The board / number theory / #442
Erdős Problem #442
DISPROVED LEANdatabase updated 2026-08-23
The statement as posed is false. A solution has also been checked by machine, in Lean.
What the community database records, not our verdict. erdosproblems.com no longer shows statuses (why).
The function \(\operatorname{Log} x := \max\{log x, 1\}\).
If `A` be a set of natural numbers and let `x` be real, then `A.bddProdUpper x` is the finite upper-triangular set of pairs of elements of `A` that are `≤ x`. Specifically, it is the set `{(n, m) | n ∈ A, n ≤ x, m ∈ A, m ≤ x, n < m}`
Let \(\operatorname{Log} x := \max\{\log x, 1\}\), \(\operatorname{Log}_2x = \operatorname{Log} (\operatorname{Log} x)\), and \(\operatorname{Log}_3x = \operatorname{Log}(\operatorname{Log}(\operatorname{Log} x)).\) Is it true that if \(A\subseteq\mathbb{N}\) is such that \[ \frac{1}{\operatorname{Log}_2 x} \sum_{n\in A: n\leq x} \frac{1}{n}\to\infty \] then \[ \left(\sum_{n\in A: n\leq x} \frac{1}{n}\right)^2 \sum_{n, m \in A: n < m \leq x} \frac{1}{\operatorname{lcm}(n, m)}\to\infty \] as \(x\to\infty\)? Tao [Ta24b] has shown this is false. [Ta24b] Tao, T., _Dense sets of natural numbers with unusually large least common multiples_. arXiv:2407.04226 (2024). Note: the informal and formal statements follow the solution paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.04226
Statement as formalized in Formal Conjectures (Google DeepMind, Apache-2.0) · their label: research solved · 1 further variant / known partial result in the Lean file. The authoritative wording is on erdosproblems.com/442.Prizenone
Topicsnumber theory
Statement in LeanFormal Conjectures
Solution in Leanyes
Original pageerdosproblems.com/442
Attempts
submit one →If you take a run at this one — with your own AI subscription or without — the guide says how, and the submission form gets you an honest read of what you found.