Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Let be an infinite set such that there are no distinct such that and . Is there such an with
Does there exist some absolute constant such that there are always infinitely many with
Is it true that
Source: erdosproblems.com/12
No claim settles this problem.
Open; the site's label is OPEN. The problem's three parts derive its standing: the first two, the liminf and density questions, are answered by pending claims, and the third, the reciprocal sum, has no standing claim. There are sets with property P and for all large , which answers the first question yes and the second no. The construction is credited to DeepMind's automated prover, was simplified and sharpened in the thread (7--9 April 2026) and is recorded in the commentary rewritten by the site's curator, Thomas Bloom, on 8 April 2026, while the problem's label is OPEN; formal proofs of the first two parts sit in a fork of the formal-conjectures collection at pinned commits (not built by this corpus). It is recorded as a pending partial claim on the DeepMind claim page (2026): the commentary credits the result but the label settles neither question, and the named-author preprint of May 2026 (revised June 2026) that reports the formal proofs, [TKS26], is unrefereed. Nat Sothanaphan's note of 8 April 2026, linked in the thread on 7 April and produced with GPT-5.4 Thinking, gives its own construction answering the same two questions and is recorded as a pending partial claim on his claim page (Sothanaphan, 2026). Before 2026 the results in hand were the density-zero theorem of Erdős and Sárközy (1970), their example with counting function , the Elsholtz--Planitzer construction with (2017), and, for pairwise coprime sets only, Schoen's and Baier's infinitely often, refereed results recorded as accepted partial claims on Schoen's claim page (2001) and Baier's claim page (2004), which answer the second question for that subclass only. For the third question nothing is proved either way: every known construction has convergent reciprocal sum, and a comment in the thread explains why congruence constructions cannot reach divergence; the one proof claim on it, of 30 July 2026, is recorded as a rejected partial claim on the Ndikums' claim page (2026) and does not change the standing.