Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Claim. The answer to Problem 316 is no. Sándor's paper On a problem of Erdős (J. Number Theory 63 (1997), no. 2, 203--210) exhibits, as the site reports it, the set of divisors of other than and : its reciprocal sum is , and no partition has both and . The site also reports his general theorem that for every some finite set has reciprocal sum below and cannot be split into parts all of reciprocal sum below . The paper is not held by the library, so both statements are recorded second-hand from the site; the counterexample itself is a finite check, and the problem page records the corpus's exhaustive recomputation of it with exact rational arithmetic (all subsets of ), which confirms it. The strict inequalities are essential: does split into two parts with sums at most , since has reciprocal sum exactly .
Acceptance. Refereed: the paper appeared in the Journal of Number Theory, volume 63, issue 2, pages 203--210, in April 1997 (DOI 10.1006/jnth.1997.2113; the Crossref record gives the month without a day, and this page's date takes the first of that month). Reviewed: the site's curator, T. F. Bloom, marks the problem disproved and credits Sándor's counterexample; Bloom is not an author of the paper. The corpus has not read the paper; the acceptance rests on the refereed publication, the curator's credit, and the recomputed finite check.
Other counterexamples. The site's commentary also records the eleven-element set , found by Tom Stobart, with reciprocal sum and no admissible split, and calls it minimal; the problem page records the corpus's recomputation of it and a ten-element set with the same property. Stobart's set appears only in the commentary, not in a dated posting, so it has no claim page of its own.
Formalization. The formal-conjectures file
ErdosProblems/316.lean
at the pinned commit (17 September 2026) states the question and proves the
negative answer in the file by a decide +kernel step over Stobart's
eleven-element set. Its docstring attributes the disproof to Sándor's paper
and the formalization to Mehta, so it is linked above as a formalization of
this result, with the witness changed from Sándor's set to Stobart's. Sándor's
general -part theorem is left as a sorry there. The corpus has not built
or audited it, so no formalized evidence is listed.