On the Sampling of Certain Dirichlet and Prime Sums at Gram Points and their Viscosity

The complete numerical database, together with the data sets, source code, computational scripts, animations, and supplementary material underlying the numerical experiments in this paper, is available in the accompanying Zenodo repository [JerbyZenodoGramPoints].

The confinement condition is stronger than requiring g_n to be an isolated bad Gram point. Recall that a Gram block of length N is a sequence

whose endpoints are good and whose intermediate Gram points are bad [Edwards, RosserYoheSchoenfeld]. Thus an isolated bad Gram point g_n is the unique interior point of a Gram block of length two, (g_{n-1},g_{n+1}]. Rosser’s rule asserts that a Gram block of length N contains exactly N zeros of Z(t) on the real axis. Hence a length-two block normally contains two zeros. However, Rosser’s rule is not universal, and Trudgian proved that it fails a positive proportion of the time [Trudgian]. Thus isolated badness does not, in general, guarantee a two-zero local configuration. It should be noted, however, that among the first 250{,}000 Gram points in the data set considered, no violations of Rosser’s rule occur. Consequently, every isolated bad Gram point encountered in this range is associated with a confined pair.

It should be noted that in our previous work [JerbyDiscriminant], the viscosity bound \mu(g_n)>4 was investigated at substantially larger indices, including a systematic computation of all bad Gram points up to the range n\leq 2.5 \times10^{7}. The numerical evidence revealed a sharp distinction between isolated and non-isolated bad Gram points. The bound was seen to persist for the isolated configurations, whereas bad Gram points belonging to longer Gram blocks could have viscosity far below 4. In particular, the low-viscosity “corrupt” points observed there were non-isolated. An extreme example is the non-isolated g_{9807962}, for which \mu(g_{9807962})=0.0750883. Finally, we note that the data suggest more than the lower bound \mu(g_n)>4 for isolated bad Gram points associated with a confined pair of zeros. They also suggest the asymptotic relation

It should be noted that in the classical random-phase heuristic model, the prime sum

is typically considered to behave like a weighted planar random walk. In this work t is sampled only at the Gram points g_n, which already shifts from the classical heuristic setting. Rather, it gives a natural “null model” for the prime cloud \mathcal{P}_N.

From this point of view, the striking feature of the isolated bad Gram points is that they do not behave like generic samples from this random phase model. This suggests that the condition of being an isolated bad Gram point imposes a nontrivial constraint on the prime phases. The reason this is plausible is the prime–zero duality expressed by the explicit formula. In particular, prime sums and zero configurations are not independent objects, but two sides of the same oscillatory structure. Thus a special local zero configuration near g_n, such as the confined pair associated with an isolated bad Gram point, may leave a visible signature in the prime projection E_1(g_n). In this interpretation, the prime lobes are not a generic random-walk feature. Rather, they are the geometric trace of conditioning the prime phases on a special local zero configuration.

For t\in\mathbb R, define the partial AFE sums

Thus S_{N(t)}(t)=E(t). The curve \{S_j(t):1\le j\le N(t)\} will be called the partial-sum trunk at t. We use these trunks only as a diagnostic. For an isolated bad Gram point g_n, we compare the three trunks at g_{n-1}, g_n, g_{n+1}. Since g_{n+1}-g_n \sim \frac{\pi}{\theta'(g_n)} and \theta'(g_n) \sim \frac12\log\!\left(\frac{g_n}{2\pi}\right), one Gram step changes the k-th phase by (g_{n+1}-g_n)\log k \sim \pi\frac{\log k}{\log N}. Thus low-index terms rotate very little from one Gram point to the next, whereas terms near k=N rotate by almost \pi. This simple phase shear is useful for visualizing how cancellation at the central bad point may be converted into reinforcement at one of the neighboring good Gram points. Figure 4 shows representative isolated bad Gram points away from the lowest-viscosity regime.

No uniform three-trunk pattern is visible in these generic examples. A more coherent pattern appears among some of the isolated bad Gram points with very small viscosity. Figure ? shows the five smallest-viscosity examples in the present data set.

In these examples, one neighboring trunk terminates near a comparatively small endpoint, while the opposite neighboring trunk reaches a much larger endpoint. Writing

the observed coherent configurations suggest the rough slope estimate

Consequently,

This gives an intuitive explanation for why very small viscosity is difficult to achieve and how the bound arises in such coherent configurations. The same phase organization that produces cancellation at the central bad point tends, after one Gram step, to produce a compensating neighboring excursion, and this excursion is measured on the derivative scale by division by the Gram spacing.

We emphasize that this is only a qualitative mechanism. We do not expect every extremal point to arise from such a coherent three-trunk configuration. The figures of such coherent configurations should therefore be read as evidence for one visible source of the viscosity barrier, not as a classification of all near-extremal isolated bad Gram points.