2
. The issue, then, is how do we choose

and

as above so that we can


is concentrated on [0, ),

is supported on [0, 2] and symmetric around t = 1,


we can give minor-arc and major-arc estimates for

,
we can give major-arc estimates for a function
+
close to

in
2
norm?
4.1. The symmetric smoothing function

. We will later work with a


smoothing function

whose Mellin transform decreases very rapidly. Because


of this rapid decay, we will be able to give strong results based on an explicit
formula for

. The issue is how to dene

, given

, so that

is symmetric
around t = 1 (i.e.,

(2 x)

(x)) and is very small for x > 2.


We will later set

(t) = e
t
2
/2
. Let
(4.2) h : t
_
t
3
(2 t)
3
e
t/21/2
if t [0, 2],
0 otherwise
We dene

: R R by
(4.3)

(t) = h(t)

(t) =
_
t
3
(2 t)
3
e
(t1)
2
/2
if t [0, 2],
0 otherwise.
It is clear that

is symmetric around t = 1 for t [0, 2].


4.1.1. The product

(t)

( t). We now should go back and redo rigorously


what we discussed informally around (4.1). More precisely, we wish to estimate
(4.4)

() =
_

(t)

( t)dt =
_

(t)

(2 +t)dt
for 2 close to 2. In this, it will be useful that the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
degrades slowly, in the following sense.
Lemma 4.1. Let V be a real vector space with an inner product , . Then, for
any v, w V with [w v[
2
[v[
2
/2,
v, w = [v[
2
[w[
2
+O

(2.71[v w[
2
2
).
Proof. By a truncated Taylor expansion,

1 +x = 1 +
x
2
+
x
2
2
max
0t1
1
4(1 (tx)
2
)
3/2
= 1 +
x
2
+O

_
x
2
2
3/2
_
for [x[ 1/2. Hence, for = [w v[
2
/[v[
2
,
[w[
2
[v[
2
=

1 +
2w v, v + [w v[
2
2
[v[
2
2
= 1 +
2
wv,v
|v|
2
2
+
2
2
+O

_
(2 +
2
)
2
2
3/2
_
= 1 + +O

__
1
2
+
(5/2)
2
2
3/2
_

2
_
= 1 +
w v, v
[v[
2
2
+O

_
2.71
[w v[
2
2
[v[
2
2
_
.
Multiplying by [v[
2
2
, we obtain that
[v[
2
[w[
2
= [v[
2
2
+ w v, v +O

_
2.71[w v[
2
2
_
= v, w +O

_
2.71[w v[
2
2
_
.

24 H. A. HELFGOTT
Applying Lemma 4.1 to (4.4), we obtain that
(4.5)
(

)() =
_

(t)

((2 ) +t)dt
=

(t)[
2
dt

((2 ) +t)[
2
dt
+O

_
2.71
_

(t)

((2 ) +t)[
2
dt
_
= [

[
2
2
+O

_
2.71
_

__
2
0

(r +t)

dr
_
2
dt
_
= [

[
2
2
+O

_
2.71(2 )
_
2
0
_

(r +t)

2
dtdr
_
= [

[
2
2
+O

(2.71(2 )
2
[

[
2
2
).
We will be working with

supported on the non-negative reals; we recall that

is supported on [0, 2]. Hence


(4.6)
_

0
_

0

(t
1
)

(t
2
)

_
N
x
(t
1
+t
2
)
_
dt
1
dt
2
=
_ N
x
0
(

)()

_
N
x

_
d
=
_ N
x
0
([

[
2
2
+O

(2.71(2 )
2
[

[
2
2
))

_
N
x

_
d
= [

[
2
2
_ N
x
0

()d + 2.71[

[
2
2
O

_
_ N
x
0
((2 N/x) +)
2

()d
_
,
provided that N/x 2. We see that it will be wise to set N/x very slightly larger
than 2. As we said before,

will be scaled so that it is concentrated on a small


interval [0, ).
4.2. The approximation
+
to

. We will dene
+
: [0, ) R by
(4.7)
+
(t) = h
H
(t)

(t),
where h
H
(t) is an approximation to h(t) that is band-limited in the Mellin sense.
Band-limited here means that the restriction of the Mellin transform to the imag-
inary axis has compact support [iH, iH], where H > 0 is a constant. Then,
since
(4.8)
(M
+
)(s) = (M(h
H

))(s) =
1
2i
_
i
i
Mh
H
(r)M

(s r)dr
=
1
2i
_
iH
iH
Mh(r)M

(s r)dr
(see (2.3)), the Mellin transform M
+
will have decay properties similar to those
of M

as s .
Let
I
H
(s) =
_
1 if [(s)[ H,
0 otherwise.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 25
The inverse Mellin transform of I
H
is
(4.9) (M
1
I
H
)(y) =
1
2i
_
iH
iH
y
s
ds =
1
2i
y
s
log y
[
iH
iH
=
1

sin(H log y)
log y
.
It is easy to check that the Mellin transform of this is indeed identical to
[iH,iH]
on the imaginary axis: (4.9) is the Dirichlet kernel under a change of variables.
Now, in general, the Mellin transform of f
M
g is Mf Mg. We dene
(4.10)
h
H
(t) =
_
h
_
M
1
I
H
__
(t) =
_

t
2
h(ty
1
)
sin(H log y)
log y
dy
y
=
_ 2
t
0
h(ty)
sin(H log y)
log y
dy
y
and obtain that the Mellin transform of h
H
(t), on the imaginary axis, equals the
restriction of Mh to the interval [iH, iH]. We may adopt the convention that
h
H
(t) = h(t) = 0 for t < 0.
4.2.1. The dierence
+

in
2
norm. By (4.3) and (4.7),
(4.11)
[
+

[
2
2
=
_

0
[h
H
(t)

(t) h(t)

(t)[
2
dt
max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t
_

0
[h
H
(t) h(t)[
2
dt
t
.
Since the Mellin transform is an isometry (i.e., (2.4) holds),
_

0
[h
H
(t) h(t)[
2
dt
t
=
1
2
_

[Mh
H
(it) Mh(it)[
2
dt =
1

_

H
[Mh(it)[
2
dt.
The maximum max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t is 1/

2e.
Now, consider any : [0, ) C that (a) has compact support (or fast decay),
(b) satises (t) = O(t
3
) near the origin and (c) is quadruply dierentiable
outside a nite set of points. We can show by integration by parts (cf. (2.1))
that, for (s) > 2,
M(s) =
_

0
(x)x
s
dx
x
=
_

0

(x)
x
s
s
dx =
_

0

(x)
x
s+1
s(s + 1)
dx
=
_

0

(3)
(x)
x
s+2
s(s + 1)(s + 2)
dx = lim
t0
+
_

t

(4)
(x)
x
s+3
s(s + 1)(s + 2)(s + 3)
dx,
where
(4)
(x) is understood in the sense of distributions at the nitely many
places where it is not well-dened as a function.
Let s = it, = h. Let C
k
=
_

0
[h
(k)
(x)[x
k1
dx for 0 k 4. Then
(4.12) Mh(it) = O

_
C
4
[t[[t +i[[t + 2i[[t + 3i[
_
.
Hence
(4.13)
_

0
[h
H
(t) h(t)[
2
dt
t
=
1

_

H
[Mh(it)[
2
dt
1

_

H
C
2
4
t
6
dt
C
2
4
7H
7
and so
[
+

[
2

C
4

7
_
1
2e
_
1/4

1
H
7/2
.
26 H. A. HELFGOTT
By (C.7), C
4
= 3920.8817036284 +O(10
10
). Thus
(4.14) [
+

[
2

547.5562
H
7/2
.
It will also be useful to bound

_

0
(
+
(t)

(t))
2
log t dt

.
This is at most
_

0
(
+
(t)

(t))
2
[ log t[dt
_

0
[h
H
(t)

(t) h(t)

)[
2
[ log t[dt

_
max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t[ log t[
_

_

0
[h
H
(t) h(t)[
2
dt
t
.
Now
max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t[ log t[ = min
t[0,1]

(t)t log t 0.3301223,


where we nd the minimum by the bisection method (carried out rigorously, as
in Appendix C.2, with 30 iterations), Hence, by (4.13),
(4.15)
_

0
(
+
(t)

(t))
2
[ log t[dt
480.394
H
7/2
.
* * *
As we said before, (Mh
H
)(it) is just the truncation of (Mh)(it) to the interval
[H, H]. We can write down Mh explicitly:
Mh = e
1/2
(1)
s
(8(s +3, 2) +12(s +4, 2) +6(s +5, 2) +(s +6, 2)),
where (s, x) is the (lower) incomplete Gamma function
(s, x) =
_
x
0
e
t
t
s1
dt.
However, it is easier to deal with Mh by means of bounds and approximations.
Besides (4.12), note we have also derived
(4.16) Mh(it) = O

_
min
_
C
0
,
C
1
[t[
,
C
2
[t[[t +i[
,
C
3
[t[[t +i[[t + 2i[
__
.
By (C.2), (C.3), (C.4), (C.6) and (C.7),
C
0
1.622284, C
1
3.580004, C
2
15.27957,
C
3
131.3399, C
4
3920.882.
(We will compute rigorously far more precise bounds in Appendix C.1, but these
bounds are all we could need.)
4.2.2. Norms involving
+
. Let us now bound some norms involving
+
. Rela-
tively crude bounds will suce in most cases.
First, by (4.14),
(4.17) [
+
[
2
[

[
2
+ [
+

[
2
0.80013 +
547.5562
H
7/2
,
where we obtain
(4.18) [

[
2
=

0.640205997 . . . = 0.8001287 . . .
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 27
by symbolic integration. We can use the same idea to bound [
+
(t)t
r
[
2
, r 1/2:
[
+
(t)t
r
[
2
[

(t)t
r
[
2
+ [(
+

)(t)t
r
[
2
[

(t)t
r
[
2
+

max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t
2r+1

_

0
[h
H
(t) h(t)[
2
dt
t
[

(t)t
r
[
2
+
_
max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t
2r+1

C
4,1

7
1
H
7/2
.
For example,
[

(t)t
0.7
[
2
0.80691, max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t
20.7+1
0.37486,
[

(t)t
0.3
[
2
0.66168, max
t0
[

(t)[
2
t
2(0.3)+1
0.5934.
Thus
(4.19)
[
+
(t)t
0.7
[
2
0.80691 +
511.92
H
7/2
,
[
+
(t)t
0.3
[
2
0.66168 +
644.08
H
7/2
.
The Mellin transform of

+
equals (s 1)(M
+
)(s 1). Since the Mellin
transform is an isometry in the sense of (2.4),
[

+
[
2
2
=
1
2i
_ 1
2
+i
1
2
i

M(

+
)(s)

2
ds =
1
2i
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i
[s M
+
(s)[
2
ds.
Recall that
+
(t) = h
H
(t)

(t). Thus, by (2.3), M


+
(1/2 + it) equals 1/2
times the (additive) convolution of Mh
H
(it) and M

(1/2+it). Therefore, for


s = 1/2 +it,
(4.20)
[s[ [M
+
(s)[ =
[s[
2
_
H
H
Mh(ir)M

(s ir)dr

3
2
_
H
H
[ir 1[[Mh(ir)[ [s ir[[M

(s ir)[dr
=
3
2
(f g)(t),
where f(t) = [ir 1[[Mh
H
(it)[ and g(t) = [ 1/2 +it[[M

(1/2 +it)[. (Since


(1/2+i(t r))+(1+ir) = 1/2+it = s, either either [ 1/2+i(t r)[ [s[/3 or
[1+ir[ 2[s[/3; hence [sir[[ir1[ = [1/2+i(tr)[[1+ir[ [s[/3.) By Youngs
inequality (in a special case that follows from Cauchy-Schwarz), [f g[
2
[f[
1
[g[
2
.
Again by Cauchy-Schwarz and Plancherel (i.e., isometry),
[f[
2
1
=

[ir 1[[Mh
H
(ir)[dr

2
=

_
H
H
[ir 1[[Mh(ir)[dr

2
2H
_
H
H
[ir 1[
2
[Mh(ir)[
2
dr = 2H
_
H
H
[M((th)

)(ir)[
2
dr
= 4H
_

0
[(th)

(t)[
2
dt
t
4H 3.79234.
Yet again by Plancherel,
[g[
2
2
=
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i
[s[
2
[M

(s)[
2
ds =
_ 1
2
+i
1
2
i
[(M(

))(s)[
2
ds = [

[
2
2
=

4
.
28 H. A. HELFGOTT
Hence
(4.21) [

+
[
2

1

3
2
[f g[
2

3/2

2
3/2

4H

1/4
2

3.79234 0.87531

H.
We can bound [

+
t

[
2
, > 0, in the same way. The only dierence is that the
integral is now taken on (1/2 + i, 1/2 + + i) rather than (1/2
i, 1/2 + i). For example, if = 0.7, then [s[[M
+
(s)[ = (6/2)(f g)(t),
where f(t) = [ir 1[[Mh
H
(it)[ and g(t) = [0.2 +it[[M
,1
(0.9 +it)[. Here
[g[
2
2
=
_
1.2i
1.2i
[(M(

))(s)[
2
ds = [

t
0.7
[
2
2
0.55091
and so
(4.22) [

+
t
0.7
[
2

1

4H

3.79234

0.55091 1.95201

H.
By isometry and (2.5),
[
+
log [
2
2
=
1
2i
_ 1
2
+i
1
2
i
[M(
+
log)(s)[
2
ds =
1
2i
_ 1
2
+i
1
2
i
[(M
+
)

(s)[
2
ds.
Now, (M
+
)

(1/2 + it) equals 1/2 times the additive convolution of Mh


H
(it)
and (M

(1/2 + it). Hence, by Youngs inequality, [(M


+
)

(1/2 + it)[
2

(1/2)[Mh
H
(it)[
1
[(M

(1/2 + it)[
2
. By the denition of h
H
, Cauchy-Schwarz
and isometry,
[Mh
H
(it)[
1
=
_
H
H
[Mh(ir)[dr

2H

_
H
H
[Mh(ir)[
2
dr

2H

[Mh(ir)[
2
dr

2H

2[h(t)/

t[
2
.
Again by isometry and (2.5),
[(M

(1/2 +it)[
2
=

2[

log [
2
.
Hence
[
+
log [
2

2
(2)
3/2

2H[h(t)/

t[
2
[

log [
2
=

[h(t)/

t[
2
[

log [
2
.
Since
(4.23) [h(t)/

t[
2
1.40927, [

log [
2
1.39554,
we get that
(4.24) [Mh
H
(ir)[
1
1.99301

2H
and
(4.25) [
+
log [
2
1.10959

H.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 29
Let us bound [
+
(t)t

[
1
for (1, ). By Cauchy-Schwarz and Plancherel,
[
+
(t)t

[
1
= [

(t)h
H
(t)t

[
1
[

(t)t
+1/2
[
2
[h
H
(t)/

t[
2
= [

(t)t
+1/2
[
2

_

0
[h
H
(t)[
2
dt
t
= [

(t)t
+1/2
[
2

1
2
_
i
i
[Mh
H
(ir)[
2
dr
[

(t)t
+1/2
[
2

1
2
_

[Mh(ir)[
2
dr [

(t)t
+1/2
[
2
[h(t)/

t[
2
.
Since
[

t
+1/2
[
2
=

_

0
e
t
2
t
2+1
dt =
_
( + 1)
2
and [h(t)/

t[
2
is as in (4.23), we conclude that
(4.26) [
+
(t)t

[
1
0.99651
_
( + 1), [
+
[
1
0.996505.
Let us now get a bound for [
+
[

. Recall that
+
(t) = h
H
(t)

(t). Clearly
(4.27)
[
+
[

= [h
H
(t)

(t)[

+ [(h(t) h
H
(t))

(t)[

h(t) h
H
(t)
t

(t)t[

.
Taking derivatives, we easily see that
[

(1) = 1, [

(t)t[

= e
1/2
.
It remains to bound [(h(t) h
H
(t))/t[

. By (4.10),
(4.28) h
H
(t) =
_

t
2
h(ty
1
)
sin(H log y)
log y
dy
y
=
_

H log
2
t
h
_
t
e
w/H
_
sin w
w
dw.
The sine integral
Si(x) =
_
x
0
sin t
t
dt
is dened for all x; it tends to /2 as x + and to /2 as x . We
apply integration by parts to the second integral in (4.28), and obtain
h
H
(t) h(t) =
1

_

H log
2
t
_
d
dw
h
_
t
e
w/H
__
Si(w)dw h(t)
=
1

_

0
_
d
dw
h
_
t
e
w/H
__
_
Si(w)

2
_
dw

_
0
H log
2
t
_
d
dw
h
_
t
e
w/H
__
_
Si(w) +

2
_
dw.
Now

d
dw
h
_
t
e
w/H
_

=
te
w/H
H

_
t
e
w/H
_

t[h

He
w/H
.
30 H. A. HELFGOTT
Integration by parts easily yields the bounds [ Si(x) /2[ < 2/x for x > 0 and
[ Si(x) + /2[ < 2/[x[ for x < 0; we also know that Si(x) > 0 for x > 0 and
Si(x) < 0 for x < 0. Hence
[h
H
(t) h(t)[
2t[h

H
_
_
1
0

2
dw +
_

1
2e
w/H
w
dw
_
=
t[h

H
_
1 +
4

E
1
(1/H)
_
,
where E
1
is the exponential integral
E
1
(z) =
_

z
e
t
t
dt.
By [AS64],
0 < E
1
(1/H) <
log(H + 1)
e
1/H
< log H.
Hence
(4.29)
[h
H
(t) h(t)[
t
< [h


1 +
4

log H
H
and so
[
+
[

1 +e
1/2

h(t) h
H
(t)
t

< 1 +e
1/2
[h


1 +
4

log H
H
.
The roots of h

(t) = 0 within (0, 2) are t =

3 1, t =

21 3. A quick check
gives that [h

21 3)[ > [h

3 1)[. Hence
(4.30) [h

= [h

21 3)[ 3.65234.
We have proven
(4.31) [
+
[

< 1 +e
1/2
3.65234
1 +
4

log H
H
< 1 + 2.21526
1 +
4

log H
H
.
We will need another bound of this kind, namely, for
+
log t. We start as in
(4.27):
[
+
log t[

log t[

+ [(h(t) h
H
(t))

(t) log t[

log t[

+ [(h h
H
(t))/t[

(t)t log t[

.
By the bisection method with 30 iterations,
[

(t) log t[

0.279491, [

(t)t log t[

0.346491.
Hence, by (4.29) and (4.30),
(4.32) [
+
log t[

0.2795 + 1.26551
1 +
4

log H
H
.
4.3. The smoothing function

. Here the challenge is to dene a smoothing


function

that is good both for minor-arc estimates and for major-arc estimates.
The two regimes tend to favor dierent kinds of smoothing function. For minor-
arc estimates, both [Tao] and [Hel] use
(4.33)
2
(t) = 4 max(log 2 [ log 2t[, 0) = ((2I
[1/2,1]
)
M
(2I
[1/2,1]
))(t),
where I
[1/2,1]
(t) is 1 if t [1/2, 1] and 0 otherwise. For major-arc estimates, we
will use a function based on

= e
t
2
/2
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 31
(For example, we can give major-arc estimates for
+
, which is based on

(by
(4.7)). We will actually use here the function t
2
e
t
2
/2
, whose Mellin transform is
M

(s + 2) (by, e.g., [BBO10, Table 11.1]).)


We will follow the simple expedient of convolving the two smoothing functions,
one good for minor arcs, the other one for major arcs. In general, let
1
,
2
:
[0, ) C. It is easy to use bounds on sums of the form
(4.34) S
f,
1
(x) =

n
f(n)
1
(n/x)
to bound sums of the form S
f,
1

2
:
(4.35)
S
f,
1

2
=

n
f(n)(
1

M

2
)
_
n
x
_
=
_

0

n
f(n)
1
_
n
wx
_

2
(w)
dw
w
=
_

0
S
f,
1
(wx)
2
(w)
dw
w
.
The same holds, of course, if
1
and
2
are switched, since
1

M

2
=
2

M

1
.
The only objection is that the bounds on (4.34) that we input might not be valid,
or non-trivial, when the argument wx of S
f,
1
(wx) is very small. Because of this,
it is important that the functions
1
,
2
vanish at 0, and desirable that their rst
and second derivatives do so as well.
Let us see how this works out in practice for
1
=
2
. Here
2
: [0, ) R is
given by
(4.36)
2
=
1

M

1
= 4 max(log 2 [ log 2t[, 0),
where
1
= 2 I
[1/2,1]
. Bounding the sums S

2
(, x) on the minor arcs was the
main subject of [Hel].
Before we use [Hel, Main Thm.], we need an easy lemma so as to simplify its
statement.
Lemma 4.2. For any q 1 and any r max(3, q),
q
(q)
< (r),
where
(4.37) (r) = e

log log r +
2.50637
log log r
.
Proof. Since (r) is increasing for r 27, the statement follows immediately for
q 27 by [RS62, Thm. 15]:
q
(q)
< (q) (r).
For r < 27, it is clear that q/(q) 2 3/(1 2) = 3; it is also easy to see that
(r) > e

2.50637 > 3 for all r > e.


It is time to quote the main theorem in [Hel]. Let x x
0
, x
0
= 2.16 10
20
.
Let 2 = a/q + /x, q Q, gcd(a, q) = 1, [/x[ 1/qQ, where Q = (3/4)x
2/3
.
Then, if 3 q x
1/3
/6, [Hel, Main Thm.] gives us that
(4.38) [S

2
(, x)[ g
x
_
max
_
1,
[[
8
_
q
_
x,
32 H. A. HELFGOTT
where
(4.39) g
x
(r) =
(R
x,2r
log 2r + 0.5)
_
(r) + 2.5

2r
+
L
r
r
+ 3.2x
1/6
,
with
(4.40)
R
x,t
= 0.27125 log
_
1 +
log 4t
2 log
9x
1/3
2.004t
_
+ 0.41415
L
t
= (t)
_
log 2
7
4
t
13
4
+
80
9
_
+ log 2
16
9
t
80
9
+
111
5
,
(We are using Lemma 4.2 to bound all terms 1/(q) appearing in [Hel, Main
Thm.]; we are also using the obvious fact that, for
0
q xed and 0 < a < b,
a
0
q
b
is minimal when
0
is minimal.) If q > x
1/3
/6, then, again by [Hel, Main Thm.],
(4.41) [S

2
(, x)[ h(x)x,
where
(4.42) h(x) = 0.2727x
1/6
(log x)
3/2
+ 1218x
1/3
log x.
We will work with x varying within a range, and so we must pay some attention
to the dependence of (4.38) and (4.41) on x.
Lemma 4.3. Let g
x
(r) be as in (4.39) and h(x) as in (4.42). Then
x
_
h(x) if x < (6r)
3
g
x
(r) if x (6r)
3
is a decreasing function of x for r 3 xed and x 21.
Proof. It is clear from the denitions that x h(x) (for x 21) and x g
x,0
(r)
are both decreasing. Thus, we simply have to show that h(x
1
) g
x
1
,0
(r) for
x
1
= (6r)
3
. Since x
1
(6 11)
3
> e
12.5
,
R
x
1
,2r
0.27125 log(0.065 log x
1
+ 1.056) + 0.41415
0.27125 log((0.065 + 0.0845) log x
1
) + 0.41415 0.27215 log log x
1
.
Hence
R
x
1
,2r
log 2r + 0.5 0.27215 log log x
1
log x
1/3
1
0.27215 log 12.5 log 3 + 0.5
0.09072 log log x
1
log x
1
0.255.
At the same time,
(4.43)
(r) = e

log log
x
1/3
1
6
+
2.50637
log log r
e

log log x
1
e

log 3 + 1.9521
e

log log x
1
for r 37, and we also get (r) e

log log x
1
for r [11, 37] by the bisection
method (carried out rigorously, as in Appendix C.2, with 10 iterations). Hence
(R
x
1
,2r
log 2r + 0.5)
_
(r) + 2.5
(0.09072 log log x
1
log x
1
0.255)
_
e

log log x
1
+ 2.5
0.1211 log x
1
(log log x
1
)
3/2
+ 2,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 33
and so
(R
x
1
,2r
log 2r + 0.5)
_
(r) + 2.5

2r
(0.21 log x
1
(log log x
1
)
3/2
+ 3.47)x
1/6
1
.
Now, by (4.43),
L
r
e

log log x
1

_
log 2
7
4
(x
1/3
1
/6)
13/4
+
80
9
_
+ log 2
16
9
(x
1/3
1
/6)
80
9
+
111
5
e

log log x
1

_
13
12
log x
1
+ 4.28
_
+
80
27
log x + 7.51.
It is clear that
4.28e

log log x
1
+
80
27
log x
1
+ 7.51
x
1/3
1
/6
< 1218x
1/3
1
log x
1
.
for x
1
e.
It remains to show that
(4.44) 0.21 log x
1
(log log x
1
)
3/2
+ 3.47 + 3.2 +
13
12
e

x
1/6
1
log x
1
log log x
1
is less than 0.2727(log x
1
)
3/2
for x
1
large enough. Since t (log t)
3/2
/t
1/2
is
decreasing for t > e
3
, we see that
0.21 log x
1
(log log x
1
)
3/2
+ 6.67 +
13
12
e

x
1/6
1
log x
1
log log x
1
0.2727(log x
1
)
3/2
< 1
for all x
1
e
34
, simply because it is true for x = e
34
> e
e
3
.
We conclude that h(x
1
) g
x
1
,0
(r) = g
x
1
,0
(x
1/3
1
/6) for x
1
e
34
. We check
that h(x
1
) g
x
1
,0
(x
1/3
1
/6) for all x
1
[5832, e
34
] as well by the bisection method
(applied to [5832, 583200] and to [583200, e
34
] with 30 iterations in the latter
interval, with 20 initial iterations).
Lemma 4.4. Let R
x,r
be as in (4.39). Then t R
e
t
,r
(r) is convex-up for
t 3 log 6r.
Proof. Since t e
t/6
and t t are clearly convex-up, all we have to do is to
show that t R
e
t
,r
is convex-up. In general, since
(log f)

=
_
f

f
_

=
f

f (f

)
2
f
2
,
a function of the form (log f) is convex-up exactly when f

f (f

)
2
0. If
f(t) = 1 +a/(t b), we have f

f (f

)
2
0 whenever
(t +a b) (2a) a
2
,
i.e., a
2
+ 2at 2ab, and that certainly happens when t b. In our case, b =
3 log(2.004r/9), and so t 3 log 6r implies t b.
Proposition 4.5. Let x Kx
0
, x
0
= 2.16 10
20
, K 1. Let S

(, x) be as
in (3.1). Let

=
2

M
, where
2
is as in (4.36) and : [0, ) [0, ) is
continuous and in L
1
.
Let 2 = a/q +/x, q Q, gcd(a, q) = 1, [/x[ 1/qQ, where Q = (3/4)x
2/3
.
If q (x/K)
1/3
/6, then
(4.45) S

(, x) g
x,
_
max
_
1,
[[
8
_
q
_
[[
1
x,
34 H. A. HELFGOTT
where
(4.46)
g
x,
(r) =
(R
x,K,,2r
log 2r + 0.5)
_
(r) + 2.5

2r
+
L
r
r
+ 3.2K
1/6
x
1/6
,
R
x,K,,t
= R
x,t
+ (R
x/K,t
R
x,t
)
C
,2
/[[
1
log K
with R
x,t
and L
r
are as in (4.40), and
(4.47) C
,2,K
=
_
1
1/K
(w) log w dw.
If q > (x/K)
1/3
/6, then
[S

(, x)[ h

(x/K) [[
1
x,
where
(4.48)
h

(x) = h(x) +C
,0,K
/[[
1
,
C
,0,K
= 1.04488
_
1/K
0
[(w)[dw
and h(x) is as in (4.42).
Proof. By (4.35),
S

(, x) =
_
1/K
0
S

2
(, wx)(w)
dw
w
+
_

1/K
S

2
(, wx)(w)
dw
w
.
We bound the rst integral by the trivial estimate [S

2
(, wx)[ [S

2
(0, wx)[
and Cor. A.3:
_
1/K
0
[S

2
(0, wx)[(x)
dw
w
1.04488
_
1/K
0
wx(w)
dw
w
= 1.04488x
_
1/K
0
(w)dw.
If w 1/K, then wx x
0
, and we can use (4.38) or (4.41). If q > (x/K)
1/3
/6,
then [S

2
(, wx)[ h(x/K)wx by (4.41); moreover, [S

2
(, y)[ h(y)y for
x/K y < (6q)
3
(by (4.41)) and [S

2
(, y)[ g
y,1
(r) for y (6q)
3
(by (4.38)).
Thus, Lemma 4.3 gives us that
_

1/K
[S

2
(, wx)[(w)
dw
w

_

1/K
h(x/K)wx (w)
dw
w
= h(x/K)x
_

1/K
(w)dw h(x/K)[[
1
x.
If q (x/K)
1/3
/6, we always use (4.38). We can use the coarse bound
_

1/K
3.2x
1/6
wx (w)
dw
w
3.2K
1/6
[[
1
x
5/6
Since L
r
does not depend on x,
_

1/K
L
r
r
wx (w)
dw
w

L
r
r
[[
1
x.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 35
By Lemma 4.4 and q (x/K)
1/3
/6, y R
e
y
,t
is convex-up and decreasing for
y [log(x/K), ). Hence
R
wx,t

_
log w
log
1
K
R
x/K,t
+
_
1
log w
log
1
K
_
R
x,t
if w < 1,
R
x,t
if w 1.
Therefore
_

1/K
R
wx,t
wx (w)
dw
w

_
1
1/K
_
log w
log
1
K
R
x/K,t
+
_
1
log w
log
1
K
_
R
x,t
_
x(w)dw +
_

1
R
x,t
(w)xdw
R
x,t
x
_

1/K
(w)dw + (R
x/K,t
R
x,t
)
x
log K
_
1
1/K
(w) log wdw

_
R
x,t
[[
1
+ (R
x/K,t
R
x,t
)
C
,2
log K
_
x,
where
C
,2,K
=
_
1
1/K
(w) log w dw.

