# Searching for RH Counterexamples — Unbounded Integers

We’re ironically searching for counterexamples to the Riemann Hypothesis.

In the last article, we improved our naive search from “try all positive integers” to enumerate a subset of integers (superabundant numbers), which RH counterexamples are guaranteed to be among. These numbers grow large, fast, and we quickly reached the limit of what 64 bit integers can store.

Unbounded integer arithmetic is possible on computers, but it requires a special software implementation. In brief, you represent numbers in base-N for some large N (say, $2^{32}$), and then use a 32-bit integer for each digit. Arithmetic on such quantities emulates a ripple-carry adder, which naturally requires linear time in the number of digits of each operand. Artem Golubin has a nice explanation of how Python does it internally.

So Python can handle unbounded integer arithmetic, but neither numba nor our database engine do. Those both crash when exceeding 64-bit integers This is a problem because we won’t be able to store the results of our search without being able to put it in a database. This leaves us with a classic software engineering problem. What’s the path forward?

## Exploring Alternatives

The impulse answer is to do as little as possible to make the damn thing work. In a situation where the software you’re writing is a prototype, and you expect it to be rewritten from scratch in the future, this is an acceptable attitude. That said, experienced engineers would caution you that, all too often, such “prototypes” are copy-pasted to become janky mission-critical systems for years.

In pretending this is the “real thing,” let’s do what real engineers would do and scope out some alternatives before diving in. The two aspects are our database and the use of numba for performance.

Let’s start with the database. A quick and dirty option: store all numbers as text strings in the database. There’s no limit on the size of the number in that case. The benefit: we don’t need to use a different database engine, and most of our code stays the same. The cost: we can’t use numeric operations in database queries, which would make further analysis and fetching awkward. In particular, we can’t even apply sorting operations, since text strings are sorted lexicographically (e.g., 100, 25) while numbers are sorted by magnitude (25, 100). Note, we applied this “numbers as text” idea to the problem of serializing the search state, and it was hacky there, too.

A second option is to find a database engine with direct support for unbounded-integer arithmetic. The benefit: fast database queries and the confidence that it will support future use cases well. The cost: if our existing sqlite-based interface doesn’t work with the new database engine, we’d have to write another implementation of our database interface.

For numba, we have at least three options. First, fall back to native python arithmetic, which is slow. Second, implement arbitrary-precision arithmetic in Python in a way that numba can compile it. Third, find (or implement) a C-implementation of arbitrary precision integer arithmetic, provide Python bindings, and optionally see if it can work with (or replace) numba. As I write this I haven’t yet tried any of these options. My intuition tells me the best way to go would be to find “proper” support for arbitrary precision integers.

For the database, I recall that the Postgres database engine supports various extensions, for example this extension that adds support for geographic objects. Postgres’s extension framework demonstrates an important software engineering principle that many of the best projects follow: “closed for modification, open for extension.” That is, Postgres is designed so that others can contribute new features to Postgres without requiring the Postgres team to do anything special—specifically, they don’t have to change Postgres to accommodate it. The name for this sometimes goes by extensions, or plug-ins, hooks, or (at a lower level) callbacks. Github Actions is a good example of this.

Geographic objects are almost certainly more complicated than arbitrary precision integers, so chances are good a Postgres extension exists for the latter. Incorporating it would involve migrating to Postgres, finding and installing that extension, and then converting the C library representation above to whatever representation Postgres accepts in a query.

A good route will also ensure that we need not change our tests too much, since all we’re doing here is modifying implementations. We’ll see how well that holds up.

## gmp and pgmp

After some digging, I found GMP (GNU Multiple Precision), a C library written by Torbjörn Granlund. It has a Python bindings library called gmpy that allows Python to use an “mpz” (“Multiple Precision $\mathbb{Z}$“) type as a drop-in replacement for Python integers. And I found a PostgreSQL extension called pgmp. The standard Python library for Postgres is psycopg2, which was written by the same person who wrote pgmp, Daniele Varrazzo.

