arXiv:2606.08842v3

Transcendence of simple geodesics on finite modular covers

Christopher-Lloyd Simon

math.NTmath.DS37B1011F0611J7011J8111J8311J8737D4030F3557K2057K30

Abstract

The real projective line RP1\mathbb{R}\mathbf{P}^1 is the boundary of HP={zC ⁣:(z)>0}\mathbf{HP}=\{z\in \mathbb{C}\colon \Im(z)>0\}, a model of the hyperbolic plane whose space of geodesics identifies with G(HP)=RP1×RP1diagonal\mathcal{G}(\mathbf{HP})=\mathbb{R}\mathbf{P}^1 \times \mathbb{R}\mathbf{P}^1 \setminus \mathrm{diagonal}. The modular group Γ=PSL2(Z)Γ=\operatorname{PSL}_2(\mathbb{Z}) acts on HP\mathbf{HP} with quotient the modular orbifold M=Γ\HP\mathbf{M}=Γ\backslash \mathbf{HP}. Consider a finite-index subgroup of the modular group ΓΓ=PSL2(Z)Γ^\prime \subset Γ= \operatorname{PSL}_2(\mathbb{Z}) corresponding to a finite cover MM\mathbf{M} \to \mathbf{M}^\prime. A geodesic (ξ,ξ+)G(HP)(ξ^-,ξ^+)\in \mathcal{G}(\mathbf{HP}) projects modΓ\bmod{Γ^\prime} to a geodesic ξMξ^\prime \subset \mathbf{M}^\prime. We show that if ξξ^\prime is simple, then ξ+ξ^+ is either rational or quadratic or transcendental. In the transcendental case, we obtain bounds on the Mahler measures and show that those can be improved for geodesics fixed by pseud-Anosov maps. Finally, we also explain in detail why all this was known for the modular torus cover associated to the derived subgroup Γ=[Γ,Γ]Γ^\prime = [Γ, Γ].

AI-generated audit

Audit summary

Audited against arXiv v3

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

Generated August 15, 2026
01Statements2 reported findingsContains unsupported statements

The rational–quadratic–transcendental trichotomy for endpoints of simple projected geodesics is supported, but the stronger Mahler estimate printed in Theorems 0.1 and 2.4 is not obtained from the theorem actually invoked. The pseudo-Anosov refinement in Theorem 2.6 is also not able to be verified because its required morphic coding is not established.

Theorems 0.1 and 2.4Not able to verify

The advertised Mahler exponents are stronger than the cited input

Page 4 · Theorem 0.1; pages 14–15 · Theorem 2.4 and proof · arXiv:2606.08842v3

The proof establishes bounded continued-fraction digits and linear upper factor complexity, and then explicitly applies Theorem 1.8. That theorem gives only wd(ξ+)exp ⁣(c(log3d)5(loglog3d)4).w_d(\xi^+)\leq\exp\!\left(c(\log 3d)^5(\log\log 3d)^4\right). Theorems 0.1 and 2.4 instead print the stronger powers 33 and 22. The morphic hypothesis of Theorem 1.9, which would give those stronger powers, is not proved for an arbitrary simple geodesic. The qualitative trichotomy and the weaker powers 55 and 44 do follow from the supplied argument, but the displayed stronger estimate does not.

Full paper, version 3
Theorem 2.6Not able to verify

The pseudo-Anosov conclusion lacks the morphic coding needed for Theorem 1.9

Pages 15–16 · Theorem 2.6 and proof · arXiv:2606.08842v3

The proof asserts that a pseudo-Anosov mapping class gives a monoid morphism on the oriented edges of the fixed graph TT' and that the geodesic coding becomes a fixed point of a conjugate morphism. A general mapping class need not preserve this particular embedded graph; producing a substitution normally requires a train-track representative and a proof that it codes the stated leaf. Moreover, the displayed implication from Φ(x)=Shiftk(x)\Phi(\vec x)=\operatorname{Shift}^k(\vec x) to Φ2k(x)=Shift2k(x)\Phi^{2k}(\vec x)=\operatorname{Shift}^{2k}(\vec x) is not a valid iteration rule for a word morphism. Thus the morphic hypothesis of Theorem 1.9 is not established, and no independent proof of Theorem 2.6 is supplied.

Full paper, version 3
02Proofs2 reported findingsContains incorrect or incomplete proofs

The proof of the all-simple-geodesics theorem reaches a valid weaker Mahler bound but not the one stated. The pseudo-Anosov proof contains an invalid morphism iteration and omits the train-track or substitution construction on which its final theorem application depends.

Proof of Theorem 2.4Incomplete as written

The final theorem application proves only the weaker bound

Pages 11 and 14–15 · Theorems 1.8, 2.4, and the last line of the proof · arXiv:2606.08842v3

Theorem 1.8 is stated in the manuscript with powers 55 and 44, and every hypothesis verified in the proof of Theorem 2.4 is a hypothesis of that theorem. Nothing in the proof supplies the additional morphic structure required by Theorem 1.9. Repair classification: Verified weaker repair. Replace the powers 33 and 22 in Theorems 0.1 and 2.4 by 55 and 44; the proof then closes exactly as written. No repair of the stronger estimate is supplied.

Full paper, version 3
Proof of Theorem 2.6Incorrect as written

The fixed-morphism construction is not valid as written

Pages 15–16 · proof of Theorem 2.6 · arXiv:2606.08842v3

Neither the asserted self-covering of TT' nor the induced edge substitution is constructed. Even granting a morphism Φ\Phi, the equation Φ(x)=Shiftk(x)\Phi(\vec x)=\operatorname{Shift}^k(\vec x) does not imply the printed identity for Φ2k(x)\Phi^{2k}(\vec x): substitutions do not in general commute with a one-letter shift, and for negative kk the displayed power is not defined without invertibility. Consequently the claimed conjugate fixed morphism does not follow. Repair classification: No repair supplied; a valid train-track representative, its symbolic substitution, and a correct fixed-point argument would all have to be established before Theorem 1.9 can be applied.

Full paper, version 3
03Novelty0 reported findingsNo non-novelty findings

No non-novelty findings.

Detailed audit reportFull reasoning, manuscript locations, and references.
Open report PDF ↗

Author response

Challenge an audit finding

Local workflow preview

A listed author may submit formal evidence that an audit is inaccurate. The response would be considered in a fresh AI re-evaluation; it would not edit the audit automatically.

Paper
arXiv:2606.08842v3
Authors listed
Christopher-Lloyd Simon
Audit date
August 15, 2026
  1. 01Establish identityMatch an authenticated scholarly identity to this paper.
  2. 02Submit evidenceIdentify the finding and give a formal mathematical response.
  3. 03Re-evaluateA separate agent checks the response and records a disposition.
Recommended production method

Authenticate with ORCID, then require an exact arXiv match

MathAudit should accept the identity only when ORCID OAuth authenticates the claimant's iD and this exact arXiv paper appears in arXiv's public authority feed for that iD. A matching name alone is not sufficient.

ORCID OAuth and arXiv authority-record lookup are not connected in this local prototype.

Email fallback for papers without a linked ORCID

A production fallback could send a one-time link only when the submitted address matches an independently maintained author-contact allowlist for this paper. MathAudit must return the same message for every address so the form cannot reveal which contacts are on that list.

This demonstration does not send, store, or compare the address.

Structured response preview

This form remains unavailable until production identity verification succeeds. Nothing entered here is submitted.

This panel never establishes authorship in the local prototype. A production result should be described narrowly as an authenticated ORCID match or control of a separately allowlisted author-contact mailbox.