Lemma 4.6. Let x > K (6e)


3
, K 1. Let

=
2

M
, where
2
is as in
(4.36) and : [0, ) [0, ) is continuous and in L
1
. Let g
x,
be as in (4.46).
Then g
x,
(r) is a decreasing function of r for r 175.
Proof. Taking derivatives, we can easily see that
(4.49) r
log log r
r
, r
log r
r
, r
(log r)
2
log log r
r
are decreasing for r 20. The same is true if log log r is replaced by (r), since
(r)/ log log r is a decreasing function for r e. Since (C
,2
/[[
1
)/ log K 1,
we see that it is enough to prove that r R
y,t
log 2r

log log r/

2r is decreasing
on r for y = x and y = x/K (under the assumption that r 175).
Looking at (4.40) and at (4.49), it remains only to check that
(4.50) r log
_
1 +
log 8r
2 log
9x
1/3
4.008r
_
_
log log r
r
is decreasing on r for r 175. Taking logarithms, and then derivatives, we see
that we have to show that
1
r
+
log 8r
r
2
2
_
1 +
log 8r
2
_
log
_
1 +
log 8r
2
_ +
1
2r log r log log r
<
1
2r
,
where = log
9x
1/3
4.008r
. Since r x
1/3
/6, log 54/4.008 > 2.6. Thus, it is enough
to ensure that
(4.51)
2/2.6
_
1 +
log 8r
2
_
log
_
1 +
log 8r
2
_ +
1
log r log log r
< 1.
Since this is true for r = 175 and the left side is decreasing on r, the inequality
is true for all r 175.
36 H. A. HELFGOTT

Lemma 4.7. Let x 10


24
. Let : [0, ) [0, ) be continuous and in L
1
.
Let g
x,
(r) and h(x) be as in (4.46) and (4.42), respectively. Then
g
x,
_
2
3
x
0.275
_
h(x/ log x).
Proof. We can bound g
x,
(r) from below by
gm
x
(r) =
(R
x,r
log 2r + 0.5)
_
(r) + 2.5

2r
Let r = (2/3)x
0.275
. Using the assumption that x 10
24
, we see that
R
x,r
= 0.27125 log
_
_
1 +
log
_
8
3
x
0.275
_
2 log
_
93/2
2.004
x
1
3
0.275
_
_
_
+ 0.41415 0.67086.
Using x 10
24
again, we get that
(r) = e

log log r +
2.50637
log log r
5.72864.
Since log 2r = 0.275 log x + log 4/3, we conclude that
gm
x
(r)
0.44156 log x + 4.1486
_
4/3 x
0.1375
.
Recall that
h(x) =
0.2727(log x)
3/2
x
1/6
+
1218 log x
x
1/3
.
It is easy to check that (1/x
0.1375
)/((log x)
3/2
/x
1/6
) is increasing for x e
51.43
(and hence for x 10
24
) and that (1/x
0.1375
)/((log x)/x
1/3
) is increasing for
x e
5.2
(and hence, again, for x 10
24
). Since
0.44156 log x + 2
x
0.1375
>
0.2727(log x)
3/2
x
1/6
,
2.1486
x
0.1375
>
1218 log x
x
1/3
for x 10
24
, we are done.
5. Mellin transforms and smoothing functions
5.1. Exponential sums and L functions. We must show how to estimate
expressions of the form
S
,
(/x, x) =

n
(n)(n)e(n/x)(n/x),
where : R
+
0
R
+
0
is a smoothing function and is bounded by a large constant.
We must also choose . Let f

(t) = e(t)(t). By Mellin inversion,


(5.1)

n=1
(n)(n)f

(n/x) =
1
2i
_
2+i
2i

(s, )
L(s, )
F

(s)x
s
ds,
where F

is the Mellin transform of f

:
(5.2) F

=
_

0
f

(t)t
s
dt
t
.
The standard procedure here (already used in [HL23]) is to shift the line of
integration in (5.1) to the left, picking up the contributions of the zeros of L(s, )
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 37
along the way. (Once the line of integration is far enough to the left, the terms t
s
within (5.1) become very small, and so the value of the integral ought to become
very small, too.)
We will assume we know the zeros of L(s, ) up to a certain height H
0

meaning, in particular, that we know that non-trivial zeros with (s) H
0
lie
on the critical line (s) = 1/2 but we have little control over the zeros above
H
0
. (The best zero-free regions available are not by themselves strong enough
for our purposes.) Thus, we want to choose so that the Mellin transform F

decays very rapidly both for = 0 and for non-zero and bounded.
5.2. How to choose a smoothing function? The method of stationary phase
([Olv74, 4.11], [Won01, II.3])) suggests that the main contribution to (5.2)
should come when the phase has derivative 0. The phase part of (5.2) is
e(t) = t
(s)
= e
2it+ log t
(where we write s = +i); clearly,
(2t + log t)

= 2 +

t
= 0
when t = /2. This is meaningful when t 0, i.e., sgn() ,= sgn(). The
contribution of t = /2 to (5.2) is then
(5.3) (t)e(t)t
s1
=
_

2
_
e
i
_

2
_
+i1
multiplied by a width approximately equal to a constant divided by
_
[(2it + log t)

[ =
_
[ /t
2
[ =
2[[
_
[[
.
The absolute value of (5.3) is
(5.4)
_


2
_

1
.
In other words, if sgn() ,= sgn() and is not too small, asking that F

(+i)
decay rapidly as [[ amounts to asking that (t) decay rapidly as t 0.
Thus, if we ask for F

( +i) to decay rapidly as [[ for all moderate , we


are requesting that
(1) (t) decay rapidly as t ,
(2) the Mellin transform F
0
( +i) decay rapidly as .
Requirement (2) is there because we also need to consider F

( + it) for very


small, and, in particular, for = 0.
There is clearly an uncertainty-principle issue here; one cannot do arbitrarily
well in both aspects at the same time. Once we are conscious of this, the choice
(t) = e
t
in Hardy-Littlewood actually looks fairly good: obviously, (t) = e
t
decays exponentially, and its Mellin transform (s+i) also decays exponentially
as . Moreover, for this choice of , the Mellin transform F

(s) can be
written explicitly: F

(s) = (s)/(1 2i)


s
.
38 H. A. HELFGOTT
It is not hard to work out an explicit formula
6
for (t) = e
t
. However, it is
not hard to see that, for F

(s) as above, F

(1/2 +it) decays like e


t/2||
, just as
we expected from (5.4). This is a little too slow for our purposes: we will often
have to work with relatively large , and we would like to have to check the zeroes
of L functions only up to relatively low heights t. We will settle for a dierent
choice of : the Gaussian.
The decay of the Gaussian smoothing function (t) = e
t
2
/2
is much faster than
exponential. Its Mellin transform is (s/2), which decays exponentially as (s)
. Moreover, the Mellin transform F

(s) ( ,= 0), while not an elementary or


very commonly occurring function, equals (after a change of variables) a relatively
well-studied special function, namely, a parabolic cylinder function U(a, z) (or,
in Whittakers [Whi03] notation, D
a1/2
(z)).
For not too small, the main term will indeed work out to be proportional to
e
(/2)
2
/2
, as the method of stationary phase indicated. This is, of course, much
better than e
/2||
. The cost is that the Mellin transform (s/2) for = 0
now decays like e
(/4)||
rather than e
(/2)||
. This we can certainly aord
the main concern was e
||/
for 10
5
, say.
5.3. The Mellin transform of the twisted Gaussian. We wish to approxi-
mate the Mellin transform
F

(s) =
_

0
e
t
2
/2
e(t)t
s
dt
t
,
where R. The parabolic cylinder function U : C
2
C is given by
U(a, z) =
e
z
2
/4

_
1
2
+a
_
_

0
t
a
1
2
e

1
2
t
2
zt
dt
for (a) > 1/2; this can be extended to all a, z C either by analytic con-
tinuation or by other integral representations ([AS64, 19.5], [Tem10, 12.5(i)]).
Hence
(5.5) F

(s) = e
(i)
2
(s)U
_
s
1
2
, 2i
_
.
The second argument of U is purely imaginary; it would be otherwise if a Gaussian
of non-zero mean were chosen.
Let us briey discuss the state of knowledge up to date on Mellin transforms of
twisted Gaussian smoothings, that is, e
t
2
/2
multiplied by an additive character
e(t). As we have just seen, these Mellin transforms are precisely the parabolic
cylinder functions U(a, z).
The function U(a, z) has been well-studied for a and z real; see, e.g., [Tem10].
Less attention has been paid to the more general case of a and z complex. The
most notable exception is by far the work of Olver [Olv58], [Olv59], [Olv61],
[Olv65]; he gave asymptotic series for U(a, z), a, z C. These were asymptotic
series in the sense of Poincare, and thus not in general convergent; they would
solve our problem if and only if they came with error term bounds. Unfortunately,
6
There may be a minor gap in the literature in this respect. The explicit formula given in
[HL23, Lemma 4] does not make all constants explicit. The constants and trivial-zero terms
were fully worked out for q = 1 by [Wig20] (cited in [MV07, Exercise 12.1.1.8(c)]; the sign of
hyp
,q
(z) there seems to be o). As was pointed out by Landau (see [Har66, p. 628]), [HL23,
Lemma 4] actually has mistaken terms for non-primitive. (The author thanks R. C. Vaughan
for this information and the references.)
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 39
it would seem that all fully explicit error terms in the literature are either for a
and z real, or for a and z outside our range of interest (see both Olvers work and
[TV03].) The bounds in [Olv61] involve non-explicit constants. Thus, we will
have to nd expressions with explicit error bounds ourselves. Our case is that of
a in the critical strip, z purely imaginary.
Gaussian smoothing has been used before in number theory; see, notably,
[HB79]. What is new here is that we will derive fully explicit bounds on the Mellin
transform of the twisted Gaussian. This means that the Gaussian smoothing will
be a real option in explicit work on exponential sums in number theory from now
on.
5.3.1. General approach and situation. We will use the saddle-point method (see,
e.g., [dB81, 5], [Olv74, 4.7], [Won01, II.4]) to obtain bounds with an optimal
leading-order term and small error terms. (We used the stationary-phase method
solely as an exploratory tool.)
What do we expect to obtain? Both the asymptotic expressions in [Olv59] and
the bounds in [Olv61] make clear that, if the sign of = (s) is dierent from that
of , there will a change in behavior when gets to be of size about (2)
2
. This is
unsurprising, given our discussion using stationary phase: for [(a)[ smaller than
a constant times [(z)[
2
, the term proportional to e
(/4)||
= e
|(a)|/2
should
be dominant, whereas for [(a)[ much larger than a constant times [(z)[
2
, the
term proportional to e

1
2
(

2
)
2
should be dominant.
5.3.2. Setup. We write
(5.6) (u) =
u
2
2
(2i)u i log u
for u real or complex, so that
F

(s) =
_

0
e
(u)
u

du
u
.
We will be able to shift the contour of integration as we wish, provided that
it starts at 0 and ends at a point at innity while keeping within the sector
arg(u) (/4, /4).
We wish to nd a saddle point. At a saddle point,

(u) = 0. This means that


(5.7) u 2i
i
u
= 0, i.e., u
2
+iu i = 0,
where = 2. The solutions to

(u) = 0 are thus


(5.8) u
0
=
i

2
+ 4i
2
.
The second derivative at u
0
is
(5.9)

(u
0
) =
1
u
2
0
_
u
2
0
+i
_
=
1
u
2
0
(iu
0
+ 2i).
Assign the names u
0,+
, u
0,
to the roots in (5.8) according to the sign in front
of the square-root (where the square-root is dened so as to have argument in
(/2, /2]).
We assume without loss of generality that 0. We shall also assume at rst
that 0 (i.e., 0), as the case < 0 is much easier.
40 H. A. HELFGOTT
5.3.3. The saddle point. Let us start by estimating
(5.10)

u
s
0,+
e
y/2

= [u
0,+
[

e
arg(u
0,+
)
e
y/2
,
where y = (iu
0
). (This is the main part of the contribution of the saddle
point, without the factor that depends on the contour.) We have
(5.11) y =
_

i
2
_
i +
_

2
+ 4i
_
_
=
_

2
2

i
2
2
_
1 +
4i

2
_
.
Solving a quadratic equation, we get that
(5.12)
_
1 +
4i

2
=
_
j() 1
2
+i
_
j() + 1
2
,
where j() = (1 +
2
)
1/2
and = 4/
2
. Thus
y =

2
2
__
j() + 1
2
1
_
.
Let us now compute the argument of u
0,+
:
(5.13)
arg(u
0,+
) = arg
_
i +
_

2
+ 4i
_
= arg
_
i +
_
1 +i
_
= arg
_
i +
_
1 +j()
2
+i
_
1 +j()
2
_
= arcsin
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1+j()
2
1

2
_
1+j()
2
_
_
1+j()
2
1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
= arcsin
_
_

_
1
2
_
1

2
1 +j()
_
_
_
=
1
2
arccos

2
1 +j()
(by cos 2 = 1 2 sin
2
). Thus
(5.14)
arg(u
0,+
) +
y
2
=
_
arccos

2
1 +j()


2
2
__
j() + 1
2
1
__

2
=
_
arccos
1
()

2(() 1)

2
,
where () =
_
(1 +j())/2.
It is clear that
(5.15) lim

_
arccos
1
()

2(() 1)

_
=

2
whereas
(5.16) arccos
1
()

2(() 1)



2


4
=

4
as 0
+
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 41
We are still missing a factor of [u
0,+
[

(from (5.10)), a factor of [u


0,+
[
1
(from
the invariant dierential du/u) and a factor of 1/
_
[

(u
0,+
)[ (from the passage
by the saddle-point along a path of steepest descent). By (5.9), this is
[u
0,+
[
1
_
[

(u
0,+
)[
=
[u
0,+
[
1
1
|u
0,+
|
_
[iu
0,+
+ 2i[
=
[u
0,+
[

_
[iu
0,+
+ 2i[
.
By (5.8) and (5.12),
(5.17)
[u
0,+
[ =

i +

2
+ 4i
2

=

2

_
1 +j()
2
+
__
1 +j()
2
1
_
i

=

2

1 +j()
2
+
1 +j()
2
+ 1 2
_
1 +j()
2
=

2

1 +j() 2
_
1 +j()
2
=

2
_
()
2
().
Proceeding as in (5.11), we obtain that
(5.18)
[iu
0,+
+ 2i[ =

i
2
_
i +
_
1 +
4i

2
_
+ 2i

2
2
+ 2i +

2
2
_
j() + 1
2

i
2
2
_
j() 1
2

=

2
2

_
_
1 +
_
j() + 1
2
_
2
+
_

_
j() 1
2
_
2
=

2
2

j() +
2
+ 1 2
_
j() + 1
2
2
_
j() 1
2
.
Since
_
j() 1 = /
_
j() + 1, this means that
(5.19)
[iu
0,+
+ 2i[ =

2
2

_
j() +
2
+ 1

2
j() + 1
(j() + 1 +
2
)
=

2
2
_
j() +j()
2
(())
1
(j() +j()
2
)
=

2
2
_
2()
2
j()(1 (())
1
) =

2
_
j()

2
_
()
2
().
Hence
[u
0,+
[

_
[iu
0,+
+ 2i[
=
_

2
_
()
2
()
_

(j())
1/4
2
1/4
(()
2
())
1/4
=

1
2

1
4
j()
1
4
(()
2
())

1
4
=
2

3
4

1
2
j()
1
4
(()
2
())

1
4

1
2
.
It remains to determine the direction of steepest descent at the saddle-point
u
0,+
. Let v C point in that direction. Then, by denition, v
2

(u
0,+
) is real
42 H. A. HELFGOTT
and positive, where is as in 5.6. Thus arg(v) = arg(

(u
0,+
))/2. By (5.9),
arg(

(u
0,+
)) = arg(iu
0,+
+ 2i) 2 arg(u
0,+
).
Starting as in (5.18), we obtain that
arg(iu
0,+
+ 2i) = arctan
_
_

_
j1
2
1 +
_
j+1
2
_
_
,
and
(5.20)

_
j1
2
1 +
_
j+1
2
=
_

_
j1
2
__
1 +
_
j+1
2
_
1 +
j+1
2
=

_
2(j 1) +
_
2(j + 1)
j 1
=
+
_
2
j+1
_

_
j
2
1 + (j + 1)
_
j 1
=
+
1

( + (j + 1))
j 1
=
(1 +j/)
j 1
=
(j + 1)(1 +j/)

=
2( +j)

.
Hence, by (5.13),
arg(

(u
0,+
)) = arctan
2( +j)

arccos ()
1
.
Therefore, the direction of steepest descent is
(5.21)
arg(v) =
arg(

(u
0,+
))
2
= arg(u
0,+
)
1
2
arctan
2v(v +j)

= arg(u
0,+
) arctan ,
where
(5.22) = tan
1
2
arctan
2v(v +j)

.
Since
tan

2
=
1
sin

1
tan
=
_
1 +
1
tan
2


1
tan
,
we see that
(5.23) =
_
1 +

2
4
2
( +j)
2


2( +j)
_
.
Recall as well that
cos

2
=
_
1 + cos
2
, sin

2
=
_
1 cos
2
.
Hence, if we let
(5.24)
0
= arg(u
0,+
) =
1
2
arccos
1
()
,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 43
we get that
(5.25)
cos
0
= cos
_
1
2
arccos
1
()
_
=

1
2
+
1
2()
,
sin
0
= sin
_
1
2
arccos
1
()
_
=

1
2

1
2()
.
We will prove now the useful inequality
(5.26) arctan >
0
,
i.e., arg(v) < 0. By (5.21), (5.22) and (5.24), this is equivalent to arccos(1/)
arctan 2( + j)/. Since tan =
_
1/ cos
2
1, we know that arccos(1/) =
arctan

2
1; thus, in order to prove (5.26), it is enough to check that
_

2
1
2( +j)

.
This is easy, since j > and

2
1 < < 2.
5.3.4. The contour. We must now choose the contour of integration. First, let
us discuss our options. By (C.9), 0.79837; moreover, it is easy to show
that tends to 1 when either 0
+
or . This means that neither the
simplest contour (a straight ray from the origin within the rst quadrant) nor
what is arguably the second simplest contour (leaving the origin on a ray within
the rst quadrant, then sliding down a circle centered at the origin, passing past
the saddle point until you reach the x-axis, which you then follow to innity)
are acceptable: either contour passes through the saddle point on a direction
close to 45 degrees (= arctan(1)) o from the direction of steepest descent. (The
saddle-point method allows in principle for any direction less than 45 degrees o
from the direction of steepest descent, but the bounds can degrade rapidly by
more than a constant factor when 45 degrees are approached.)
It is thus best to use a curve that goes through the saddle point u
+,0
in the
direction of steepest descent. We thus should use an element of a two-parameter
family of curves. The curve should also have a simple description in terms of
polar coordinates.
We decide that our contour C will be a lima con of Pascal. (Excentric circles
would have been another reasonable choice.) Let C be parameterized by
(5.27) y =
_

c
1

r +c
0
_
r, x =
_
r
2
y
2
for r [(c
0
1)/c
1
, c
0
/c
1
], where c
0
and c
1
are parameters to be set later.
The curve goes from (0, (c
0
1)/c
1
) to (c
0
/c
1
, 0), and stays within the rst
quadrant.
7
In order for the curve to go through the point u
0,+
, we must have
(5.28)
c
1
r
0

+c
0
= sin
0
,
where
(5.29) r
0
= [u
0,+
[ =

2
_
()
2
(),
7
Because c0 1, by (C.21).
44 H. A. HELFGOTT
and
0
and sin
0
are as in (5.24) and (5.25). We must also check that the curve
C goes through u
0,+
in the direction of steepest descent. The argument of the
point (x, y) is
= arcsin
y
r
= arcsin
_

c
1
r

+c
0
_
.
Hence
r
d
dr
= r
d arcsin
_

c
1
r

+c
0
_
dr
= r
c
1
/
cos arcsin
_

c
1
r

+c
0
_ =
c
1
r
cos
.
This means that, if v is tangent to C at the point u
0,+
,
tan(arg(v) arg(u
0,+
)) = r
d
dr
=
c
1
r
0
cos
0
,
and so, by (5.21),
(5.30) c
1
=
cos
0
r
0
,
where is as in (5.22). In consequence,
c
0
=
c
1
r
0

+ sin
0
= (cos
0
) + sin
0
,
and so, by (5.25),
(5.31) c
1
=
_
1 + 1/

, c
0
=
_
1
2
+
1
2
+
_
1
2

1
2
.
Incidentally, we have also shown that the arc-length innitesimal is
(5.32) [du[ =

1 +
_
r
d
dr
_
2
dr =
_
1 +
(c
1
r/)
2
cos
2

dr =

_
1 +
r
2

2
c
2
1

_
c
0
c
1
r
_
2
dr.
The contour will be as follows: rst we go out of the origin along a straight
radial segment C
1
; then we meet the curve C, and we follow it clockwise for a
segment C
2
, with the saddle-point roughly at its midpoint; then we follow another
radial ray C
3
up to innity. For small, C
3
will just be the x-axis. Both C
1
and
C
3
will be contained within the rst quadrant; we will specify them later.
5.3.5. The integral over the main contour segment C
2
. We recall that
(5.33) (u) =
u
2
2
+iu i log u.
Our aim is now to bound the integral
_
C
2
e
((u))
u
1
du
over the main contour segment C
2
. We will proceed as follows. First, we will
parameterize the integral using a real variable , with the value = 0 corre-
sponding to the saddle point u = u
0,+
. We will bound ((u)) from below by
an expression of the form ((u
0,+
)) +
2
. We then bound [u[
1
[du/d[ from
above by a constant. This procedure will give a bound that is larger than the
true value by at most a (very moderate) constant factor.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 45
For u = x +iy (or (r, ) in polar coordinates), (5.33) gives us
(5.34)
((u)) =
x
2
y
2
2
y + =
r
2
2y
2
2
y + arcsin
y
r
=
_
4

_
2

0
() =
2

0
(),
where, by (5.27), (5.28), and (5.31),

0
() =
( +
0
)
2
2
(1 2(sin
0
c
1
)
2
)

+
0

(sin
0
c
1
) +
arcsin(sin
0
c
1
)
4
,
and
(5.35) =
r r
0

,
0
=
r
0

.
By (5.27), (5.28) and (5.35),
(5.36)
y
r
= c
0
c
1
( +
0
) = sin
0
c
1

and so
(5.37) c
0
c
1

0
= sin
0
.
The variable will range within an interval
(5.38) [
0
,
1
]
_

1 sin
0
c
1

,
sin
0
c
1

_
.
(Here = (1sin
0
)/(c
1
) corresponds to the intersection with the y-axis, and
= (sin
0
)/(c
1
) corresponds to the intersection with the x-axis.)
We work out the expansions around 0 of
(5.39)
( +
0
)
2
2
(1 2(sin
0
c
1
)
2
) =

2
0
cos 2
0
2
+ (
0
cos 2
0
+ 2
2
0
c
1
sin
0
)
+
_
cos 2
0
2
+ 4c
1

0
sin
0
c
2
1

2
0
_

2
+ 2(
0
c
2
1

2
+c
1
sin
0
)
3
c
2
1

4
,

+
0

(sin
0
c
1
) =

0
sin
0

+
_

sin
0

+c
1

0
_
+c
1

2
,
arcsin(sin
0
c
1
)
4
=

0
4
+
1
4

k=1
P
k
(sin
0
)
(cos
0
)
2k1
(c
1
)
k
k!

k
=

0
4
+
1
4
_
c
1

cos
0
+
(c
1
)
2
sin
0
2(cos
0
)
3

2
+. . .
_
,
where P
1
(t) = 1 and P
k+1
(t) = P

k
(t)(1t
2
)+(2k1)tP(t) for k 1. (This follows
from (arcsin z)

= 1/

1 z
2
; it is easy to show that (arcsin z)
(k)
= P
k
(z)(1
z
2
)
(k1/2)
.)
We sum these three expressions and obtain a series
0
() =

k
a
k

k
. We
already know that
(1) a
0
equals the value of ((u))/(
2

2
) at the saddle point u
0,+
,
(2) a
1
= 0,
46 H. A. HELFGOTT
(3)
a
2
=
1
2
_
1

_
2
_
dr
d
_
2
[

(u
0,+
)[

du
dr
[
r=r
0

2
=
1
2
[

(u
0,+
)[

du
dr
[
r=r
0

2
.
Here, as we know from (5.9), (5.19) and (5.17),
[

(u
0,+
)[ =
[ iu
0,+
+ 2i[
[u
0,+
[
2
=

2
_
j()
2

2
2
(
2
)
=
_
2j()

,
and, by (5.31) and (5.32),
(5.40)

du
dr
[
r=r
0

=
[du[
[dr[
[
r=r
0
=

_
1 +
r
2
0

2
c
2
1

_
c
0
c
1
r
0
_
2
=

1 +
c
2
1

2
r
2
0
1 sin
2

0
=

1 +
c
2
1

2
2
(
2
)
1
2
+
1
2
=

1 +c
2
1

1 + 1/
=
_
1 +
2
.
Thus,
a
2
=
1
2
_
2j()

(1 +
2
),
where is as in (5.23).
Let us simplify our expression for
0
() somewhat. We can replace the third
series in (5.39) by a truncated Taylor series ending at k = 2, namely,
arcsin(sin
0
c
1
)
4
=

0
4
+
1
4
_
c
1

cos
0
+
(c
1
)
2
sin
1
2(cos
1
)
3

2
_
for some
1
between
0
and . Then
1
[0, /2], and so
arcsin(sin
0
c
1
)
4


0
4
+
1
4

c
1

cos
0
.
Since
R() = c
2
1

2
+ 2(sin
0
c
1

0
)c
1

is a quadratic with negative leading coecient, its minimum within [


0
,
1
] (see
(5.38)) is bounded from below by min(R((1 sin
0
)/(c
1
)), R((sin
0
)/(c
1
))).
We compare
R
_
sin
0
c
1

_
= 2c
3
sin
0
sin
2

0
,
where c
3
= sin
0
c
1

0
, and
R
_

1 sin
0
c
1

_
= 2c
3
(1 sin
0
) (1 sin
0
)
2
= 2c
3
sin
0
sin
2

0
2c
3
1 + 2 sin
0
.
The question is whether
R
_

1 sin
0
c
1

_
R
_
sin
0
c
1

_
= 2c
3
1 + 2 sin
0
= 2(sin
0
c
1

0
) 1 + 2 sin
0
= 2c
1

0
1
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 47
is positive. It is:
c
1

0
=
c
1

= c
1
_

2
=
_
1 + 1/
2

2
,
and, as we know from (C.9), > 0.79837 is greater than 1/

2 = 0.70710 . . . .
Hence, by (5.37),
R() R
_
sin
0
c
1

_
= 2c
3
sin
0
sin
2

0
= sin
2

0
2c
1

0
sin
0
= sin
2

0
2(c
0
sin
0
) sin
0
= 3 sin
2

0
2c
0
sin
0
= 3 sin
2

0
2((cos
0
) + sin
0
) sin
0
= sin
2

0
(sin 2
0
) .
We conclude that
(5.41)
0
()
((u
0,+
))

2
+
2
,
where
(5.42) = a
2

1
4
(c
1
)
2
sin
0
2(cos
0
)
3
+ sin
2

0
(sin 2
0
) .
We can simplify this further, using
1
4
(c
1
)
2
sin
0
2(cos
0
)
3
=

8

1 + 1/

_
1
2

1
2
_
1
2
+
1
2
_
3/2
=

4

_
1 1/
_
1 + 1/
=

4

2
1
=

4

2
_
j+1
2
_
j1
2
=

4

2
_

2
/4
=

2
2
and (by (5.25))
sin 2
0
= 2 sin
0
cos
0
= 2
_
1
4

1
4
2
=

2
1

2
1

2
=
/2
(j + 1)/2
=

j + 1
.
Therefore (again by (5.25))
(5.43) =
1
2
_
2j

(1 +
2
)

2
2
+
1
2

1
2


j + 1
.
Now recall that our task is to bound the integral
(5.44)
_
C
2
e
((u))
[u[
1
[du[ =
_

1

0
e

0
()
(( +
0
))
1

du
dr

dr
d

d
()

e
((u
0,+
))

_

1

0
e

2
( +
0
)
1

du
dr

d.
(We are using (5.34) and (5.41).) Since u
0,+
is a solution to equation (5.7), we
see from (5.6) that
((u
0,+
)) =
_
u
2
0,+
2
+iu
0,+
i log u
0,+
_
=
_
iu
0,+
2
+
i
2
+ arg(u
0,+
)
_
=
1
2
(iu
0,+
) + arg(u
0
, +).
48 H. A. HELFGOTT
We dened y = (iu
0
) (after (5.10)), and we computed y/2 arg(u
0,+
) in
(5.14). This gives us
e
((u
0
,+))
= e

arccos
1

2(1)

2
.
If 1, we can bound
(5.45) ( +
0
)
1

1
0
if 0,
(
0
+
0
)
1
if < 0,
provided that
0
+
0
> 0 (as will be the case). If > 1, then
( +
0
)
1

1
0
if 0,
(
1
+
0
)
1
if > 0.
By (5.32),

du
dr

=
_
1 +
(c
1
r/)
2
cos
2

1 +
(c
1
( +
0
))
2
1 (sin
0
c
1
)
2
(This diverges as /2; this is main reason why we cannot actually follow the
curve all the way to the y-axis.) Since we are aiming at a bound that is tight
only up to an order of magnitude, we can be quite brutal here, as we were when
using (5.45): we bound (c
1
r/)
2
from above by its value when the curve meets
the x-axis (i.e., when r = c
0
/c
1
). We bound cos
2
from below by its value when
=
1
. We obtain

du
dr

1 +
c
2
0
1 (sin
0
c
1

1
)
2
=

1 +
c
2
0
cos
2

,
where

is the value of when =


1
.
Finally, we complete the integral in (5.44), we split it in two (depending on
whether 0 or < 0) and use
_

0
e

2
d
1

_

0
e

2
d =

/2

.
Therefore,
(5.46)
_
C
2
e
((u))
[u[
1
[du[
= ()

arccos
1

2(1)

1 +
c
2
0
cos
2

/2

1
0
+ (
j
+
0
)
1
_
=

2
r
1
0
_
_
_
1 +
_
1 +

j

0
_
1
_

1 +
c
2
0
cos
2

_
_
e

arccos
1

2(1)

,
where j

= 0 if 1 and j

= 1 if > 1. We can set


1
= (sin
0
)/(c
1
). We
can also express
0
+
0
in terms of

:
(5.47)
0
+
0
=
r

=
(c
0
sin

)

c
1

=
c
0
sin

c
1

.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 49
Since
0
= r
0
/() (by (5.35)) and r
0
is as in (5.29),

0
=
_
()
2
()

2
.
Denition (5.22) implies immediately that 1. Thus, by (5.31),
(5.48) c
1

0
=
_
2(1 + 1/) 2 2,
while, by (C.9),
(5.49) c
1

0
=
_
2(1 + 1/) 0.79837

2
By (5.47) and (5.48),
(5.50)
_
1 +

0

0
_
1
=

0

0
+
0
=
c
1

0
c
0
sin

2
c
0
sin

,
whereas
_
1 +

1

0
_
= 1 +
sin
0
c
1

0
1 +
1/

2
0.79837

2
1.62628.
We will now use some (rigorous) numerical bounds, proven in Appendix C.2.
First of all, by (C.21), c
0
> 1 for all > 0; this assures us that c
0
sin

> 0,
and so the last expression in (5.50) is well dened. By (5.47), this also shows that

0
+
0
> 0, i.e., the curve C stays within the rst quadrant for 0 /2, as
we said before.
We would also like to have an upper bound for
(5.51)

_
1 +
c
2
0
cos
2

_
,
using (5.43). With this in mind, we nally choose

:
(5.52)

=

4
.
Thus, by (C.36),

_
1 +
c
2
0
cos
2

1 + 2c
2
0


_
min(5, 0.86) min(

5, 0.93

).
We also get
2
c
0
sin

2
1 1/

2
7.82843.
Finally, by (C.39),
_

2

_
/6 if 4,

2

1
2
3/2

_
1
1
2
3/2
_

2
if > 4
and so, since = 4/,

= 2

and (1 1/2
3/2
) 2/3, (5.29) gives us
r
0

_
2
3

if
2
2
3

if >
2
=
2
3
min
_

_
.
We conclude that
(5.53)
_
C
2
e
((u))
[u[
1
[du[ = C
,
e

arccos
1

2(1)

2
,
50 H. A. HELFGOTT
where
(5.54)
C
,
= min
_
2,
3.3

_
_
1 + max
_
7.83
1
, 1.63
1
__
_
3/2
min(/,

)
_
1
for all > 0, > 0 and all . By reection on the x-axis, the same bound holds
for < 0, < 0 and all . Lastly, (5.53) is also valid for = 0, provided we
replace (5.54) and the exponent of (5.53) by their limits as 0
+
.
5.3.6. The integral over the rest of the contour. It remains to complete the con-
tour. Since we have set

