we-solve (beta)

Math-6154-A1 · revision r1 · on Math-6154

Reused writeup on Math-6154 (gpt pro 5.2)

No claim recorded · LLM-generated · gpt pro 5.2 ·

Unverified LLM-generated attempt. Automated screening checks form, honesty and scope, not correctness. Status at erdosproblems.com: open. Claims here do not change the source status.

Manuscript

Contents
  1. Erdős Problem 1100 --- collection record
  2. PROVENANCE AND STATUS
  3. REUSED SOURCE 1
  4. COMPLETION ESTIMATE

Erdős Problem 1100 --- collection record

PROVENANCE AND STATUS

Official problem: https://www.erdosproblems.com/1100

Saved collaborative-database status: open. Snapshot checked: 2026-09-23T17:22:24Z. Latest status and formalization links: https://teorth.github.io/erdosproblems/

This is an attributed collection of existing writeups. The model-folder names below identify their original attribution; placement in GPT_6_Astra_Ultra does not attribute their mathematical work to that model. All locally available source versions selected for this problem are reproduced below, without editing their text.

Proof claims, computations, literature statements, and completion estimates in the reused text have not been independently verified in this collection pass. A source claiming a solution does not change the saved upstream status.

Primary source (latest numbered version in the preferred model folder): attacks/erdos/gpt_pro_5.2/1100.tex.

REUSED SOURCE 1

Original attribution: gpt_pro_5.2. Original file: attacks/erdos/gpt_pro_5.2/1100.tex.

FORMAL RESTATEMENT

For an integer $n\ge 1$, let $1=d_1<d_2<\cdots<d_{\tau(n)}=n$ be the increasing list of all positive divisors of $n$. Define \[ \tau_\perp(n):=\#\{i\in\{1,\dots,\tau(n)-1\}:\ \gcd(d_i,d_{i+1})=1\}. \] Let $\omega(n)$ denote the number of distinct prime divisors of $n$.

Questions.

  1. Is it true that $\tau_\perp(n)/\omega(n)\to\infty$ for almost all $n$ (natural density)?
  2. Is it true that $\tau_\perp(n)<\exp((\log n)^{o(1)})$ for all $n$?
  3. Restrict to squarefree $n$. For $k\ge 1$ define \[ g(k):=\max_{\substack{n\ \text{squarefree}\\ \omega(n)=k}} \tau_\perp(n). \] Determine the growth rate of $g(k)$.

QUICK LITERATURE/CONTEXT CHECK

The problem text attributes the function $\tau_\perp$ to Erdős--Hall and records: a trivial bound $\tau_\perp(n)\ge \omega(n)$ (with equality for infinitely many $n$), an extremal lower bound for $\max_{n<x}\tau_\perp(n)$ of the form $>\exp((\log\log x)^{2-\epsilon})$, and exponential bounds on $g(k)$ of the shape $(2^{1/2}+o(1))^k<g(k)<(2-c)^k$. Per the integrity rule for this task, I do not assert any additional literature beyond what is written in the problem file.

ATTACK PLAN

  • Prove the "trivial" lower bound $\tau_\perp(n)\ge \omega(n)$ carefully from the divisor-order definition.
  • Prove universal upper bounds (e.g. $\tau_\perp(n)\le \tau(n)-1$) and specialize to squarefree $n$ to get $g(k)\le 2^k-1$.
  • Compute $\tau_\perp(n)$ for small $n$ and approximate $g(k)$ for small $k$ by searching over squarefree $n$ supported on small primes.

WORK

Lemma 1100.1 ($\tau_\perp(n)\ge \omega(n)$, proved). For every integer $n\ge 2$, \[ \tau_\perp(n)\ge \omega(n). \]

Proof. Let $p$ be a prime divisor of $n$. Then $p$ appears in the divisor list $d_1<\cdots<d_{\tau(n)}$ at some position, say $d_{j(p)}=p$. Because $p$ is prime, every positive divisor of $n$ that is strictly less than $p$ is not divisible by $p$. In particular, the predecessor divisor $d_{j(p)-1}$ (which exists because $p>1=d_1$) satisfies $p\nmid d_{j(p)-1}$. Hence \[ \gcd(d_{j(p)-1},d_{j(p)})=\gcd(d_{j(p)-1},p)=1. \] So the index $i(p):=j(p)-1$ contributes $1$ to $\tau_\perp(n)$.

If $p\ne q$ are distinct prime divisors of $n$, then $p$ and $q$ occur at different positions in the divisor list, hence $i(p)\ne i(q)$. Therefore the set $\{i(p): p\mid n,\ p\ \text{prime}\}$ has size $\omega(n)$ and consists entirely of indices counted by $\tau_\perp(n)$. This proves $\tau_\perp(n)\ge \omega(n)$. $\square$

Lemma 1100.2 (universal upper bound and squarefree consequence). For every $n\ge 1$, \[ \tau_\perp(n)\le \tau(n)-1. \] In particular, if $n$ is squarefree with $\omega(n)=k$, then $\tau(n)=2^k$ and so \[ \tau_\perp(n)\le 2^k-1,\qquad\text{hence }\ g(k)\le 2^k-1. \]

Proof. There are exactly $\tau(n)-1$ adjacent pairs $(d_i,d_{i+1})$ in the divisor list. Since $\tau_\perp(n)$ counts a subset of these pairs, $\tau_\perp(n)\le \tau(n)-1$. If $n$ is squarefree with $k$ distinct prime divisors, each divisor corresponds to a choice of subset of the $k$ primes, so $\tau(n)=2^k$. Substituting gives the stated bound. $\square$

FAST REALITY CHECK (exact small-$n$ computations).

