Conjectura
Beta.Proofs cannot be submitted yet. The corpus is open to read, and we are looking for researchers to maintain a subject area.Maintaining a field →
← problemsAN011openMathematics/ Analysis

Sendov's conjecture

Maintainer — open

If a polynomial's roots lie in the unit disc, is every root near a critical point?

Motivation

Sendov, 1959 (often attributed to Ilyeff). Terence Tao proved it in 2020 for polynomials of sufficiently large degree, using a compactness-and-contradiction argument.

The remaining degrees are open, and Tao's method is ineffective about where 'sufficiently large' begins — so this is another case where the statement is known for all but finitely many instances that cannot be listed.

Blagovest Sendov, 1959. Large degrees settled by Tao, 2020.

Lean API
import Mathlib.Algebra.Polynomial.Derivative
import Mathlib.Analysis.SpecialFunctions.Complex.Circle

namespace Conjectura.AN011

/-- If every root of a complex polynomial lies in the closed unit disc, is every root
within distance one of some critical point? Tao proved it for polynomials of
sufficiently large degree in 2020; the remaining degrees are open. -/
def goal : Prop :=
  ∀ (p : Polynomial ℂ), 1 < p.degree →
    (∀ z : ℂ, p.IsRoot z → ‖z‖ ≤ 1) →
      ∀ z : ℂ, p.IsRoot z → ∃ w : ℂ, p.derivative.IsRoot w ∧ ‖z - w‖ ≤ 1

end Conjectura.AN011
Definition3
PolynomialPolynomial

structure

degreep.degree

def

IsRootp.IsRoot

def

Related work1
For your AI
Download as .md
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.

## Problem AN011 — Sendov's conjecture

If a polynomial's roots lie in the unit disc, is every root near a critical point?

## Environment (fixed — do not assume anything newer)

- Lean toolchain: `leanprover/lean4:v4.33.0-rc1`
- Mathlib: `v4.33.0-rc1`

If a lemma you want does not exist in that Mathlib, prove it inline instead of
importing something newer.

## The exact statement I must prove

```lean
theorem solution : ∀ (p : Polynomial ℂ), 1 < p.degree → (∀ z : ℂ, p.IsRoot z → ‖z‖ ≤ 1) →
    ∀ z : ℂ, p.IsRoot z → ∃ w : ℂ, p.derivative.IsRoot w ∧ ‖z - w‖ ≤ 1 := by
  sorry
```

## The file I submit

```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.AN011.Statement

namespace Submission

theorem solution : Conjectura.AN011.goal := by
  sorry

end Submission

```

## The Lean definitions of every term in this problem

These are the actual definitions your proof will be checked against. Do not
substitute your own version of any of them.

### Polynomial

structure

```lean
Polynomial
```
Defined in Mathlib.

### degree

def

```lean
p.degree
```
Defined in Mathlib.

### IsRoot

def

```lean
p.IsRoot
```
Defined in Mathlib.

## Rules — submissions violating these are rejected automatically

1. **Do not change the name or type of `solution`.** It must satisfy the
   statement above exactly.
2. **Do not redefine or shadow anything from the problem's Statement module.**
   Declaring your own `goal`, or redefining a name it depends on, produces a
   proof of a *different* statement and is rejected. This is the single most
   common rejection.
3. **No `sorry`** anywhere, including in helper lemmas. It surfaces as the
   axiom `sorryAx` and is detected transitively through imports.
4. **No `native_decide`** — it surfaces as `Lean.ofReduceBool` and is not
   accepted, because it trusts compiled code rather than the kernel.
5. Only these axioms are permitted: `propext`, `Classical.choice`,
   `Quot.sound`.
6. Follow Mathlib style: hypotheses left of the colon, explicit types,
   `snake_case` theorem names, `UpperCamelCase` types.

## What I want from you

Here is my argument in informal mathematics:

> [PASTE YOUR PROOF SKETCH HERE]

Turn it into Lean 4 that compiles under the environment above and satisfies the
statement exactly. Where you are unsure a lemma exists in this Mathlib version,
say so explicitly rather than guessing a name.

Submissions are not open yet

Conjectura is in beta. You can read every statement, every definition and the Lean behind them, and download the exact files the checker uses — but proofs are not being accepted yet.

The reason is a deliberate order of operations. Accepting a proof means running a stranger’s code and standing behind a verdict, and no statement here yet carries a researcher’s name. A machine-checked answer to a question nobody has vouched for is worth very little, so the vouching comes first.

The English write-ups are also switched off during the beta. Nothing on this page is generated by a model.

Discussion

  • Nothing yet.

Sign in to take part.