Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated

Szemeredi 1976 problem p erdos

../

main_theorem: Szemerédi's theorem that two sets A, B of positive integers not exceeding n whose products ab are all distinct satisfy |A||B| < C n^2/log n for an absolute constant C, the original proof of the statement of Problem 490.


E. Szemerédi, On a Problem of P. Erdös, Journal of Number Theory 8 (1976), no. 3, 264--270, DOI 10.1016/0022-314X(76)90003-2 (the DOI is not printed; it is the Crossref record's, which the problem page cites); the author at the Mathematics Institutes, Hungarian Academy of Science, Budapest; communicated by P. Erdős, received May 2, 1972, revised April 10, 1973 (p. 264); copyright 1976 by Academic Press. Cited as [Sz76] on the problem page. Its three references (p. 270) are Erdős, Ob odnom asimptotičeskom neravenstve teorii čisel, Vestnik Leningrad. Univ. 3 (1960), 41--49, the source of the multiplication-table estimate recalled on p. 264; Erdős, Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. 6 (1961), 237, the page of the origin paper filed as erdos_1961_unsolved_problems on which the problem is posed; and Halberstam and Roth, Sequences I (Clarendon, 1966), cited for the Brun-sieve lemma. The "forthcoming paper" of Erdős and the author announced on p. 265 is erdos_1976_multiplicative_representations_integers, whose Theorem 1 is a second proof of the theorem here.

The copy read for this card is the publisher's open-archive scan of the printed article: 7 pages, printed pp. 264--270 = PDF pp. 1--7 (printed p. nn is PDF p. n−263n-263), a 2003 capture (the file's metadata names an Acrobat 4.0 Capture plug-in and a December 2003 creation date) with an OCR text layer that reads the prose and locates passages but garbles the displays: subscripts, inequality signs, the set-builder notation and every constant cic_i come out wrong, so each statement below was read on the page image. Provenance: the copy read was obtained on 2026-09-22 from the publisher's open archive, a free copy, the DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-314X(76)90003-2 resolving to the article's PDF under the publisher's user license (the Crossref record lists the article under that license since 2013); 271,323 bytes. That copy prints "Copyright © 1976 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved." at the foot of its first page (printed p. 264; the OCR layer garbles the mark), every other right reserved; the publisher's open-archive user license under which the copy was obtained is not a reuse grant.

Read status: claims checked for the abstract, Erdős's problem, the construction (1) and the conjecture (2) (p. 264), Diviš's question with the bound (3), the announced Erdős--Szemerédi theorem, the sentence on c>1c>1 and Lemma 1 (p. 265), Lemmas 2 and 3 (p. 266), the two cases (p. 267) and the closing statement with the constant CC (p. 269), each read clause by clause on the page images of PDF pp. 1--7 (printed pp. 264--270) on 2026-09-22; the acknowledgment (p. 269) and the reference list (p. 270) were read on the page images. The proof (pp. 265--269, the whole of the paper after the introduction) was read in full on the page images for its structure, and its outline was compared with the second proof in Theorem 1 of the 1976 Erdős--Szemerédi paper; no step of either proof was checked. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Contents

