arXiv:0708.2087v2
Abstract
We present a proof of a multidimensional version of Peres-Schlag's theorem on Diophantine approximations with lacunary sequences.
AI-generated audit
Audit summary
Not a correctness certificate. A “Correct” result may include yellow typos or minor formal corrections that do not affect substantive soundness. It means this audit found no unresolved substantive error under the stated criteria; it does not replace expert scrutiny or formal verification.
Current report
Detailed mathematical audit
01Statements3 reported findingsCorrect
The multidimensional lacunary avoidance theorems and the complex-power corollary follow from the dyadic induction after the uniquely determined displayed corrections below.
Coordinatewise lacunary avoidance
Pages 2 and 4–7 · Theorem 1 and Lemma 1 · arXiv:0708.2087v2
The principal counting lemma bounds the new dangerous boxes relative to the surviving set. With the corrected displayed coefficients, the Lovász-style measure induction retains positive measure at each scale, and compactness supplies a point whose every coordinate avoids the prescribed lacunary sequence by the stated uniform amount.
Orthogonal-matrix lacunary avoidance
Pages 3 and 7–8 · Theorem 2 and Lemma 2 · arXiv:0708.2087v2
Orthogonality preserves Euclidean distances and volumes, so each rotated dangerous neighborhood has the same covering bound as in Lemma 1. Lemma 2 repeats the same finite-dependency measure induction for the matrix sequence and yields the simultaneous coordinate separation asserted in Theorem 2.
Complex powers use the standard rotation matrix
Pages 3–4 · complex-number corollary · arXiv:0708.2087v2
Replace the printed reflection matrix by , or equivalently take its -th powers as the orthogonal sequence. This is exactly the real matrix for multiplication by and makes Theorem 2 apply to without changing the corollary.
02Proofs1 reported findingCorrect
The induction and its rotated analogue are complete. Two coefficient displays are typographical and are fixed by the same calculation and by the already stated final constant.
The covering factors are dropped and one exponent is misprinted
Page 5 · Equations (1) and (3) in the proof of Lemma 1 · arXiv:0708.2087v2
The first line temporarily drops the factor and Equation (3) prints instead of . Restoring these factors makes the two contributions at most each, exactly giving the declared . No later bound changes.
03Novelty0 reported findingsNo non-novelty findings
No non-novelty findings.