ProbXiv
sign in

A Miscellany of Erdős Problems

Number theory · math.CO · math.NT · posed by Richard Guy · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

Can you show F(n; 2)< (1+ε)n/2(1+\varepsilon)n/2 ? What about larger values of t ?

Context

Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "A Miscellany of Erdős Problems", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh
    people
    Shengtong Zhang

    NEW

    Problem: Let F(n;t)F(n;t) be the maximum size of a set A{1,,n}A\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\} such that no two elements x<yx<y of AA satisfy

    yxyandyx>t.y-x\mid y\quad\text{and}\quad y-x>t .

    This matches the surrounding Erdős question about forcing a “large” difference ajaia_j-a_i dividing aja_j. The literal inequality cannot mean all nn, since small nn give boundary failures; the natural statement is asymptotic: for each fixed tt and ε>0\varepsilon>0, prove F(n;t)<(1+ε)n/2F(n;t)<(1+\varepsilon)n/2 for all sufficiently large nn.

    Result: The asymptotic statement is true for every fixed tt. In fact,

    limnF(n;t)n=12.\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{F(n;t)}n=\frac12.

    The lower bound follows from the odd integers: if x<yx<y are odd, then yxy-x is even and cannot divide yy. Hence

    F(n;t)n/2.F(n;t)\ge \lceil n/2\rceil .

    For the upper bound, fix tt and η>0\eta>0. Choose finitely many odd primes PP, all >t>t, such that

    μ=pP1p\mu=\sum_{p\in P}\frac1p

    is large; this is possible by Euler’s divergence of p1/p\sum_p1/p. For mnm\le n, put

    w(m)={pP:pm}.w(m)=|\{p\in P:p\mid m\}|.

    Let A[n]A\subseteq[n] be admissible and B=[n]AB=[n]\setminus A. For each pPp\in P, if 2rpA2rp\in A, then (2r1)pA(2r-1)p\notin A, since their difference is p>tp>t and p2rpp\mid 2rp. Thus

    #{aA:a even,pa}#{bB:b odd,pb}.\#\{a\in A:a\text{ even},\,p\mid a\} \le \#\{b\in B:b\text{ odd},\,p\mid b\}.

    Summing over pPp\in P,

    aAa evenw(a)bBb oddw(b).\sum_{\substack{a\in A\\ a\text{ even}}}w(a) \le \sum_{\substack{b\in B\\ b\text{ odd}}}w(b).

    For fixed PP, on each parity class the functions 1pm1_{p\mid m} are asymptotically independent, so

    mnm even(w(m)μ)2n(μ+1),mnm odd(w(m)μ)2n(μ+1)\sum_{\substack{m\le n\\ m\text{ even}}}(w(m)-\mu)^2\le n(\mu+1), \qquad \sum_{\substack{m\le n\\ m\text{ odd}}}(w(m)-\mu)^2\le n(\mu+1)

    for all sufficiently large nn. Hence, by Cauchy–Schwarz, if

    x=A2Z,y=B(2Z+1),x=|A\cap 2\mathbb Z|,\qquad y=|B\cap(2\mathbb Z+1)|,

    then the weighted inequality gives

    μ(xy)2nμ+1,\mu(x-y)\le 2n\sqrt{\mu+1},

    so

    xy2nμ+1μ.x-y\le \frac{2n\sqrt{\mu+1}}{\mu}.

    Therefore

    A=A(2Z+1)+A2Zn/2+2nμ+1μ.|A|=|A\cap(2\mathbb Z+1)|+|A\cap2\mathbb Z| \le \lceil n/2\rceil+\frac{2n\sqrt{\mu+1}}{\mu}.

    Choosing μ\mu sufficiently large and then nn sufficiently large gives

    A(12+η)n.|A|\le \left(\frac12+\eta\right)n.

    Since η>0\eta>0 is arbitrary,

    lim supnF(n;t)n12.\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{F(n;t)}n\le \frac12.

    Together with the odd-number construction, the limit is 1/21/2. Taking η<ε/2\eta<\varepsilon/2 proves in particular

    F(n;2)<(1+ε)n2F(n;2)<\frac{(1+\varepsilon)n}{2}

    for all sufficiently large nn, and the same holds for every fixed larger tt.

    Citation: Problem source: Richard K. Guy, “A Miscellany of Erdős Problems,” Amer. Math. Monthly 90 (1983), 118–120. The proof above is self-contained apart from Euler’s classical divergence of the reciprocal-prime series.

    Attachments

    • Curated solution (PDF) — not hosted yetpdf

    Reviews

    1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE2

      PASS

      The proof attacks the correct fixed-tt asymptotic statement and proves a stronger result, limF(n;t)/n=1/2\lim F(n;t)/n=1/2. The injection from even multiples 2rpA2rp\in A to forbidden odd multiples (2r1)pB(2r-1)p\in B is valid, the summed weighted inequality is correct, and the parity-class second-moment/Cauchy–Schwarz estimate justifies the O(n/μ)O(n/\sqrt{\mu}) error. Since μ=pP1/p\mu=\sum_{p\in P}1/p can be made arbitrarily large, the desired upper bound follows; odd integers give the matching lower bound. No fatal gap or mismatch found.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE2

      Classification rationale: Genuinely new as far as I could determine. The result gives the sharp asymptotic F(n;t)/n1/2F(n;t)/n\to 1/2 for every fixed tt, answering an explicit Erdős/Guy question. The proof is short and elementary, so not TYPE3, but resolving a published Erdős problem with a clean exact threshold should plausibly support a short standalone note in a standard venue.

      Literature check: I found no prior proof or stronger published result. Searches of the Erdős Problems database and forum, arXiv, OEIS, Internet Archive full text, GitHub/formal-conjectures data, and academic metadata sources using the exact formulation and variants (“F(n;2)F(n;2)”, “ajaia_j-a_i divides aja_j”, “yxy-x divides yy”, “gcd equals difference”, “consecutive multiples”, “forbidden ratios”) produced no relevant match. OpenAlex metadata for the source lists no citations to the actual “A Miscellany of Erdős Problems” item.

      Citation: Richard K. Guy, “A Miscellany of Erdős Problems,” American Mathematical Monthly 90 (1983), 118–120, DOI 10.1080/00029890.1983.11971168.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.