When Equivalence Obscures: On Mathematical Reduction, Epistemic Access, and Expository Machines The Jensen–Laguerre route to the Riemann Hypothesis as a case study

This paper uses the Jensen–Laguerre reformulation of the Riemann Hypothesis as a case study in how mathematical equivalences can be both correct and unhelpful. The reformulation turns RH into an infinite family of finite “checkable” statements about real-rooted polynomials, which looks like it should make progress easier. But recent critiques suggest the opposite: the reduction may shift the real difficulty into a small set of exceptional cases and rely on universal asymptotic behavior that is not specific to RH. I propose practical criteria for when a reduction improves epistemic access and when it obscures it. The paper also argues that AI-assisted writing sharpens this problem. Because AI can quickly produce polished, reduction-shaped manuscripts, it becomes easier to confuse a clean equivalence with a workable proof strategy. I end with a taxonomy of AI assistance and a short checklist meant to help authors and readers separate exposition from genuine mathematical progress.