= /4, C
1
will be a segment of the ray at 45 degrees
from the x-axis, counterclockwise (i.e., y = x, x 0). The segment will go from
(0, 0) up to (x, y) = (r

2, r

2), where, by (5.27),


1

2
=
y
r

=
c
1

r +c
0
,
and so
(5.55) r

=

c
1
_
c
0

1

2
_
.
Let w = (1 +i)/

2. Looking at (5.6), we see that


(5.56)

_
C
1
e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s1
du

_
C
1
e
(u)
u
1
du

_
C
1
e
((u))
[u[
1
[du[ =
_
r

0
e
((tw))
t
1
dt,
where (u) is as in (5.33). Here
(5.57) ((tw)) =
_
t
2
2
i +iwt i
_
log t +i

4
_
_
=
t

2
+

4
,
and, by (C.40),

2
+

4
0.07639
2
+

4
=
_

4
0.30556
_
> 0.4798.
Consider rst the case 1. Then
_
r

0
e
((tw))
t
1
dt r
1

_
r

0
e
t

dt r

e
r

.
By (5.55) and (C.40),
(5.58) r



/2

,
Hence, for 1,
(5.59)

_
C
1
e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s1
du


/2
e
0.4798
.
Assume now that 0 < 1, s ,= 0. We can see that it is wise to start by an
integration by parts, so as to avoid convergence problems arising from the term
t
1
within the integral as 0
+
. We have
_
C
1
e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s1
du = e
u
2
/2
e(u)
u
s
s
[
wr

0

_
C
1
_
e
u
2
/2
e(u)
_

u
s
s
du.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 51
By (5.57),

e
u
2
/2
e(u)
u
s
s
[
wr

= e
((wr

))

[s[

r

e
r

As for the integral,


(5.60)
_
C
1
_
e
u
2
/2
e(u)
_

u
s
s
du =
_
C
1
(u +i)e
u
2
/2iu
u
s
s
du
=
1
s
_
C
1
e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s+1
du
i
s
_
C
1
e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s
du.
Hence, by (5.56) and (5.57),

_
C
1
_
e
u
2
/2
e(u)
_

u
s
s
du

1
[s[
_
r

0
e
t

t
+1
dt +

[s[
_
r

0
e
t

dt

_
r
+1

[s[
+
r

[s[
_
_
r

0
e
t

dt

r
+1

+r

min
_

, r

_
e
r

_
r
+2

2r

_
e
r

.
By (5.58),
_
r
+2

+
(1 +

2)r

2
+1
+ (1 +

2)

2

.
We conclude that

_
C
1
e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s1
du

2
+1
+ (1 +

2)

2
+

_
1 +
1 +

2
e
0.4798
when [0, 1); by (5.59), this is true for 1 as well.
Now let us examine the contribution of the last segment C
3
of the contour.
Since C
2
hits the x-axis at c
0
/c
1
, we dene C
3
to be the segment of the x-axis
going from x = c
0
/c
1
till x = . Then
(5.61)

_
C
3
e
t
2
/2
e(t)t
s
dt
t

_

c
0

c
1
e
x
2
/2
e(x)x
s
dx
x

_

c
0

c
1
e
x
2
/2
x

dx
x
.
Now
_
e
x
2
/2
x
2
_

= e
x
2
/2
x
1
( 2)e
x
2
/2
x
3
_
e
x
2
/2
(x
2
+ ( 2)x
4
)
_

= e
x
2
/2
x
1
( 2)( 4)e
x
2
/2
x
5
52 H. A. HELFGOTT
and so on, implying that
_

t
e
x
2
/2
x

dx
x
e
x
2
/2

_
x
2
if 0 2,
_
x
2
+ ( 2)x
4
_
if 2 4.
x
2
+ ( 2)x
4
+ ( 2)( 4)x
6
if 4 6,
and so on. By (C.43),
c
0

c
1
min
_

,
5
4

_
.
We conclude that

_
C
3
e
t
2
/2
e(t)t
s
dt
t

_
min
_

,
5
4

__
e
min

1
2
(

)
2
,
25
32

,
where we can set P

(x) = x
2
if [0, 2], P

(x) = x
2
+(2)x
4
if [2, 4]
and P

(x) = x
2
+ ( 2)x
4
+. . . + ( 2k)x
2(k+1)
if [2k, 2(k + 1)].
* * *
We have left the case < 0 for the very end. In this case, we can aord to use
a straight ray from the origin as our contour of integration. Let C

be the ray at
angle /4 from the origin, i.e., y = (tan(/4 ))x, x > 0, where > 0 is
small. Write v = e
(/4)i
. The integral to be estimated is
I =
_
C

e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s1
du.
Let us try = 0 rst. Much as in (5.56) and (5.57), we obtain, for < 0,
(5.62)
[I[
_

0
e

2
+

t
1
dt = e

_

0
e
||t/

2
t

dt
t
= e

2
[[
_

_

0
e
t
t

dt
t
=
_

2
[[
_

() e

for > 0. Recall that ()


1
for 0 < < 1 (because () = ( + 1) and
() 1 for all [1, 2]; the inequality () 1 for [1, 2] can in turn be
proven by (1) = (2) = 1,

(1) < 0 <

(2) and the convexity of ()). We


see that, while (5.62) is very good in most cases, it poses problems when either
or is close to 0.
Let us rst deal with the issue of small. For general and 0,
[I[
_

0
e

t
2
2
sin 2t cos(

4
)+(

4
)

t
1
dt
e
(

4
)
_

0
e

t
2
2
sin2
t

dt
t
=
e
(

4
)
(sin 2)
/2
_

0
e

t
2
2
t

dt
t
=
e
(

4
)
(sin 2)
/2
2
/21
_

0
e
y
y

2
dy
y
=
e

2(sin 2)
/2
2
/2
(/2)e

.
Here we can choose = (arcsin 2/)/2 (for 2). Then 2 (/2) (2/) =
/, and so
(5.63) [I[
e

2

2(2/)
/2
2
/2
(/2)e

e
/2
2

/2
(/2) e

.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 53
The only issue that remains is that may be close to 0, in which case (/2)
can be large. We can resolve this, as before, by doing an integration by parts. In
general, for 1 < < 1, s ,= 0:
(5.64)
[I[ e
u
2
/2
e(u)
u
s
s
[
v
0

_
C

_
e
u
2
/2
e(u)
_

u
s
s
du
=
_
C

(u +i)e
u
2
/2iu
u
s
s
du
=
1
s
_
C

e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s+1
du +
i
s
_
C

e
u
2
/2
e(u)u
s
du.
Now we apply (5.62) with s + 1 and s + 2 instead of s, and get that
[I[ =
1
[s[
_

2
[[
_
+2
( + 2) e

+
[[
[s[
_

2
[[
_
+1
( + 1) e

2
[[
_
_
4

2
+

2
_
e

.
Alternatively, we may apply (5.63) and obtain
[I[
1
[s[
e
/2
2
(( + 2)/2)
(+2)/2
e

+
[[
[s[
e
/2
2
(( + 1)/2)
(+1)/2
e

e
/2

/2
2
_
1 +

[[

_
e

for [0, 1], where we are using the facts that (s)

for s [1/2, 1] and
(s) 1 for s [1, 2].
5.4. Totals. Summing (5.53) with the bounds obtained in 5.3.6, we obtain our
nal estimate. Recall that we can reduce the case < 0 to the case > 0 by
reection. We have proven the following statement.
Proposition 5.1. Let f

(t) = e
t
2
/2
e(t), R. Let F

be the Mellin transform


of f

, i.e.,
F

(s) =
_

0
e
t
2
/2
e(t)t
s
dt
t
,
where R. Let s = + i, 0, ,= 0. Let = 2. Then, if sgn() ,=
sgn(),
(5.65)
[F

(s)[ C
0,,
e
E

||
()
2

||
+C
1,,
e
0.4798
+C
2,,
e
min

1
8
(

)
2
,
25
32
||

,
54 H. A. HELFGOTT
where
(5.66)
E() =
1
2
_
arccos
1
()

2(() 1)

_
,
C
0,,
= min
_
2,
_
[[
2||
3.3
_
_
1 + max(7.83
1
, 1.63
1
)
_
_
_
3/2
min
_
||
2||
,
_
[[
_
_
_
1
,
C
1,,
=
_
1 +
1 +

2
, () =

1 +
_
1 +
2
2
,
C
2,,
= P

_
min
_
[[
2[[
,
5
4
_
[[
__
,
where P

(x) = x
2
if [0, 2], P

(x) = x
2
+ ( 2)x
4
if (2, 4] and
P

(x) = x
2
+ ( 2)x
4
+. . . + ( 2k)x
2(k+1)
if (2k, 2(k + 1)].
If sgn() = sgn() (or = 0) and [[ 2,
(5.67) [F

(s)[ C

,
e

4
||
,
where
C

,

e
/2

/2
2

_
_
_
1 +
2
3/2
||

||
for [0, 1],
(/2) for > 0 arbitrary.
The terms in (5.65) other than C
0,,
e
E(||/()
2
)||
are usually very small.
In practice, we will apply Prop. 5.1 when [[/2[[ is larger than a moderate
constant (say 8) and [[ is larger than a somewhat larger constant (say 100).
Thus, C
0,,
will be bounded.
For comparison, the Mellin transform of e
t
2
/2
(i.e., F
0
= Mf
0
) is 2
s/21
(s/2),
which decays like e
(/4)||
. For very small (e.g., [[ < 2), it can make sense to
use the trivial bound
(5.68) [F

(s)[ F
0
() =
_

0
e
t
2
/2
t

dt
t
= 2
/21
(/2)
2
/2

for (0, 1]. Alternatively, we could use integration by parts (much as in (5.64)),
followed by the trivial bound:
(5.69) F

(s) =
_

0
_
e
u
2
/2
e(u)
_

u
s
s
du =
F

(s + 2)
s

2i
s
F

(s + 1),
and so
(5.70)
[F

(s)[
2
+2
2
1

_
+2
2
_
+ 2
+1
2
1
[2[
_
+1
2
_
[s[

_

2

1 + 2[[
[s[
for 0 1, since 2
x
(x)

2 for x [1/2, 3/2].


It will be useful to have simple approximations to E() in (5.66).
Lemma 5.2. Let E() and () be as in (5.66). Then
(5.71) E()
1
8

5
384

3
for all > 0. We can also write
(5.72) E() =

4


2

sin2
4(1 + sin )
,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 55
where = arcsin 1/().
Clearly, (5.71) is useful for small, whereas (5.72) is useful for large (since
then is close to 0). Taking derivatives, we see that (5.72) implies that E() is
decreasing on ; thus, E() is increasing on . Note that (5.71) gives us that
(5.73) E
_
[[
()
2
_
[[
1
2
_

2
_
2

_
1
5
48
4
_

[[
2
_
2
_
.
Proof. Let = arccos 1/(). Then () = 1/(cos ), whereas
(5.74)
_
1 +
2
= 2
2
() 1 =
2
cos
2

1,
=

_
2
cos
2

1
_
2
1 =
_
4
cos
4


4
cos
2

=
2

1 cos
2

cos
2

=
2 sin
cos
2

.
Thus
(5.75)
2E() =
2
_
1
cos
1
_
2 sin
cos
2

=
(1 cos ) cos
sin
=
(1 cos
2
) cos
sin (1 + cos )
=
sin cos
1 + cos
=
sin 2
4 cos
2

2
.
By (C.44) and (5.74), this implies that
2E()

4

5
3
24 8
,
giving us (5.71).
To obtain (5.72), simply dene = /2 ; the desired inequality follows
from the last two steps of (5.75).
Let us end by a remark that may be relevant to applications outside number
theory. By (5.5), Proposition 5.1 gives us bounds on the parabolic cylinder func-
tion U(a, z) for z purely imaginary and [(a)[ 1/2. The bounds are useful when
[(a)[ is at least somewhat larger than [(a)[ (i.e., when [[ is large compared to
). As we have seen in the above, extending the result to broader bands for a is
not too hard integration by parts can be used to push a to the right.
6. Explicit formulas
An explicit formula is an expression restating a sum such as S
,
(/x, x) as a
sum of the Mellin transform G

(s) over the zeros of the L function L(s, ). More


specically, for us, G

(s) is the Mellin transform of (s)e(s) for some smoothing


function and some R. We want a formula whose error terms are good both
for very close or equal to 0 and for farther away from 0. (Indeed, our choices
of will be made so that F

(s) decays rapidly in both cases.)


We will derive two explicit formulas: one for (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/(2)
, and the other
for =
+
, where
+
is dened as in (4.7) for some value of H > 0 to be set
later. As we have already discussed, both functions are variants of

(t) = e
t
2
/2
.
Thus, our expressions for G

will be based on our study of the Mellin transform


F

of

e(t) in 5.
56 H. A. HELFGOTT
6.1. A general explicit formula.
Lemma 6.1. Let : R
+
0
R be in C
1
. Let x R
+
, R. Let be a primitive
character mod q, q 1.
Write G

(s) for the Mellin transform of (t)e(t). Assume that G

is holo-
morphic on s : 1/2 (s) 1 +. Then
(6.1)

n=1
(n)(n)e
_

x
n
_
(n/x) = I
q=1
()x

()x

+O

([G

(0)[) +O

_
(log q + 6.01) ([

[
2
+ 2[[[[
2
)
_
x
1/2
,
where
I
q=1
=
_
1 if q = 1,
0 if q ,= 1.
and the norms [[
2
, [

[
2
are taken with respect to the usual measure dt. The sum

is a sum over all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ).


Proof. Since G

(s) is dened for (s) [1/2, 1 +],

n=1
(n)(n)e(n/x)(n/x) =
1
2i
_
1++i
1+i

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)x
s
ds
(see [HL23, Lemma 1] or, e.g., [MV07, p. 144]). We shift the line of integration
to (s) = 1/2. If q = 1 or (1) = 1, then L(s, ) does not have a zero at
s = 0; if q > 1 and (1) = 1, then L(s, ) has a simple zero at 0 (as discussed
in, e.g., [Dav67, 19]). Thus, we obtain
(6.2)
1
2i
_
2+i
2i

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)x
s
ds = I
q=1
G

(1)x

()x

I
1,
G

(0)

1
2i
_
1/2+i
1/2i
L

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)x
s
ds,
where I
1,
= 1 if q > 1 and (1) = 1 and I
1,
= 0 otherwise. Of course,
G

(1) = M((t)e(t))(1) =
_

0
(t)e(t)dt = ().
It is time to estimate the integral on the right side of (6.2). By the functional
equation (as in, e.g., [IK04, Thm. 4.15]),
(6.3)
L

(s, )
L(s, )
= log

q

1
2

_
s +
2
_

1
2

_
1 s +
2
_

(1 s, )
L(1 s, )
,
where (s) =

(s)/(s) and
=
_
0 if (1) = 1
1 if (1) = 1.
By (1 x) (x) = cot x (immediate from (s)(1 s) = / sin s) and
(s) +(s + 1/2) = 2((2s) log 2) (Legendre),
(6.4)
1
2
_

_
s +
2
_
+
_
1 s +
2
__
= (1s)+log 2+

2
cot
(s +)
2
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 57
Now, if (z) = 3/2, then [t
2
+ z
2
[ 9/4 for all real t. Hence, by [OLBC10,
(5.9.15)] and [GR00, (3.411.1)],
(6.5)
(z) = log z
1
2z
2
_

0
tdt
(t
2
+z
2
)(e
2t
1)
= log z
1
2z
+ 2 O

_
_

0
tdt
9
4
(e
2t
1)
_
= log z
1
2z
+
8
9
O

__

0
tdt
e
2t
1
_
= log z
1
2z
+
8
9
O

_
1
(2)
2
(2)(2)
_
= log z
1
2z
+O

_
1
27
_
= log z +O

_
10
27
_
.
Thus, in particular, (1 s) = log(3/2 i) + O

(10/27), where we write s =


1/2 +i. Now

cot
(s +)
2

4
i

+e

4
i+

4
i

4
i+

= 1.
Since (s) = 1/2, a comparison of Dirichlet series gives
(6.6)

(1 s, )
L(1 s, )

(3/2)[
[(3/2)[
1.50524,
where

(3/2) and (3/2) can be evaluated by Euler-Maclaurin. Therefore, (6.3)


and (6.4) give us that, for s = 1/2 +i,
(6.7)

(s, )
L(s, )

log
q

+ log

3
2
+i

+
10
27
+ log 2 +

2
+ 1.50524

log
q

+
1
2
log
_

2
+
9
4
_
+ 4.1396.
Recall that we must bound the integral on the right side of (6.2). The absolute
value of the integral is at most x
1/2
times
(6.8)
1
2
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)

ds.
By Cauchy-Schwarz, this is at most

_
1
2
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i

(s, )
L(s, )

1
s

2
[ds[

_
1
2
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i
[G

(s)s[
2
[ds[
By (6.7),

_
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i

(s, )
L(s, )

1
s

2
[ds[

_
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i

log q
s

2
[ds[
+

_
_

1
2
log
_

2
+
9
4
_
+ 4.1396 + log

2
1
4
+
2
d

2 log q +

226.844,
58 H. A. HELFGOTT
where we compute the last integral numerically.
8
By (2.5), G

(s)s is the Mellin transform of


(6.9) t
d(e(t)(t))
dt
= 2ite(t)(t) te(t)

(t)
Hence, by Plancherel (as in (2.4)),
(6.10)

_
1
2
_

1
2
+i

1
2
i
[G

(s)s[
2
[ds[ =

_

0
[2ite(t)(t) te(t)

(t)[
2
t
2
dt
= 2[[

_

0
[(t)[
2
dt +

_

0
[

(t)[
2
dt.
Thus, (6.8) is at most
_
log q +
_
226.844
2
_

_
[

[
2
+ 2[[[[
2
_
.

It now remains to bound the sum

()x

in (6.1). Clearly

()x

[G

()[ x
()
.
Recall that these are sums over the non-trivial zeros of L(s, ).
We rst prove a general lemma on sums of values of functions on the non-trivial
zeros of L(s, ).
Lemma 6.2. Let f : R
+
C be piecewise C
1
. Assume lim
t
f(t)t log t = 0.
Then, for any y 1,
(6.11)

non-trivial
()>y
f(()) =
1
2
_

y
f(T) log
qT
2
dT
+
1
2
O

_
[f(y)[g

(y) +
_

y

(T)

(T)dT
_
,
where
(6.12) g

(T) = 0.5 log qT + 17.7


If f is real-valued and decreasing on [y, ), the second line of (6.11) equals
O

_
1
4
_

y
f(T)
T
dT
_
.
Proof. Write N(T, ) for the number of non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) with [(s)[
T. Write N
+
(T, ) for the number of (necessarily non-trivial) zeros of L(s, )
8
By a rigorous integration from = 100000 to = 100000 using VNODE-LP [Ned06],
which runs on the PROFIL/BIAS interval arithmetic package[Kn u99].
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 59
with 0 < (s) T. Then, for any f : R
+
C with f piecewise dierentiable
and lim
t
f(t)N(T, ) = 0,

:()>y
f(()) =
_

y
f(T) dN
+
(T, )
=
_

y
f

(T)(N
+
(T, ) N
+
(y, ))dT
=
1
2
_

y
f

(T)(N(T, ) N(y, ))dT.


Now, by [Ros41, Thms. 1719] and [McC84, Thm. 2.1] (see also [Tru, Thm. 1]),
(6.13) N(T, ) =
T

log
qT
2e
+O

(g

(T))
for T 1, where g

(T) is as in (6.12). (This is a classical formula; the references


serve to prove the explicit form (6.12) for the error term g

(T).)
Thus, for y 1,
(6.14)

:()>y
f(()) =
1
2
_

y
f

(T)
_
T

log
qT
2e

y

log
qy
2e
_
dT
+
1
2
O

_
[f(y)[g

(y) +
_

y

(T)

(T)dT
_
.
Here
(6.15)
1
2
_

y
f

(T)
_
T

log
qT
2e

y

log
qy
2e
_
dT =
1
2
_

y
f(T) log
qT
2
dT.
If f is real-valued and decreasing (and so, by lim
t
f(t) = 0, non-negative),
[f(y)[g

(y) +
_

y

(T)

(T)dT = f(y)g

(y)
_

y
f

(T)g

(T)dT
= 0.5
_

y
f(T)
T
dT,
since g

(T) 0.5/T for all T T


0
.
Lemma 6.3. Let : R
+
0
R be such that both (t) and (log t)(t) lie in L
1
L
2
(with respect to dt). Let R. Let G

(s) be the Mellin transform of (t)e(t).


Let be a primitive character mod q, q 1. Let T
0
1. Assume that all
non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) with [()[ T
0
lie on the critical line. Then

non-trivial
|()|T
0
[G

()[
is at most
([[
2
+ [ log [
2
)
_
T
0
log qT
0
+ (17.21[ log [
2
(log 2

e)[[
2
)
_
T
0
+

(t)/

1
(1.32 log q + 34.5)
Proof. For s = 1/2 +i, we have the trivial bound
(6.16) [G

(s)[
_

0
[(t)[t
1/2
dt
t
=

(t)/

1
,
60 H. A. HELFGOTT
where F

is as in (6.19). We also have the trivial bound


(6.17)
[G

(s)[ =

_

0
(log t)(t)t
s
dt
t

_

0
[(log t)(t)[t

dt
t
=

(log t)(t)t
1

1
for s = +i.
Let us start by bounding the contribution of very low-lying zeros ([()[ 1).
By (6.13) and (6.12),
N(1, ) =
1

log
q
2e
+O

(0.5 log q + 17.7) = O

(0.819 log q + 16.8).


Therefore,

non-trivial
|()|1
[G

()[

(t)t
1/2

1
(0.819 log q + 16.8).
Let us now consider zeros with [()[ > 1. Apply Lemma 6.2 with y = 1 and
f(t) =
_
[G

(1/2 +it)[ if t T
0
,
0 if t > T
0
.
This gives us that
(6.18)

:1<|()|T
0
f(()) =
1

_
T
0
1
f(T) log
qT
2
dT
+O

_
[f(1)[g

(1) +
_

1
[f

(T)[ g

(T) dT
_
,
where we are using the fact that f( +i) = f( i) (because is real-valued).
By Cauchy-Schwarz,
1

_
T
0
1
f(T) log
qT
2
dT

_
T
0
1
[f(T)[
2
dT

_
T
0
1
_
log
qT
2
_
2
dT.
Now
1

_
T
0
1
[f(T)[
2
dT
1
2
_

_
1
2
+iT
_

2
dT
_

0
[e(t)(t)[
2
dt = [[
2
2
by Plancherel (as in (2.4)). We also have
_
T
0
1
_
log
qT
2
_
2
dT
2
q
_
qT
0
2
0
(log t)
2
dt
_
_
log
qT
0
2e
_
2
+ 1
_
T
0
.
Hence
1

_
T
0
1
f(T) log
qT
2
dT

_
log
qT
0
2e
_
2
+ 1 [[
2
_
T
0
.
Again by Cauchy-Schwarz,
_

1
[f

(T)[ g

(T) dT

1
2
_

[f

(T)[
2
dT

_
T
0
1
[g

(T)[
2
dT.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 61
Since [f

(T)[ = [G

(1/2 + iT)[ and (M)

(s) is the Mellin transform of log(t)


e(t)(t) (by (2.5)),
1
2
_

[f

(T)[
2
dT = [(t) log(t)[
2
.
Much as before,
_
T
0
1
[g

(T)[
2
dT
_
T
0
0
(0.5 log qT + 17.7)
2
dT
= (0.25(log qT
0
)
2
+ 17.2(log qT
0
) + 296.09)T
0
.
Summing, we obtain
1

_
T
0
1
f(T) log
qT
2
dT +
_

1
[f

(T)[ g

(T) dT

__
log
qT
0
2e
+
1
2
_
[[
2
+
_
log qT
0
2
+ 17.21
_
[(t)(log t)[
2
_
_
T
0
Finally, by (6.16) and (6.12),
[f(1)[g

(1)

(t)/

1
(0.5 log q + 17.7).
By (6.18) and the assumption that all non-trivial zeros with [()[ T
0
lie on
the line (s) = 1/2, we conclude that

non-trivial
1<|()|T
0
[G

()[ ([[
2
+ [ log [
2
)
_
T
0
log qT
0
+ (17.21[ log [
2
(log 2

e)[[
2
)
_
T
0
+

(t)/

1
(0.5 log q + 17.7).

6.2. Sums and decay for (t) = t


2
e
t
2
/2
and

(t). Let
(6.19)
(t) =
_
t
2
e
t
2
/2
if t 0,
0 if t < 0,
F

(s) = (M(e

t
2
2
e(t)))(s),
G

(s) = (M((t)e(t)))(s).
Then, by the denition of the Mellin transform,
G

(s) = F

(s + 2).
Hence
[G

(0)[ [(M)(0)[ =
_

0
te
t
2
/2
dt = 1
and
[[
2
2
=
3
8

, [

[
2
2
=
7
16

,
[ log [
2
2
0.16364, [(t)/

t[
1
=
2
1/4
(1/4)
4
1.07791.
62 H. A. HELFGOTT
Lemma 6.4. Let (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
. Let x R
+
, R. Let be a primitive
character mod q, q 1. Assume that all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) with
[()[ T
0
satisfy (s) = 1/2. Assume that T
0
max(4
2
[[, 100).
Write G

(s) for the Mellin transform of (t)e(t). Then

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[G

()[ T
0
log
qT
0
2

_
3.5e
0.1598T
0
+ 2.56e
0.1065
T
2
0
()
2
_
.
Here we have preferred a bound with a simple form. It is probably feasible to
derive from the results in 5 a bound essentially proportional to e
E()T
0
, where
= T
0
/()
2
and E() is as in (5.66). (This would behave as e
(/4)
for large
and as e
0.125(T
0
/())
2
for small.)
Proof. First of all,

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[G

()[ =

non-trivial
()>T
0
([F

( + 2)[ + [F

((1 ) + 2)[) ,
where we are using G

() = F

(+2) and the functional equation (which implies


that non-trivial zeros come in pairs , 1 ).
By Prop. 5.1, given = +i, [0, 1], max(1, 2[[), we obtain that
[F

( + 2)[ + [F

((1 ) + 2)[
is at most
C
0,,
e
E

||
()
2

+C
1,
e
0.4798
+C
2,
e
min

1
8
(

)
2
,
25
32
||

+C

4
||
,
where E() is as in (5.66),
C
0,,
2 (1 + 1.63
2
)
_
_
min
_
||
2||
,
_
[[
_
3/2
_
_
2
3.251 min
_
2
3
_

_
2
, [[
_
C
1,

_
1 +
1 +

2
[[
_
[[
3
2
, C
2,
min
_
[[
[[
,
5
4
_
[[
_
+ 1, C


e
/2
[[
3/2
2
and = 2.
For T
0
100,
(6.20)
_
1 +
1 +

2
[[
_
+
e
/2
2
e
(

4
0.4798)||
1.025
and so
C
1,
e
0.4798||
+C

4
||
1.025[[
3/2
e
0.4798||
.
It is clear that this is a decreasing function of [[ for [[ > 3/(2 0.4798) (and
hence for [[ 100).
We bound
(6.21) E()
_
E(1.5) 0.1598 if 1.5,
E(1.5)
1.5
0.1065 if < 1.5.
This holds for 1.5 because E() is increasing on , for 1.19 because of
(5.71), and for [1.19, 1.5] by the bisection method (with 20 iterations).
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 63
The bound (6.21) implies immediately that
(6.22) e
E

||
()
2

e
0.1598 min

2
3
(

)
2
,||

Since T
0
max(4
2
[[, 100),
(6.23)
e

1
8
(

)
2
0.055e
0.1598
2
3
(

)
2
,
e

25
32

1.1 10
28
e
0.1598
,
and
0.055
_
[[
[[
+ 1
_

0.055
4
_
1
2
+
1
4
_

_
[[

_
2
0.0039
2
3
_
[[

_
2
0.055
_
5
4
_
[[ + 1
_
0.055
_
5
4

1
10
+
1
100
_
[[ 0.0075[[.
Hence
(6.24)
C
0,,
e
E

||
()
2

+C
2,
e
min

1
8
(

)
2
,
25
32
||

0,,
e
0.1598 min

2
3
(

)
2
,||

,
where
C

0,,
= 3.26 min
_
2
3
_

_
2
, [[
_
.
It is clear that the right side of (6.24) is a decreasing function of when
min
_
_
2
3

_
2
, [[
_

1
0.1598
(and hence when T
0
max(4
2
[[, 100)).
We thus have

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[G

()[

non-trivial
()>T
0
f(()),
where
(6.25) f() = C

0,,
e
0.1598 min

2
3
(

)
2
,||

+ 1.025[[
3/2
e
0.478||
is a decreasing function of for T
0
.
We can now apply Lemma 6.2. We obtain that

non-trivial
()>T
0
f(())
_

T
0
f(T)
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
dT.
If [[ 4, then the condition T
0
4
2
[[ implies ()
2
, and so
min((/)
2
, [[) = [[. In that case, the contribution of the term in (6.25)
involving C

0,,
is at most
(6.26) 3.26
_

T
0
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
Te
0.1598T
dT
If [[ > 4, the contribution of C

0,,
is at most
(6.27) 3.26
_

max(T
0
,()
2
)
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
Te
0.1598T
dT
64 H. A. HELFGOTT
plus (if T
0
< ()
2
)
(6.28)
3.26
_
()
2
T
0
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
T
2

2
e
0.1598
2
3
T
2
()
2
dT
3.26[[
_

T
0
||
_
1
2
log
q[[t
2
+
1
4[[t
_
t
2
e
0.1065t
2
dt.
For any y 1, c, c
1
> 0,
_

y
t
2
e
ct
2
dt <
_

y
_
t
2
+
1
4c
2
t
2
_
e
ct
2
dt =
_
y
2c
+
1
4c
2
y
_
e
cy
2
,
_

y
(t
2
log t +c
1
t) e
ct
2
dt
_

y
_
t
2
log t +
at log et
2c

log et
2c

a
4c
2
t
_
e
ct
2
dt
=
(2cy +a) log y +a
4c
2
e
cy
2
,
where
a =
c
1
y +
log ey
2c
y log ey
2c

1
4c
2
y
=
1
y
+
c
1
y +
1
4c
2
y
2
y log ey
2c

1
4c
2
y
.
Setting c = 0.1065, c
1
= 1/(2[[) 8 and y = T
0
/([[) 4, we obtain
_

T
0
||
_
1
2
log
q[[t
2
+
1
4[[t
_
t
2
e
0.1065t
2
dt

_
1
2
log
q[[
2
_

_
T
0
2c[[
+
1
4c
2
4
_
e
0.1065

T
0
||

2
+
1
2

_
2c
T
0
||
+a
_
log
T
0
||
+a
4c
2
e
0.1065

T
0
||

2
and
a
1
4
+
4
8
+
1
40.1065
2
(4)
2
4 log 4e
20.1065

1
40.1065
2
4
0.088.
Multiplying by 3.26[[, we get that (6.28) is at most e
0.1065

T
0
||

2
times
(6.29)
_
(2.44T
0
+ 2.86[[) log
q[[
2
+ 2.44T
0
log
T
0
[[
+ 3.2[[ log
eT
0
[[
_