  • Abstract (p. 264, page image). For a positive integer nn and two sets A={a1,…,as}A=\{a_1,\ldots,a_s\}, B={b1,…,bt}B=\{b_1,\ldots,b_t\} of positive integers whose product set has stst distinct members, the abstract claims, quoted: "for a certain positive constant cc, st≤c n2/log⁡nst\le c\,n^2/\log n, establishing a conjecture made by P. Erdös." A filing observation, not a review verdict: the abstract omits the hypothesis that the elements do not exceed nn, which the body's statement of the problem and its display (2) carry.
  • Introduction (p. 264, page image). The opening recalls Erdős's multiplication-table estimate [1]: with A(n)A(n) the count of integers up to n2n^2 that factor as a product of two integers up to nn, for every ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and n>n0(ϵ)n>n_0(\epsilon), n2(log⁡n)−α−ϵ<A(n)<n2(log⁡n)−α+ϵn^2(\log n)^{-\alpha-\epsilon}<A(n)<n^2(\log n)^{-\alpha+\epsilon} with α=1−(log⁡(elog⁡2)/log⁡2)\alpha=1-(\log(e\log2)/\log2) (printed "log⁡(elog⁡2)\log(e\log^2)", read here as log⁡(elog⁡2)\log(e\log2)), so A(n)A(n) is known to within a factor (log⁡n)ϵ(\log n)^\epsilon, and an asymptotic formula is said to look hard. The problem Erdős [2] stated, in the paper's words, quoted: "Let 1≤a1<⋯<ak≤n1\le a_1<\cdots<a_k\le n and b1<⋯<bl≤nb_1<\cdots<b_l\le n be two sequences of integers so that the products aibja_ib_j are all distinct. Determine or estimate the maximum of klkl." Erdős observed that kl>(1+o(1)) n2/log⁡nkl>(1+o(1))\,n^2/\log n (display (1)) can be attained: take for the aa's the primes in (n/log⁡n,n)(n/\log n,n) and for the bb's the integers up to nn divisible by none of those primes; then k≥(1+o(1)) n/log⁡nk\ge(1+o(1))\,n/\log n, l≥(1+o(1)) nl\ge(1+o(1))\,n, and no two products aibja_ib_j coincide. He conjectured the matching upper bound kl<C(n2/log⁡n)kl<C(n^2/\log n) (display (2)), which is what the paper proves, after a page of related problems; the paper calls its argument "the surprisingly simple proof of (2)". The footnote on p. 264 fixes "integers" to mean the natural numbers throughout.
  • Related problems (pp. 264--265, page images). Diviš's question: for rr sequences 1≤a1(i)<⋯<aki(i)≤n1\le a^{(i)}_1<\cdots<a^{(i)}_{k_i}\le n, 1≤i≤r1\le i\le r, whose products ∏i=1raui(i)\prod_{i=1}^ra^{(i)}_{u_i} (1≤ui≤ki1\le u_i\le k_i) are all distinct, what is the maximum of ∏i=1rki\prod_{i=1}^rk_i? Diviš proved, by the method of this paper, that ∏i=1rki<Cr(nr/(log⁡n)r−1)\prod_{i=1}^rk_i<C_r(n^r/(\log n)^{r-1}) (display (3)), and, as Erdős suggested, it is enough to ask that for each pair 1≤i1<i2≤r1\le i_1<i_2\le r the products aj(i1)al(i2)a^{(i_1)}_ja^{(i_2)}_l be distinct; the paper remarks that (3) is best possible apart from the value of CrC_r. No proof of (3) is printed. The theorem announced for a forthcoming paper of Erdős and the author, quoted: "Let 1≤a1<⋯<ak≤n1\le a_1<\cdots<a_k\le n; 1≤b1<⋯<bl≤n1\le b_1<\cdots<b_l\le n be two sequences of integers so that for every mm the number of solutions of m=aibjm=a_ib_j is less than c1c_1. Then for some c2=c2(c1)c_2=c_2(c_1) kl<(n2/log⁡n)(log⁡log⁡n)c2kl<(n^2/\log n)(\log\log n)^{c_2}." Then, quoted as printed: "Also we hope to investigate whether (2) is true for avery c>1c>1 if n>n0(c)n>n_0(c)." This is the paper's only remark on the constant; it states no conjecture.
