Gourevitch's series identity
The Gourevitch series identity: The following idenitity holds: This was originally conjectured in [G2003] by Guillera and proven in [A2025] by Au.
▸Motivation
The Gourevitch series identity: The following idenitity holds: This was originally conjectured in [G2003] by Guillera and proven in [A2025] by Au.
Recorded upstream as solved in the literature, but no Lean proof exists here yet. It is listed as open because nothing on this site is marked solved without a proof the kernel accepts — a known result needing formalization is a tractable task, and a good place to start.
Adapted from formal-conjectures, Paper/Gourevitch.lean. Catalogued at https://doi.org/10.1080/10586458.2003.10504518.
▸Lean API
import Mathlib.Analysis.SpecialFunctions.Trigonometric.Basic
import Mathlib.Data.Nat.Choose.Central
namespace Conjectura.PA0004
/-- The Gourevitch series identity: The following idenitity holds: $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1 + 14 n + 76 n^2 + 168 n^3}{2^{20 n}} \binom{2n}{n}^7 = \frac{32}{\pi^3}.$ This was originally conjectured in [G2003] by Guillera and proven in [A2025] by Au. -/
def goal : Prop :=
∑' n : ℕ, ((1 + 14 * n + 76 * n ^ 2 + 168 * n ^ 3) / (2 ^ (20 * n)) : ℝ)
* Nat.centralBinom n ^ 7 = 32 / (Real.pi ^ 3)
end Conjectura.PA0004▸Definition2
- centralBinomNat.centralBinom
def
- piReal.pi
def
▸Related work2
- Gourevitch's series identity—
The catalogue entry, with references and status.
- formal-conjecturesThe Formal Conjectures Authors (Google DeepMind) · 2025
Source of the Lean formalization adapted here.
▸For your AI
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.
## Problem PA0004 — Gourevitch's series identity
The Gourevitch series identity: The following idenitity holds: $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1 + 14 n + 76 n^2 + 168 n^3}{2^{20 n}} \binom{2n}{n}^7 = \frac{32}{\pi^3}.$ This was originally conjectured in [G2003] by Guillera and proven in [A2025] by Au.
## 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 : Conjectura.PA0004.goal := by
sorry
```
## The file I submit
```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.PA0004.Statement
namespace Submission
theorem solution : Conjectura.PA0004.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.
### centralBinom
def
```lean
Nat.centralBinom
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### pi
def
```lean
Real.pi
```
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.