_
2.44 + 3.2
1 +
1
log T
0
/||
T
0
/[[
_
T
0
log
qT
0
2
2.56T
0
log
qT
0
2
,
where we are using several times the assumption that T
0
4
2
[[.
Let us now go back to (6.26). For any y 1, c, c
1
> 0,
_

y
te
ct
dt =
_
y
c
+
1
c
2
_
e
cy
,
_

y
_
t log t +
c
1
t
_
e
ct
dt
_

y
__
t +
a 1
c
_
log t
1
c

a
c
2
t
_
e
ct
dt

_
y
c
+
a
c
2
_
e
cy
log y,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 65
where
a =
log y
c
+
1
c
+
c
1
y
log y
c

1
c
2
y
.
Setting c = 0.1598, c
1
= /2, y = T
0
100, we obtain that
_

T
0
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
Te
0.1598T
dT

1
2
_
log
q
2

_
T
0
c
+
1
c
2
_
+
_
T
0
c
+
a
c
2
_
log T
0
_
e
0.1598T
0
and
a
log T
0
0.1598
+
1
0.1598
+
/2
T
0
log T
0
0.1598

1
0.1598
2
T
0
1.235.
Multiplying by 3.26 and simplifying, we obtain that (6.26) is at most
(6.30) 3.5T
0
log
qT
0
2
e
0.1148T
0
.
Obviously, (6.27) is bounded above by (6.26), and hence it is bounded above by
(6.30) as well.
Proposition 6.5. Let (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
. Let x R
+
, R. Let be a primitive
character mod q, q 1. Assume that all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) with
[()[ T
0
lie on the critical line. Assume that T
0
max(4
2
[[, 100).
Then
(6.31)

n=1
(n)(n)e
_

x
n
_
(n/x) =
_
()x +O

(err
,
(, x)) x if q = 1,
O

(err
,
(, x)) x if q > 1,
where
err
,
(, x) = T
0
log
qT
0
2

_
3.5e
0.1598T
0
+ 2.56e
0.1065
T
2
0
()
2
_
+
_
1.22
_
T
0
log qT
0
+ 5.056
_
T
0
+ 1.423 log q + 38.19
_
x
1/2
+ (log q + 6.01) (0.89 + 5.13[[) x
3/2
.
Proof. Immediate from Lemma 6.1, Lemma 6.3 and Lemma 6.4.
Now that we have Prop. 6.5, we can derive from it similar bounds for a smooth-
ing dened as the multiplicative convolution of with something else just as
we discussed at the beginning of 4.3.
Corollary 6.6. Let (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
,
1
= 2 I
[1/2,1]
,
2
=
1

M

1
. Let

2

M
. Let x R
+
, R. Let be a primitive character mod q, q 1.
Assume that all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) with [()[ T
0
lie on the critical
line. Assume that T
0
max(4
2
[[, 100).
Then
(6.32)

n=1
(n)(n)e
_

x
n
_

(n/x) =
_

()x +O

(err
,
(, x)) x if q = 1,
O

(err
,
(, x)) x if q > 1,
66 H. A. HELFGOTT
where
(6.33)
err
,
(, x) = T
0
log
qT
0
2

_
3.5e
0.1598T
0
+ 0.0074 e
0.1065
T
2
0
()
2
_
+
_
1.22
_
T
0
log qT
0
+ 5.056
_
T
0
+ 1.423 log q + 38.19
_
x

1
2
+ (log q + 6.01) (0.89 + 2.7[[) x
3/2
.
Proof. The left side of (6.32) equals
_

0

n=1
(n)(n)e
_
n
x
_

_
n
wx
_

2
(w)
dw
w
=
_
1
1
4

n=1
(n)(n)e
_
wn
wx
_

_
n
wx
_

2
(w)
dw
w
,
since
2
is supported on [1/4, 1]. By Prop. 6.5, the main term (if q = 1)
contributes
_
1
1
4
(w)xw
2
(w)
dw
w
= x
_

0
(w)
2
(w)dw
= x
_

0
_

(t)e(wt)dt
2
(w)dw = x
_

0
_

_
r
w
_
e(r)
dt
w

2
(w)dw
= x
_

__

0

_
r
w
_

2
(w)
dw
w
_
e(r)dr =

() x.
The error term is
(6.34)
_
1
1
4
err
,
(w, xw) wx
2
(w)
dw
w
= x
_
1
1
4
err
,
(w, xw)
2
(w)dw.
Since
_
w

2
(w)dw = 1,
_
w
w
2
(w)dw = (3/4) log 2 and
9
_
w
e
0.1065(4)
2

1
w
2
1

2
(w)dw 0.002866,
we see that (6.34) implies (6.33).
6.3. Sums and decay for
+
(t). We will work with
(6.35) (t) =
+
(t) = h
H
(t)

(t) = h
H
(t)e
t
2
/2
,
where h
H
is as in (4.10). Due to the sharp truncation in the Mellin transform
Mh
H
(see 4.2) and the pole of M

(s) at s = 0, the Mellin transform M


+
(s)
of
+
(t) has unpleasant singularities at s = iH. In consequence, we must use a
dierent contour of integration from the one we used before. This will require us
to rework our explicit formula (Lemma 6.1) somewhat. We will need to assume
that the non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) lie on the critical line up to a height T
0
; we
would have needed to make the same assumption later anyhow.
9
By rigorous integration from 1/4 to 1/2 and from 1/2 to 1 using VNODE-LP [Ned06].
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 67
Lemma 6.7. Let : R
+
0
R be in C
1
. Let x 1, R. Let be a primitive
character mod q, q 1.
Let H 3/2, T
0
> H + 1. Assume that all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ) with
[()[ T
0
satisfy (s) = 1/2.
Write G

(s) for the Mellin transform of (t)e(t). Assume that G

is holo-
morphic on s : 1/5 (s) 1 + s : 1/2 (s) 1/5, [(s)[ T
0
1.
Then
(6.36)

n=1
(n)(n)e
_

x
n
_
(n/x) = I
q=1
()x

()x

+O

((7.91 log q + 82.7) (2[[[(t)t


7/10
[
2
+ [

(t)t
7/10
[
2
)) x
1/5
+O

_
7 log H

10
+
7 log q
2
+ 11.04
_
max
[
1
2
,
1
5
]
[G

( +iH

)[x

+O

_
log q + log H

+ 6.71

(2[[[[
2
+ [

[
2
)
_
x
1/2
,
where
I
q=1
=
_
1 if q = 1,
0 if q ,= 1,
H

= T
0
1
and the norms [[
2
, [

[
2
are taken with respect to the usual measure dt. The sum

is a sum over all non-trivial zeros of L(s, ).


Proof. We start just as in the proof of Lem. 6.1, except we shift the integral only
up to (s) = 1/5 in the central interval, and push it up to (s) = 1/2 only in
the tails:
(6.37)

n=1
(n)(n)e(n/x)(n/x) = I
q=1
()x

()x

1
2i
_
C
L

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)x
s
ds,
where I
1,
= 1 if q > 1 and (1) = 1 and I
1,
= 0 otherwise, and C is the
contour consisting of
(1) a segment C
1
= [1/5 iH

, 1/5 +iH

], where H

= T
0
1 > H,
(2) the union C
2
of two horizontal segments:
C
2
=
_

1
2
iH

,
1
5
iH

1
2
+iH

,
1
5
+iH

_
,
(3) the union C
3
of two rays
C
3
=
_

1
2
i,
1
2
iH

1
2
+iH

,
1
2
+i
_
.
We can still use (6.3) to estimate L

(s, )/L(s, ) (given L

(1s, )/L(1s, )).


We estimate (z) for (z) 4/5 much as in (6.5): since [t
2
+ z
2
[ 16/25 for t
68 H. A. HELFGOTT
real,
(z) = log z
1
2z
+ 2 O

_
_

0
tdt
16
25
(e
2t
1)
_
= log z
1
2z
+
50
16
O

_
1
(2)
2
(2)(2)
_
= log z
1
2z
+O

_
25
192
_
= log z +O

_
145
192
_
For s with (s) = 1/5,

cot
s
2

e

10
i

+e


10
i+

e

10
i


10
i+

1 + 2
e

10
i

e

10
i


10
i+

e

10
i
+e


10
i
e

10
i
e


10
i

cot
_

10
_

3.07769.
(The inequality is clear for 0; the case < 0 follows by symmetry.) Similarly,

cot
(s + 1)
2

cot
_
3
5
_

0.32492.
For (s) arbitrary and [[ = [(s)[ H

cot
s
2

2
H

+e

2
H

2
H

2
H

coth
H

.
We now must estimate L

(s, )/L(s, ), where (s) 4/5 and [(s)[ H

.
By a lemma of Landaus (see, e.g., [MV07, Lemma 6.3], where the constants
are easily made explicit) based on the Borel-Caratheodory Lemma (as in [MV07,
Lemma 6.2]), any function f analytic and zero-free on a disc C
s
0
,R
= s : [ss
0
[
R of radius R > 0 around s
0
satises
f

(s)
f(s)
= O

_
2Rlog M/[f(s
0
)[
(R r)
2
_
for all s with [s s
0
[ r, where 0 < r < R and M is the maximum of [f(z)[
on C
s
0
,R
. We set s
0
= 3/2 + i (where = (s)), r = 1/2 + 1/5 = 7/10, and
let R 1

, using the assumption that L(s, ) has no non-trivial zeroes o the


critical line with imaginary part H

+ 1 = T
0
.
We obtain
(6.38)
L

(s, )
L(s, )
= O

_
200
9
log
max
sC
s
0
,1
[L(s, )[
[L(s
0
, )[
_
.
Clearly,
[L(s
0
, )[

p
(1 +p
3/2
)
1
=

p
(1 p
3
)
1
(1 p
3/2
)
1
=
(3)
(3/2)
0.46013.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 69
By partial summation, for s = +it with 1/2 and any N Z
+
,
L(s, ) =

nN
(m)n
s

_
_

mN
(m)
_
_
(N + 1)
s
+

nN+1
_
_

mn
(m)
_
_
(n
s
(n + 1)
s+1
)
= O

_
N
11/2
1 1/2
+N
1
+M(q)N

_
= O

_
3

N +M(q)/

N
_
,
where M(q) = max
n

mn
(m)

. We set N = M(q)/3, and obtain


[L(s, )[ 2M(q)N
1/2
= 2

3
_
M(q).
We can aord to use the trivial bound M(q) q. We conclude that
L

(s, )
L(s, )
= O

_
8 log
2

q
(3)/(3/2)
_
= O

_
100
9
log q + 44.8596
_
.
Therefore, by (6.3) and (6.4),
(6.39)
L

(s, )
L(s, )
= log

q
log(1 s) +O

_
145
192
_
+ log 2 +O

2
cot

10
_
+O

(4 log q + 44.8596)
= log(1 s) +O

(5 log q + 52.2871)
for (s) = 1/5, [(s)[ H

,
(6.40)
L

(s, )
L(s, )
= log

q
log(1 s) +O

_
145
192
_
+ log 2 +O

2
coth
H

2
_
+O

(4 log q + 44.8596)
= log(1 s) +O

(5 log q + 49.1654).
for (s) [1/2, 1/5], 1 [(s)[ H

, and (as in (6.7))


(6.41)
L

(s, )
L(s, )
log(1 s) +O

(log q + 5.2844).
Let 1 j 3. By Cauchy-Schwarz,

1
2
_
C
j
L

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)ds

is at most

1
2
_
C
j

(s, )
L(s, )
1
s

2
[ds[

1
2
_
C
j
[G

(s)s[
2
[ds[.
By (6.39) and (6.40),

_
C
j

(s, )
L(s, )

2
[ds[
[s[
2

_
C
j

5 log q
s

2
[ds[ +

_
C
j

[ log [1 s[[ +c
2,j
s

2
[ds[,
where c
1,1
= 5, c
1,2
= 5, c
1,3
= 1, c
2,1
= 52.2871, c
2,2
= 49.1654, c
2,3
= 5.2844.
70 H. A. HELFGOTT
For j = 1,
_
C
1

5 log q
s

2
[ds[ = (5 log q)
2
10 tan
1
5H

125(log q)
2
,
_
C
1

[ log [1 s[[ +c
2,j
s

2
[ds[
_
H

1
2
log
_

2
+
16
25
_
+c
2,j

2
1
25
+
2
d 42949.3,
where we have computed the last integral numerically. As before, G

(s)s is the
Mellin transform of (6.9). Hence

1
2
_
C
1
[G

(s)s[
2
[ds[

_
1
2
_ 1
5
+i
1
5
i
[G

(s)s[
2
[ds[

_

0
[2ite(t)(t) te(t)

(t)[
2
t
3/5
dt
2[[[(t)t
7/10
[
2
+ [

(t)t
7/10
[
2
.
Hence,

1
2
_
C
1
L

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)ds

is at most
(7.9057 log q + 82.678) (2[[[(t)t
7/10
[
2
+ [

(t)t
7/10
[
2
).
For j = 3,
_
C
3

log q
s

2
[ds[ = 2(log q)
2
_

1/2+iH

[ds[
[s[
2
<
2(log q)
2
H

,
_
C
3

[ log [1 s[[ +c
2,j
s

2
[ds[ 2
_

H

1
2
log
_

2
+
9
4
_
+c
2,j

2
1
4
+
2
d
2
_

H

log +
log 2
2
+c
2,j

2
d

2(log H

+ 6.71)
2
H

.
provided that H

3/2. Now, as in (6.10),

1
2
_
C
3
[G

(s)s[
2
[ds[ 2[[[[
2
+[

[
2
.
Hence,

1
2
_
C
1
L

(s, )
L(s, )
G

(s)ds

log q + log H

+ 6.71

(2[[[[
2
+ [

[
2
).
Lastly, for j = 2,
1
2
_
C
2

(s, )
L(s, )

[ds[
1
2
+
1
5

(log [1 s[ +O

(5 log q +c
2,2
))

7(log H

+ 5 log q + 49.51198)
10
.

MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 71


Lemma 6.8. Let =
+
be as in (6.35) for some H 5. Let x R
+
,
R. Let be a primitive character mod q, q 1. Assume that all non-
trivial zeros of L(s, ) with [()[ T
0
satisfy (s) = 1/2, where T
0

H + max(4
2
[[, H/2, 100).
Write G

(s) for the Mellin transform of (t)e(t). Then

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[G

()[

H log
qT
0
2

_
3.44e
0.1598(T
0
H)
+ 0.63[[e
0.1065
(T
0
H)
2
()
2
_
.
Proof. Clearly,

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[G

()[ =

non-trivial
()>T
0
([G

()[ + [G

(1 )[) .
Let F

be as in (6.19). Then, since


+
(t)e(t) = h
H
(t)e
t
2
/2
e(t), where h
H
is as
in (4.10), we see by (2.3) that
G

(s) =
1
2
_
H
H
Mh(ir)F

(s ir)dr,
where F

is as in (6.19), and so, since [Mh(ir)[ = [Mh(ir)[,


(6.42) [G

()[+[G

(1 )[
1
2
_
H
H
[Mh(ir)[([F

(ir)[+[F

(1(ir))[)dr.
We now proceed much as in the proof of Lem. 6.4. By Prop. 5.1, given s =
+i, [0, 1], 4
2
max(1, [[),
[F

()[ + [F

(1 )[
is at most
C
0,,
e
E

||
()
2

+C
1,
e
0.4798
+C
2,
e
min

1
8
(

)
2
,
25
32
||

+C

4
||
,
where E() is as in (5.66),
C
0,,
2 (1 + 7.83
1
)
_
3/2
2
_
1
4.217, C
1,
=
_
1 +
1 +

1
2
,
C
2,
min
_
1
4
_
[[
[[
_
2
,
25
16
[[
_
1
, C


e
/2

1/2
2
_
1 +
2
3/2
[[
_
[[
_
.
For T
0
H 100,
_
1 +
1 +

1
2
+
e
/2

1/2
2
_
1 +
2
3/2
[[
_
[[
_
e
(

4
0.4798)||
1.025[[
1/2
+ 1.5 10
12
[[ 0.033[[
and so
C
1,
e
0.4798||
+C

4
||
0.033[[e
0.4798||
.
It is clear that this is increasing for [[ 100.
We bound E() as in (6.21). Inequalities (6.22) and (6.23) still hold. We also
see that, for [[ T
0
H max(4
2
[[, 100),
0.055 C
2,
0.055 min(4
2
, 2500/16)
1
0.0014.
72 H. A. HELFGOTT
Thus,
C
0,,
e
E

||
()
2

+C
2,
e
min

1
8
(

)
2
,
25
32
||

4.22e
0.1598 min

2
3
(

)
2
,||

,
and so [F

()[ + [F

(1 )[ g(), where
g() = 4.22e
0.1598 min

2
3
(

)
2
,||

+ 0.033[[e
0.4798||
is decreasing for T
0
H. Recall that, by (4.24),
1
2
_

[Mh
H
(ir)[dr 1.99301
_
H
2
.
Therefore, using (6.42), we conclude that
[G

()[ + [G

(1 )[ f(),
for = +i, > 0, where
f() = 0.7951

H g( H)
is decreasing for T
0
(because g() is decreasing for T
0
H).
We apply Lemma 6.2, and get that

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[G

()[
_

T
0
f(T)
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
dT
= 0.7951

H
_

T
0
g(T H)
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
dT.
We continue as in the proof of Lemma 6.4, only the integrals are somewhat
simpler this time. For any c > 0,
(6.43)
_

T
0
e
c(TH)
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
dT

_
1
2c
log
qT
0
2
+
_
1
2c
2
+
1
4c
_
1
T
0
_
e
c(T
0
H)
.
At the same time,
_

T
0
e

2
3
c(
TH

)
2
_
1
2
log
qT
0
2
+
1
4T
_
dT
=
_

T
0
||
e

2
3
c(t
H

)
2
_
[[
2
log
q[[t
2
+
1
4t
_
dt
_
||
2
log
qT
0
2
+
||
4T
0
_
4
3
c
T
0
H
||
e

2
3
c

T
0
H

2
,
since T
0
4
2
e > 2e. For c
1
> 0, since
_
T + 1/c
1
2c
1
log
qT
2
+
1 +
1
c
1
T
0
2c
2
1
+
1
4c
1
_
e
c
1
(TH)
,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 73
we see that
(6.44)
_

T
0
Te
c
1
(TH)
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
dT

_
1 +
1
cT
0
2c
_
T
0
log
qT
0
2
+
1
c
_
+
1
4c
_
e
c
1
(T
0
H)

_
1 +
1
c
1
T
0
2c
1
_
T
0
log
qT
0
2
+
1
c
1
_
+
1
4c
1
_
e
c
1
(T
0
H)
.
We set c = 0.1598, c
1
= 0.4798. Since T
0
max(100 +H, 3H/2), the ratio of the
right side of (6.44) to the right side of (6.43) is at most
max
_
c
c
1
,
c
2
c
2
1
_

_
T
0
+
1
c
1
_
e
(c
1
c
0
)(T
0
H)

c
c
1

_
3(T
0
H) +
1
c
1
_
e
(c
1
c
0
)(T
0
H)
1.3 10
12
.
We also see that
0.7951 4.22
_
1
2c
+
1
T
0
1
2c
2
+
1
4c
log
qT
0
2
_
3.4303
and, since T
0
H 4
2
[[,
0.7951 4.22
_
1
2
log
qT
0
2
+

4T
0
_
4
3
c
T
0
H
||
3.35533
1
2
+

4T
0
log
T
0
2
4
3
c 4
log
qT
0
2
0.62992 log
qT
0
2
.
We conclude that
0.7951
_

T
0
g(T H)
_
1
2
log
qT
2
+
1
4T
_
dT
log
qT
0
2

_
3.44e
0.1598(T
0
H)
+ 0.63[[e
0.1065
(T
0
H)
2
()
2
_
.

Proposition 6.9. Let =


+
be as in (6.35) for some H 50. Let x 10
3
,
R. Let be a primitive character mod q, q 1. Assume that all non-
trivial zeros of L(s, ) with [()[ T
0
lie on the critical line, where T
0

H + max(4
2
[[, H/2, 100).
Then
(6.45)

n=1
(n)(n)e
_

x
n
_

+
(n/x) =
_

+
()x +O

_
err

+
,
(, x)
_
x if q = 1,
O

_
err

+
,
(, x)
_
x if q > 1,
74 H. A. HELFGOTT
where
(6.46)
err

+
,
(, x) =

H log
qT
0
2

_
3.44e
0.1598(T
0
H)
+ 0.63[[e
0.1065
(T
0
H)
2
()
2
_
+O

(((0.641 + 1.11

H) log qT
0
+ (1.5 + 19.1

H))
_
T
0
+ 1.65 log q + 44)x

1
2
+O

_
[[(40.2 log q + 420) +

H(0.015 log T
0
+ 15.6 log q + 163)
_
x

4
5
.
Proof. We apply Lemmas 6.7, Lemma 6.3 and Lemma 6.8. We bound the norms
involving
+
using the estimates in 4.2.2. The error terms in (6.36) total at most
(6.47)
((7.91 log q + 82.7)(5.074[[ + 1.953

H)) x
1/5
+(0.23 log T + 1.12 log q + 11.04)x
1/5
max
[
1
2
,
1
5
]
[G

( +i(T 1))[
+(0.05 log q + 0.542)(4.027[[ + 0.876

H)x
1/2
Since x 10
3
, the last line of (6.47) is easily absorbed into the rst line of (6.47)
(by a change in the last signicant digits). Much as in the proof of Lem. 6.8, we
bound
[G

( +i(T 1))[
1
2
_

[Mh
H
(ir)[dr max
T1H
[F

( +i)[
0.3172

H max
T1H
[F

( +i)[,
where F

is as in (6.19). We can obtain an easy bound for F

applicable for
arbitrary as follows:
sF

(s) = M
_
t
d
dt
_
e

t
2
2
e(t)
__
(s) = M
_
(t
2
e(t) + 2ite(t))

(t)
_
(s),
and so
[sF

(s)[
_

0
[t + 2i[

(t)t
+1
dt
t
[

(t)t
+1
[
1
+ 2[[[

(t)t

[
1
= 2
/2

2
+ 1
_
+ 2
+1
2
[[
_
+ 1
2
_
.
Since [1/2, 1/5] and x 10
3
, a quick verication gives that x

2
/2
(/2+1)
and x

2
(+1)/2
[[ (( + 1)/2) are maximal when = 1/5. Hence
[F

(s)[x

1.01964 + 7.09119[[
[s[
x
1/5

1.01964 + 7.09119[[
99
100
max(4
2
[[, 100)
x
1/5
(0.0103 + 0.18144)x
1/5
0.19174x
1/5
,
and so
[G

( +i(T 1))[ 0.3172

H 0.19174 0.061

H.
We conclude that (6.47) is at most
(6.48)
(5.075[[ + 1.954

H) (7.91 log q + 82.7) x


1/5
+ 0.061

H (0.23 log T + 1.12 log q + 11.04) x


1/5
([[(40.2 log q + 420) +

H(0.015 log T + 15.6 log q + 163))x


1/5
.

MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 75


Finally, let us prove a simple result that will allow us to compute a key
2
norm.
Proposition 6.10. Let =
+
be as in (6.35), H 50. Let x 10
6
. Assume
that all non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function (s) with [()[ T
0
lie
on the critical line, where T
0
2H + max(H, 100).
Then
(6.49)

n=1
(n)(log n)
2
+
(n/x) = x
_

0

2
+
(t) log xt dt +O

(err

2
,
+
) xlog x,
where
(6.50)
err

2
,
+
=
_
0.311
(log T
0
)
2
log x
+ 0.224 log T
0
_
H
_
T
0
e
(T
0
2H)/4
+ (6.2

H + 5.3)
_
T
0
log T
0
x
1/2
+ 419.3

Hx
4/5
.
Proof. We will need to consider two smoothing functions, namely,
+,0
(t) =

+
(t)
2
and
+,1
=
+
(t)
2
log t. Clearly,

n=1
(n)(log n)
2
+
(n/x) = (log x)

n=1
(n)
+,0
(n/x) +

n=1
(n)
+,1
(n/x).
Since
+
(t) = h
H
(t)e
t
2
/2
,

+,0
(r) = h
2
H
(t)e
t
2
,
+,1
(r) = h
2
H
(t)(log t)e
t
2
.
Let
+,2
= (log x)
+,0
+
+,1
.
The Mellin transform of e
t
2
is (s/2)/2; by (2.5), this implies that the Mellin
transform of (log t)e
t
2
is

(s/2)/4. Hence, by (2.3),


(6.51) M
+,0
(s) =
1
4
_

Mh
2
H
(ir) F
x
_
s ir
2
_
dr,
where
(6.52) F
x
(s) = (log x)(s) +
1
2

(s).
Moreover,
(6.53) Mh
2
H
(ir) =
1
2
_

Mh
H
(iu)Mh
H
(i(r u))du,
and so Mh
2
H
(ir) is supported on [2H, 2H]. We also see that [Mh
2
H
(ir)[
1

[Mh
H
(ir)[
2
1
/2. We know that [Mh
H
(ir)[
2
1
/2 1.99301
2
H by (4.24).
Hence
(6.54)
[M
+,0
(s)[
1
4
_

[M(h
2
H
)(ir)[dr max
|r|2H
[F
x
((s ir)/2)[

1.99301
2
4
H max
|r|2H
[F
x
((s ir)/2)[ 0.3161H max
|r|2H
[F
x
((s ir)/2)[.
By [OLBC10, 5.6.9] (Stirling with explicit constants),
(6.55) [(s)[

2[s[
(s)1/2
e
|(s)|/2
e
1/6|z|
,
and so
(6.56) [(s)[ 2.511
_
[(s)[e
|(s)|/2
76 H. A. HELFGOTT
for s C with 1 (s) 1 and [(s)[ 99. Moreover, by [OLBC10, 5.11.2]
and the remarks at the beginning of [OLBC10, 5.11(ii)],

(s)
(s)
= log s
1
2s
+O

_
1
cos
3
/2
_
for [ arg(s)[ < ( (, )). Again, s = + i with 1 1 and [[ 99,
this gives us

(s)
(s)
= log [[ +O

(3.02).
Hence, under the same conditions on s,
(6.57)
[F
x
(s)[ ((log x) +
1
2
log [[ + 1.51)(s)
2.511((log x) +
1
2
log [[ + 1.51)
_
[[e
||/2
.
Thus, by (6.54),
(6.58) [M
+,2
()[ 0.7938H((log x) +
1
2
log [[ + 1.17)
_
[[
2
He
(||2H)/4
for = +i with [[ T
0
1 2H + 99 and 1 1.
We now apply Lemma 6.7 with =
+,2
, = 0 and trivial. We obtain that
(6.59)

n=1
(n)
+,2
(n/x)
=
__

0

+,2
(t)dt
_
x

M
+,2
()x

+O

_
82.7[

+,2
(t)t
7/10
[
2
_
x
1/5
+O

_
7 log T
0
10
+ 11.04
_
max
[
1
2
,
1
5
]
[M
+,2
( +i(T
0
1))[ x

+O

_
log T
0
+ 6.71
_
(T
0
1)
[

+,2
[
2
_
x
1/2
Since
+,2
= (log xt)
2
+
, we can bound
[

+,2
(t)t
7/10
[
2
[2
+

+
(log xt)t
7/10
[
2
+ [
2
+
t
3/10
[
2
2([
+
[

log x + [
+
(t) log t[

)[

+
t
7/10
[
2
+ [
+
[

[
+
t
3/10
[
2
2(1.26499 log x + 0.43088) 1.95201

H + 1.26499 0.66241
4.93855

H log x + 1.68217

H + 0.83795
by (4.31), (4.32), (4.22) and (4.19), using the assumption H 50. Similarly,
[

+,2
[
2
2([
+
[

log x + [
+
(t) log t[

)[

+
[
2
+ [
+
[

[
+
[
2
2(1.26499 log x + 0.43088) 0.87531

H + 1.26499 0.80075
2.21452

H log x + 0.75431

H + 1.01295
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 77
by (4.32), (4.21) and (4.19). Hence, since H 50 and x 10
6
,
82.7[

+,2
(t)t
7/10
[
2
x
1/5
+
log T
0
+ 6.71
_
(T
0
1)
[

+,2
[
2
x
(1/2+1/5)
(408.5

H log x + 139.2

H + 69.3)x
1/5
+ (1.07

H log x + 0.363

H + 0.487)x
1/2
419.29

Hx
1/5
log x.
We bound M
+,2
by (6.58):
(6.60)
_
7 log T
0
10
+ 11.04
_
[M
+,2
( +i(T
0
1))[
(0.1769 log T
0
+ 8.7628)(log x +
1
2
log T
0
+ 1.17)H
_
T
0
2
He
(T
0
12H)/4
.
Since T
0
3(T
0
2H), H T
0
/3 and T
0
2H 100, this gives us that
_
7 log T
0
10
+ 11.04
_
[M
+,2
( +i(T
0
1))[ 3.54 10
30
log x + 1.542 10
29
5 10
30
log x
for 1 1 and x 10
6
. Thus, the error terms in (6.59) total at most
419.3

Hx
1/5
log x.
It is time to bound the contribution of the zeros. The contribution of the zeros
up to T
0
gets bounded by Lemma 6.3:

non-trivial
|()|T
0
[M
+,2
()[ ([
+,2
[
2
+ [
+,2
log [
2
)
_
T
0
log T
0
+ 17.21[
+,2
log [
2
_
T
0
+ 34.5

+,2
(t)/

1
Since
+,2
= (log xt)
2
+
, we bound the norms here as follows:
[
+,2
[
2
([
+
[

log x + [
+
log [

)[
+
[
2
1.014 log x + 0.346 1.04 log x,
[
+,2
log [
2
([
+
[

log x + [
+
log [

)[
+
log [
2
(1.404 log x + 0.479)

H 1.44

H log x,
[
+,2
/

t[
1
([
+
[

log x + [
+
log [

)[
+
/

t[
1
1.679 log x + 0.572 1.721 log x,
where we use the bounds [
+
[

1.265, [
+
log [

0.431, [
+
[
2
0.8008,
[
+
log [
2
1.1096

H, [(t)/

t[
1
1.3267 from (4.31), (4.32) and (4.17) (with
H 50) and (4.26). (We also use the assumption x 10
6
.) Since T
0
200, this
means that

non-trivial
|()|T
0
[M
+,2
()[ (6.2

H + 5.3)
_
T
0
log T
0
log x.
78 H. A. HELFGOTT
To bound the contribution of the zeros beyond T
0
, we apply Lemma 6.2, and
get that
(6.61)

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[M
+,2
()[
_

T
0
f(T)
_
1
2
log
T
2
+
1
4T
_
dT,
where
f(T) = 1.5876H ((log x) +
1
2
log [[ + 1.17)
_
[[
2
e
(||2H)/4
(see (6.58)). Since T T
0
200, we know that ((1/2) log(T/2) + 1/4T)
0.216 log T. In general,
_

T
0

T(log T)
2
e
T/4
dT
4

_
_
T
0
(log T
0
)
2
+
2/

T
0
(log e
2
T
0
)
2
_
e

T
0
4
,
_

T
0

T(log T)e
T/4
dT
4

_
_
T
0
(log T
0
) +
2/

T
0
log e
2
T
0
_
e

T
0
4
,
_

T
0

Te
T/4
dT =
4

_
_
T
0
+
2/

T
0
_
e

T
0
4
;
for T
0
200, the quantities on the right are at most 1.281

T
0
(log T
0
)
2
e
T
0
/4
,
1.279

T
0
(log T
0
)e
T
0
/4
, and 1.278

T
0
e
T
0
/4
, respectively. Thus, (6.61) gives
us that

non-trivial
|()|>T
0
[M
+,2
()[ 1.281 (0.216 log T
0
) f(T
0
)
(0.311(log T
0
)
2
+ 0.224(log x)(log T
0
))H
_
T
0
e
(T
0
2H)/4
.