  • Notation and Lemma 1 (p. 265, page image; proof p. 266). AA, BB are sets of integers, ∣A∣|A| the number of elements; for a set SS of natural numbers and a prime pp, SpS_p is the subset of SS of numbers divisible by pp and p−1Spp^{-1}S_p the set of p−1tp^{-1}t with t∈Spt\in S_p, so ∣Sp∣=∣p−1Sp∣|S_p|=|p^{-1}S_p|. Lemma 1, quoted: "Let AA and BB be two sequences of integers not exceeding nn. Then there are subsets A∗⊂AA^*\subset A, B∗⊂BB^*\subset B so that ∣A∗∣∣B∗∣>14∣A∣∣B∣|A^*||B^*|>\frac14|A||B| and for every pp satisfying Ap∗≠∅A^*_p\ne\varnothing, respectively Bp∗≠∅B^*_p\ne\varnothing, is ∣Ap∗∣>c1((A∗∣/plog⁡p)|A^*_p|>c_1((A^*|/p\log p) [sic] respectively ∣Bp∗∣>c1(∣B∗∣/plog⁡p)|B^*_p|>c_1(|B^*|/p\log p) for c1=(1/2)(∑p1/plog⁡p)−1c_1=(1/2)\bigl(\sum_p1/p\log p\bigr)^{-1}." The proof deletes, from AiA^i, the multiples of every prime pp with ∣Api∣≤c1(∣Ai∣/plog⁡p)|A^i_p|\le c_1(|A^i|/p\log p) to form Ai+1A^{i+1}; the total deleted is below c1∣A∣∑p(1/plog⁡p)=12∣A∣c_1|A|\sum_p(1/p\log p)=\frac12|A|, so the process stops at some Aj=A∗A^j=A^* with ∣A∗∣>12∣A∣|A^*|>\frac12|A|, and likewise for BB. The paper then assumes without loss of generality that AA and BB themselves satisfy ∣Ap∣>c1(∣A∣/plog⁡p)|A_p|>c_1(|A|/p\log p) if Ap≠∅A_p\ne\varnothing and ∣Bp∣>c1(∣B∣/plog⁡p)|B_p|>c_1(|B|/p\log p) if Bp≠∅B_p\ne\varnothing, for each pp (the factor 44 reappears in the final constant).
  • Lemmas 2 and 3 (p. 266, page image). Lemma 2, quoted: "If n≥1n\ge1 and PP is a set of primes ≤n\le n and if Q={m:m≤n,(m,p)=1,p∈P}Q=\{m:m\le n,(m,p)=1,p\in P\}, then ∣Q∣≤c2n∏p∈P(1−p−1)|Q|\le c_2n\prod_{p\in P}(1-p^{-1}), where c2c_2 is an absolute constant." The paper says it follows easily from Brun's method and points to [3] for a proof. Lemma 3, quoted: "If p−1Ap∩q−1Aq≠∅p^{-1}A_p\cap q^{-1}A_q\ne\varnothing for some p≠qp\ne q, then p−1Bp∩q−1Bq=∅p^{-1}B_p\cap q^{-1}B_q=\varnothing." Its four-line proof is the only place the distinct-products hypothesis enters: px,qx∈Apx,qx\in A and py,qy∈Bpy,qy\in B would give the equal products px⋅qypx\cdot qy and qx⋅pyqx\cdot py. For k≥1k\ge1, $L(k)={p:2^k\le p<2^{k+1},A_p\ne\varnothing, B_p\ne\varnothing}$, and the proof splits into Case I, ∣L(k)∣≤2k/2|L(k)|\le2^{k/2} for each k≥1k\ge1, and Case II, ∣L(k)∣>2k/2|L(k)|>2^{k/2} for some kk and ∣L(k′)∣≤2k′/2|L(k')|\le2^{k'/2} for k′>kk'>k (p. 267).
