Quantiterate Research
We are a small research operation. This page answers, in advance, most of what we are asked, so that we can spend our hours on mathematics. We generally do not respond to public threads or comment sections; the documents below do our responding.
If you believe you have found a mathematical error in anything we publish, we want it. Email research@quantiterate.com with the specific claim and your argument or counterexample. Verified errors are corrected in a new dated version on Zenodo with the correction described in the version notes. We version; we do not debate. Stylistic and philosophical objections are noted with thanks and generally not answered.
For the One-Direction note: yes, partially, and the note says so in its own text — Theorem 1 is a known consequence of Dirichlet's unit theorem, and the note claims the synthesis and the precise location of the obstruction, not the mechanism. We consider recording folklore in citable form, with its consequences and scope made exact, a legitimate and useful genre. So does the referee literature.
Quantiterate papers disclose the role of AI systems and the kind of verification actually conducted: algebraic checks, deterministic code tests, internal adversarial reviews, source audits, external human review, or formal proof-assistant checks. These are distinct levels of evidence. Internal AI agreement is not independent human verification or a formal proof certificate. Each manuscript states what its source record establishes and what remains conditional or unverified. A methods case study does not independently endorse every historical mathematical calculation it discusses. Mathematical criticisms and counterexamples are welcome through the corrections process above.
We do not currently accept unsolicited audit requests, including — especially — proposed proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis. When and if an intake process opens, it will be announced here.
Our case study is an audit that the paper passed. We found one small verified erratum in a prose remark (communicated to the authors before publication), watched our own instrument's false alarms be refuted by its verification stage, and confirmed the paper's Lean claims against its public repository. Anyone citing our dossier as evidence against that paper's theorems is misreading the dossier, and this paragraph is our full and final comment on such readings.
We read everything. We reply when a reply changes the mathematics. Silence is scheduling, not disagreement.
Last updated: November 1, 2026. This policy page is versioned like everything else.