6.4. A verication of zeros and its consequences. David Platt veried in


his doctoral thesis [Pla11], that, for every primitive character of conductor
q 10
5
, all the non-trivial zeroes of L(s, ) with imaginary part 10
8
/q lie on
the critical line, i.e., have real part exactly 1/2. (We call this a GRH verication
up to 10
8
/q.)
In work undertaken in coordination with the present project [Plab], Platt has
extended this computations to
all odd q 3 10
5
, with T
q
= 10
8
/q,
all even q 4 10
5
, with T
q
= max(10
8
/q, 200 + 7.5 10
7
/q).
The method used was rigorous; its implementation uses interval arithmetic.
Let us see what this verication gives when used as an input to Cor. 6.6 and
Prop. 6.9. Since we intend to apply these results to the estimation of (3.36), our
main goal is to bound
(6.62) E
,r,
0
= max
mod q
qgcd(q,2)r
||gcd(q,2)
0
r/2q

q [ err
,
(, x)[
for =

and =
+
. In the case of
+
, we will be able to assume x x
+
= 10
29
.
In the case of

, we will prefer to work with a smaller x; thus, we make only the


assumption x x

= 10
26
. Since we will use Platts input, we set r = 150000.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 79
(Note that Platts calculations really allow us to go up to r = 200000.) We also
set
0
= 8.
In general,
q gcd(q, 2) r 2r, [[
4r
q/ gcd(q, 2)
.
To work with Cor. 6.6, we set
T
0
=
5 10
7
q/ gcd(q, 2)
.
Thus
T
0

5 10
7
150000
=
1000
3
,
T
0


5 10
7
4r
=
1000
12
= 26.525823 . . .
and so
3.5 e
0.1598T
0
+ 0.0074 e
0.1065
T
2
0
()
2
2.575 10
23
.
Since there are no primitive characters of modulus 2,

q 4r. Examining
(6.33), we obtain

q err
,

10
8

q
log
10
8
2
2.575 10
23
+
_
1.22

10
8
log 10
8
+ 5.056

10
8
+ 1.423

300000 log 300000 + 38.19

300000
_
x

1
2
+

+ (log 300000 + 6.01) (0.89

300000 + 2.7 4 300000) x


3/2

4.743 10
14
+ 3.0604 10
8
+ 6.035 10
32
= 3.061 10
8
.
To work with Prop. 6.9, we set
T
0
= H +
3.75 10
7
q/ gcd(q, 2)
, H = 200.
Thus
T
0
H
3.75 10
7
150000
= 250,
T
0
H


3.75 10
7
4r
=
750
12
= 19.89436 . . .
and also
qT
0
2r H + 7.5 10
7
1.35 10
8
.
Hence
3.44

2re
0.1598(T
0
H)
+ 0.63 4r e
0.1065
(T
0
H)
2
()
2
1.953 10
13
.
80 H. A. HELFGOTT
Examining (6.46), we get

q err

+
,
(, x)

200 log
_
1.35 10
8
_
1.953 10
13
+
_
(16.339 log
_
1.35 10
8
_
+ 271.62)

1.35 10
8
+ 64.81

2r
_
x

1
2
+
+
_
3708r +

200r 360.01
_
x

4
5
+
5.1707 10
11
+ 2.1331 10
8
+ 3.5219 10
15
2.139 10
8
.
We record our nal conclusions: for E
,r,
0
dened as in (6.62) and r = 150000,
(6.63) E
,r,8
3.061 10
8
, E

+
,r,8
2.139 10
8
,
where we assume x x

= 10
26
when bounding E
,r,8
and x x
+
= 10
29
when
bounding E

+
,r,8
.
Let us optimize things a little more carefully for the trivial character
T
. We
will make the stronger assumption x x
1
= 4.510
29
. We wish to bound ET

+
,4r
,
where
ET
,s
= max
||s
[ err
,
T
(, x)[.
We will go up to a height T
0
= H+600000 t, where H = 200 and t 10. Then
T
0
H


200 + 600000t
4r
t.
Hence
3.44e
0.1598(T
0
H)
+ 0.63[[e
0.1065
(T
0
H)
2
()
2
10
1300000
+ 156000e
0.1065t
2
.
Looking at (6.46), we get
ET

+
,4r

200 log
T
0
2

_
10
1300000
+ 378000e
0.1065t
2
_
+O

_
(16.339 log T
0
+ 271.615)
_
T
0
+ 44
_
x
1/2
1
+O

_
2.52 10
8
+

200(0.015 log T
0
+ 163)
_
x
4/5
1
.
We choose t = 20; this gives T
0
3.77 10
7
, which is certainly within the checked
range. We obtain
(6.64) ET

+
,4r
5.122 10
9
.
for r = 150000 and x x
1
= 4.5 10
29
.
Lastly, let us look at the sum estimated in (6.49). Here it will be enough
to go up to just T
0
= 3H = 600. We make, again, the strong assumption
x x
1
= 4.5 10
29
. We look at (6.50) and obtain
(6.65)
err

2
,
+

_
0.311
(log 600)
2
log x
1
+ 0.224 log 600
_
200

600e
50
+ (6.2

200 + 5.3)

600 log 600 x


1/2
1
+ 419.3

200x
4/5
1
4.8 10
65
+ 2.17 10
11
+ 1.13 10
20
2.2 10
11
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 81
It remains only to estimate the integral in (6.49). First of all,
_

0

2
+
(t) log xt dt =
_

0

(t) log xt dt
+ 2
_

0
(
+
(t)

(t))

(t) log xt dt +
_

0
(
+
(t)

(t))
2
log xt dt.
The main term will be given by
_

0

(t) log xt dt =
_
0.64020599736635 +O
_
10
14
__
log x
0.021094778698867 +O
_
10
15
_
,
where the integrals were computed rigorously using VNODE-LP [Ned06]. (The
integral
_

0

2

(t)dt can also be computed symbolically.) By Cauchy-Schwarz and


the triangle inequality,
_

0
(
+
(t)

(t))

(t) log xt dt [
+

[
2
[

(t) log xt[


2
[
+

[
2
([

[
2
log x + [

log [
2
)

547.56
H
7/2
(0.80013 log x + 0.04574)
3.873 10
6
log x + 2.214 10
7
,
where we are using (4.14) and evaluate [

log [
2
rigorously as above. (We are
also using the assumption x x
1
to bound 1/ log x.) By (4.14) and (4.15),
_

0
(
+
(t)

(t))
2
log xt dt
547.56
H
7/2
log x +
480.394
H
7/2
4.8398 10
6
log x + 4.25 10
6
.
We conclude that
(6.66)
_

0

2
+
(t) log xt dt
= (0.640206 +O

(1.2589 10
5
)) log x 0.0210948 +O

(8.7042 10
6
)
We add to this the error term 2.2 10
11
log x from (6.65), and simplify using the
assumption x x
1
. We obtain:
(6.67)

n=1
(n)(log n)
2
+
(n/x) = (0.6402 +O

(2 10
5
))xlog x 0.0211x.
7. The integral of the triple product over the minor arcs
7.1. The L
2
norm over arcs: variations on the large sieve for primes.
We are trying to estimate an integral
_
R/Z
[S()[
3
d. Rather than bound it
by [S[

[S[
2
2
, we can use the fact that large (major) values of S() have to
be multiplied only by
_
M
[S()[
2
d, where M is a union (small in measure) of
minor arcs. Now, can we give an upper bound for
_
M
[S()[
2
d better than
[S[
2
2
=
_
R/Z
[S()[
2
d?
The rst version of [Hel] gave an estimate on that integral using a technique due
to Heath-Brown, which in turn rests on an inequality of Montgomerys ([Mon71,
(3.9)]; see also, e.g., [IK04, Lem. 7.15]). The technique was communicated by
82 H. A. HELFGOTT
Heath-Brown to the present author, who communicated it to Tao ([Tao, Lem. 4.6]
and adjoining comments). We will be able to do better than that estimate here.
The role played by Montgomerys inequality in Heath-Browns method is played
here by a result of Ramares ([Ram09, Thm. 2.1]; see also [Ram09, Thm. 5.2]).
The following Proposition is based on Ramares result, or rather on one possible
proof of it. Instead of using the result as stated in [Ram09], we will actually be
using elements of the proof of [Bom74, Thm. 7A], credited to Selberg. Simply
integrating Ramares inequality would give a non-trivial if slightly worse bound.
Proposition 7.1. Let a
n

n=1
, a
n
C, be supported on the primes. Assume
that a
n
is in L
1
L
2
and that a
n
= 0 for n

x. Let Q
0
1,
0
1 be such
that
0
Q
2
0
x/2; set Q =
_
x/2
0
Q
0
. Let
(7.1) M=
_
qr
_
a mod q
(a,q)=1
_
a
q


0
r
qx
,
a
q
+

0
r
qx
_
.
Let S() =

n
a
n
e(n) for R/Z. Then
_
M
[S()[
2
d
_
max
qQ
0
max
sQ
0
/q
G
q
(Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(Q/sq)
_

n
[a
n
[
2
,
where
(7.2) G
q
(R) =

rR
(r,q)=1

2
(r)
(r)
.
Proof. By (7.1),
(7.3)
_
M
[S()[
2
d =

qQ
0
_

0
Q
0
qx

0
Q
0
qx

a mod q
(a,q)=1

S
_
a
q
+
_

2
d.
Thanks to the last equations of [Bom74, p. 24] and [Bom74, p. 25],

a mod q
(a,q)=1

S
_
a
q
_

2
=
1
(q)

|q
(q

,q/q

)=1

2
(q/q

)=1
q

mod q

n
a
n
(n)

2
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 83
for every q

x, where we use the assumption that n is prime and >

x (and
thus coprime to q) when a
n
,= 0. Hence
_
M
[S()[
2
d =

qQ
0

|q
(q

,q/q

)=1

2
(q/q

)=1
q

_

0
Q
0
qx

0
Q
0
qx
1
(q)

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d
=

Q
0
q

(q

rQ
0
/q

(r,q

)=1

2
(r)
(r)
_

0
Q
0
q

rx

0
Q
0
q

rx

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d
=

Q
0
q

(q

)
_

0
Q
0
q

0
Q
0
q

r
Q
0
q

min

1,

0
||x

(r,q

)=1

2
(r)
(r)

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d
Here [[
0
Q
0
/q

x implies (Q
0
/q)
0
/[[x 1. Therefore,
(7.4)
_
M
[S()[
2
d
_
max
q

Q
0
max
sQ
0
/q

G
q
(Q
0
/sq

)
G
q
(Q/sq

)
_
,
where
=

Q
0
q

(q

)
_

0
Q
0
q

0
Q
0
q

r
Q
q

min

1,

0
||x

(r,q

)=1

2
(r)
(r)

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d

qQ
q
(q)

rQ/q
(r,q)=1

2
(r)
(r)
_

0
Q
qrx

0
Q
qrx

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d.
As stated in the proof of [Bom74, Thm. 7A],
(r)(n)()c
r
(n) =
qr

b=1
(b,qr)=1
(b)e
2in
b
qr
for primitive of modulus q. Here c
r
(n) stands for the Ramanujan sum
c
r
(n) =

u mod r
(u,r)=1
e
2nu/r
.
For n coprime to r, c
r
(n) = (r). Since is primitive, [()[ =

q. Hence, for
r

x coprime to q,
q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
=

qr

b=1
(b,qr)=1
(b)S
_
b
qr
_

2
.
84 H. A. HELFGOTT
Thus,
=

qQ

rQ/q
(r,q)=1

2
(r)
(rq)
_

0
Q
qrx

0
Q
qrx

mod q

qr

b=1
(b,qr)=1
(b)S
_
b
qr
_

2
d

qQ
1
(q)
_

0
Q
qx

0
Q
qx

mod q

b=1
(b,q)=1
(b)S
_
b
q
_

2
d
=

qQ
_

0
Q
qx

0
Q
qx
q

b=1
(b,q)=1

S
_
b
q
_

2
d.
Let us now check that the intervals (b/q
0
Q/qx, b/q +
0
Q/qx) do not overlap.
Since Q =
_
x/2
0
, we see that
0
Q/qx = 1/2qQ. The dierence between two
distinct fractions b/q, b

/q

is at least 1/qq

. For q, q

Q, 1/qq

1/2qQ +
1/2Qq

. Hence the intervals around b/q and b

/q

do not overlap. We conclude


that

_
R/Z

S
_
b
q
_

2
=

n
[a
n
[
2
,
and so, by (7.4), we are done.
We will actually use Prop. 7.1 in the slightly modied form given by the fol-
lowing statement.
Proposition 7.2. Let a
n

n=1
, a
n
C, be supported on the primes. Assume
that a
n
is in L
1
L
2
and that a
n
= 0 for n

x. Let Q
0
1,
0
1 be such
that
0
Q
2
0
x/2; set Q =
_
x/2
0
Q
0
. Let M= M

0
,Q
0
be as in (3.5).
Let S() =

n
a
n
e(n) for R/Z. Then
_
M

0
,Q
0
[S()[
2
d
_
_
_max
q2Q
0
q even
max
s2Q
0
/q
G
q
(2Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(2Q/sq)
_
_
_

n
[a
n
[
2
,
where
(7.5) G
q
(R) =

rR
(r,q)=1

2
(r)
(r)
.
Proof. By (3.5),
_
M
[S()[
2
d =

qQ
0
q odd
_

0
Q
0
2qx

0
Q
0
2qx

a mod q
(a,q)=1

S
_
a
q
+
_

2
d
+

qQ
0
q even
_

0
Q
0
qx

0
Q
0
qx

a mod q
(a,q)=1

S
_
a
q
+
_

2
d.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 85
We proceed as in the proof of Prop. 7.1. We still have (7.3). Hence
_
M
[S()[
2
d
equals

Q
0
q

odd
q

(q

)
_

0
Q
0
2q

0
Q
0
2q

r
Q
0
q

min

1,

0
2||x

(r,2q

)=1

2
(r)
(r)

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d
+

2Q
0
q

even
q

(q

)
_

0
Q
0
q

0
Q
0
q

r
2Q
0
q

min

1,

0
2||x

(r,q

)=1

2
(r)
(r)

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d.
(The sum with q odd and r even is equal to the rst sum; hence the factor of 2
in front.) Therefore,
(7.6)
_
M
[S()[
2
d
_
_
_max
q

Q
0
q

odd
max
sQ
0
/q

G
2q
(Q
0
/sq

)
G
2q
(Q/sq

)
_
_
_ 2
1
+
_
_
_ max
q

2Q
0
q

even
max
s2Q
0
/q

G
q
(2Q
0
/sq

)
G
q
(2Q/sq

)
_
_
_
2
,
where

1
=

qQ
q odd
q
(q)

rQ/q
(r,2q)=1

2
(r)
(r)
_

0
Q
2qrx

0
Q
2qrx

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d
=

qQ
q odd
q
(q)

r2Q/q
(r,q)=1
r even

2
(r)
(r)
_

0
Q
qrx

0
Q
qrx

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d.

2
=

q2Q
q even
q
(q)

r2Q/q
(r,q)=1

2
(r)
(r)
_

0
Q
qrx

0
Q
qrx

mod q

n
a
n
e(n)(n)

2
d.
The two expressions within parentheses in (7.6) are actually equal.
Much as before, using [Bom74, Thm. 7A], we obtain that

qQ
q odd
1
(q)
_

0
Q
2qx

0
Q
2qx
q

b=1
(b,q)=1

S
_
b
q
_

2
d,

1
+
2

q2Q
q even
1
(q)
_

0
Q
qx

0
Q
qx
q

b=1
(b,q)=1

S
_
b
q
_

2
d.
Let us now check that the intervals of integration (b/q
0
Q/2qx, b/q +
0
Q/2qx)
(for q odd), (b/q
0
Q/qx, b/q +
0
Q/qx) (for q even) do not overlap. Recall
that
0
Q/qx = 1/2qQ. The absolute value of the dierence between two distinct
fractions b/q, b

/q

is at least 1/qq

. For q, q

Q odd, this is larger than 1/4qQ+


86 H. A. HELFGOTT
1/4Qq

, and so the intervals do not overlap. For q Q odd and q

2Q even (or
vice versa), 1/qq

1/4qQ + 1/2Qq

, and so, again the intervals do not overlap.


If q Q and q

Q are both even, then [b/q b

/q

[ is actually 2/qq

. Clearly,
2/qq

1/2qQ + 1/2Qq

, and so again there is no overlap. We conclude that


2
1
+
2

_
R/Z

S
_
b
q
_

2
=

n
[a
n
[
2
.

7.2. Bounding the quotient in the large sieve for primes. The estimate
given by Proposition 7.1 involves the quotient
(7.7) max
qQ
0
max
sQ
0
/q
G
q
(Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(Q/sq)
,
where G
q
is as in (7.2). The appearance of such a quotient (at least for s = 1) is
typical of Ramares version of the large sieve for primes; see, e.g., [Ram09]. We
will see how to bound such a quotient in a way that is essentially optimal, not
just asymptotically, but also in the ranges that are most relevant to us. (This
includes, for example, Q
0
10
6
, Q 10
15
.)
As the present work shows, Ramares work gives bounds that are, in some
contexts, better than those of other large sieves for primes by a constant factor
(approaching e

= 1.78107 . . . ). Thus, giving a fully explicit and nearly optimal


bound for (7.7) is a task of clear general relevance, besides being needed for our
main goal.
We will obtain bounds for G
q
(Q
0
/sq)/G
q
(Q/sq) when Q
0
2 10
10
, Q Q
2
0
.
As we shall see, our bounds will be best when s = q = 1 or, sometimes, when
s = 1 and q = 2 instead.
Write G(R) for G
1
(R) =

rR

2
(r)/(r). We will need several estimates for
G
q
(R) and G(R). As stated in [Ram95, Lemma 3.4],
(7.8) G(R) log R + 1.4709
for R 1. By [MV73, Lem. 7],
(7.9) G(R) log R + 1.07
for R 6. There is also the trivial bound
(7.10)
G(R) =

rR

2
(r)
(r)

rR

2
(r)
r

p|r
_
1
1
p
_
1
=

rR

2
(r)
r

p|r

j1
1
p
j

rR
1
r
> log R.
The following bound, also well-known and easy,
(7.11) G(R)
q
(q)
G
q
(R) G(Rq),
can be obtained by multiplying G
q
(R) =

rR:(r,q)=1

2
(r)/(r) term-by-term
by q/(q) =

p|q
(1 + 1/(p)).
We will also use Ramares estimate from [Ram95, Lem. 3.4]:
(7.12) G
d
(R) =
(d)
d
_
_
log R +c
E
+

p|d
log p
p
_
_
+O

_
7.284R
1/3
f
1
(d)
_
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 87
for all d Z
+
and all R 1, where
(7.13) f
1
(d) =

p|d
(1 +p
2/3
)
_
1 +
p
1/3
+p
2/3
p(p 1)
_
1
and
(7.14) c
E
= +

p2
log p
p(p 1)
= 1.3325822 . . .
by [RS62, (2.11)].
If R 182, then
(7.15) log R + 1.312 G(R) log R + 1.354,
where the upper bound is valid for R 120. This is true by (7.12) for R 4 10
7
;
we check (7.15) for 120 R 4 10
7
by a numerical computation.
10
Similarly,
for R 200,
(7.16)
log R + 1.661
2
G
2
(R)
log R+ 1.698
2
by (7.12) for R 1.610
8
, and by a numerical computation for 200 R 1.610
8
.
Write = (log Q
0
)/(log Q) 1. We obtain immediately from (7.16) that
(7.17)
G
2
(Q
0
)
G
2
(Q)

log Q
0
+ 1.661
log Q+ 1.698
for Q, Q
0
200.
Let us start by giving an easy bound, o from the truth by a factor of about
e

(like some other versions of the large sieve). First, we need a simple explicit
lemma.
Lemma 7.3. Let m 1, q 1. Then
(7.18)

p|qpm
p
p 1
e

(log(m + log q) + 0.65771).


Proof. Let P =

pmp|q
p. Then, by [RS75, (5.1)],
P q

pm
p = qe

pm
log p
qe
(1+
0
)m
,
where
0
= 0.001102. Now, by [RS62, (3.42)],
n
(n)
e

log log n +
2.50637
log log n
e

log log x +
2.50637
log log x
for all x n 27. Hence, if qe
m
27,
P
(P)
e

_
log((1 +
0
)m+ log q) +
2.50637
log(m+ log q)
_
e

_
log(m+ log q) +
0
+
2.50637/e

log(m+ log q)
_
.
Thus (7.18) holds when m + log q 8.53, since then
0
+ (2.50637/e

)/ log(m +
log q) 0.65771. We verify all choices of m, q 1 with m+ log q 8.53 compu-
tationally; the worst case is that of m = 1, q = 6, which give the value 0.65771
in (7.18).
10
Using D. Platts implementation [Pla11] of double-precision interval arithmetic based on
Lambovs [Lam08] ideas.
88 H. A. HELFGOTT
Here is the promised easy bound.
Lemma 7.4. Let Q
0
1, Q 182Q
0
. Let q Q
0
, s Q
0
/q, q an integer.
Then
G
q
(Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(Q/sq)

e

log
_
Q
0
sq
+ log q
_
+ 1.172
log
Q
Q
0
+ 1.31

log Q
0
+ 1.172
log
Q
Q
0
+ 1.31
.
Proof. Let P =

pQ
0
/sqp|q
p. Then
G
q
(Q
0
/sq)G
P
(Q/Q
0
) G
q
(Q/sq)
and so
(7.19)
G
q
(Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(Q/sq)

1
G
P
(Q/Q
0
)
.
Now the lower bound in (7.11) gives us that, for d = P, R = Q/Q
0
,
G
P
(Q/Q
0
)
(P)
P
G(Q/Q
0
).
By Lem. 7.3,
P
(P)
e

_
log
_
Q
0
sq
+ log q
_
+ 0.658
_
.
Hence, using (7.9), we get that
(7.20)
G
q
(Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(Q/sq)

P/(P)
G(Q/Q
0
)

e

log
_
Q
0
sq
+ log q
_
+ 1.172
log
Q
Q
0
+ 1.31
,
since Q/Q
0
120. Since
_
Q
0
sq
+ log q
_

=
Q
0
sq
2
+
1
q
=
1
q
_
1
Q
0
sq
_
0,
the rightmost expression of (7.20) is maximal for q = 1.
We will use Lemma 7.4 when Q
0
> 2 10
10
, since then the numerical bounds
we will derive are not available. As we will now see, we can also use Lemma 7.4
to obtain a bound that is useful when sq is large compared to Q
0
, even when
Q
0
2 10
10
.
Lemma 7.5. Let Q
0
1, Q 200Q
0
. Let q Q
0
, s Q
0
/q, q an even integer.
Let = (log Q
0
)/ log Q 2/3. If
2Q
0
sq
1.1617 Q
(1)e

0
log q,
then
(7.21)
G
q
(2Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(2Q/sq)

log Q
0
+ 1.698
log Q
.
Proof. Apply Lemma 7.4. By (7.20), we see that (7.21) will hold provided that
(7.22)
e

log
_
2Q
0
sq
+ log q
_
+ 1.172
log
Q
Q
0
+ 1.31
log Q
(log Q
0
+ 1.698)
log Q
0
+ 1.698
(log Q
0
+ 1.698)(log Q
0
1.31)
log Q
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 89
Since = (log Q
0
)/ log Q,
log Q
0
+ 1.698
(log Q
0
+ 1.698)(log Q
0
1.31)
log Q
= log Q
0
+ 1.698 (log Q
0
1.31)
1.698(log Q
0
1.31)
log Q
(1 ) log Q
0
+ 1.698 + 1.31 1.698,
and so (7.22) will hold provided that
e

log
_
2Q
0
sq
+ log q
_
+ 1.172 (1 ) log Q
0
+ 1.698 + 1.31 1.698.
For all [0, 2/3],
1.698 + 1.31 1.698 1.172 0.526
2
3
0.388 0.267.
Hence it is enough that
2Q
0
sq
+ log q e
e

((1) log Q
0
+0.267)
= c Q
(1)e

0
,
where c = exp(exp() 0.153) = 1.16172 . . . .
Proposition 7.6. Let Q
0
10
5
, Q 200Q
0
. Let = (log Q
0
)/ log Q. Assume

1
= 0.55. Then, for every even and positive q 2Q
0
and every s
[1, 2Q
0
/q],
(7.23)
G
q
(2Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(2Q/sq)

log Q
0
+ 1.698
log Q
.
Proof. Dene err
q,R
so that
(7.24) G
q
(R) =
(q)
q
_
_
log R +c
E
+

p|q
log p
p
_
_
+ err
q,R
.
By (7.11) and (7.16), G
q
(2Q/sq) ((q)/q)(log 2Q/sq + 1.661). Hence, (7.23)
will hold when
(7.25)
log
2Q
0
sq
+c
E
+

p|q
log p
p
+
q
(q)
err
q,
2Q
0
sq
(log 2Q/sq + 1.661)
log Q
0
+ 1.698
log Q
.
We know that log sq log 2. The right side of (7.25) equals
log Q
0
+ 1.698 (log
sq
2
1.661)
log Q
0
+ 1.698
log Q
.
Note that
log Q
0
+ 1.698
log Q
= +
1.698
log Q
=
_
1 +
1.698
log Q
0
_
.
Thus, (7.25) will be true provided that
log sq
_
1 +
1.698
log Q
0
_
(log
sq
2
1.661) + (1.698 c
E
)

p|q
log p
p
+
q
(q)
err
q,
2Q
0
sq
90 H. A. HELFGOTT
Moreover, if this is true for =
1
, it is true for all
1
. Thus, it is enough to
check that
(7.26)
log sq
1
_
1 +
1.698
log Q
0,min
_
(log
sq
2
1.661) + 0.365

p|q
log p
p
+
q
(q)
err
q,
2Q
0
sq
,
where Q
0,min
= 10
5
. Since Q
0,min
= 10
5
and
1
0.87, we know that
1
(1 +
1.698/ log Q
0,min
) < 1.1475
1
< 1. Now all that remains to do is to take the
maximum m
q,R,1
of err
q,R
over all R satisfying
(7.27) R > 1.1617 max(Rq, Q
0,min
)
(1
1
)e

log q
(since all smaller R are covered by Lemma 7.5) and verify that
(7.28) m
q,R,1

(q)
q
(q)
for
(q) = (1 1.1475
1
) log q + 2.70135
1
+ 0.365

p|q
log p
p
.
(Values of s larger than 1 make the conditions stricter and the conclusions weaker,
thus making the task only easier.)
Ramares bound (7.12) implies that
err
q,R
7.284R
1/3
f
1
(q),
with f
1
(q) as in (7.13). This is enough when
(7.29) R (q) =
_
q
(q)
7.284f
1
(q)
(q)
_
3
.
The rst question is: for which q does (7.27) imply (7.29)? It is easy to see
that (7.27) implies
R
1(1
1
)e

> 1.1617q
(1
1
)e

log q
R
(1
1
)e

> 1.1617q
(1
1
)e

log q
and so, assuming 1.1617q
(1
1
)e

log q > 0, we get that R > (q), where


(7.30)
(q) =
_
_
1.1617q
(1
1
)e

log q
(1.1617q
(1
1
)e

log q)
1
1(1
1
)e

_
_
1
1(1
1
)e

.
Thus, if (q) is greater than the quantity (q) given in (7.29), we are done.
Now, (p/(p 1)) f
1
(p) and p (log p)/p are decreasing functions of p for
p 3. Hence, for even q <

pp
0
p, p
0
a prime,
(7.31) (q) (1 1.1475
1
) log q + 2.271

p<p
0
log p
p
and
(7.32)
(q)
_

p<p
0
p
p 1

7.284

p<p
0
f
1
(p)
(1 1.1475
1
) log q + 2.70135
1
+ 0.365

p<p
0
log p
p
_
3
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 91
For instance, since
1
= 0.55,
(q)
_

_
_
51.273
0.3688 log q+0.3414
_
3
for q <

p23
p = 223092870,
_
58.958
0.3688 log q+0.2051
_
3
for q <

p29
p = 6469693230,
_
66.508
0.3688 log q+0.0889
_
3
for q <

p31
p = 200560490130.
Since q 1.1617q
(1
1
)e

log q is increasing for q > 128, so is q (q).


A comparison for q = 3.59 10
7
, q =

p23
p and q =

p29
p shows that
(q) > (q) for q [3.59 10
7
,

p31
p). For q

p31
p, we know that
_
1.1617q
(10.55)e

log q
_ 1
1(10.55)e

298.03 log q
and so
(q)
_
1.1617q
(10.55)e

1
298.03
_ 1
1(10.55)e

_
1.1616q
(10.55)e

_ 1
1(10.55)e

1.222q
0.338
.
By [RS62, (3.14), (3.24), (3.30)] and a numerical computation for p
1
< 10
6
,

pp
1
log p
p
< log p
1
, log
_
_

pp
1
p
_
_
=

pp
1
log p > 0.8p
1
,

pp
1
p
p 1
< e

_
1 +
1
log
2
p
1
_
(log p
1
) < 1.94 log p
1
for all p
1
31. This implies, in particular, that, for q =

pp
1
p, (q) >
1.222e
0.80.338p
1
= 1.222e
0.2704p
1
.
We also have

p31
_
1 +
p
1/3
+p
2/3
p(p 1)
_
1
0.1489
and
log
_
_
f
1
_
_

pp
1
p
_
_
_
_
=

pp
1
log(1 +p
2/3
) + log

p31
_
1 +
p
1/3
+p
2/3
p(p 1)
_
1
0.729p
1/3
1
+ log 0.1489.
Hence
(q)
_
1.94 log p
1

7.284 0.1489e
0.729p
1/3
1
0.3688 0.8p
1
log p
1
_
3

_
1.265e
0.729p
1/3
1
_
3
2.025e
0.2217p
1
for p
1
31. Since 2.025e
0.2217p
1
< 1.222e
0.2704p
1
for p
1
31, it follows that
(q) > (q) for q =

pp
1
p, p
1
31. Looking at (7.31) and (7.32), we see
that this implies that (q) > (q) holds for all q

p31
p. Together with our
previous calculations, this gives us that (q) > (q) for all q 3.59 10
7
.
Now, for q < 3.59 10
7
even, we need to check that the maximum m
q,R,1
of
err
q,R
over all (q) R < (q) satises (7.28). Since log R is increasing on R and
92 H. A. HELFGOTT
G
q
(R) depends only on R, we can tell from (7.24) that, since we are taking the
maximum of err
q,R
, it is enough to check integer values of R. We check all integers
R in [(q), (q)) for all even q < 3.59 10
7
by an explicit computation.
11

Finally, we have the trivial bound


(7.33)
G
q
(Q
0
/sq)
G
q
(Q/sq)
1,
which we shall use for Q
0
close to Q.
Corollary 7.7. Let a
n

n=1
, a
n
C, be supported on the primes. Assume that
a
n
is in L
1
L
2
and that a
n
= 0 for n

x. Let Q
0
10
5
,
0
1 be such
that (200Q
0
)
2
x/2
0
; set Q =
_
x/2
0
and = (log Q
0
)/ log Q. Let M

0
,Q
0
be
as in (3.5).
Let S() =

n
a
n
e(n) for R/Z. Then, if 0.55,
_
M

0
,Q
0
[S()[
2
d
log Q
0
+ 1.698
log Q
_
R/Z
[S()[
2
d.
Here, of course,
_
R/Z
[S()[
2
d =

n
[a
n
[
2
(Plancherel). If > 0.55, we will
use the trivial bound
(7.34)
_
M

0
,r
[S()[
2
d
_
R/Z
[S()[
2
d
Proof. Immediate from Prop. 7.2, Lem. 7.4 and Prop. 7.6.
7.3. Putting together
2
bounds over arcs and

bounds. First, we need a


simple lemma essentially a way to obtain upper bounds by means of summation
by parts.
Lemma 7.8. Let f, g : a, a + 1, . . . , b R
+
0
, where a, b Z
+
. Assume that,
for all x [a, b],
(7.35)

anx
f(n) F(x),
where F : [a, b] R is continuous, piecewise dierentiable and non-decreasing.
Then
b

n=a
f(n) g(n) (max
na
g(n)) F(a) +
_
b
a
(max
nu
g(n)) F

(u)du.
Proof. Let S(n) =

n
m=a
f(m). Then, by partial summation,
(7.36)
b

n=a
f(n) g(n) S(b)g(b) +
b1

n=a
S(n)(g(n) g(n + 1)).
11
Here, as elsewhere in this section, numerical computations were carried out by the author
in C; all oating-point operations used D. Platts interval arithmetic package.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 93
Let h(x) = max
xnb
g(n). Then h is non-increasing. Hence (7.35) and (7.36)
imply that
b

n=a
f(n)g(n)
b

n=a
f(n)h(n)
S(b)h(b) +
b1

n=a
S(n)(h(n) h(n + 1))
F(b)h(b) +
b1

n=a
F(n)(h(n) h(n + 1)).
In general, for
n
C, A(x) =

anx

n
and F continuous and piecewise
dierentiable on [a, x],

anx

n
F(x) = A(x)F(x)
_
x
a
A(u)F

(u)du. (Abel summation)


Applying this with
n
= h(n)h(n+1) and A(x) =

anx

n
= h(a)h(x+
1), we obtain
b1

n=a
F(n)(h(n) h(n + 1))
= (h(a) h(b))F(b 1)
_
b1
a
(h(a) h(u + 1))F

(u)du
= h(a)F(a) h(b)F(b 1) +
_
b1
a
h(u + 1)F

(u)du
= h(a)F(a) h(b)F(b 1) +
_
b1
a
h(u)F

(u)du
= h(a)F(a) h(b)F(b) +
_
b
a
h(u)F

(u)du,
since h(u + 1) = h(u) for u / Z. Hence
b

n=a
f(n)g(n) h(a)F(a) +
_
b
a
h(u)F

(u)du.

