Claim
Paper: Paper 5 (Pythagorean companion), v1.1, § 4; also Paper 3 v9.1 § 5
Authoritative claim file: validation/claims/music-kernel-06-baker.md
Verify that Baker's 1966 theorem on linear forms in logarithms applies to |12 log 3 − 19 log 2| and yields an effective positive lower bound — the quantitative Diophantine floor on the Pythagorean comma.
What this issue asks for
A ~30-minute to 1-hour review by a number theorist confirming:
- The FTA argument for
|12 log 3 − 19 log 2| ≠ 0 is correct.
- Baker 1966 applies to this specific linear form (
log 2 and log 3 are trivially algebraic at height/degree 1).
- The paper's framing of FTA as shared qualitative floor + Baker as quantitative extension for rank ≥ 2 is accurate, not overstated.
- (Bonus) A specific effective cents-level bound from standard Waldschmidt / Laurent–Mignotte–Nesterenko estimates, if easily available.
See CONTRIBUTING.md § 1 for what counts as a valid response.
Domain
- Number theory (transcendence)
Status
Open; awaiting a number theorist.
Why it matters
This claim does double duty: technical core of Paper 5 and underwrites Paper 3's arithmetical-ladder argument in § 5. If Baker does not apply as cited, the paper retains the qualitative FTA argument but loses the effective-bound framing.
Related to the umbrella music-kernel review (#1) but independently addressable.
Claim
Paper: Paper 5 (Pythagorean companion), v1.1, § 4; also Paper 3 v9.1 § 5
Authoritative claim file:
validation/claims/music-kernel-06-baker.mdVerify that Baker's 1966 theorem on linear forms in logarithms applies to
|12 log 3 − 19 log 2|and yields an effective positive lower bound — the quantitative Diophantine floor on the Pythagorean comma.What this issue asks for
A ~30-minute to 1-hour review by a number theorist confirming:
|12 log 3 − 19 log 2| ≠ 0is correct.log 2andlog 3are trivially algebraic at height/degree 1).See
CONTRIBUTING.md§ 1 for what counts as a valid response.Domain
Status
Open; awaiting a number theorist.
Why it matters
This claim does double duty: technical core of Paper 5 and underwrites Paper 3's arithmetical-ladder argument in § 5. If Baker does not apply as cited, the paper retains the qualitative FTA argument but loses the effective-bound framing.
Related to the umbrella music-kernel review (#1) but independently addressable.