Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Claim. The single Théorème (p. 765) of P. Erdős, Sur l'irrationalité d'une certaine série, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 292 (1981), no. 17, 765--768, states that if are integers with then
is irrational, and that the same holds with replaced by any integer
. Gaps tending to infinity force , so every such
sequence is an instance of
Problem 260, answered yes. The proof
is by contradiction: if the sum were with odd, then for each
large , let be the largest term below and write
. Multiplying through by makes the tail in the
note's equation (2) a positive integer, hence at least . If
(case (3)), the fractional-part estimate (4) bounds a tail sum below by
, while (5) and (6) show that this sum tends to , so case (3)
fails for all large . If , (7) and (8) write (2) as an integer
plus three sums, two of which tend to , so (9) forces the fractional part
of the first sum towards . Equations (10) to (13) show that this
fractional part stays below for an absolute constant ,
a contradiction. The note calls this case its only difficult part. Erdős writes
that he had conjectured the theorem more than twenty years earlier, that before
it only the case was known (his reference [2]), and that
very likely suffices, though he could not construct a
sequence with and rational sum. The source card is
erdos_1981_sur_l_irrationalite_d_une_certaine;
the paper link is the author-archive scan of the note. The site's remarks
credit the note with a second condition, ; the
note does not contain it, and the source of that condition is unidentified.
Covers. Every increasing integer sequence with , for the base of the question and for every integer base . Not covered: sequences with whose gaps do not tend to infinity, which is the gap the problem's question concerns and which Wang and Grau Ribas's pending claim addresses.
Acceptance. Refereed: the Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences,
Série I, volume 292, number 17, the issue of 11 May 1981, pp. 765--768, as
the note's header and its received line print. The site labels the problem
OPEN, so its curator's remark crediting the note with this case is
commentary on an open problem and not acceptance, and no reviewed evidence
is listed. The proof is not checked here.
Depends on. Nothing in this wiki.