We will now see our main application of Lemma 7.8. We have to bound an in-
tegral of the form
_
M

0
,r
[S
1
()[
2
[S
2
()[d, where M

0
,r
is a union of arcs dened
as in (3.5). Our inputs are (a) a bound on integrals of the form
_
M

0
,r
[S
1
()[
2
d,
(b) a bound on [S
2
()[ for (R/Z) M

0
,r
. The input of type (a) is what we
derived in 7.1 and 7.2; the input of type (b) is a minor-arcs bound, and as such
is the main subject of [Hel].
Proposition 7.9. Let S
1
() =

n
a
n
e(n), a
n
C, a
n
in L
1
. Let S
2
:
R/Z C be continuous. Dene M

0
,r
as in (3.5).
Let r
0
be a positive integer not greater than r
1
. Let H : [r
0
, r
1
] R
+
be a non-
decreasing continuous function, continuous and dierentiable almost everywhere,
94 H. A. HELFGOTT
such that
(7.37)
1

[a
n
[
2
_
M

0
,r+1
[S
1
()[
2
d H(r)
for some
0
x/2r
2
1
and all r [r
0
, r
1
]. Assume, moreover, that H(r
1
) = 1. Let
g : [r
0
, r
1
] R
+
be a non-increasing function such that
(7.38) max
(R/Z)\M

0
,r
[S
2
()[ g(r)
for all r [r
0
, r
1
] and
0
as above.
Then
(7.39)
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
(R/Z)\M

0
,r
0
[S
1
()[
2
[S
2
()[d
g(r
0
) (H(r
0
) I
0
) +
_
r
1
r
0
g(r)H

(r)dr,
where
(7.40) I
0
=
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
M

0
,r
0
[S
1
()[
2
d.
The condition
0
x/2r
2
1
is there just to ensure that the arcs in the denition
of M

0
,r
do not overlap for r r
1
.
Proof. For r
0
r < r
1
, let
f(r) =
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
M

0
,r+1
\M

0
,r
[S
1
()[
2
d.
Let
f(r
1
) =
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
(R/Z)\M

0
,r
1
[S
1
()[
2
d.
Then, by (7.38),
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
(R/Z)\M

0
,r
0
[S
1
()[
2
[S
2
()[d
r
1

r=r
0
f(r)g(r).
By (7.37),
(7.41)

r
0
rx
f(r) =
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
M

0
,x+1
\M

0
,r
0
[S
1
()[
2
d
=
_
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
M

0
,x+1
[S
1
()[
2
d
_
I
0
H(x) I
0
for x [r
0
, r
1
). Moreover,

r
0
rr
1
f(r) =
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
(R/Z)\M

0
,r
0
[S
1
()[
2
=
_
1

n
[a
n
[
2
_
R/Z
[S
1
()[
2
_
I
0
= 1 I
0
= H(r
1
) I
0
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 95
We let F(x) = H(x) I
0
and apply Lemma 7.8 with a = r
0
, b = r
1
. We obtain
that
r
1

r=r
0
f(r)g(r) (max
rr
0
g(r))F(r
0
) +
_
r
1
r
0
(max
ru
g(r))F

(u) du
g(r
0
)(H(r
0
) I
0
) +
_
r
1
r
0
g(u)H

(u) du.

Theorem 7.10 (Total of minor arcs). Let x 10


24
, where 4 1750. Let
(7.42) S

(, x) =

n
(n)e(n)(n/x).
Let

(t) = (
2

M
)(t), where
2
is as in (4.36) and : [0, ) [0, )
is continuous and in L
1
. Let
+
: [0, ) [0, ) be a bounded, piecewise
dierentiable function with lim
t

+
(t) = 0. Let M

0
,r
be as in (3.5) with

0
= 8. Let 10
5
r
0
< r
1
, where r
1
= (2/3)(x/)
0.55/2
.
Let
Z
r
0
=
_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

(, x)[[S

+
(, x)[
2
d.
Then
Z
r
0

__
[[
1
x

(M +T) +
_
S

(0, x) E
_
2
,
where
(7.43)
S =

p>

x
(log p)
2

2
+
(n/x),
T = C
,3
(log x) (S (

E)
2
),
J =
_
M
8,r
0
[S

+
(, x)[
2
d,
E =
_
(C

+
,0
+C

+
,2
) log x + (2C

+
,0
+C

+
,1
)
_
x
1/2
,
(7.44)
C

+
,0
= 0.7131
_

0
1

t
(sup
rt

+
(r))
2
dt,
C

+
,1
= 0.7131
_

0
log t

t
(sup
rt

+
(r))
2
dt,
C

+
,2
= 0.51941[
+
[
2

,
C
,3
(K) =
1.04488
[[
1
_
1/K
0
[(w)[dw
and
(7.45)
M = g(r
0
)
_
(log(r
0
+ 1)) + 1.698
log
_
x/16
S (

E)
2
_
+
_
2
log
x
16
_
r
1
r
0
g(r)
r
dr + 0.45g(r
1
)
_
S
where g(r) = g
x/,
(r) with K = log(x/) (see (4.46)).
96 H. A. HELFGOTT
Proof. Let y = x/. Let Q = (3/4)y
2/3
, as in [Hel, Main Thm.] (applied with
y instead of x). Let (R/Z) M
8,r
, where r r
0
and y is used instead of x
to dene M
8,r
(see (3.5)). There exists an approximation 2 = a/q + /y with
q Q, [[/y 1/qQ. Thus, = a

/q

+ /2y, where either a

/q

= a/2q or
a

/q

= (a + q)/2q holds. (In particular, if q

is odd, then q

= q; if q

is even,
then q

may be q or 2q.)
There are three cases:
(1) q r. Then either (a) q

is odd and q

r or (b) q

is even and q

2r.
Since is not in M
8,r
, then, by denition (3.5), [[/y
0
r/q = 8r/q. In
particular, [[ 8.
Thus, by Prop. 4.5 and Lemma 4.6,
(7.46) [S

(, x)[ = [S

(, y)[ g
y,
_
[[
8
q
_
[[
1
y g
y,
(r) [[
1
y.
(2) r < q y
1/3
/6. Then, by Prop. 4.5 and Lemma 4.6,
(7.47)
[S

(, x)[ = [S

(, y)[ g
y,
_
max
_
[[
8
, 1
_
q
_
[[
1
y g
y,
(r) [[
1
y.
(3) q > y
1/3
/6. Again by Prop. 4.5,
(7.48) [S

(, x)[ = [S

(, y)[
_
h
_
y
K
_
[[
1
+C
,3
(K)
_
y,
where h(x) is as in (4.42). (Note that C
,3
(K), as in (7.44), equals
C
,0,K
/[[
1
, where C
,0,K
is as in (4.48).) We set K = log y. Since
y = x/ 10
24
, it follows that y/K = y/ log y > 2.16 10
20
.
Let
r
1
=
2
3
y
0.55
2
, g(r) =
_
g
x,
(r) if r r
1
,
g
x,
(r
1
) if r > r
1
.
Since > 4, we see that r
1
(x/16)
0.55/2
. By Lemma 4.6, g(r) is a decreas-
ing function; moreover, by Lemma 4.7, g
y,
(r
1
) h(y/ log y), and so g(r)
h(y/ log y) for all r. Thus, we have shown that
(7.49) [S

(y, )[ (g(r) +C
,3
(log y)) [[
1
y
for all (R/Z) M
8,r
.
We rst need to undertake the fairly dull task of getting non-prime or small n
out of the sum dening S

+
(, x). Write
S
1,
+
(, x) =

p>

x
(log p)e(p)

(p/x),
S
2,
+
(, x) =

n non-prime
n>

x
(n)e(n)
+
(n/x) +

x
(n)e(n)
+
(n/x).
By the triangle inequality (with weights [S

+
(, x)[),

_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

(, x)[[S

+
(, x)[
2
d

j=1

_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

(, x)[[S
j,
+
(, x)[
2
d.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 97
Clearly,
_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

(, x)[[S
2,
+
(, x)[
2
d
max
(R/Z)
[S

(, x)[
_
R/Z
[S
2,
+
(, x)[
2
d

n=1
(n)

(n/x)
_
_

n non-prime
(n)
2

+
(n/x)
2
+

x
(n)
2

+
(n/x)
2
_
_
.
Let
+
(z) = sup
tz

+
(t). Since
+
(t) tends to 0 as t , so does
+
. By
[RS62, Thm. 13], partial summation and integration by parts,

n non-prime
(n)
2

+
(n/x)
2

n non-prime
(n)
2

+
(n/x)
2

_

1
_
_
_
_

nt
n non-prime
(n)
2
_
_
_
_
_

+
2
(t/x)
_

dt
_

1
(log t) 1.4262

t
_

+
2
(t/x)
_

dt
0.7131
_

1
log e
2
t

t

+
2
_
t
x
_
dt
_
0.7131
_

0
2 + log tx

+
2
(t)dt
_

x,
while, by [RS62, Thm. 12],

x
(n)
2

+
(n/x)
2

1
2
[
+
[
2

(log x)

nr
1
(n)
0.51941[
+
[
2

xlog x.
This shows that
_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

(, x)[[S
2,
+
(, x)[
2
d

n=1
(n)

(n/x) E = S

(0, x) E,
where E is as in (7.43).
It remains to bound
(7.50)
_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

(, x)[[S
1,
+
(, x)[
2
d.
We wish to apply Prop. 7.9. Corollary 7.7 gives us an input of type (7.37); we
have just derived a bound (7.43) that provides an input of type (7.38). More
precisely, by Corollary 7.7, (7.37) holds with
H(r) =
_
(log(r+1))+1.698
log

x/16
if r < r
1
,
1 if r r
1
.
Since r
1
= (2/3)y
0.275
and 1750,
lim
rr
+
1
H(r) lim
rr

1
H(r) = 1
log((2/3)(x/)
0.275
+ 1) + 1.698
log
_
x/16
1
_
0.275
0.5
+
log
2
3
+ 1.698 + 0.275 log
16

log
_
x/16
_
1
0.275
0.5
= 0.45.
98 H. A. HELFGOTT
We also have (7.38) with
(7.51) (g(r) +C
,3
(log y)) [[
1
y
instead of g(r) (by (7.49)). Here (7.51) is a decreasing function of r because g(r)
is, as we already checked. Hence, Prop. 7.9 gives us that (7.50) is at most
(7.52)
g(r
0
)(H(r
0
) I
0
) + (1 I
0
) C
,3
(log x) +
1
log
_
x/16
_
r
1
r
0
g(r)
r + 1
dr +
9g(r
1
)
20
times [[
1
y

p>

x
(log p)
2

(p/x), where
(7.53) I
0
=
1

p>

x
(log p)
2

2
+
(n/x)
_
M
8,r
0
[S
1,
+
(, x)[
2
d.
By the triangle inequality,

_
M
8,r
0
[S
1,
+
(, x)[
2
d =

_
M
8,r
0
[S

+
(, x) S
2,
+
(, x)[
2
d

_
M
8,r
0
[S

+
(, x)[
2
d

_
M
8,r
0
[S
2,
+
(, x)[
2
d

_
M
8,r
0
[S

+
(, x)[
2
d

_
R/Z
[S
2,
+
(, x)[
2
d.
As we already showed,
_
R/Z
[S
2,
+
(, x)[
2
d =

n non-prime
or n

x
(n)
2

+
(n/x)
2
E.
Thus,
I
0
S (

E)
2
,
and so we are done.

We now should estimate the integral in (7.45). It is easy to see that


(7.54)
_

r
0
1
r
3/2
dr =
2
r
1/2
0
,
_

r
0
log r
r
2
dr =
log er
0
r
0
,
_

r
0
1
r
2
dr =
1
r
0
,
_
r
1
r
0
1
r
dr = log
r
+
r
0
,
_

r
0
log r
r
3/2
dr =
2 log e
2
r
0

r
0
,
_

r
0
log 2r
r
3/2
dr =
2 log 2e
2
r
0

r
0
,
_

r
0
(log 2r)
2
r
3/2
dr =
2P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0
,
_

r
0
(log 2r)
3
r
3/2
dr =
2P
3
(log 2r
0
)
r
1/2
0
,
where
(7.55) P
2
(t) = t
2
+ 4t + 8, P
3
(t) = t
3
+ 6t
2
+ 24t + 48.
We must also estimate the integrals
(7.56)
_
r
1
r
0
_
(r)
r
3/2
dr,
_
r
1
r
0
(r)
r
2
dr,
_
r
1
r
0
(r) log r
r
2
dr,
_
r
1
r
0
(r)
r
3/2
dr,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 99
Clearly, (r) e

log log r = 2.50637/ log log r is decreasing on r. Hence, for


r 10
5
,
(r) e

log log r +c

,
where c

= 1.025742. Let F(t) = e

log t +c

. Then F

(t) = e

/t
2
< 0. Hence
d
2
_
F(t)
dt
2
=
F

(t)
2
_
F(t)

(F

(t))
2
4(F(t))
3/2
< 0
for all t > 0. In other words,
_
F(t) is convex-down, and so we can bound
_
F(t) from above by
_
F(t
0
) +

(t
0
) (t t
0
), for any t t
0
> 0. Hence, for
r r
0
10
5
,
_
(r)
_
F(log r)
_
F(log r
0
) +
d
_
F(t)
dt
[
t=log r
0
log
r
r
0
=
_
F(log r
0
) +
e

_
F(log r
0
)

log
r
r
0
2 log r
0
.
Thus, by (7.54),
(7.57)
_

r
0
_
(r)
r
3/2
dr
_
F(log r
0
)
_
2
e

F(log r
0
)
_
1

r
0
+
e

_
F(log r
0
) log r
0
log e
2
r
0

r
0
=
2
_
F(log r
0
)

r
0
_
1
e

F(log r
0
) log r
0
_
.
The other integrals in (7.56) are easier. Just as in (7.57), we extend the range
of integration to [r
0
, ]. Using (7.54), we obtain
_

r
0
(r)
r
2
dr
_

r
0
F(log r)
r
2
dr = e

_
log log r
0
r
0
+E
1
(log r
0
)
_
+
c

r
0
,
_

r
0
(r) log r
r
2
dr e

_
(1 + log r
0
) log log r
0
+ 1
r
0
+E
1
(log r
0
)
_
+
c

log er
0
r
0
,
where E
1
is the exponential integral
E
1
(z) =
_

z
e
t
t
dt.
By [OLBC10, (6.8.2)],
1
r(log r + 1)
E
1
(log r)
1
r log r
.
Hence
_

r
0
(r)
r
2
dr
e

(log log r
0
+ 1/ log r
0
) +c

r
0
,
_

r
0
(r) log r
r
2
dr
e

_
log log r
0
+
1
log r
0
_
+c

r
0
log er
0
.
100 H. A. HELFGOTT
Finally,
_
r
1
r
0
(r)
r
3/2
e

_
2 log log r

r
+ 2E
1
_
log r
2
__
[
r
1
r
0
+
_
2c

r
0

2c

r
1
_
2e

_
log log r
0

r
0

log log r
1

r
1
_
+ 2c

_
1

r
0

r
1
_
+ 4e

_
1

r
0
log r
0

r
1
(log r
1
+ 2)
_
.
It is time to estimate
(7.58)
_
r
1
r
0
R
y,2r
log 2r
_
(r)
r
3/2
dr,
where z = y or z = y/ log y (and y = x/, as before). By Cauchy-Schwarz, (7.58)
is at most

_
r
1
r
0
(R
z,2r
log 2r)
2
r
3/2
dr

_
r
1
r
0
(r)
r
3/2
dr.
We have already bounded the second integral. Let us look at R
z,t
(dened in
(4.40)). We can write R
z,t
= 0.27125R

z,t
+ 0.41415, where
(7.59) R

z,t
= log
_
1 +
log 4t
2 log
9z
1/3
2.004t
_
.
Clearly,
R

z,e
t
/4
= log
_
1 +
t/2
log
36z
1/3
2.004
t
_
.
Now, for f(t) = log(c +at/(b t)) and t [0, b),
f

(t) =
ab
_
c +
at
bt
_
(b t)
2
, f

(t) =
ab((a 2c)(b 2t) 2ct)
_
c +
at
bt
_
2
(b t)
4
.
In our case, a = 1/2, c = 1 and b = log 36z
1/3
log(2.004) > 0. Hence, for t < b,
ab((a 2c)(b 2t) 2ct) =
b
2
_
2t +
3
2
(b 2t)
_
=
b
2
_
3
2
b t
_
> 0,
and so f

(t) > 0. In other words, t R

z,e
t
/4
is convex-up for t < b, i.e., for
e
t
/4 < 9z
1/3
/2.004. It is easy to check that, since we are assuming y 10
24
,
2r
1
=
4
3
y
0.55
2
<
9
2.004
_
y
log y
_
1/3

9z
1/3
2.004
.
We conclude that r R

z,2r
is convex-up on log 8r for r r
1
, and hence so is
r R
z,r
. Thus, for r [r
0
, r
1
],
(7.60) R
2
z,2r
R
2
z,2r
0

log r
1
/r
log r
1
/r
0
+R
2
z,2r
1

log r/r
0
log r
1
/r
0
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 101
Therefore, by (7.54),
_
r
1
r
0
(R
z,2r
log 2r)
2
r
3/2
dr
_
r
1
r
0
_
R
2
z,2r
0
log r
1
/r
log r
1
/r
0
+R
2
z,2r
1
log r/r
0
log r
1
/r
0
_
(log 2r)
2
dr
r
3/2
=
2R
2
z,2r
0
log
r
1
r
0
__
P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
2
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
log 2r
1

_
P
3
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
3
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
__
+
2R
2
z,2r
1
log
r
1
r
0
__
P
3
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
3
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_

_
P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
2
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
log 2r
0
_
= 2
_
R
2
z,2r
0

log 2r
0
log
r
1
r
0
(R
2
z,2r
1
R
2
x,2r
0
)
_

_
P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
2
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
+ 2
R
2
z,2r
1
R
2
z,2r
0
log
r
1
r
0
_
P
3
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
3
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
= 2R
2
z,2r
0

_
P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
2
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
+ 2
R
2
z,2r
1
R
2
z,2r
0
log
r
1
r
0
_
P

2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
3
(log 2r
1
) (log 2r
0
)P
2
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
,
where P
2
(t) and P
3
(t) are as in (7.55), and P

2
(t) = P
3
(t)tP
2
(t) = 2t
2
+16t+48.
Putting all terms together, we conclude that
(7.61)
_
r
1
r
0
g(r)
r
dr f
0
(r
0
, y) +f
1
(r
0
) +f
2
(r
0
, y),
where
(7.62)
f
0
(r
0
, y) =
_
(1 c

)
_
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,y
+c

_
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,
y
log y
_

r
0
I
1,r
0
f
1
(r
0
) =
_
F(log r
0
)

2r
0
_
1
e

F(log r
0
) log r
0
_
+
5

2r
0
+
1
r
0
__
13
4
log er
0
+ 10.102
_
J
r
0
+
80
9
log er
0
+ 23.433
_
f
2
(r
0
, y) = 3.2
(log y)
1/6
y
1/6
log
r
1
r
0
,
where F(t) = e

log t +c

, c

= 1.025742, y = x/ (as usual),


(7.63)
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,z
= R
2
z,2r
0

_
P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
2
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
+
R
2
z,2r
1
R
2
z,2r
0
log
r
1
r
0
_
P

2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0

P
3
(log 2r
1
) (log 2r
0
)P
2
(log 2r
1
)

r
1
_
J
r
= F(log r) +
e

log r
, I
1,r
= F(log r) +
2e

log r
, c

=
C
,2,log y
/[[
1
log log y
and C
,2,K
is as in (4.47).
102 H. A. HELFGOTT
8. Conclusion
We now need to gather all results, using the smoothing functions

+
= h
200
(t)

(t)
(as in (4.7), with H = 200) and

= (
2

M
)(t)
(as in Thm. 7.10, with 1750 to be set soon). We dene (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
. Just
like before, h
H
= h
200
is as in (4.10),

(t) =
,1
(t) = e
t
2
/2
, and
2
=
1

M

1
,
where
1
= 2 I
[1/2,1/2]
.
We x a value for r
0
, namely, r
0
= 150000. Our results will have to be valid
for any x x
1
, where x
1
is xed. We set x
1
= 4.5 10
29
, since we want a result
valid for N 10
30
, and, as was discussed in (4.1), we will work with x
1
slightly
smaller than N/2. (We will later see that N 10
30
implies the stronger lower
bound x 4.9 10
29
.)
8.1. The
2
norm over the major arcs. We apply Lemma 3.1 with =
+
and

as in (4.3). Let us rst work out the error terms. Recall that
0
= 8. We
use the bound on E

+
,r,
0
given in (6.63), and the bound on ET

+
,
0
r/2
in (6.64):
E

+
,r,
0
2.139 10
8
, ET

+
,
0
r/2
5.122 10
9
.
We also need to bound a few norms: by (4.17), (4.18), (4.26), (4.31) and (4.30),
(8.1)
[
+
[
1
0.996505,
[
+
[
2
0.80013 +
547.5562
200
7/2
0.80014,
[
+
[

1 + 2.21526
1 +
4

log 200
200
1.0858.
By (3.12),
S

+
(0, x) =
+
(0) x +O

_
err

+
,
T
(0, x)
_
x
([
+
[
1
+ET

+
,
0
r/2
)x 0.99651x.
Hence, we can bound K
r,2
in (3.27):
K
r,2
= (1 +

300000)(log x)
2
1.14146
(2 0.99651 + (1 +

300000)(log x)
2
1.14146/x)
= 1248.32(log x)
2
2.7 10
14
x
for x 10
20
. We also have
5.19
0
r
_
ET

+
,

0
r
2

_
[[
1
+
ET

+
,

0
r
2
2
__
0.031789
and

0
r
__
2 +
3 log r
2
_
E
2

+
,r,
0
+ (log 2e
2
r)K
r,2
_
4.844 10
7
.
We recall from (4.18) and (4.14) that
(8.2) 0.8001287 [

[
2
0.8001288
and
(8.3) [
+

[
2

547.5562
H
7/2
4.84 10
6
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 103
Symbolic integration gives
(8.4) [

[
2
2
= 2.7375292 . . .
We bound [
(3)

[
1
using the fact that (as we can tell by taking derivatives)
(2)

(t)
increases from 0 at t = 0 to a maximum within [0, 1/2], and then decreases to

(2)

(1) = 7, only to increase to a maximum within [3/2, 2] (equal to that within


[0, 1/2]) and then decrease to 0 at t = 2:
(8.5)
[
(3)

[
1
= 2 max
t[0,1/2]

(2)

(t) 2
(2)

(1) + 2 max
t[3/2,2]

(2)

(t)
= 4 max
t[0,1/2]

(2)

(t) + 14 4 4.6255653 + 14 32.503,


where we compute the maximum by the bisection method with 30 iterations
(using interval arithmetic, as always).
We evaluate explicitly

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
= 13.597558346 . . .
Looking at (3.29) and L
r,
0
(log r + 1.7)[
+
[
2
2
,, we conclude that
L
r,
0
13.597558347 0.8001287
2
8.70524,
L
r,
0
13.597558348 0.8001288
2
+O

((log r + 1.7) 4.84 10


6
)
+O

_
1.341 10
5
_

_
0.64787 +
log r
4r
+
0.425
r
_
8.70516.
Lemma 3.1 thus gives us that
(8.6)
_
M
8,r
0

+
(, x)

2
d = (8.7052 +O

(0.0004))x +O

(0.03179)x
= (8.7052 +O

(0.0322))x.
8.2. The total major-arcs contribution. First of all, we must bound from
below
(8.7) C
0
=

p|N
_
1
1
(p 1)
2
_

pN
_
1 +
1
(p 1)
3
_
.
The only prime that we know does not divide N is 2. Thus, we use the bound
C
0
2

p>2
_
1
1
(p 1)
2
_
1.3203236.
The other main constant is C
,
, which we dened in (3.37) and already
started to estimate in (4.6):
(8.8) C
,
= [

[
2
2
_
2
0

()d + 2.71[

[
2
2
O

_
_ N
x
0
((2 N/x) +)
2

()d
_
104 H. A. HELFGOTT
provided that N 2x. Recall that

= (
2

M
)(t), where (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
.
Therefore,
_
N/x
0

()d =
_
N/x
0
(
2
)()d =
_
1
1/4

2
(w)
_
N/x
0

w
_
d
dw
w
=
[
2
[
1
[[
1

_
1
1/4

2
(w)
_

N/xw
()ddw.
Now
_

y
() = ye
y
2
/2
+

2
_

y/

2
e
t
2
dt <
_
y +
2
y
_
e
y
2
/2
by [OLBC10, (7.8.3)]. Hence
_

N/xw
()d
_

2
()d <
_
2 +
1

_
e
2
2
and so, since [
2
[
1
= 1,
(8.9)
_
N/x
0

()d
[[
1


_
1
1/4

2
(w)dw
_
2 +
1

2
_
e
2
2
[[
1

_
2 +
1

2
_
e
2
2
.
Let us now focus on the second integral in (8.8). Write N/x = 2+c
1
/. Then
the integral equals
_
2+c
1
/
0
(c
1
/ +)
2

()d
1

3
_

0
(u c
1
)
2
(
2

M
)(u) du
=
1

3
_
1
1/4

2
(w)
_

0
(vw c
1
)
2
(v)dvdw
=
1

3
_
1
1/4

2
(w)
_
3
_

2
w
2
2 2c
1
w +c
2
1
_

2
_
dw
=
1

3
_
49
48
_

2

9
4
c
1
+
_

2
c
2
1
_
.
It is thus best to choose c
1
= (9/4)/

2 = 0.89762 . . . . Looking up [

[
2
2
in (8.4),
we obtain
2.71[

[
2
2

_ N
x
0
((2 N/x) +)
2

()d
7.413
1

3
_
49
48
_

2

(9/4)
2
2

2
_

1.9986

3
.
We conclude that
C
,

1

[[
1
[

[
2
2
[

[
2
2
_
2 +
1

2
_
e
2
2

1.9986

3
.
Setting
= 49
and using (4.18), we obtain
(8.10) C
,

1

([[
1
[

[
2
2
0.000833).
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 105
Here it is useful to note that [[
1
=
_

2
, and so, by (4.18), [[
1
[

[
2
2
= 0.80237 . . . .
We have nally chosen x in terms of N:
(8.11) x =
N
2 +
c
1

=
N
2 +
49/36

2
1
49
=
N
2 +
1
36

2
= 0.49724 . . . N.
Thus, we see that, since we are assuming N 10
30
, we in fact have x 4.9724 . . .
10
29
, and so, in particular,
(8.12) x 4.9 10
29
,
x

10
28
.
Let us continue with our determination of the major-arcs total. We should
compute the quantities in (3.38). We already have bounds for E

+
,r,
0
, A

+
,
L
,r,
0
and K
r,2
. From (6.63), we have
(8.13) E
,r,8

3.061 10
8

,
where the factor of comes from the scaling in

(t) = (
2

M
)(t) (which in
eect divides x by ). It remains only to bound the more harmless terms of type
Z
,2
and LS

.
By (3.12),
(8.14)
Z

2
+
,2
=
1
x

2
(n)
2
+
(n/x)
1
x

n
(n)
+
(n/x) (
+
(n/x) log n)

1
x

n
(n)
+
(n/x) ([
+
(t) log
+
(t/2)[

+ [
+
[

log 2x)
([
+
[
1
+ [ err

+
,
T
(0, x)[) ([
+
(t) log
+
(t/2)[

+ [
+
[

log 2x),
where log
+
(t) := max(0, log t). Proceeding as in (4.27), we see that
[
+
(t) log
+
(t/2)[

(t) log
+
(t/2)[

+ [h h
H
[

(t) log
+
(t/2)[

= [h h
H
[

(t) log
+
(t/2)[

.
Since
[

(t) log
+
(t/2)[

max
t2
[

(t)(t/2 1)[ 0.012


and [hh
H
[

< 0.1415 (by (4.29) and (4.30)), we see that [


+
(t) log
+
(t/2)[

<
0.0017. We also have the bounds on [
+
[
1
and [
+
[

in (8.1) and the bound


[ err

+
,
T
(0, x)[ ET

+
,
0
r/2
5.122 10
9
from (6.64). Hence
Z

2
+
,2
0.99651 (0.0017 + 1.0858 log 2x) 0.002 + 1.09 log x.
Similarly,
Z

,2
=
1
x

2
(n)
2

(n/x)
1
x

n
(n)

(n/x) (

(n/x) log n)
([

[
1
+ [ err
,
T
(0, x)[) ([

(t) log
+
(t)[

+ [

log(x/)).
Clearly,
(8.15) [

= [
2

M
[

2
(t)
t

1
[[

1.92182
2
e
1.414.
106 H. A. HELFGOTT
and, since log
+
is non-decreasing and
2
is supported on a subset of [0, 1],
[

(t) log
+
(t)[

= [(
2

M
) log
+
[

[
2

M
( log
+
)[

2
(t)
t

1
[ log
+
[

1.92182 0.762313 1.46503


where we bound [ log
+
[

by the bisection method with 25 iterations. We


already know that
(8.16) [

[
1
=
[
2
[
1
[[
1

=
[[
1

=
_
/2

.
We conclude that
(8.17)
Z

,2
(
_
/2/49 + 3.061 10
8
)(1.46503 + (2/e) log(x/49)) 0.0189 log x.
We have bounds for [

and [
+
[

. We can also bound


[

t[

= [(
2

M
) t[

[
2
[
1
[ t[

3
3/2
e
3/2
and
(8.18)
[
+
(t) t[

(t) t[

+ [h h
H
[

(t) t[

1.0648 + 0.1415e
1/2
1.1507,
where we bound [

(t) t[

1.0648 by the bisection method (20 iterations).


