Abstract

For an integer solution of y2=x3+ky^2=x^3+k with x,y≥1x,y\ge 1 and k≠0k\ne 0, the integers x3x^3, ∣k∣|k| and y2y^2 form a triple in which one term is the sum of the other two. When gcd⁡(x,y)=1\gcd(x,y)=1 this triple is coprime, and the abcabc conjecture predicts that its quality is asymptotically at most 11. Following Müller, Taktikos and de Weger, we factor this quality through the product P=xy∣k∣P=xy|k| into the approximation gain Ga=log⁡max⁡(x3,y2)/log⁡PG_a=\log\max(x^3,y^2)/\log P and the power gain G_p=log P/lograd(xy|k|), which is at least 11. We show that the weak form of Hall's conjecture, which asks that ∣k∣>x1/2−δ|k|>x^{1/2-δ} for every δ>0δ>0 outside finitely many solutions, is equivalent to the asymptotic bound Ga≤1G_a\le 1. More generally, for 6/11≤κ<6/56/11\leκ<6/5, an asymptotic bound Ga≤κG_a\leκ gives ∣k∣>x3/κ−5/2−δ|k|>x^{3/κ-5/2-δ} for every δ>0δ>0 outside finitely many solutions, and for 3/4≤κ<6/53/4\leκ<6/5 the two statements are equivalent. Since the approximation gain never exceeds the quality, an abcabc inequality with exponent 1≤κ<6/51\leκ<6/5 gives the same bound for primitive solutions. The case κ=1κ=1 extends to all solutions and recovers the classical implication from the abcabc conjecture to weak Hall. We also relate small values of ∣k∣|k| to large partial quotients of x\sqrt x.

AI-generated audit

Audit summary

Audited against arXiv v1

Not a correctness certificate. A green “no issues found” result may include yellow suspected typos or minor formal issues 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 October 24, 2026
01Statements3 reported findingsNo statement issues found

The approximation-gain formulation is equivalent to weak Hall at level one, the stated level-κ\kappa implications have the claimed sharp range, and the consequences of abcabc and the continued-fraction estimates follow under their stated hypotheses.

Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.2No issue found

Approximation-gain bounds and Hall exponents are converted correctly

PDF pp. 2–4 · arXiv:2609.35252v1

If ∣k∣<xγ(κ)−δ|k|<x^{\gamma(\kappa)-\delta}, then y≤2x3/2y\leq\sqrt{2}x^{3/2} and P≤2x5/2+γ(κ)−δP\leq\sqrt{2}x^{5/2+\gamma(\kappa)-\delta}, forcing the gain above κ\kappa asymptotically. Conversely, gain above κ+ε\kappa+\varepsilon first forces ∣k∣<M/2|k|<M/2 and hence x3,y2>M/2x^3,y^2>M/2; the resulting bound ∣k∣<3xγ(κ+ε)|k|<3x^{\gamma(\kappa+\varepsilon)} contradicts the prescribed Hall exponent after a fixed loss. The threshold κ=3/4\kappa=3/4 is genuinely sharp by the displayed family (n,1,1−n3)(n,1,1-n^3).

Corollary 4.1 and Remark 4.2No issue found

The abcabc implication works for primitive and nonprimitive solutions

PDF pp. 4–5 · arXiv:2609.35252v1

For primitive solutions, x3,∣k∣,y2x^3,|k|,y^2 form a coprime triple and the approximation gain is at most its quality. For a general solution, taking g=gcd⁡(x3,y2)g=\gcd(x^3,y^2) gives a coprime divided triple, and the valuation computation proves rad⁡(xy∣k∣)∣P/g\operatorname{rad}(xy|k|)\mid P/g. Because κ+ε≥1\kappa+\varepsilon\geq1, the factor g1−κ−εg^{1-\kappa-\varepsilon} can be discarded, yielding the same asymptotic gain bound for all solutions.

Propositions 5.1 and 5.2No issue found

Small residuals are related correctly to the next partial quotient

PDF pp. 5–6 · arXiv:2609.35252v1

The factorization k=(y−x3/2)(y+x3/2)k=(y-x^{3/2})(y+x^{3/2}) gives ∣x−y/x∣=∣k∣/(ux2)|\sqrt{x}-y/x|=|k|/(ux^2). The assumed bound puts a reduced fraction inside Legendre's criterion, while the perfect-square case is excluded directly. The exact complete-quotient formula then places ∣k∣|k| strictly between u/(a+2)u/(a+2) and u/au/a, which gives the stated equivalence between Hall-small residuals and unusually large following partial quotients.

02Proofs3 reported findingsNo proof issues found

The elementary size estimates, coprimality and valuation arguments, limiting exponent manipulations, and continued-fraction identities were checked through their proof-critical steps; no substantive gap was found.

Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 3.2No issue found in the reviewed proof

Coprimality, gain factorization, and both asymptotic implications are complete

PDF pp. 2–4 · arXiv:2609.35252v1

A common prime in any two of x,y,kx,y,k propagates to the third, so primitivity makes the three terms pairwise coprime and gives X=GaGpX=G_aG_p with Gp≥1G_p\geq1. In Proposition 3.2, bounded xx or bounded MM leaves only finitely many solutions, legitimizing both limiting arguments. The identities γ(κ)=3/κ−5/2\gamma(\kappa)=3/\kappa-5/2 and 3(1/(κ+ε)−5/6)=γ(κ+ε)3(1/(\kappa+\varepsilon)-5/6)=\gamma(\kappa+\varepsilon) produce exactly the asserted exponent losses.

Remark 4.2No issue found in the reviewed proof

The division by the common factor retains sufficient radical control

PDF p. 4 · arXiv:2609.35252v1

For p∣gp\mid g, writing α=vp(x)\alpha=v_p(x) and β=vp(y)\beta=v_p(y) gives vp(k)≥min⁡(3α,2β)v_p(k)\geq\min(3\alpha,2\beta) and hence vp(P/g)≥α+β≥2v_p(P/g)\geq\alpha+\beta\geq2; for p∤gp\nmid g but p∣xykp\mid xyk, the exponent in P/gP/g is at least one. Thus every prime in xykxyk divides P/gP/g, exactly the divisibility needed to apply the universal abcabc bound to the divided triple.

Propositions 5.1–5.2 and final consequencesNo issue found in the reviewed proof

The continued-fraction proof uses the standard sharp error formula correctly

PDF pp. 5–6 · arXiv:2609.35252v1

For a convergent pn/qn=y/xp_n/q_n=y/x, the denominator in the exact error formula is qn2(αn+1+qn−1/qn)q_n^2(\alpha_{n+1}+q_{n-1}/q_n), lying strictly between x2ax^2a and x2(a+2)x^2(a+2). Combined with the factorization identity, this proves the two-sided bound. Since u=2x+O(x−2)u=2\sqrt{x}+O(x^{-2}), the subsequent exponent comparisons and the conditional conclusions Ga,Gp→1G_a,G_p\to1 under abcabc follow.

03Novelty0 reported findingsNo novelty concerns found

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:2609.35252v1
Authors listed
R. Laniewski, K. Müller
Audit date
October 24, 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.