1

The Gauss circle problem concerns the value of the function $N(r)$, which counts the number of lattice points $(m,n)$ satisfying the inequality $m^2 + n^2 \leq r^2$, that is, lies in the circle centered at the origin with radius $r$. The main term is rather easy to obtain, and the rub lies in estimating the error term. If we write $$\displaystyle N(r) = \pi r^2 + E(r),$$ then Gauss proved that $E(r) = O(r)$, and it is known that $E(r) \ne o(r^\delta)$ for any $\delta \leq 1/2$. Currently, the best established bound, due to Huxley, is of the form $$\displaystyle E(r) = O(r^{131/208}).$$

In 2007, Sylvain Cappell alleged a proof (via an upload to arXiv) that claimed to establish the bound $$\displaystyle E(r) = O(r^{1/2 + \epsilon}),$$ which is best possible. To date, it seems that this proof is still being vetted.

Does anyone have an update on the situation of this proof?

  • 6
    There was already a question on this some time ago http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19079/what-is-the-status-of-the-gauss-circle-problem , actually more than three years ago. I doubt the situation change since then (which would mean it became worse in some sense). –  Oct 25 '13 at 10:57
  • 4
    A friendlier title would be "Update on verifying Cappell's solution..." . I recommend the change to avoid further unpleasantness. Gerhard "Being Wrong Shouldn't Be Criminal" Paseman, 2013.10.25 – Gerhard Paseman Oct 25 '13 at 15:21
  • 1
    And also the authors are Cappell and Shaneson. – Lucia Oct 25 '13 at 17:24
  • @GerhardPaseman, yes, indeed, seriously-trying, but failing, is an essential part of mathematics ... and many other things. We can see in professional sports that (most of the time) team-mates do not hassle other team-mates who've made an error, because they already know that that person is very upset about it, etc. In such situations, people do congratulate each other for successes, but seem to try to overlook failures. This seems to me a very constructive attitude. – paul garrett Aug 09 '21 at 22:10

0 Answers0