We can now bound LS

(x, r) for =

,
+
:
LS

(x, r) = log r max


pr

_
p

x
_
= (log r) max
pr
_
_
_
_
log x
log p
[[

1
p

x
[ t[

/x
_
_
_
_
(log r) max
pr
_
log x
log p
[[

+
[ t[

1 1/p
_

(log r)(log x)
log 2
[[

+ 2(log r)[ t[

,
and so
(8.19)
LS


_
2
e log 2
log x + 2 (3/e)
3/2
_
log r (1.0615 log x + 2.3189) log r,
LS

+

_
1.14146
log 2
log x + 2 1.1507
_
log r (1.6468 log x + 2.3014) log r.
We can now start to put together all terms in (3.36). Let
0
= [
+

[
2
/[

[
2
.
Then, by (8.3),

0
[

[
2
[
+

[
2
4.84 10
6
.
Thus,
2.82643[

[
2
2
(2 +
0
)
0
+
4.31004
0
[

[
2
1
+ 0.0012
|
(3)

|
2
1

5
0
r
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 107
is at most
2.82643 4.84 10
6
(2 0.80013 + 4.84 10
6
)
+
4.311 8 0.64021 + 0.0012
32.503
2
8
5
150000
0.0001691
by (4.18) and (8.5). Recall that [

[
1
is given by (8.16).
Since

= (
2

M
)(x),
[

[
2
2
=
[
2

M
[
2
2


[
2
(t)/

t[
2
[[
2

=
_
3
8


32
3
(log 2)
3


1.53659

.
The second line of (3.36) is thus at most x
2
times
3.061 10
8

8.739 + 2.139 10
8
1.6812(

8.739 + 1.6812 0.80014)


_
1.53659

1.6097 10
6

.
where we are using the bound A

+
8.739 we obtained in (8.6). (We are also
using the bounds on norms in (8.1).)
Using the bounds (8.14), (8.17) and (8.19), we see that the third line of (3.36)
is at most
2 (0.0189 log x (1.0615 log x + 2.3189) log 150000) x
+ 4
_
(0.002 + 1.14 log x) 0.0189 log x(1.6468 log x + 2.3014)(log 150000)x
13(log x)
2
x,
where we just use the very weak assumption x 10
10
, though we can by now
assume (8.12)).
We conclude that, for r = 150000, the integral over the major arcs
_
M
8,r
S

+
(, x)
2
S

(, x)e(N)d
is
(8.20)
C
0
C

0
,
x
2
+O

_
0.0001691
_
/2

x
2
+
1.6097 10
6

x
2
+ 14(log x)
2
x
_
= C
0
C

0
,
x
2
+O

_
0.0002136x
2

_
= C
0
C

0
,
x
2
+O

_
4.359 10
6
x
2
_
,
where C
0
and C

0
,
are as in (3.37). Notice that C
0
C

0
,
x
2
is the expected
asymptotic for the integral over all of R/Z.
Moreover, by (8.9) and (8.10),
C
0
C

0
,

1.3203236[[
1
[

[
2
2


0.000833


1.0594003


0.000833

=
1.05857
49
.
Hence
(8.21)
_
M
8,r
S

+
(, x)
2
S

(, x)e(N)d
1.05856

x
2
,
where, as usual, = 49. This is our total major-arc bound.
108 H. A. HELFGOTT
8.3. Minor-arc totals. We need to estimate the quantities E, S, T, J, M in
Theorem 7.10. Let us start by bounding the constants in (7.44). The constants
C

+
,j
, j = 0, 1, 2, will appear only in the minor term A
2
, and so crude bounds on
them will do.
By (8.1) and (8.18),
sup
rt

+
(r) min
_
1.0858,
1.1507
t
_
for all t 0. Thus,
C

+
,0
= 0.7131
_

0
1

t
_
sup
rt

+
(r)
_
2
dt
0.7131
__
1
0
1.0858
2

t
+
_

1
1.1507
2
t
5/2
dt
_
2.31092.
Similarly,
C

+
,1
0.7131
_

1
1

t
_
sup
rt

+
(r)
_
2
dt 0.7131
_

1
1.1507
2
log t
t
5/2
dt 0.41965.
Immediately from (8.1),
C

+
,2
= 0.51941[
+
[
2

0.61235.
We get
(8.22)
E ((2.488 + 0.677) log x + (2 2.488 + 0.42)) x
1/2
(3.165 log x + 5.396) x
1/2
3.31 10
13
x,
where E is dened as in (7.43), and where we are using the assumption x
4.5 10
29
made at the beginning. Using (8.13) and (8.16), we see that
S

(0, x) = ([

[
1
+O

(ET
,0
))x =
_
_
/2 +O

(3.061 10
8
)
_
x

.
Hence
(8.23) S

(0, x) E 5.84 10
14

x
2

.
We can bound
(8.24) S

n
(n)(log n)
2
+
(n/x) = 0.64022xlog x 0.0211x
by (6.67). Let us now estimate T. Recall that (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
. Since
_
u
0
(t)dt =
_
u
0
t
2
e
t
2
/2
dt
_
u
0
t
2
dt =
u
3
3
,
we can bound
C
,3
_
log
x

_
=
1.04488
_
/2
_ 1
log x/
0
t
2
e
t
2
/2
dt
0.2779
(log x/)
3
.
By (8.6), we already know that J = (8.7052 +O

(0.0322))x. Hence
(8.25)
(

E)
2
= (
_
(8.7052 +O

(0.0322))x

3.302 10
13
x)
2
8.672999x,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 109
and so
T = C
,3
_
log
x

_
(S (

E)
2
)

0.2779
(log x/)
3
((0.6402 +O

(2 10
5
))xlog x 0.0211x 8.672999x)
0.17792
xlog x
(log x/)
3
2.41609
x
(log x/)
3
0.17792
x
(log x/)
2
1.72365
x
(log x/)
3
.
for = 49. Since x/ 10
28
, this implies that
(8.26) T 3.638 10
5
x.
It remains to estimate M. Let us rst look at g(r
0
); here g = g
x/,
, where
g
x/,
is dened as in (4.46). Write y = x/. We must estimate the constant
C
,2,K
dened in (4.48):
C
,2,K
=
_
1
1/K
(w) log wdw
_
1
0
(w) log wdw
_
1
0
w
2
e
w
2
/2
log wdw
0.093426,
where again we use VNODE-LP for rigorous numerical integration. Since [[
1
=
_
/2, this implies that
(8.27)
C
,2
/[[
1
log K

0.07455
log log y
and so
(8.28) R
y,K,,t
=
0.07455
log log y
R
y/K,t
+
_
1
0.07455
log log y
_
R
y,t
.
Let t = 2r
0
= 300000; we recall that K = log y. Recall from (8.12) that
y = x/ 10
28
; thus, y/K 1.5511 10
26
and log log y 4.16624. Going back
to the denition of R
x,t
in (4.40), we see that
(8.29) R
y,,2r
0
0.27125 log
_
1 +
log(8 150000)
2 log
9(10
28
)
1/3
2.0042150000
_
+ 0.41415 0.55394,
(8.30)
R
y/K,2r
0
0.27125 log
_
1 +
log(8 150000)
2 log
9(1.551110
26
)
1/3
2.0042150000
_
+ 0.41415 0.5703,
and so
R
y,K,,2r
0

0.07455
4.16624
0.5703 +
_
1
0.07455
4.16624
_
0.55394 0.55424.
Using
(r) = e

log log r +
2.50637
log log r
5.42506,
we see from (4.40) that
L
r
0
= 5.42506
_
log 2
7
4
150000
13
4
+
80
9
_
+ log 2
16
9
150000
80
9
+
111
5
394.316.
110 H. A. HELFGOTT
Going back to (4.46), we sum up and obtain that
g(r
0
) =
(0.55424 log 300000 + 0.5)

5.42506 + 2.5

2 150000
+
394.316
150000
+ 3.2
_
log y
y
_
1/6
0.039182.
Using again the bound x 4.9 10
29
from (8.12), we obtain
log(150000 + 1) + 1.698
log
_
x/16
S (

E)
2

13.6164
1
2
log x log 4
(0.64022xlog x 0.0211x) 8.673x
13.6164 1.33393x 8.673x 9.49046x.
Therefore,
(8.31)
g(r
0
)
_
log(150000 + 1) + 1.698
log
_
x/16
S (

E)
2
_
0.039182 9.49046x
0.37186x.
This is one of the main terms.
Let r
1
= (2/3)y
0.55/2
, where, as usual, y = x/ and = 49. Then
(8.32)
R
y,2r
1
= 0.27125 log
_
_
_1 +
log
_
8
2
3
y
0.55
2
_
2 log
9y
1/3
2.0042
2
3
y
0.55
2
_
_
_+ 0.41415
= 0.27125 log
_
1 +
0.55
2
log y + log
16
3
7
60
log y + 2 log
27/8
1.002
_
+ 0.41415
0.27125 log
_
1 +
33
14
_
+ 0.41415 0.74266.
Similarly, for K = log y (as usual),
(8.33)
R
y/K,2r
1
= 0.27125 log
_
_
_1 +
log
_
8
2
3
y
0.55
2
_
2 log
9(y/K)
1/3
2.0042
2
3
y
0.55
2
_
_
_+ 0.41415
= 0.27125 log
_
1 +
0.55
2
log y + log
16
3
7
60
log y
2
3
log log y + 2 log
27/8
1.002
_
+ 0.41415.
Let
f(t) =
0.55
2
t + log
16
3
7
60
t
2
3
log t + 2 log
27/8
1.002
=
33
14
+
2
3
log t c
7
60
t
2
3
log t + 2 log
27/8
1.002
,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 111
where c = (33/14) log((27/8)/1.002) log 16/3. Then
f

(t) =
2
3t
_
7
60
t
2
3
log t + 2 log
27/8
1.002
_

_
2
3
log t c
_ _
7
60

2
3t
_
_
7
60
t
2
3
log t + 2 log
27/8
1.002
_
2
=
7
90
log t
7
60
(c + 2/3) +
_
c 2 log
27/8
1.002
_
2
3t
_
7
60
t
2
3
log t + 2 log
27/8
1.002
_
2
.
Hence f

(t) < 0 for t 25. It follows that R


y/K,2r
1
(with K = log y and r
1
varying with y) is decreasing on y for y e
25
, and thus, of course, for y 10
28
.
We thus obtain from (8.33) that
(8.34) R
y/K,2r
1
R
10
28
log 10
28
,2r
1
0.76994.
By (8.28), we conclude that
R
y,K,,2r
1

0.07455
4.16624
0.76994 +
_
1
0.07455
4.16624
_
0.74266 0.74315.
Since r
1
= (2/3)y
0.55/2
and (r) is increasing for r 27, we know that
(8.35)
(r
1
) (y
0.55/2
) = e

log log y
0.55/2
+
2.50637
log log y
0.55/2
= e

log log y +
2.50637
log log y log
2
0.55
e

log
2
0.55
e

log log y 1.42763


for y 10
28
. Hence, (4.40) gives us that
L
r
1
(e

log log y 1.42763)


_
log
2
5
3
13
4
y
13
6
+
80
9
_
+ log
2
32
3
3
16
9
y
44
9
+
111
5
3.859 log y log log y + 1.7957 log y + 15.65 log log y + 15.1
(4.29002 log y + 19.28) log log y.
Moreover,
_
(r
1
) =
_
e

log log y 1.42763


_
e

log log y
1.42763
2

log log y
and so
(0.74315 log
4
3
y
11
40
+ 0.5)
_
(r
1
)
(0.2044 log y + 0.7138)
_
e

log log y
1.42763 (0.2044 log y + 0.7138)
2

log log y
(0.2728 log y + 0.9527)
_
log log y 3.64.
112 H. A. HELFGOTT
Therefore, by (4.46),
g
y,
(r
1
)
(0.2728 log y + 0.9527)

log log y 1.14


_
4
3
y
11
40
+
(4.29002 log y + 19.28) log log y
2
3
y
11
40
+
3.2(log y)
1/6
y
1/6

0.251 log y

log log y
y
11
80
.
By (8.24) and y = x/ = x/49, we conclude that
(8.36)
0.45g(r
1
)S 0.45
0.251 log y

log log y
y
11
80
(0.64022 log x 0.0211)x

0.11295 log y

log log y
y
11
80
(0.64022 log y + 2.471)x 0.09186x.
It remains only to bound
2S
log
x
16
_
r
1
r
0
g(r)
r
dr
in the expression (7.45) for M. We will use the bound on the integral given
in (7.61). The easiest term to bound there is f
1
(r
0
), dened in (7.62), since it
depends only on r
0
: for r
0
= 150000,
f
1
(r
0
) = 0.0161322 . . . .
It is also not hard to bound f
2
(r
0
, x), also dened in (7.62):
f
2
(r
0
, y) = 3.2
(log y)
1/6
y
1/6
log
2
3
x
11
40
r
0
3.2
(log y)
1/6
y
1/6
_
11
40
log y + 0.6648 log r
0
_
,
and so, since r
0
= 150000 and y 10
28
,
f
2
(r
0
, y) 0.000895.
Let us now look at the terms I
1,r
, c

in (7.63). We already saw in (8.27) that


c

=
C
,2
/[[
1
log K

0.07455
log log y
0.0179.
Since F(t) = e

log t +c

with c

= 1.025742,
(8.37) I
1,r
0
= F(log r
0
) +
2e

log r
0
= 5.42938 . . .
It thus remains only to estimate I
0,r
0
,r
1
,z
for z = y and z = y/K, where K = log y.
We already know that
R
y,2r
0
0.55394, R
y/K,2r
0
0.5703,
R
y,2r
1
0.74266, R
y/K,2r
1
0.76994
by (8.29), (8.30), (8.32) and (8.34). We also have the trivial bound R
z,t
0.41415
valid for any z and t for which R
z,t
is dened.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 113
Omitting negative terms from (7.63), we easily get the following bound, crude
but useful enough:
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,z
R
2
z,2r
0

P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0
+
R
2
z,2r
1
0.41415
2
log
r
1
r
0
P

2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0
,
where P
2
(t) = t
2
+4t +8 and P

2
(t) = 2t
2
+16t +48. For z = y and r
0
= 150000,
this gives
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,y
0.55394
2

P
2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0
+
0.74266
2
0.41415
2
log
2y
0.55
2
3r
0

2
(log 2r
0
)

r
0
0.17232 +
0.55722
11
40
log y log 225000
;
for z = y/K, we proceed in the same way, and obtain
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,y/K
0.18265 +
0.61773
11
40
log y log 225000
.
This gives us
(8.38)
(1 c

)
_
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,y
+c

_
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,
y
log y
0.9821

0.17232 +
0.55722
11
40
log y log 225000
+ 0.0179

0.18265 +
0.61773
11
40
log y log 225000
.
In particular, since y 10
28
,
(1 c

)
_
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,y
+c

_
I
0,r
0
,r
1
,
y
log y
0.52514.
Therefore,
f
0
(r
0
, y) 0.52514

r
0
5.42939 0.087932.
By (7.61), we conclude that
_
r
1
r
0
g(r)
r
dr 0.087932 + 0.061323 + 0.000895 0.15015.
By (8.24) and x 4.9 10
29
,
2S
log
x
16

2(0.64022xlog x 0.0211x)
log x log 16
1.33393x.
Hence
(8.39)
2S
log
x
16
_
r
1
r
0
g(r)
r
dr 0.20029x.
Putting (8.31), (8.36) and (8.39), we conclude that the quantity M dened in
(7.45) is bounded by
(8.40) M 0.37186x + 0.09186x + 0.20029x 0.66401x.
114 H. A. HELFGOTT
Gathering the terms from (8.23), (8.26) and (8.40), we see that Theorem 7.10
states that the minor-arc total
Z
r
0
=
_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

(, x)[[S

+
(, x)[
2
d
is bounded by
(8.41)
Z
r
0

__
[[
1
x

(M +T) +
_
S

(0, x) E
_
2

_
_
[[
1
(0.6022 + 3.638 10
5
)
x

5.84 10
14
x

_
2
0.83226
x
2

for r
0
= 150000, x 4.9 10
29
, where we use yet again the fact that [[
1
=
_
/2.
This is our total minor-arc bound.
8.4. Conclusion: proof of main theorem. As we have known from the start,
(8.42)

n
1
+n
2
+n
3
=N
(n
1
)(n
2
)(n
3
)
+
(n
1
)
+
(n
2
)

(n
3
)
=
_
R/Z
S

+
(, x)
2
S

(, x)e(N)d.
We have just shown that, assuming N 10
30
, N odd,
_
R/Z
S

+
(, x)
2
S

(, x)e(N)d
=
_
M
8,r
0
S

+
(, x)
2
S

(, x)e(N)d
+O

_
_
(R/Z)\M
8,r
0
[S

+
(, x)[
2
[S

(, x)[d
_
1.05856
x
2

+O

_
0.83226
x
2

_
0.2263
x
2

for r
0
= 150000, where x = N/(2+1/(36

2)), as in (8.11). (We are using (8.21)


and (8.41).) Recall that = 49 and

(t) = (
2

M
)(t), where (t) = t
2
e
t
2
/2
.
It only remains to show that the contribution of terms with n
1
, n
2
or n
3
non-
prime to the sum in (8.42) is negligible. (Let us take out n
1
, n
2
, n
3
equal to 2 as
well, since some prefer to state the ternary Goldbach conjecture as follows: every
odd number 9 is the sum of three odd primes.) Clearly
(8.43)

n
1
+n
2
+n
3
=N
n
1
, n
2
or n
3
even or non-prime
(n
1
)(n
2
)(n
3
)
+
(n
1
)
+
(n
2
)

(n
3
)
3[
+
[
2

n
1
+n
2
+n
3
=N
n
1
even or non-prime
(n
1
)(n
2
)(n
3
)
3[
+
[
2

(log N)

n
1
N non-prime
or n
1
= 2
(n
1
)

n
2
N
(n
2
).
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 115
By (8.1) and (8.15), [
+
[

1.0858 and [

1.414. By [RS62, Thms. 12


and 13],

n
1
N non-prime
or n
1
= 2
(n
1
) < 1.4262

N,

n
2
N non-prime
or n
2
= 2
(n
2
) = 1.03883 1.4262N 1.48158N.
Hence, the sum on the rst line of (8.43) is at most
10.568N
3/2
log N.
Thus, for N 10
30
odd,

n
1
+n
2
+n
3
=N
n
1
, n
2
, n
3
odd primes
(n
1
)(n
2
)(n
3
)
+
(n
1
)
+
(n
2
)

(n
3
)
0.2263
x
2

1.0568N
3/2
log N
0.001141N
2
8 10
14
N
2
0.00114N
2
by = 49 and (8.11). Since 0.00114N
2
> 0, this shows that every odd number
N 10
30
can be written as the sum of three odd primes.
Since the ternary Goldbach conjecture has already been checked for all N
10
30
[HP], we conclude that every odd number N > 7 can be written as the
sum of three odd primes, and every odd number N > 5 can be written as the
sum of three primes. The main theorem is hereby proven: the ternary Goldbach
conjecture is true.
Appendix A. Sums over primes
Here we treat some sums of the type

n
(n)(n), where has compact
support. Since the sums are over all integers (not just an arithmetic progression)
and there is no phase e(n) involved, the treatment is relatively straightforward.
The following is standard.
Lemma A.1 (Explicit formula). Let : [1, ) C be continuous and piecewise
C
1
with

L
1
; let it also be of compact support contained in [1, ). Then
(A.1)

n
(n)(n) =
_

1
_
1
1
x(x
2
1)
_
(x)dx

(M)(),
where runs over the non-trivial zeros of (s).
The non-trivial zeros of (s) are, of course, those in the critical strip 0 <
(s) < 1.
Remark. Lemma A.1 appears as exercise 5 in [IK04, 5.5]; the condition there
that be smooth can be relaxed, since already the weaker assumption that

be in L
1
implies that the Mellin transform (M)(+it) decays quadratically on t
as t , thereby guaranteeing that the sum

(M)() converges absolutely.


Lemma A.2. Let x 10. Let
2
be as in (4.33). Assume that all non-trivial
zeros of (s) with [(s)[ T
0
lie on the critical line.
116 H. A. HELFGOTT
Then
(A.2)

n
(n)
2
_
n
x
_
= x +O

_
0.135x
1/2
+
9.7
x
2
_
+
log
eT
0
2
T
0
_
9/4
2
+
6.03
T
0
_
x.
In particular, with T
0
= 3.061 10
10
in the assumption, we have, for x 2000,

n
(n)
2
_
n
x
_
= (1 +O

())x +O

(0.135x
1/2
),
where = 2.73 10
10
.
The assumption that all non-trivial zeros up to T
0
= 3.061 10
10
lie on the
critical line was proven rigorously in [Plaa]; higher values of T
0
have been reached
elsewhere ([Wed03], [GD04]).
Proof. By Lemma A.1,

n
(n)
2
_
n
x
_
=
_

1

2
_
t
x
_
dt
_

1

2
(t/x)
t(t
2
1)
dt

(M)(),
where (u) =
2
(u/x) and runs over all non-trivial zeros of (s). Since
2
is
non-negative,
_

1

2
(t/x)dt = x[
2
[
1
= x, while
_

1

2
(t/x)
t(t
2
1)
dt = O

_
_
1
1/4

2
(t)
tx
2
(t
2
1/100)
dt
_
= O

_
9.61114
x
2
_
.
By (2.6),

(M)() =

M
2
()x

_
1 2

_
2
x

= S
1
(x)2S
1
(x/2)+S
1
(x/4),
where
(A.3) S
m
(x) =

m+1
.
Setting aside the contribution of all with [()[ T
0
and all with [()[ > T
0
and (s) 1/2, and using the symmetry provided by the functional equation,
we obtain
[S
m
(x)[ x
1/2

1
[[
m+1
+x

|()|>T
0
|()|>1/2
1
[[
m+1
x
1/2

1
[[
m+1
+
x
2

|()|>T
0
1
[[
m+1
.
We bound the rst sum by [Ros41, Lemma 17] and the second sum by [RS03,
Lemma 2]. We obtain
(A.4) [S
m
(x)[
_
1
2mT
m
0
+
2.68
T
m+1
0
_
xlog
eT
0
2
+
m
x
1/2
,
where
1
= 0.0463,
2
= 0.00167 and
3
= 0.0000744.
Hence

(M)() x

_
1
2T
0
+
2.68
T
2
0
_
9x
4
log
eT
0
2
+
_
3
2
+

2
_

1
x
1/2
.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 117
For T
0
= 3.061 10
10
and x 2000, we obtain

n
(n)
2
_
n
x
_
= (1 +O

())x +O

(0.135x
1/2
),
where = 2.73 10
10
.
Corollary A.3. Let
2
be as in (4.33). Assume that all non-trivial zeros of (s)
with [(s)[ T
0
, T
0
= 3.061 10
10
, lie on the critical line. Then, for all x 1,
(A.5)

n
(n)
2
_
n
x
_
min
_
(1 +)x + 0.2x
1/2
, 1.04488x
_
,
where = 2.73 10
10
.
Proof. Immediate from Lemma A.2 for x 2000. For x < 2000, we use computa-
tion as follows. Since [

2
[

= 16 and

x/4nx
(n) x for all x 0, computing

nx
(n)
2
(n/x) only for x (1/1000)Z [0, 2000] results in an inaccuracy of
at most (16 0.0005/0.9995)x 0.00801x. This resolves the matter at all points
outside (205, 207) (for the rst estimate) or outside (9.5, 10.5) and (13.5, 14.5)
(for the second estimate). In those intervals, the prime powers n involved do not
change (since whether x/4 < n x depends only on n and [x]), and thus we can
nd the maximum of the sum in (A.5) just by taking derivatives.
Appendix B. Sums involving (q)
We need estimates for several sums involving (q) in the denominator.
The easiest are convergent sums, such as

q

2
(q)/((q)q). We can express
this as

p
(1 +1/(p(p 1))). This is a convergent product, and the main task is
to bound a tail: for r an integer,
(B.1) log

p>r
_
1 +
1
p(p 1)
_

p>r
1
p(p 1)

n>r
1
n(n 1)
=
1
r
.
A quick computation
12
now suces to give
(B.2) 2.591461

q
gcd(q, 2)
2
(q)
(q)q
< 2.591463
and so
(B.3) 1.295730

q odd

2
(q)
(q)q
< 1.295732,
since the expression bounded in (B.3) is exactly half of that bounded in (B.2).
Again using (B.1), we get that
(B.4) 2.826419

2
(q)
(q)
2
< 2.826421.
In what follows, we will use values for convergent sums obtained in much the
same way an easy tail bound followed by a computation.
12
Using D. Platts integer arithmetic package.
118 H. A. HELFGOTT
By [Ram95, Lemma 3.4],
(B.5)

qr

2
(q)
(q)
= log r +c
E
+O

(7.284r
1/3
),

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
=
1
2
_
log r +c
E
+
log 2
2
_
+O

(4.899r
1/3
),
where
c
E
= +

p
log p
p(p 1)
= 1.332582275 +O

(10
9
/3)
by [RS62, (2.11)]. As we already said in (7.15), this, supplemented by a compu-
tation for r 4 10
7
, gives
log r + 1.312

qr

2
(q)
(q)
log r + 1.354
for r 182. In the same way, we get that
(B.6)
1
2
log r + 0.83

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)

1
2
log r + 0.85.
for r 195. (The numerical verication here goes up to 1.3810
8
; for r > 3.1810
8
,
use B.6.)
Clearly
(B.7)

q2r
q even

2
(q)
(q)
=

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
.
We wish to obtain bounds for the sums

qr

2
(q)
(q)
2
,

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
2
,

qr
q even

2
(q)
(q)
2
,
where N Z
+
and r 1. To do this, it will be helpful to express some of the
quantities within these sums as convolutions.
13
For q squarefree and j 1,
(B.8)

2
(q)q
j1
(q)
j
=

ab=q
f
j
(b)
a
,
where f
j
is the multiplicative function dened by
f
j
(p) =
p
j
(p 1)
j
(p 1)
j
p
, f
j
(p
k
) = 0 for k 2.
We will also nd the following estimate useful.
Lemma B.1. Let j 2 be an integer and A a positive real. Let m 1 be an
integer. Then
(B.9)

aA
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j

(j)/(2j)
A
j1

p|m
_
1 +
1
p
j
_
1
.
13
The author would like to thank O. Ramare for teaching him this technique.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 119
It is useful to note that (2)/(4) = 15/
2
= 1.519817 . . . and (3)/(6) =
1.181564 . . . .
Proof. The right side of (B.9) decreases as A increases, while the left side depends
only on A. Hence, it is enough to prove (B.9) when A is an integer.
For A = 1, (B.9) is an equality. Let
C =
(j)
(2j)

p|m
_
1 +
1
p
j
_
1
.
Let A 2. Since

aA
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j
= C

a<A
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j
and
C =

a
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j
<

a<A
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j
+
1
A
j
+
_

A
1
t
j
dt
=

a<A
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j
+
1
A
j
+
1
(j 1)A
j1
,
we obtain

aA
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j
=
1
A
j1
C +
A
j1
1
A
j1
C

a<A
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j
<
C
A
j1
+
A
j1
1
A
j1

_
1
A
j
+
1
(j 1)A
j1
_

1
A
j1

a<A
(a,m)=1

2
(a)
a
j

C
A
j1
+
1
A
j1
__
1
1
A
j1
__
1
A
+
1
j 1
_
1
_
.
Since (1 1/A)(1/A + 1) < 1 and 1/A + 1/(j 1) 1 for j 3, we obtain that
_
1
1
A
j1
__
1
A
+
1
j 1
_
< 1
for all integers j 2, and so the statement follows.
We now obtain easily the estimates we want: by (B.8) and Lemma B.1 (with
j = 2 and m = 1),
(B.10)

qr

2
(q)
(q)
2
=

qr

ab=q
f
2
(b)
a

2
(q)
q

b1
f
2
(b)
b

ar/b

2
(a)
a
2

(2)/(4)
r

b1
f
2
(b) =
15

2
r

p
_
1 +
2p 1
(p 1)
2
p
_

6.7345
r
.
120 H. A. HELFGOTT
Similarly, by (B.8) and Lemma B.1 (with j = 2 and m = 2),
(B.11)

qr
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
2
=

b1
b odd
f
2
(b)
b

ar/b
a odd

2
(a)
a
2

(2)/(4)
1 + 1/2
2
1
r

b odd
f
2
(b)
=
12

2
1
r

p>2
_
1 +
2p 1
(p 1)
2
p
_

2.15502
r
(B.12)

qr
q even

2
(q)
(q)
2
=

qr/2
q odd

2
(q)
(q)
2

4.31004
r
.
Lastly,
(B.13)

qr
q odd

2
(q)q
(q)
=

qr
q odd

2
(q)

d|q
1
(d)
=

dr
d odd
1
(d)

qr
d|q
q odd

2
(q)

dr
d odd
1
2(d)
_
r
d
+ 1
_

r
2

d odd
1
(d)d
+
1
2

dr
d odd
1
(d)
0.64787r +
log r
4
+ 0.425,
where we are using (B.3) and (B.6).
Appendix C. Validated numerics
C.1. Integrals of a smoothing function. Let
(C.1) h : t
_
x
3
(2 x)
3
e
x1/2
if t [0, 2],
0 otherwise
Clearly, h(0) = h

(0) = h

(0) = h(2) = h

(2) = h

(2) = 0, and h(x), h

(x) and
h

(x) are all continuous. We are interested in computing


C
k
=
_

0
[h
(k)
(x)[x
k1
dx
for 0 k 4. (If k = 4, the integral is to be understood in the sense of
distributions.)
Rigorous numerical integration
14
gives that
(C.2) 1.6222831573801406 C
0
1.6222831573801515.
We will compute C
k
, 1 k 4, in a somewhat dierent way.
15
The function (x
3
(2 x)
3
e
x1/2
)

= ((x
3
(2 x)
3
)

+x
3
(2 x)
3
)e
x1/2
has the
same zeros as H
1
(x) = (x
3
(2 x)
3
)

+ x
3
(2 x)
3
, namely, 0, 2,

10 2 and
(

10 + 2); only the rst three of these four roots lie in the interval [0, 2].
14
By VNODE-LP [Ned06], running on PROFIL/BIAS [Kn u99].
15
It does not seem possible to use [Ned06] directly on an integrand involving the abs function,
due to the fact that it is not dierentiable at the origin.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 121
The sign of H
1
(x) (and hence of h