  • Case I (p. 267, page image). Lemma 2 with PP the primes p≤np\le n with Ap=∅A_p=\varnothing, respectively Bp=∅B_p=\varnothing, gives ∣A∣⋅∣B∣≤c22n2∏p≤n(1−p−1)∏p≤n, Ap≠∅, Bp≠∅(1−p−1)−1|A|\cdot|B|\le c_2^2n^2\prod_{p\le n}(1-p^{-1})\prod_{p\le n,\,A_p\ne\varnothing,\,B_p\ne\varnothing}(1-p^{-1})^{-1}; "As it is well known, c4/log⁡n≤∏p≤n(1−p−1)≤c3/log⁡nc_4/\log n\le\prod_{p\le n}(1-p^{-1})\le c_3/\log n, for n≥2n\ge2" with absolute positive constants c3c_3, c4c_4, and in this case the second product is below ∏k=1∞(1−2−k)−2k/2=c5\prod_{k=1}^\infty(1-2^{-k})^{-2^{k/2}}=c_5, so ∣A∣⋅∣B∣<c22c3c5n2/log⁡n|A|\cdot|B|<c_2^2c_3c_5n^2/\log n.
  • Case II (pp. 267--269, page images). Every element of p−1App^{-1}A_p for p∈L(k)p\in L(k) is at most n2−kn2^{-k}, likewise for BB, so Lemma 2 bounds ∣⋃p∈L(k)p−1Ap∣|\bigcup_{p\in L(k)}p^{-1}A_p| and ∣⋃p∈L(k)p−1Bp∣|\bigcup_{p\in L(k)}p^{-1}B_p| by c2n2−k∏(1−p−1)c_2n2^{-k}\prod(1-p^{-1}) over the primes n2−k≥p>2k+1n2^{-k}\ge p>2^{k+1} with Ap=∅A_p=\varnothing, respectively Bp=∅B_p=\varnothing (empty products equal one). If ∣A∣<4log⁡2 c1−1c2(k+1)n2−k/4∏n2−k≥p>2k+1, Ap=∅(1−p−1)|A|<4\log2\,c_1^{-1}c_2(k+1)n2^{-k/4}\prod_{n2^{-k}\ge p>2^{k+1},\,A_p=\varnothing}(1-p^{-1}), then with the Lemma 2 bound on ∣B∣|B| and the same c5c_5 product, either the remaining product is empty, whence n<22k+2n<2^{2k+2}, k+1>log⁡n/2log⁡2k+1>\log n/2\log2 and ∣A∣⋅∣B∣<8log⁡22 c1−1c22c5c6(n2/log⁡n)|A|\cdot|B|<8\log^22\,c_1^{-1}c_2^2c_5c_6(n^2/\log n) with c6=max⁡k≥1(k+1)22−k/4c_6=\max_{k\ge1}(k+1)^22^{-k/4}, or it is not, whence n>22kn>2^{2k} and the Mertens bounds give ∣A∣⋅∣B∣≤8log⁡22 c1−1c22c3c4−1c5c6(n2/log⁡n)|A|\cdot|B|\le8\log^22\,c_1^{-1}c_2^2c_3c_4^{-1}c_5c_6(n^2/\log n). So assume the reverse inequality for ∣A∣|A| and, by symmetry, for ∣B∣|B| (pp. 268--269). Then Lemma 1 gives ∑p∈L(k)∣p−1Ap∣>c1(∣A∣/(2k+1(k+1)log⁡2))2k/2≥2(k/4)+1∣⋃p∈L(k)p−1Ap∣\sum_{p\in L(k)}|p^{-1}A_p|>c_1\bigl(|A|/(2^{k+1}(k+1)\log2)\bigr)2^{k/2}\ge2^{(k/4)+1}|\bigcup_{p\in L(k)}p^{-1}A_p|, so some L∗⊂L(k)L^*\subset L(k) with ∣L∗∣≥2(k/4)+1|L^*|\ge2^{(k/4)+1} has ⋂p∈L∗p−1Ap≠∅\bigcap_{p\in L^*}p^{-1}A_p\ne\varnothing; then ∑p∈L∗∣p−1Bp∣≥4∣⋃p∈L∗p−1Bp∣\sum_{p\in L^*}|p^{-1}B_p|\ge4|\bigcup_{p\in L^*}p^{-1}B_p|, so two primes p1,p2∈L∗p_1,p_2\in L^* have p1−1Bp1∩p2−1Bp2≠∅p_1^{-1}B_{p_1}\cap p_2^{-1}B_{p_2}\ne\varnothing, against Lemma 3, which ends the proof.
  • Conclusion (p. 269, page image), quoted: "Thus, our result is that for n≥2n\ge2 we have ∣A∣⋅∣B∣<C(n2/log⁡n)|A|\cdot|B|<C(n^2/\log n), where C=4max⁡{c22c3c5, 8c1−1c22c5c6log⁡22, 8c1−1c22c3c4−1c5c6log⁡22}C=4\max\{c_2^2c_3c_5,\,8c_1^{-1}c_2^2c_5c_6\log^22,\,8c_1^{-1}c_2^2c_3c_4^{-1}c_5c_6\log^22\}", which the paper reduces in three printed steps to 16c1−1c22c3c4−1c5c616c_1^{-1}c_2^2c_3c_4^{-1}c_5c_6; the constants are the sieve constant c2c_2 of Lemma 2, the Mertens constants c3c_3, c4c_4, and the explicit c1c_1, c5c_5, c6c_6 above. The reduction was not checked here. Acknowledgment (p. 269): thanks to B. Diviš and P. Erdős for help with the final form of the proof.