To start, I ran a timing test of gmpy, which proves to be as fast as numba. This pull request has the details.

It took a small bit of kicking to get pgmp to install, but then I made a test database that uses the new column type mpz and stores the value $2^{513}$.

postgres=# create database pgmp_test;
CREATE DATABASE
postgres=# \connect pgmp_test;
You are now connected to database "pgmp_test" as user "jeremy".
pgmp_test=# CREATE EXTENSION pgmp;
CREATE EXTENSION
pgmp_test=# create table test_table (id int4, value mpz);
CREATE TABLE
pgmp_test=# insert into test_table
pgmp_test-# values (1, 2::mpz ^ 513);
INSERT 0 1
pgmp_test=# select * from test_table;
id |                                                                            value
----+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 26815615859885194199148049996411692254958731641184786755447122887443528060147093953603748596333806855380063716372972101707507765623893139892867298012168192
(1 row)


Now I’m pretty confident this approach will work.

This pull request includes the necessary commits to add a postgres implementation of our database interface, add tests (which is a minor nuisance).

Then this pull request converts the main divisor computation functions to use gmpy, and this final commit converts the main program to use the postgres database.

This exposed one bug, that I wasn’t converting the new mpz types properly in the postgres sql query. This commit fixes it, and this commit adds a regression test to catch that specific error going forward.

## Results and next steps

With all that work, I ran the counterexample search for a few hours.

When I stopped it, it had checked all possibly-superabundant numbers whose prime factorizations have at most 75 prime factors, including multiplicity. Since all possible counterexamples to the RH must be superabundant, and all superabundant numbers have the aforementioned special prime factorization, we can say it more simply. I ruled out all positive integers whose prime factorization has at most 75 factors.

The top 10 are:

divisor=# select n, witness_value
from RiemannDivisorSums
where witness_value > 1.7 and n > 5040
order by witness_value desc
limit 10;
n                                                                          |   witness_value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+--------------------
7837096340441581730115353880089927210115664131849557062713735873563599357074419807246597145310377220030504976899588686851652680862494751024960000  | 1.7679071291526642
49445402778811241199465955079431717413978953513246416799455746836363402883750282695562127099750014006501608687063651021146073696293342277760000    |  1.767864530684858
24722701389405620599732977539715858706989476756623208399727873418181701441875141347781063549875007003250804343531825510573036848146671138880000    |  1.767645098171234
157972532839652527793820942745788234549453525601426251755449670403716942120607931934703281468849885004797471843653837128262216282087355520000      | 1.7676163327497005
2149800120817880052150693699105726844086041457097670295628510732015800125380447073720092482597826695934852551611463087875916247664927925120000     |  1.767592584103948
340743319149633988265884951308257704787637570949980741857118951024504319872800861184634658491755531305674129430416899428332725254891076131520000   |  1.767582883432923
23511289021324745190346061640269781630346992395548671188141207620690798071223259421739791435931131660091514930698766060554958042587484253074880000 | 1.7674462177172812
507950266365442211555694349664913937458049921547994378634886400011951582381375986928306371282475514484879330686989829994412271003496320000         | 1.7674395010995763
78986266419826263896910471372894117274726762800713125877724835201858471060303965967351640734424942502398735921826918564131108141043677760000       | 1.7674104158678667
6868370993028370773644388815034271067367544591366358771976072626248562700895997040639273107341299348034672688854514657750531142699450240000        | 1.7674059308384011


This is new. We’ve found quite a few numbers that have a better witness value than $n = 10080$ which achieves ~1.7558. The best is

78370963404415817301153538800899272101156641318495
57062713735873563599357074419807246597145310377220
030504976899588686851652680862494751024960000

which achieves ~1.7679. Recall the 1.781 threshold needed to be a RH counterexample. We’re about 50% of the way toward disproving RH. How much more work could it take?