(x)) is + within (0,

10 2) and within
(

10 2, 2). Hence
(C.3)
C
1
=
_

0
[h

(x)[dx = [h(

10 2) h(0)[ + [h(2) h(

10 2)[
= 2h(

10 2) = 3.58000383169 +O

_
10
12
_
.
The situation with (x
3
(2 x)
3
e
x1/2
)

is similar: it has zeros at the roots of


H
2
(x) = 0, where H
2
(x) = H
1
(x) +H

1
(x) (and, in general, H
k+1
(x) = H
k
(x) +
H

k
(x)). The roots within [0, 2] are 0,

31,

213 and 2. Write


2,1
=

31,

2,2
=

21 3. The sign of H
2
(x) (and hence of h

(x)) is rst +, then , then


+. Hence
(C.4)
C
2
=
_

0
[h

(x)[xdx =
_

2,1
0
h

(x)xdx
_

2,2

2,1
h

(x)xdx +
_
2

2,2
h

(x)xdx
= h

(x)x[

2,1
0

_

2,1
0
h

(x)dx
_
h

(x)x[

2,2

2,1

_

2,2

2,1
h

(x)dx
_
+h

(x)x[
2

2,2

_
2

2,2
h

(x)dx
= 2h

(
2,1
)
2,1
2h(
2,1
) 2h

(
2,2
)
2,2
+ 2h(
2,2
)
= 15.27956091266 +O

_
10
11
_
.
To compute C
3
, we proceed in the same way, except now we must nd the roots
numerically. It is enough to nd (candidates for) the roots using any available
tool
16
and then check rigorously that the sign does change around the purported
roots. In this way, we check that the roots
3,1
,
3,2
,
3,3
of H
3
(x) = 0 lie within
the intervals
[0.366931547524632, 0.366931547524633],
[1.233580882085861, 1.233580882085862],
[1.847147885393624, 1.847147885393625],
respectively. The sign of H
3
(x) on the interval [0, 2] is rst +, then , then +,
then . Proceeding as before, we obtain that
(C.5)
C
3
=
_

0
[h

(x)[x
2
dx
= 2
3

j=1
(1)
j+1
(h

(
3,j
)
2
3,j
2h

(
3,j
)
3,j
+ 2h(
3,j
))
and so interval arithmetic gives us
(C.6) C
3
= 131.3398196149 +O

_
10
10
_
.
The treatment of the integral in C
4
is very similar, at least as rst. The roots

4,1
,
4,2
of H
4
(x) = 0 lie within the intervals
[0.866114027542349, 0.86611402754235],
[1.640243631518005, 1.640243631518006].
16
Routine find root in SAGE was used here.
122 H. A. HELFGOTT
The sign of H
4
(x) on the interval [0, 2] is rst , then +, then . Using integration
by parts as before, we obtain
_
2

h
(4)
(x)

x
3
dx = lim
x0
+
h
(3)
(x)x
3
lim
x2

h
(3)
(x)x
3
+ 2
2

j=1
(1)
j
_
h
(3)
(
4,j
)
3
4,j
3h

(
4,j
)
2
4,j
+ 6h

(
4,j
)
4,j
6h(
4,j
)
_
= 2199.91310061863 +O
_
3 10
11
_
.
Now
_

2

[h
(4)
(x)x
3
[dx = lim
0
+
[h
(3)
(2 +) h
(3)
(2 )[ 2
3
= 48 e
3/2
2
3
.
Hence
(C.7) C
4,
= 48 e
3/2
2
3
= 3920.8817036284 +O
_
10
10
_
.
C.2. Extrema via bisection and truncated series. Let f : I R, I R.
We wish to nd the minima and maxima of f in I rigorously.
The bisection method (as described in, e.g., [Tuc11, 5.2]) can be used to show
that the minimum (or maximum) of f on a compact interval I lies within an
interval (usually a very small one). We will need to complement it by other
arguments if either (a) I is not compact, or (b) we want to know the minimum
or maximum exactly.
As in 5.3, let j() = (1 +
2
)
1/2
and () =
_
(1 +j())/2 for 0. Let ,
cos
0
, sin
0
, c
0
and c
1
be understood as one-variable real-valued functions on ,
given by (3.13), (5.25) and (5.31).
First, let us bound () from below. By the bisection method
17
applied with
32 iterations,
0.798375987 min
010
() 0.798375989.
Since j() and ()
_
j()/2
_
/2,
0

2()(() +j())

2
3/2
=
1

2
,
and so
(C.8) () 1

2()(() +j())
1
1

2
.
Hence () 0.8418 for 20. We conclude that
(C.9) 0.798375987 min
0
() 0.798375989.
Now let us bound c
0
() from below. For 8,
sin
0
=
_
1
2

1
2

1
2

1

2

1
2
,
whereas cos
0
1/

2 for all 0. Hence, by (C.9)


(C.10) c
0
()
0.7983

2
+
1
2
> 1.06
17
Implemented by the author from the description in [Tuc11, p. 8788], using D. Platts
interval arithmetic package.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 123
for 8. The bisection method applied with 28 iterations gives us that
(C.11) max
0.018
c
0
() 1 + 5 10
8
> 1.
It remains to study c
0
() for [0, 0.01]. The method we are about to give
actually works for all [0, 1].
Since
_
1 +x
_

=
1
2

1 +x
,
_
1 +x
_

=
1
4(1 +x)
3/2
,
_
1

1 +x
_

=
1
2(1 +x)
3/2
,
_
1

1 +x
_

=
_
1/2
(1 +x)
3/2
_

=
3/4
(1 +x)
5/2
,
a truncated Taylor expansion gives us that, for x 0,
(C.12)
1 +
1
2
x
1
8
x
2

1 +x 1 +
1
2
x
1
1
2
x
1

1 +x
1
1
2
x +
3
8
x
2
.
Hence, for 0,
(C.13)
1 +
2
/2
4
/8 j() 1 +
2
/2,
1 +
2
/8 5
4
/128 +
6
/256
8
/2048 () 1 +
2
/8,
and so
(C.14) () 1 +
2
/8 5
4
/128
for 8. We also get from (C.12) that
(C.15)
1
()
=
1
_
1 +
j()1
2
1
1
2
j() 1
2
+
3
8
_
j() 1
2
_
2
1
1
2
_

2
4


4
16
_
+
3
8

4
16
1

2
8
+
7
4
128
,
1
()
=
1
_
1 +
j()1
2
1
1
2
j() 1
2
1

2
8
.
Hence
(C.16)
sin
0
=

1
2

1
2()

_

2
16

7
4
256
=

4
_
1
7
16

2
,
sin
0

_

2
16
=

4
,
while
(C.17) cos
0
=

1
2
+
1
2()

_
1

2
16
, cos
0

_
1

2
16
+
7
4
256
,
By (C.13) and (C.15),
(C.18)

2( +j)


2
1
2
/8
2 + 5
2
/8


2
_
1
2

3
2
32
_
=

4

3
3
64
.
124 H. A. HELFGOTT
Assuming 0 1,
1
1 +
5
2
16

9
4
64

_
1
5
2
16
+
9
4
64
+
_
5
2
16

9
4
64
_
2
_
1
5
2
16
+
61
4
256
,
and so, by (C.14) and (C.15),

2( +j)


2
1

2
8
+
7
4
128
2 +
5
2
8

21
4
128


4
_
1

2
8
+
7
4
128
__
1
5
2
16
+
46
4
256
_


4
_
1
7
2
16
+
35
128

81
2048

6
+
161
2
14

8
_


4

7
3
64
+
35
5
512
.
Hence, we obtain
(C.19)
() =

1 +
_

2( +j)
_
2


2( +j)
1 +
1
2
_

4

3
3
64
_
2

1
8
_

2
16
_
2

4

7
3
64
+
35
5
512
_
1

4
+

2
32
+
7
3
64

_
3
256
+
1
2048
_

35
5
512
+
9
6
2
13
1

4
+

2
32
+
7
3
64

165
4
2048
,
where, in the last line, we use again the assumption 1.
For x [1/4, 0],

1 +x 1 +
1
2
x
x
2
2
1
4(1 1/4)
3/2
= 1 +
x
2

x
2
3
3/2

1 +x 1 +
1
2
x
x
2
8
1 +
1
2
x.
Hence
(C.20)
1

2
32


4
3
3/2
256
cos
0

_
1

2
16
+
7
4
256
1

2
32
+
7
4
512

4
_
1
7
32

49
3
3/2
256

4
_
sin
0


4
for 1. Therefore,
c
0
() = () cos
0
+ sin
0

_
1

4
+

2
32
+
7
3
64

165
2048

4
__
1

2
32


4
3
3/2
256
_
+

4

7
128

49
3
3/2
1024

5
1 +

3
16

__

3
2304
+
167
2048
_
+
_
7
2048
+

3
192
_
+
7

3
147456

3
_

4
1 +

3
16
0.0949
4
,
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 125
where we are again using 1. We conclude that, for all (0, 1/2],
c
0
() > 1.
Together with (C.10) and (C.11), this shows that
(C.21) c
0
() > 1 > 0.
It is easy to check that c
0
(0) = 1.
(The truncated-Taylor series estimates above could themselves have been done
automatically; see [Tuc11, Ch. 4] (automatic dierentiation). The footnote in
[Tuc11, p. 72] (referring to the work of Berz and Makino [BM98] on Taylor
models) seems particularly relevant here. We have preferred to do matters by
hand in the above.)
Now let us examine (), given as in (5.43). Let us rst focus on the case of
large. We can use the lower bound (C.8) on (). To obtain a good upper
bound on (), we need to get truncated series expansions on 1/ for and j.
These are:
(C.22)
j() =
_

2
+ 1 =
_
1 +
1

2

_
1 +
1
2
2
_
= +
1
2
,
() =
_
1 +j
2

_

2
+
1
2
+
1
4
=
_

2
_
1 +
1

+
1
2
2

_

2
_
1 +
1

2
_
,
together with the trivial bounds j() and ()
_
j()/2
_
/2. By
(C.22),
(C.23)
1

2
_
1 +
1

2
_
2

2
=
_
1 +
_
2

2
_
_
1 +
1

2
_
2

_
2

_
_
1 +
_
2

_
=
2

_
1 +
_
2

_
1
2

+
_

+
1
2
2
__
1 +
_
2

_
2

3/2
for 15, and so
(C.24)
j

2 +
_
8

for 15. In fact, the bisection method (applied with 20 iterations, including 10
initial iterations after which the possibility of nding a minimum within each
interval is tested) shows that (C.23) (and hence (C.24)) holds for all 1. By
(C.22),
(C.25)

2( +j)

2
_
1 +
1

2
___

2
_
1 +
1

2
_
+ +
1
2
_

2

1
1 +
1

2
+
1

2

1
2

1

2
3/2
for 16. (Again, (C.25) is also true for 1 16 by the bisection method; it
is trivially true for [0, 1], since the last term of (C.25) is then negative.) We
126 H. A. HELFGOTT
also have the easy upper bound
(C.26)

2( +j)


2
_

2
(
_

2
+)
=
1

2 + 1

1

2

1
2
+
1
(2)
3/2
valid for 1/2.
Hence, by (C.12), (C.25) and (C.26),
=

1 +
_

2( +j)
_
2


2( +j)
1 +
1
2
_
1

2

1
2
_
2

2
+
1
2
+
1

2
3/2
1
1

2
+
1

for 3. Again, we use the bisection method (with 20 iterations) on [1/2, 3],
and note that 1/

2 < 1/ for < 1/2; we thus obtain


(C.27) 1
1

2
+
1

for all > 0.


We recall (5.43) and the lower bounds (C.24) and (C.8). We get
(C.28)

1

2 +
_
8

_
1 +
_
1
1

2
_
2
_

1
2
_
1
1

2
+
1

_
2
+
1
2

1

2


+ 1

_
1
1

2
+
1

_
1 +
1

2

1
4
_
_
2

+
1
2
_

1
2
_
1
2

2
+
5
2
_
+
1
2

1

2

_
1
1
+
2
_
_
1
1

2
+
1

_
1 +
1

2

9
4

1
8
2
+
1

2
5/2

1

3
1 +
1

2

37
16
for 2. This implies that () > 1 for 11. (Since our estimates always
give an error of at most O(1/

), we also get lim

() = 1.) The bisection


method (with 20 iterations, including 6 initial iterations) gives that () > 1 also
holds for 1 11.
Let us now look at what happens for 1. From (C.19), we get the simpler
bound
(C.29) 1

4
+

2
32
+
3
3
32
1

4
valid for 1, implying that

2
1

2
+

2
8
+
11
3
64

23
4
1024
for 1. We also have, by (5.23) and (C.18),
(C.30)
1 +
1
2
_

2( +j)
_
2


2( +j)
1 +
1
2
_

4
_
2

4

3
3
64
_
1

4
+

2
32
+
3
3
64
1

4
+
5
2
64
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 127
for 1. (This immediately implies the easy bound 1, which follows
anyhow from (5.22) for all 0.)
By (C.13),
j


1 +
2
/2
4
/8
_
1 +

2
8
_
2

_
1 +

2
8
_

1 +
2
/2
4
/8

2
8
+

4
64

2
for 1. Therefore, by (5.43),

1

2
_
8

2
_
2

2
+

2
8
+
11
3
64

3
4
128
_

1
2
_
1

4
+
5
2
64
_
2
+
1
2

1
2


2

1 +

4
+
11
2
32

3
3
64

1
2
_
1

2
+
7
2
32
_


2

4


3
2
+
15
2
64

3
3
64


3
2
for 1. This implies the bound () > 1 for all 1. Conversely, ()
4/ 3/2 follows from () > 1 for > 8/5. We check () 4/ 3/2 for
[1, 8/5] by the bijection method (5 iterations).
We conclude that, for all > 0,
(C.31) max
_
1,
4


3
2
_
.
This bound has the right asymptotics for 0
+
and +.
Let us now bound c
0
from above. By (C.20) and (C.30),
(C.32)
c
0
() = () cos
0
+ sin
0

_
1

4
+
5
2
64
__
1

2
32
+
7
4
512
_
+

4
1 +
3
2
64
+

3
128
+
23
4
2048

7
5
2048
+
35
6
2
15
1 +

2
15
for 1. Since 1 and
0
[0, /4] [0, /2], the bound
(C.33) c
0
() cos
0
+ sin
0

2
holds for all 0. By (C.27), we also know that, for 2,
(C.34)
c
0
()
_
1
1

2
+
1

_
cos
0
+ sin
0

_
1
1

2
+
1

_
2
+ 1

2
_
1
1
2

2
+
9
16
_
.
From (C.31) and (C.33), we obtain that
(C.35)
1

_
1 + 2c
2
0
_
1 (1 + 2 2) = 5
for all 0. At the same time, (C.31) and (C.32) imply that
1

_
1 + 2c
2
0
_

_
4


3
2
_
1
_
3 +
4
2
15
+
2
4
15
2
_
=
3
4
_
1
3
8
_
1
_
1 +
4
2
45
+

4
675
_

3
4
_
1 +

2
_
for 0.4. Hence (1 + 2c
2
0
)/ 0.86 for < 0.29. The bisection method
(20 iterations, starting by splitting the range into 2
8
equal intervals) shows that
128 H. A. HELFGOTT
(1 + 2c
2
0
)/ 0.86 also holds for 0.29 6; for > 6, the same inequality
holds by (C.35).
We have thus shown that
(C.36)
1 + 2c
2
0

min(5, 0.86)
for all > 0.
Now we wish to bound
_
(
2
)/2 from below. By (C.14) and (C.13),
(C.37)

2

_
1 +

2
8

5
4
128
_
2

_
1 +

2
8
_
= 1 +

2
4

5
4
64
+
_
5
2
128

1
8
_
2

_
1 +

2
8
_


2
8

5
4
64
,
for 1, and so
_

2


4
_
1
5
2
8
,
and this is greater than /6 for 1/3. The bisection method (20 iterations, 5
initial steps) conrms that
_
(
2
)/2 > /6 also holds for 2/3 < 4. On
the other hand, by (C.22) and
2
= (1 +j)/2 (1 +)/2,
(C.38)
_

_
+1
2

_

2
_
1 +
1

2
_
2

1 +
1


_
2

_
1 +
1

2
_

1
_
2

+
1
2

2
_
1
_
1
2
_
=

2

1
2
3/2
for 4. We check by the bisection method (20 iterations) that
_
(
2
)/2

/2 1/2
3/2
also holds for all 0 4.
We conclude that
(C.39)
_

2

_
/6 if 4,

2

1
2
3/2
for all .
We still have a few other inequalities to check. Let us rst derive an easy lower
bound on c
1
() for large: by (C.8), (C.23) and (C.12),
c
1
() =
_
1 + 1/


_
1


_
1
1

2
_

3/2

_
1
1

2
_
=
_
2

_
1 +
1

2

1
4
_

_
1
1

2
_

_
2

_
1
3
4
_
for 1. Together with (C.34), this implies that, for 2,
c
0
1/

2c
1

2
_
1
2

1
2

2
+
9
16
_

2
_
2

_
1
3
4
_ =
1

2

1
1

2
+
9
8
2
_
1
3
4
_ ,
again for 1. This is 1/

8 for 8. Hence it is 1/

8 25 < 0.071 for


25.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 129
Let us now look at small. By (C.13),

2

_
1 +

2
8
_
2

_
1 +

2
8

5
4
32
_
=

2
8
+
9
4
32
for any > 0. Hence, by (C.15) and (C.29),
c
1
() =
_
1 + 1/

2
2
/8

2
8
+
9
4
32

_
1

4
_

_
1
5
4

2
_
_
1

4
_
,
whereas, for 1,
c
0
() = () cos
0
+ sin
0
1 + sin
0
1 +/4
by (C.20). Thus
c
0
1/

2c
1

1 +

4

1

2 4
_
1
5
4

2
_ _
1

4
_ 0.0584
for 0.1. We check the remaining interval [0.1, 25] (or [0.1, 8], if we aim at the
bound 1/

8) by the bisection method (with 24 iterations, including 12 initial


iterations or 15 iterations and 10 initial iterations, in the case of [0.1, 8]) and
obtain that
(C.40)
0.0763895 max
0
c
0
1/

2c
1

0.0763896
sup
0
c
0
1/

2
c
1


1
2
.
In the same way, we see that
c
0
c
1

1
1
3
4
0.171
for 36 and
c
0
c
1


1 +

4
4
_
1
5
4

2
_ _
1

4
_ 0.267
for 0.1. The bisection method applied to [0.1, 36] with 24 iterations (including
12 initial iterations) now gives
(C.41) 0.29887 max
>0
c
0
c
1

0.29888.
We would also like a lower bound for c
0
/c
1
. For c
0
, we can use the lower bound
c
0
1 given by (C.21). By (C.15), (C.30) and (C.37),
c
1
() =
_
1 + 1/

2

2
8
+
7
4
128

2
/8 5
4
/64

_
1

4
+
5
2
64
_

_
1 +
5
2
16
__
1

4
+
5
2
64
_
<
4

for 1/4. Thus, c


0
/(c
1
) 1/4 for [0, 1/4]. The bisection method (with 20
iterations, including 10 initial iterations) gives us that c
0
/(c
1
) 1/4 also holds
for [1/4, 6.2]. Hence
c
0
c
1


4
for 6.2.
130 H. A. HELFGOTT
Now consider the case of large . By and 1,
(C.42)
c
0
c
1


1/
_
1+1/

_
(
2
)/
_
1 + 1/

2
1 1/

2
_
1 + 1/
.
(This is o from optimal by a factor of about

2.) For 200, (C.42) implies


that c
0
/(c
1

) 0.6405. The bisection method (with 20 iterations, including


5 initial iterations) gives us c
0
/(c
1

) 5/8 = 0.625 for [6.2, 200]. We


conclude that
(C.43)
c
0
c
1
min
_

4
,
5
8

_
.
Finally, we verify an inequality that will be useful for the estimation of a crucial
exponent in one of the main intermediate results (Prop. 5.1). We wish to show
that, for all [0, /2],
(C.44)
sin 2
4 cos
2

2

sin
2 cos
2


5 sin
3

24 cos
6

The left side is positive for all (0, /2], since cos
2
/2 1/

2 and (sin 2)/2


is less than 2/2 = . The right side is negative for > 1 (since it is negative
for = 1, and (sin )/(cos )
2
is increasing on ). Hence, it is enough to check
(C.44) for [0, 1]. The two sides of (C.44) are equal for = 0; moreover,
the rst four derivatives also match at = 0. We take the fth derivatives of
both sides; the bisection method (running on [0, 1] with 20 iterations, including
10 initial iterations) gives us that the fth derivative of the left side minus the
fth derivative of the right side is always positive on [0, 1] (and minimal at 0,
where it equals 30.5 +O

_
10
9
_
).
References
[AS64] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. Handbook of mathematical functions with formu-
las, graphs, and mathematical tables, volume 55 of National Bureau of Standards
Applied Mathematics Series. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Oce, Washington, D.C., 1964.
[BBO10] J. Bertrand, P. Bertrand, and J.-P. Ovarlez. Mellin transform. In A. D. Poularikas,
editor, Transforms and applications handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2010.
[BM98] M. Berz and K. Makino. Veried integration of ODEs and ows using dieren-
tial algebraic methods on high-order Taylor models. Reliab. Comput., 4(4):361369,
1998.
[Bom74] E. Bombieri. Le grand crible dans la theorie analytique des nombres. Societe
Mathematique de France, Paris, 1974. Avec une sommaire en anglais, Asterisque,
No. 18.
[Boo06] A. R. Booker. Turing and the Riemann hypothesis. Notices Amer. Math. Soc.,
53(10):12081211, 2006.
[Bou99] J. Bourgain. On triples in arithmetic progression. Geom. Funct. Anal., 9(5):968984,
1999.
[CW89] J. R. Chen and T. Z. Wang. On the Goldbach problem. Acta Math. Sinica,
32(5):702718, 1989.
[Dav67] H. Davenport. Multiplicative number theory, volume 1966 of Lectures given at the
University of Michigan, Winter Term. Markham Publishing Co., Chicago, Ill., 1967.
[dB81] N. G. de Bruijn. Asymptotic methods in analysis. Dover Publications Inc., New
York, third edition, 1981.
[Des77] J.-M. Deshouillers. Sur la constante de

Snirel

man. In Seminaire Delange-Pisot-


Poitou, 17e annee: (1975/76), Theorie des nombres: Fac. 2, Exp. No. G16, page 6.
Secretariat Math., Paris, 1977.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 131
[DEtRZ97] J.-M. Deshouillers, G. Enger, H. te Riele, and D. Zinoviev. A complete Vinogradov
3-primes theorem under the Riemann hypothesis. Electron. Res. Announc. Amer.
Math. Soc., 3:99104, 1997.
[Dic66] L. E. Dickson. History of the theory of numbers. Vol. I: Divisibility and primality.
Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1966.
[GD04] X. Gourdon and P. Demichel. The rst 10
13
zeros of the Rie-
mann zeta function, and zeros computation at very large height.
http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneous/zetazeros1e13-1e24.pdf,
2004.
[GR00] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik. Table of integrals, series, and products. Aca-
demic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, sixth edition, 2000. Translated from the Russian,
Translation edited and with a preface by Alan Jerey and Daniel Zwillinger.
[Har66] G. H. Hardy. Collected papers of G. H. Hardy (Including Joint papers with J. E.
Littlewood and others). Vol. I. Edited by a committee appointed by the London
Mathematical Society. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1966.
[HB79] D. R. Heath-Brown. The fourth power moment of the Riemann zeta function. Proc.
London Math. Soc. (3), 38(3):385422, 1979.
[HB85] D. R. Heath-Brown. The ternary Goldbach problem. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana,
1(1):4559, 1985.
[Hel] H. A. Helfgott. Minor arcs for Goldbachs problem. Preprint. Available as
arXiv:1205.5252.
[HL23] G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood. Some problems of Partitio numerorum; III: On
the expression of a number as a sum of primes. Acta Math., 44(1):170, 1923.
[HP] H. A. Helfgott and D. Platt. Numerical verication of ternary Goldbach. Preprint.
[IK04] H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski. Analytic number theory, volume 53 of American Math-
ematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Provi-
dence, RI, 2004.
[Kad05] H. Kadiri. Une region explicite sans zeros pour la fonction de Riemann. Acta
Arith., 117(4):303339, 2005.
[Kn u99] O. Kn uppel. PROFIL/BIAS, February 1999. version 2.
[KP

S72] N. I. Klimov, G. Z. Pil

tja, and T. A.

Septickaja. An estimate of the absolute
constant in the Goldbach-

Snirel

man problem. In Studies in number theory, No. 4


(Russian), pages 3551. Izdat. Saratov. Univ., Saratov, 1972.
[Lam08] B. Lambov. Interval arithmetic using SSE-2. In Reliable Implementation of Real
Number Algorithms: Theory and Practice. International Seminar Dagstuhl Castle,
Germany, January 8-13, 2006, volume 5045 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
pages 102113. Springer, Berlin, 2008.
[Lan12] E. Landau. Geloste und ungeloste Probleme aus der Theorie der Primzahlverteilung
und der Riemannschen Zetafunktion. In Proceedings of the fth Itnernational Con-
gress of Mathematicians, volume 1, pages 93108. Cambridge, 1912.
[Lin41] U. V. Linnik. The large sieve.. C. R. (Doklady) Acad. Sci. URSS (N.S.), 30:292
294, 1941.
[LW02] M.-Ch. Liu and T. Wang. On the Vinogradov bound in the three primes Goldbach
conjecture. Acta Arith., 105(2):133175, 2002.
[McC84] K. S. McCurley. Explicit estimates for the error term in the prime number theorem
for arithmetic progressions. Math. Comp., 42(165):265285, 1984.
[Mon71] H. L. Montgomery. Topics in multiplicative number theory. Lecture Notes in Math-
ematics, Vol. 227. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.
[MV73] H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan. The large sieve. Mathematika, 20:119134,
1973.
[MV07] H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan. Multiplicative number theory. I. Classical
theory, volume 97 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, 2007.
[Ned06] N. S. Nedialkov. Vnode-lp: a validated solver for initial value problems in ordinary
dierential equations, July 2006. version 0.3.
[OeSHP13] T. Oliveira e Silva, S. Herzog, and S. Pardi. Empirical verication of the even
goldbach conjecture, and computation of prime gaps, up to 4 10
18
. Accepted for
publication in Math. Comp., 2013.
132 H. A. HELFGOTT
[OLBC10] F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and Ch. W. Clark, editors. NIST hand-
book of mathematical functions. U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute
of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 2010. With 1 CD-ROM (Windows,
Macintosh and UNIX).
[Olv58] F. W. J. Olver. Uniform asymptotic expansions of solutions of linear second-order
dierential equations for large values of a parameter. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lon-
don. Ser. A, 250:479517, 1958.
[Olv59] F. W. J. Olver. Uniform asymptotic expansions for Weber parabolic cylinder func-
tions of large orders. J. Res. Nat. Bur. Standards Sect. B, 63B:131169, 1959.
[Olv61] F. W. J. Olver. Two inequalities for parabolic cylinder functions. Proc. Cambridge
Philos. Soc., 57:811822, 1961.
[Olv65] F. W. J. Olver. On the asymptotic solution of second-order dierential equations
having an irregular singularity of rank one, with an application to Whittaker func-
tions. J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math. Ser. B Numer. Anal., 2:225243, 1965.
[Olv74] F. W. J. Olver. Asymptotics and special functions. Academic Press [A subsidiary of
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1974. Computer Science
and Applied Mathematics.
[Plaa] D. Platt. Computing (x) analytically. Preprint. Available as arXiv:1203.5712.
[Plab] D. Platt. Numerical computations concerning grh. Preprint.
[Pla11] D. Platt. Computing degree 1 L-functions rigorously. PhD thesis, Bristol University,
2011.
[Ram95] O. Ramare. On

Snirel

mans constant. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4),
22(4):645706, 1995.
[Ram09] O. Ramare. Arithmetical aspects of the large sieve inequality, volume 1 of Harish-
Chandra Research Institute Lecture Notes. Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi,
2009. With the collaboration of D. S. Ramana.
[Ram10] O. Ramare. On Bombieris asymptotic sieve. J. Number Theory, 130(5):11551189,
2010.
[Ric01] J. Richstein. Verifying the Goldbach conjecture up to 4 10
14
. Math. Comp.,
70(236):17451749 (electronic), 2001.
[Ros41] B. Rosser. Explicit bounds for some functions of prime numbers. Amer. J. Math.,
63:211232, 1941.
[RS62] J. B. Rosser and L. Schoenfeld. Approximate formulas for some functions of prime
numbers. Illinois J. Math., 6:6494, 1962.
[RS75] J. B. Rosser and L. Schoenfeld. Sharper bounds for the Chebyshev functions (x)
and (x). Math. Comp., 29:243269, 1975. Collection of articles dedicated to Derrick
Henry Lehmer on the occasion of his seventieth birthday.
[RS03] O. Ramare and Y. Saouter. Short eective intervals containing primes. J. Number
Theory, 98(1):1033, 2003.
[RV83] H. Riesel and R. C. Vaughan. On sums of primes. Ark. Mat., 21(1):4674, 1983.
[Sch33] L. Schnirelmann.

Uber additive Eigenschaften von Zahlen. Math. Ann., 107(1):649
690, 1933.
[Sha] X. Shao. A density version of the Vinogradov three prime theorem. Preprint. Avail-
able as arXiv:1206.6139.
[Tao] T. Tao. Every odd number greater than 1 is the sum of at most ve primes. Preprint.
Available as arXiv:1201.6656.
[Tem10] N. M. Temme. Parabolic cylinder functions. In NIST handbook of mathematical
functions, pages 303319. U.S. Dept. Commerce, Washington, DC, 2010.
[Tru] T. S. Trudgian. An improved upper bound for the error in the zero-counting formulae
for Dirichlet L-functions and Dedekind zeta-functions. Preprint.
[Tuc11] W. Tucker. Validated numerics: A short introduction to rigorous computations.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2011.
[Tur53] A. M. Turing. Some calculations of the Riemann zeta-function. Proc. London Math.
Soc. (3), 3:99117, 1953.
[TV03] N. M. Temme and R. Vidunas. Parabolic cylinder functions: examples of error
bounds for asymptotic expansions. Anal. Appl. (Singap.), 1(3):265288, 2003.
[Vau77] R. C. Vaughan. On the estimation of Schnirelmans constant. J. Reine Angew.
Math., 290:93108, 1977.
MAJOR ARCS FOR GOLDBACHS PROBLEM 133
[Vin37] I. M. Vinogradov. Representation of an odd number as a sum of three primes. Dokl.
Akad. Nauk. SSR, 15:291294, 1937.
[Wed03] S. Wedeniwski. ZetaGrid - Computational verication of the Riemann hypothesis.
Conference in Number Theory in honour of Professor H. C. Williams, Ban, Alberta,
Canada, May 2003.
[Whi03] E. T. Whittaker. On the functions associated with the parabolic cylinder in harmonic
analysis. Proc. London Math. Soc., 35:417427, 1903.
[Wig20] S. Wigert. Sur la theorie de la fonction (s) de Riemann. Ark. Mat., 14:117, 1920.
[Won01] R. Wong. Asymptotic approximations of integrals, volume 34 of Classics in Applied
Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia,
PA, 2001. Corrected reprint of the 1989 original.
Harald Helfgott,

Ecole Normale Superieure, Departement de Mathematiques,
45 rue dUlm, F-75230 Paris, France
E-mail address: harald.helfgott@ens.fr

You might also like