Compiled scope

The paper is compiled at statement depth for the result Problem 490 consumes: the theorem, in the abstract's form (p. 264), the body's display (2) with its hypothesis ai,bj≤na_i,b_j\le n (p. 264) and the closing statement with the constant CC (p. 269), read on the page images and paged on main_theorem. The construction (1), Diviš's bound (3), the announced Erdős--Szemerédi theorem and the remark on c>1c>1 are recorded as statements read on the page images; (3) has no printed proof. The proof of the theorem was read in full for its structure and not checked. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Bears on. #490: the theorem is the problem's statement. The abstract (p. 264) takes two sets A={a1,…,as}A=\{a_1,\ldots,a_s\}, B={b1,…,bt}B=\{b_1,\ldots,b_t\} of positive integers with stst distinct pairwise products and claims, quoted: "for a certain positive constant cc, st≤c n2/log⁡nst\le c\,n^2/\log n, establishing a conjecture made by P. Erdös", the sets being subsets of {1,…,n}\{1,\ldots,n\} by the body's statement of the problem (p. 264: 1≤a1<⋯<ak≤n1\le a_1<\cdots<a_k\le n, b1<⋯<bl≤nb_1<\cdots<b_l\le n, the products aibja_ib_j all distinct, the conjecture (2) kl<C(n2/log⁡n)kl<C(n^2/\log n)), and the closing line (p. 269) gives the bound for every n≥2n\ge2 with the constant CC written out. This is the paper the site names ("This is true, and was proved by Szemerédi [Sz76]") and the one Erdős's 1972 survey announced as "a surprisingly simple proof of (1), his paper will appear in the Journal of Number Theory" (p. 81 of the survey); the paper's own words are "the surprisingly simple proof of (2)" (p. 264). Its reference [2] is the page of the 1961 origin paper the problem page cites as [Er61]. On the limit question the problem page records as open, the paper says only (p. 265) that the author hopes "to investigate whether (2) is true for avery [sic] c>1c>1 if n>n0(c)n>n_0(c)"; its construction (1) (p. 264), like the 1976 Erdős--Szemerédi construction, shows that the maximum of klkl is at least (1+o(1))n2/log⁡n(1+o(1))n^2/\log n, while the site's example (the integers up to n/2n/2 against the primes in (n/2,n](n/2,n]) gives (1/4+o(1))n2/log⁡n(1/4+o(1))n^2/\log n. The proof (pp. 265--269) has the outline of Theorem 1 of the 1976 Erdős--Szemerédi paper: Lemma 1's density condition ∣Ap∣>c1∣A∣/(plog⁡p)|A_p|>c_1|A|/(p\log p) answers to the primes "associated" with AA there, the dyadic blocks L(k)L(k) of primes dividing members of both sets answer to its blocks of primes associated with both, Lemma 3 is where the distinct-products hypothesis enters in both, and Lemma 2 (Brun) with the Mertens product bounds close both; that paper calls its argument "a simpler proof of (4), which nevertheless uses many of the ideas of the original proof" (p. 420). The comparison is at the level of outline; no step of either proof was checked.

Results.

  • Main theorem (abstract and display (2), p. 264; the constant CC, p. 269): for n≥2n\ge2, two sets A,BA,B of positive integers not exceeding nn whose products abab are all distinct satisfy ∣A∣⋅∣B∣<C(n2/log⁡n)|A|\cdot|B|<C(n^2/\log n) for an absolute constant CC.

No file of this source is held: no license on record permits its redistribution, and the card cites the edition it names above.