Sign up ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are many results on the spacing of the gaps between nontrivial zeros of the $\zeta$ function, from trivial (average value is $\frac{2\pi}{\log\gamma_n}$) to difficult (bounds on max and min values of the normalized gap). Are any reasonable upper bounds known? I'd like to have something that says, given any $\varepsilon>0,$ there is some N beyond which the gaps $\gamma_{n+1}-\gamma_n$ is at most $\varepsilon.$ This seems a weak request given the asymptotic behavior but I haven't found anything along these lines.

Any ideas?

I asked the question on but did not get an answer.

share|cite|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

Littlewood was the first to prove that the gaps between the ordinates of successive zeros of $\zeta(s)$ tend to zero. This is proved, for instance, in Titchmarsh's book on the zeta-function (see Theorem 9.11).

I believe the best known unconditional result states that $$ \gamma_{n+1}-\gamma_n = O( 1/\log\log\log \gamma_n)$$ as $n\to \infty$. Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis, this can be improved to $O( 1/\log\log \gamma_n).$

share|cite|improve this answer
Do you know of an effective version of the first? – Charles Jan 6 '12 at 13:26
This is Theorem 9.12 in Titchmarsh 'Theory of the Riemann Zeta Function.' The proof uses the Borel-Caratheodory theorem, and can be made effective if you really really want it. Titchmarsh has a series of seven successive constants $A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_6, A$, with the final $A$ being the constant in the big Oh term above. – Stopple Jan 11 '12 at 22:07

From the standard zero-counting formula $N(T) = \frac{T}{2\pi} \log(\frac{T}{2 \pi e}) + O(\log{T})$, this shows $N(T + h) - N(T) = \frac{h}{2 \pi} \log(\frac{T}{2 \pi}) + O(\log{T})$, and hence $N(T+h) - N(T) \geq 1$ provided $h$ is large enough compared to the implied constants. This shows what you ask for with an unspecified $\varepsilon$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Yes, that was my first thought (though I must have do.e my arithmetic wrong since I found a larger error term). But can it be made effective? – Charles Jan 5 '12 at 21:00
It can be made effective, and surely has been, but I don't know a source offhand. – Matt Young Jan 5 '12 at 21:15
This also gives the desired result for some $\varepsilon$ even without the "some $N$ beyond which ...". Can it be proved for every $\varepsilon > 0$ (with $N\phantom.$ necessarily depending on $\varepsilon$)? – Noam D. Elkies Jan 5 '12 at 21:54
Matt, I am a bit confused. Aren't you only proving bounded gaps? – Micah Milinovich Jan 6 '12 at 4:58
@Micah: yes, the question as stated asked for the existence of some $\varepsilon$ for which the gaps are bounded by $\varepsilon$. I know $\varepsilon$ usually wants to tend to zero though... – Matt Young Jan 6 '12 at 18:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.