But seriously, what’s next with this project? For one, even though we have some monstrous numbers and their divisor sums and witness values, it’s hard to see the patterns in them through a SQL queries. It would be nicer to make some pretty plots.

I could also take a step back and see what could be improved from a software engineering standpoint. For one, not all parts of the application are tested, and tests aren’t automatically run when I make changes. This enabled the bug above where I didn’t properly convert mpz types before passing them to SQL upsert statements. For two, while I have been using type annotations in some places, they aren’t checked, and the switch to mpz has almost certainly made many of the type hints incorrect. I could fix that and set up a test that type checks.

Finally, in the interest of completeness, I could set up a front end that displays some summary of the data, and then deploy the whole application so that it has a continuously-running background search, along with a website that shows how far along the search is. Based on how long the SQL statement to find the top 10 witness values took, this would also likely require some caching, which fits snugly in the class of typical software engineering problems.

Let me know what you’re interested in.

# Searching for RH Counterexamples — Adding a Database

In the last article we set up pytest for a simple application that computes divisor sums $\sigma(n)$ and tries to disprove the Riemann Hypothesis. In this post we’ll show how to extend the application as we add a database dependency. The database stores the computed sums so we can analyze them after our application finishes.

As in the previous post, I’ll link to specific git commits in the final code repository to show how the project evolves. You can browse or checkout the repository at each commit to see how it works.

## Interface before implementation

The approach we’ll take is one that highlights the principle of good testing and good software design: separate components by thin interfaces so that the implementations of those interfaces can change later without needing to update lots of client code.

We’ll take this to the extreme by implementing and testing the logic for our application before we ever decide what sort of database we plan to use! In other words, the choice of database will be our last choice, making it inherently flexible to change. That is, first we iron out a minimal interface that our application needs, and then choose the right database based on those needs. This is useful because software engineers often don’t understand how the choice of a dependency (especially a database dependency) will work out long term, particularly as a prototype starts to scale and hit application-specific bottlenecks. Couple this with the industry’s trend of chasing hot new fads, and eventually you realize no choice is sacred. Interface separation is the software engineer’s only defense, and their most potent tool for flexibility. As a side note, Tom Gamon summarizes this attitude well in a recent article, borrowing the analogy from a 1975 investment essay The Winner’s Game by Charles Ellis. Some of his other articles reinforce the idea that important decisions should be made as late as possible, since that is the only time you know enough to make those decisions well.

Our application has two parts so far: adding new divisor sums to the database, and loading divisor sums for analysis. Since we’ll be adding to this database over time, it may also be prudent to summarize the contents of the database, e.g. to say what’s the largest computed integer. This suggests the following first-pass interface, implemented in this commit.

class DivisorDb(ABC):
@abstractmethod
pass

@abstractmethod
def upsert(data: List[RiemannDivisorSum]) -> None:
'''Insert or update data.'''
pass

@abstractmethod
def summarize() -> SummaryStats:
'''Summarize the contents of the database.'''
pass


RiemannDivisorSum and SummaryStats are dataclasses. These are special classes that are intended to have restricted behavior: storing data and providing simple derivations on that data. For us this provides a stabler interface because the contents of the return values can change over time without interrupting other code. For example, we might want to eventually store the set of divisors alongside their sum. Compare this to returning a list or tuple, which is brittle when used with things like tuple assignment.

The other interesting tidbit about the commit is the use of abstract base classes (“ABC”, an awful name choice). Python has limited support for declaring an “interface” as many other languages do. The pythonic convention was always to use its “duck-typing” feature, which meant to just call whatever methods you want on an object, and then any object that supports has those methods can be used in that spot. The mantra was, “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it’s a duck.” However, there was no way to say “a duck is any object that has a waddle and quack method, and those are the only allowed duck functions.” As a result, I often saw folks tie their code to one particular duck implementation. That said, there were some mildly cumbersome third party libraries that enabled interface declarations. Better, recent versions of Python introduced the abstract base class as a means to enforce interfaces, and structural subtyping (typing.Protocol) to interact with type hints when subtyping directly is not feasible (e.g., when the source is in different codebases).

