ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Phelps–Rodriguez Conjecture

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

phelps-rodriguez-conjectureAnalysisposed by Dean Phelps, Rene S. Rodriguez, 1972recorded: solved

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Let pp be a complex polynomial of degree n2n\ge2 whose zeros all lie in the closed unit disk. For every zero aa of pp, there is a critical point ζ\zeta satisfying ζa<1|\zeta-a|<1, except when a=1|a|=1 and pp is a nonzero scalar multiple of znanz^n-a^n.

Context

Phelps-Rodriguez implies Sendov, so this entry records the stronger of the pair; the companion Sendov entry records the weaker statement and Mazur's original formalization, which proved Sendov but never stated the equality classification. The exceptional family is genuinely attained rather than an artefact of the proof: for p = z^n - 1 and a = 1 the only critical point is the origin, at distance exactly 1. Both conjectures fell out of one argument, and the strict form was not the announced target - Tao's digestion of Mazur's proof turned out to establish it, which is how a 1972 conjecture was resolved as a by-product of resolving a 1959 one.

A named 1972 conjecture that is strictly stronger than Sendov's: it upgrades the distance-one bound to a strict inequality and classifies every case of equality. Less famous than Sendov itself, which is scored 40 here and carries Wikipedia articles in four languages, but it is the sharp form of the same question and had stood 54 years. Scored below Sendov and level with the well-tracked named conjectures, since it inherits Sendov's setting rather than opening a new one.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    proof attemptGPT-5.6 Pro, Claude Opus 5 with Lech Mazur, Terence Tao ·
    AI involvement
    ai co developed
    a person and a model developed the result together.
    models
    GPT-5.6 Pro, Claude Opus 5
    people
    Lech Mazur, Terence Tao

    Two models in two roles. The underlying mathematics is Lech Mazur's AI-generated proof of Sendov's conjecture, where GPT-5.6 Pro carried the discovery and derivation. Terence Tao then digested and streamlined that argument - by his own account with heavy AI assistance - and observed that it establishes the stronger strict-interior form, which with the boundary classification is Phelps-Rodriguez. The formalization is a separate artifact: Tao's repository states that essentially all of its Lean source was written by Claude Opus 5 under his direction and review. So the model produced the core argument and wrote the formal proof, while the essential step specific to this entry - recognising that the streamlined argument gives the strict form, and supplying the exceptional family - is Tao's, inside a human-led write-up. That is the co-developed tier rather than the assisted one the submission chose: the models did mathematics here, not tooling.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from Lean ·

      scope Lean formalization of the result

      Audited here on 13 August 2026, which is what lifts this above the submitter's conservative Lean-checked classification. The gap they identified was that nobody had checked the correspondence between Tao's formal statement and the historical conjecture, so that check was performed. Sendov.phelps_rodriguez in Sendov/Conjecture.lean reads: for n2n \ge 2 and pp of natDegree nn with every root in the closed unit disk and p(a)=0p(a)=0, either some critical point has ζa<1|\zeta - a| < 1, or a=1|a| = 1 and p=c(Xnan)p = c(X^n - a^n) for some nonzero cc. That is exactly Phelps-Rodriguez, exceptional family included, with no weakening; and it is not vacuous, since natDegree =n= n with n2n \ge 2 forces p0p \ne 0, which the proof derives rather than assumes. All 80 first-party files were audited with comments stripped: zero admit, zero axiom declarations, zero native_decide, and 124 decide calls, all kernel-reduced. The only two sorry occurrences sit in Challenge.lean, which nothing imports, so they are outside the proof path. On the build, all four GitHub Actions runs report failure, which is misleading: reading the job steps shows the leanprover/lean-action build succeeded on the latest commit, and the failing step is docgen-action, documentation generation. That makes the kernel check third-party evidenced rather than resting on the author's machine. Not independently reviewed by another mathematician: the repository says so, and Tao both wrote the digestion and directed the formalization.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.