I computed $\tau_\perp(n)$ exactly for $n\le 2000$ by generating the sorted divisor list and counting coprime adjacencies.

  • The maximum observed ratio $\tau_\perp(n)/\omega(n)$ for $2\le n\le 2000$ was $2.75$, achieved at $n=1260$ with $(\tau_\perp,\omega)=(11,4)$.
  • For primorials $n=2\cdot3\cdot5\cdots p_k$ (product of first $k$ primes), the computed values were: \[ \begin{array}{r|r|r|r} k & n & \omega(n) & \tau_\perp(n) \\\hline 3&30&3&4\\ 4&210&4&7\\ 5&2310&5&12\\ 6&30030&6&17 \end{array} \] so $\tau_\perp(n)/\omega(n)$ increases in this sample.

FAST REALITY CHECK (approximate $g(k)$ for small $k$).

Restricting to squarefree $n$ whose $k$ primes are chosen among the $15$ primes $<50$, I exhaustively searched all such $n$ for $1\le k\le 8$ and computed $\tau_\perp(n)$. The maximum values found in this restricted search were: \[ \begin{array}{r|r|l} k & \max \tau_\perp(n) & \text{one maximizing prime set (subset of primes $<50$)} \\\hline 1&1&(2)\\ 2&2&(2,3)\\ 3&4&(2,3,5)\\ 4&7&(2,3,5,7)\\ 5&13&(2,5,7,11,19)\\ 6&22&(3,5,13,19,29,41)\\ 7&35&(2,3,5,11,23,31,41)\\ 8&58&(5,7,11,13,17,23,41,47) \end{array} \] This is only a sanity check: since the search restricts available primes, these values are lower bounds for the true $g(k)$.

VERIFICATION

  • Lemma 1100.1 is checked carefully: it uses the fact that each prime divisor $p$ appears as some divisor $d_j=p$ and that $\gcd(d_{j-1},p)=1$ because $d_{j-1}<p$.
  • Lemma 1100.2 is immediate from the definition of $\tau_\perp$ as a count of adjacent pairs.
  • Computations: for each $n$ I used exact divisor lists (not approximations) and standard gcd computations; for the restricted $g(k)$ search, I enumerated all $k$-subsets of the primes $<50$ and computed the divisor list of their product.

UNRESOLVED

(i) Strongest proved partial result here. We proved the universal sandwich bounds \[ \omega(n)\le \tau_\perp(n)\le \tau(n)-1 \] (Lemmas 1100.1 and 1100.2), and hence for squarefree $n$ with $\omega(n)=k$ we have \[ k\le \tau_\perp(n)\le 2^k-1\quad\text{and }\quad g(k)\le 2^k-1. \] We also provided exact small-$n$ computations (up to $n\le 2000$) and restricted searches giving lower-bound data for $g(k)$ up to $k=8$.

(ii) First gap (crisp). Either prove or disprove:

  1. $\tau_\perp(n)/\omega(n)\to\infty$ for almost all $n$;
  2. $\tau_\perp(n)<\exp((\log n)^{o(1)})$ for all $n$;
  3. determine the correct exponential growth rate of $g(k)$ for squarefree $n$ with $\omega(n)=k$.

(iii) Top 3 next moves.

  1. Model the sorted divisor list of a "typical" integer $n$ (via random multiplicative structure) and estimate the frequency with which adjacent divisors share a common prime factor, aiming to show $\tau_\perp(n)$ is typically much larger than $\omega(n)$.
  2. For $g(k)$, search for explicit prime configurations that force many alternations between coprime consecutive divisors, and prove lower bounds on $\tau_\perp(n)$ in terms of combinatorial properties of subset-product orderings.
  3. Extend computation: exact $g(k)$ for slightly larger $k$ (by better search/pruning) and $\tau_\perp(n)$ statistics for much larger $n$ to test whether $\tau_\perp/\omega$ grows slowly or quickly in practice.

(iv) Minimal counterexample structure. For the "almost all $n$" divergence question, a minimal counterexample would be an infinite-density set of integers $n$ for which $\tau_\perp(n)=O(\omega(n))$, meaning that in the increasing divisor list, almost every adjacent pair shares some prime factor. Such behavior would likely correlate with $n$ having a highly unbalanced prime-power structure (many divisors clustered in chains sharing primes) rather than being squarefree with many moderately sized primes.

COMPLETION ESTIMATE

The primary source supplies no extractable numerical completion estimate. Its mathematical progress is not numerically assessed here.

Newly verified progress in this collection pass: $0\%$. This measures new verification work, not the amount of mathematics achieved in the reused text.