Moving on, we can implement an in-memory database that can be used for testing. This is done in this commit. One crucial aspect of these tests is that they do not rely on the knowledge that the in-memory database is secretly a dictionary. That is, the tests use only the DivisorDb interface and never inspect the underlying dict. This allows the same tests to run against all implementations, e.g., using pytest.parameterize. Also note it’s not thread safe or atomic, but for us this doesn’t really matter.

## Injecting the Interface

With our first-pass database interface and implementation, we can write the part of the application that populates the database with data. A simple serial algorithm that computes divisor sums in batches of 100k until the user hits Ctrl-C is done in this commit.

def populate_db(db: DivisorDb, batch_size: int = 100000) -> None:
'''Populate the db in batches.'''
starting_n = (db.summarize().largest_computed_n or 5040) + 1
while True:
ending_n = starting_n + batch_size
db.upsert(compute_riemann_divisor_sums(starting_n, ending_n))
starting_n = ending_n + 1


I only tested this code manually. The reason is that line 13 (highlighted in the abridged snippet above) is the only significant behavior not already covered by the InMemoryDivisorDb tests. (Of course, that line had a bug later fixed in this commit). I’m also expecting to change it soon, and spending time testing vs implementing features is a tradeoff that should not always fall on the side of testing.

Next let’s swap in a SQL database. We’ll add sqlite3, which comes prepackaged with python, so needs no dependency management. The implementation in this commit uses the same interface as the in-memory database, but the implementation is full of SQL queries. With this, we can upgrade our tests to run identically on both implementations. The commit looks large, but really I just indented all the existing tests, and added the pytest parameterize annotation to the class definition (and corresponding method arguments). This avoids adding a parameterize annotation to every individual test function—which wouldn’t be all that bad, but each new test would require the writer to remember to include the annotation, and this way systematically requires the extra method argument.

And finally, we can switch the database population script to use the SQL database implementation. This is done in this commit. Notice how simple it is, and how it doesn’t require any extra testing.

After running it a few times and getting a database with about 20 million rows, we can apply the simplest possible analysis: showing the top few witness values.

sqlite> select n, witness_value from RiemannDivisorSums where witness_value > 1.7 order by witness_value desc limit 100;
10080|1.7558143389253
55440|1.75124651488749
27720|1.74253672381383
7560|1.73991651920276
15120|1.73855867428903
110880|1.73484901030336
720720|1.73306535623807
1441440|1.72774021157846
166320|1.7269287425473
2162160|1.72557022852613
4324320|1.72354665986337
65520|1.71788900114772
3603600|1.71646721405987
332640|1.71609697536058
10810800|1.71607328780293
7207200|1.71577914933961
30240|1.71395368739173
20160|1.71381061514181
25200|1.71248203640096
83160|1.71210965310318
360360|1.71187211014506
277200|1.71124375582698
2882880|1.7106690212765
12252240|1.70971873843453
12600|1.70953565488377
8648640|1.70941081706371
32760|1.708296575835
221760|1.70824623791406
14414400|1.70288499724944
131040|1.70269370474016
554400|1.70259313608473
1081080|1.70080265951221


We can also confirm John’s claim that “the winners are all multiples of 2520,” as the best non-multiple-of-2520 up to 20 million is 18480, whose witness value is only about 1.69.

This multiple-of-2520 pattern is probably because 2520 is a highly composite number, i.e., it has more divisors than all smaller numbers, so its sum-of-divisors will tend to be large. Digging in a bit further, it seems the smallest counterexample, if it exists, is necessarily a superabundant number. Such numbers have a nice structure described here that suggests a search strategy better than trying every number.

Next time, we can introduce the concept of a search strategy as a new component to the application, and experiment with different search strategies. Other paths forward include building a front-end component, and deploying the system on a server so that the database can be populated continuously.