arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.10514

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

Alex Meiburg
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.CCcs.CG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alex Meiburg. 2026-10-07. $\exists \mathbb{R} \subseteq \textsf{CH}$. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10514

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Near-Inverse-Linear Barriers for Explicit Affine Witness Isolation

We study randomized nonuniform polynomial-size transformations that output explicit binary affine filters for circuit inputs whose nonempty satisfying sets are affine. The filter may depend on the entire input description; no affine basis is supplied. For every fixed $δ<1$, a worst-case singleton success guarantee $Ω(n^{-δ})$, where $n$ is the witness arity, implies $NP\subseteq P/poly$. More generally, any success guarantee $ω(\log n/n)$ yields satisfiability circuits of size $(s+2)^{O(1)}2^{o(v)}$ for length-$s$ descriptions with at most $v$ witness variables, hence subexponential in $v$ when $s=v^{O(1)}$. Conversely, SAT search-to-decision gives deterministic perfect isolation, making polynomial-resource fixed-exponent strong affine isolation equivalent to $NP\subseteq P/poly$. For explicit unions of at most $n^β$ affine components, success $Ω(n^{-δ})$ implies the same collapse whenever $β,δ\ge0$ and $β+δ<1$. The inverse-linear endpoint is not claimed.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Countability versus Computability

The concept of {\em countable sets} is attributed to Georg Cantor, who established the distinction between countable and uncountable sets in 1874. The concept of {\em computable sets} emerged in the 1930s through the foundational work on computing models by \Godel, Church, and Turing. In this paper, we investigate the connection between countability and computability. A {\em counting bijection} of a set $S$ is a bijection from the set of natural numbers to $S$. We say $S$ is {\em enumerable} if it is either finite or admitting a computable counting bijection. Our initial investigation shows that a set $S$ is enumerable if and only if it is computable. This equivalence offers new insights into set theory and computability theory. We further show that a set is countable if and only if it admits a {\em counting order}, which is a well order satisfying the {\em proximal} property. Based on this concept, we provide a procedure whose existence gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a set to be countable. This procedure is an algorithm if and only if the set is computable. A counting bijection $f$ is {\em increasing} if $f(x)>f(y)$ whenever $x>y$. We prove that an infinite set $S$ of natural numbers is definable in first-order arithmetic if and only if $S$ has an increasing counting bijection. This result has a significant implication: the standard proof that every set $S$ of natural numbers is countable is invalid. This is because the existing proof establishes that $S$ has an increasing counting bijection, which (by our result) would imply that $S$ is definable in first-order arithmetic. This leads to a contradiction with Tarski's undefinability theorem when $S$ is the set of \Godel\ numbers of the true arithmetic sentences.

cs.CC↗