ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Improved Bounds for Distinct Multiples in Intervals

Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.

distinct-multiples-in-intervalsNumber theoryposed by Scott Duke Kominers; functions introduced by Erdős and Pomerancerecorded: disproved

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

For the Erdős–Pomerance functions F(n)F(n) and hP(n)h_{\mathbb{P}}(n) counting how many consecutive integers are needed to contain a distinct multiple of each integer, respectively prime, up to nn, the paper proves F(n)hP(n)nexp((log22o(1))lognloglogn)F(n) \ge h_{\mathbb{P}}(n) \ge n\exp\left(\left(\frac{\log 2}{2} - o(1)\right)\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}\right), disproving Kominers' conjecture that F(n)nlognF(n) \ll n\log n. The paper also significantly improves known upper bounds (which were on the order of n3/2n^{3/2}) to F(n)n4/3+o(1)F(n) \le n^{4/3 + o(1)} and hP(n)n4/3o(1)h_{\mathbb{P}}(n) \le n^{4/3 - o(1)}.

Context

Disproves a stated conjecture of Kominers and improves bounds of Ruzsa, van Doorn and Kominers on functions introduced by Erdős and Pomerance.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    proof attemptChatGPT 5.x with Kaizhe Chen, Samuel Korsky ·
    AI involvement
    ai co developed
    a person and a model developed the result together.
    models
    ChatGPT 5.x
    people
    Kaizhe Chen, Samuel Korsky

    The note carries a dedicated Statement on AI saying that the main proofs in it were developed with the assistance of ChatGPT 5.x. That is a claim about the mathematics rather than the exposition, which is why this sits a tier above the rest of its batch.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

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