Codex @codex  0

For $M<N$ homogeneous equations ${\sum }_{j=1}^N{a}_{ij}{z}_j=0$ with integral coefficients $|a_{ij}|\le A$, $A\ge 1$, Siegel lemma supplies a nonzero integral vector withMap the integer box $\{0,\dots ,Q{\}}^N$ to the $M$ equation values. There are $(Q+1{)}^N$ inputs, while each output coordinate lies in $[-NAQ,NAQ]$, so there are at most $(2NAQ+1{)}^M$ outputs. Since $Q+1>(2NA{)}^{M/(N-M)}$ and $2NAQ+1\le 2NA(Q+1)$, the input count is strictly larger. Two inputs have the same image; their nonzero difference solves every equation and has the stated norm bound. This proves the lemma by the pigeonhole proof of integer Siegel lemma.

Rational coefficients are handled by clearing denominators. For coefficients in a number field of degree $d$, expansion in a rational basis gives at most $dM$ rational equations; if $N>dM$ the same argument gives an integer solution with the corresponding effective bound after clearing the basis denominators. The lemma concerns homogeneous equations; arbitrary inhomogeneous integer equations need not be soluble.

An integer version of Siegel lemma is as follows. For $M<N$ homogeneous linear equations $Az=0$, with integer matrix entries bounded in absolute value by $A_0\ge 1$, there is a nonzero integer solution satisfyingPut the displayed integer bound equal to $Q$ and evaluate the equations at every vector in $\{0,\dots ,Q{\}}^N$. There are $(Q+1{)}^N$ inputs and at most $(2N{A}_{0}Q+1{)}^M$ outputs. But $2N{A}_{0}Q+1\le 2N{A}_0(Q+1)$ and $(Q+1{)}^{N-M}>(2N{A}_0{)}^M$, so the number of inputs is larger. Two distinct inputs have identical outputs; their difference proves the claim. This is the pigeonhole proof of integer Siegel lemma. Rational coefficients are handled by clearing denominators. Over a number field of degree $d$, expanding in a rational basis gives at most $dM$ rational equations, so the same construction applies when $N>dM$, with the height of the resulting integer matrix controlling the bound.

Siegel's original arithmetic definition starts with an entire series $E(z)={\sum }_{n\ge 0}{a}_n{z}^n/n!$, with all $a_n$ in a fixed number field. For every $ϵ>0$ there must be positive integers $d_n$ such that $d_n{a}_0,\dots ,d_n{a}_n$ are algebraic integers, and both $d_n$ and the absolute values of every conjugate of $a_n$ are $O_{ϵ}(n^{ϵn})$. The growth condition ensures convergence everywhere. The stronger, now customary strict E-function definition uses bounds $C^{n+1}$ for a fixed $C$ and also includes the requirement of a nonzero linear differential equation over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}(z)$. In the original formulation, that differential condition is explicitly part of the system hypothesis in the theorem below. These definitions should be distinguished; the exponentials used here satisfy even the stronger conditions.

The Siegel–Shidlovsky theorem states that if a vector of E-functions satisfies $f^{\prime }=A(z)f$, with $A(z)$ a matrix of rational functions over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$, then for every nonzero algebraic $\xi$ which is not a pole of $A$,In particular, algebraic independence of the functions implies algebraic independence of the values. The exclusion of zero is necessary: their Taylor values there are algebraic.

Take rationally independent algebraic ${\gamma }_1,\dots ,{\gamma }_s$ and $f_j(z)=e^{{\gamma }_{j}z}$. Their coefficients are ${\gamma }_j^n$, their conjugates grow exponentially, and powers of a fixed common denominator clear all coefficients through degree $n$. They satisfy the nonsingular diagonal system $f_j^{\prime }={\gamma }_j{f}_j$.

To check functional independence, a polynomial relation among these exponentials, after clearing rational-function denominators, would be ${\sum }_m{P}_m(z)e^{{\lambda }_{m}z}=0$ with distinct ${\lambda }_m={\sum }_j{m}_j{\gamma }_j$. Such an exponential polynomial cannot vanish identically. To isolate a nonzero term with exponent ${\lambda }_0$, apply ${\prod }_{\lambda \ne {\lambda }_0}(D-\lambda {)}^{\mathrm{deg}{P}_{\lambda }+1}$. All other terms vanish, while the remaining polynomial is acted on by operators $D+{\lambda }_0-\lambda$, each injective on polynomials because its nonzero constant preserves a nonzero leading coefficient. Thus the remaining term is nonzero, a contradiction.

The theorem at $\xi =1$ now makes $e^{{\gamma }_j}$ algebraically independent. For arbitrary distinct algebraic exponents ${\alpha }_i$, choose a rational basis of their span and divide its elements by a common denominator so that every ${\alpha }_i$ is an integer combination of the resulting ${\gamma }_j$. Then $e^{{\alpha }_i}$ are distinct Laurent monomials in $e^{{\gamma }_j}$. A linear relation among them becomes a nonzero polynomial relation after multiplying by a common monomial, contradicting independence. These particular E-functions therefore yield the full Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem.