Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
This digest records statement-level content from arXiv:2603.28636v1, submitted 2026-03-30, the copy read for this digest. The edition is identified on the source card.
Definition and theorem statements
For each positive integer , let be the largest integer such that, for every set of positive integers and every real number , there are distinct and distinct integers satisfying
The paper also writes and lets be the bipartite divisibility graph on and .
Theorem 2.1 (E650; printed/physical p. 2). For every positive integer ,
Remark 2.2 (printed/physical p. 3). For every integer ,
Historical comparison (printed/physical p. 1). The paper recalls the Erdős–Surányi lower bound and the Erdős–Selfridge estimate , which gives the general upper bound . Thus the earlier general bounds differed by a factor of two.
Theorem 3.1 (printed/physical p. 4). For all positive integers ,
The paper's construction (printed/physical pp. 4–5) uses the Chinese Remainder Theorem to produce a set of positive integers and an interval of length containing at most distinct multiples.
Theorem 4.1 (printed/physical p. 5). For every positive integer ,
The paper's lower-bound proof applies a generalization of Hall's theorem (Lemma 2.3, p. 3, the König–Ore formula) to . Together Theorems 3.1 and 4.1 give Theorem 2.1.
Interval-length range (printed/physical pp. 1--2 and 5). Although the displayed definition of uses intervals of length , the introduction says that the same results remain valid when 2 is replaced by any real multiplier with . More precisely, Remark 3.3 says that, for every , the upper-bound construction still works with an interval of length once is chosen larger than . This records the source's parameter extension; it is not a new local proof.
Verification layers
Formal source. The paper cites Wouter van Doorn's ErdosProblem650.lean. Its Section 5 records Lean version leanprover/lean4:v4.28.0 and Mathlib commit 8f9d9cff6bd728b17a24e163c9402775d9e6a365. No local Lean environment or build was used.
Reported verification. The paper reports (Sections 1.1 and 5) that an initial draft produced by a large language model found the main strategy but contained a gap in the Case 2 injection, and that an automated theorem-proving system supplied a working variation and a complete Lean formalization. It says the final exposition and proofs are human-written. These are author-reported workflow claims, recorded without model or system names.
Local verification. The copy read for this digest is the arXiv v1 PDF, submitted 2026-03-30. All eight page images were read for the definition, historical comparison, interval-range and CRT statements, Theorems 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1, and the formalization account. This check records source statements and provenance only. Read status: claims checked for the definition of , Theorem 2.1, Remark 2.2, Lemma 2.3, Theorem 3.1, Remark 3.3 and Theorem 4.1, read clause by clause on the page images; the proofs of Sections 3 and 4 were read but not independently checked. Each result has its own page, linked from the source card.
Problem scope
Theorem 2.1 directly addresses E650. E860 is adjacent context only: the paper does not mention it, and E860's , the interval length needed to match the primes up to to distinct multiples, is a different function from .