Papers for

computational number theorists

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Existential theory of reals fits within counting hierarchy levels

$\exists \mathbb{R} \subseteq \textsf{CH}$

Abstract: The existential theory of the reals asks whether polynomial constraints with integer coefficients have a real solution. We give a proof placing this problem in the counting hierarchy. The first argument is intended to expose the essential steps, and a separate analysis lowers the bound to $\exists \mathbb{R}\subseteq\textsf{BPP}^{\textsf C_3\textsf P}\subseteq\textsf C_4\textsf P$, the fourth level of the hierarchy. For each fixed $w$, sentences with $w$ alternating real quantifier blocks lie in $\textsf C_{9w+17}\textsf P$. We then treat exact semidefinite feasibility, PosSLP, square-root sum, geometric real counting, Euler characteristic, and complex feasibility in separate applications. The corresponding bounds include $\textsf{BPP}^{\textsf C_2\textsf P}$ for general SDP, $\textsf{BPP}^{\textsf{PP}}\cap\textsf{P}^{\textsf{NP}^{\textsf{PP}}}$ for PosSLP and square-root sum, and $\textsf{FP}^{\textsf C_4\textsf P}$ for total geometric real counting. Note: These proofs were discovered by ChatGPT after a series of conversations ending on September 29th 2026. A group of researchers has been working to digest the proof, and while the most essential arguments appear correct, we are endeavoring to give this result the treatment it deserves and a proper exposition and development to benefit of the community. However, on October 6th, OpenAI released a very similar result, with a slightly weaker bound. While we work to improve our exposition of this proof, the current version has been uploaded as a service to the community to compare the different proof techniques. While the listed author takes responsibility that the proofs appear to be correct, he has not played a nontrivial role in developing them, and believes the human value will be in good exposition and canonicalization of the results.

Wed 7 OctComputational ComplexityComputational Geometry
The gist
This work looks at a challenging math question about whether certain equations with real numbers have solutions. The authors show that determining these solutions belongs to a specific complexity class called the counting hierarchy, which helps us understand how hard these problems are for computers to solve. They also apply their findings to related problems like matrix feasibility and number computations. Their approach was discovered through conversations with an AI tool and aims to clarify and improve previous work.
Open → 2610.10514v1

Undecidability results for arithmetic with special integer sequences

Rich Sequences and Decidability of Arithmetic Theories

Abstract: We develop a new framework for proving the undecidability of first-order theories of structures of the form $\langle \mathbb{N}; +, P \rangle$, $\langle \mathbb{N}; <, f \rangle$, and $\langle \mathbb{N}; +, f\rangle$, where $P \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ and $f \colon \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$. It is based on the recent proof of Hieronymi and Schulz that the first-order theory of $\langle \mathbb{N}; +, \{2^n \colon n \in \mathbb{N}\}, \{3^n \colon n \in \mathbb{N}\}\rangle$ is undecidable, and capable of transforming various randomness results about integer sequences into undecidability proofs. We apply our method to a large class of integer linear recurrence sequences, as well as various special functions, in particular showing that the first-order theories of $\langle \mathbb{N}; +, \{u_n \colon n \in \mathbb{N}\} \cap \mathbb{N}\rangle$, $\langle\mathbb{N}; <, n \mapsto \max\{0,u_n\}\rangle$, and $\langle \mathbb{N}; <, φ\rangle$ are undecidable, where $(u_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is any integer LRS with exactly two non-repeated dominant roots satisfying a non-degeneracy assumption, and $φ$ is Euler's totient function.

Thu 17 SeptLogic in Computer ScienceFormal Languages and Automata Theory
The gist
Some questions about numbers and formulas can never be completely solved by any computer or algorithm. This paper develops a new way to show that certain logical questions about numbers added to special sequences or functions are impossible to decide perfectly. The authors build on earlier work to apply this method to many integer sequences and important functions like Euler’s totient. Their work reveals limits on what can be computed or reasoned about in arithmetic systems that include these sequences and functions.
Open → 2609.20415v1