we-solve (beta)

Math-738-A2 · revision r1 · on Math-738

gpt pro 5.2 attempt on Math-738

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. Problem 269
  2. Problem statement (as given)
  3. 1. Formal restatement
  4. 2. Quick literature/context check
  5. 3. Attack plan
  6. 4. Work
  7. 4.1 Convergence (complete)
  8. 4.2 The one-prime case (complete)
  9. 4.3 Irrationality after removing duplicate summands (complete)
  10. 4.4 Numerical evidence for the original series
  11. 5. Verification
  12. 6. Final
  13. 7. Completion estimate

Problem 269

Problem statement (as given)

Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a finite set of primes and let $a_1<a_2<\cdots$ be the increasing sequence of positive integers all of whose prime factors belong to $\mathcal{P}$. Is \[ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{[a_1,\ldots,a_n]} \] irrational? (Here $[\cdot]$ denotes the least common multiple, $\operatorname{lcm}$.)

1. Formal restatement

Fix a finite nonempty set of primes $\mathcal{P}$ with $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$. Let \[ S(\mathcal{P}):=\{m\in\mathbb{N}:\text{ every prime divisor of }m\text{ lies in }\mathcal{P}\} \] (the $\mathcal{P}$--smooth positive integers). Enumerate $S(\mathcal{P})$ in increasing order: \[ a_1<a_2<a_3<\cdots, \qquad a_1=1. \] For each $n\ge 1$ define \[ L_n := \operatorname{lcm}(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n). \] Question: is the real number \[ S(\mathcal{P}):=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{L_n} \] irrational for every finite $\mathcal{P}$ with $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$?

Edge cases / sanity checks.

  • If $|\mathcal{P}|=1$, say $\mathcal{P}=\{p\}$, then $a_n=p^{n-1}$, hence $L_n=p^{n-1}$ and $\sum_{n\ge 1}1/L_n=\sum_{k\ge 0}p^{-k}=p/(p-1)\in\mathbb{Q}$. So the hypothesis $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$ is necessary.
  • $L_n$ is nondecreasing and $L_n\to\infty$, so the series converges (proved below).

2. Quick literature/context check

The Erdős Problems Project lists this as open for finite $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$, and notes that Erdős remarked that if duplicate summands are removed, then the resulting series can be proved irrational. % citeturn1view0

The discussion thread contains further comments, including a proof sketch for the case when $\mathcal{P}$ is infinite (then the sum is always irrational). % citeturn17view0

3. Attack plan

I followed two complementary approaches.

  1. Structural rewrite. Since $L_n\mid L_{n+1}$, partial sums have denominator $L_n$ exactly: \[ \sum_{j=1}^n \frac1{L_j}=\frac{M_n}{L_n},\qquad M_{n+1}=M_n\cdot\frac{L_{n+1}}{L_n}+1. \] This suggests Cantor/Engel-series style irrationality criteria based on bounding tails versus $1/L_n$.
  2. Remove duplicates. Let $d_1<d_2<\cdots$ be the strictly increasing sequence of distinct values taken by $(L_n)$, and consider the simpler series $\sum_i 1/d_i$. Here each ratio $d_{i+1}/d_i$ is a prime in $\mathcal{P}$ (or a prime-power step), so ratios $\ge 3$ occur infinitely often when $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$. This yields a clean irrationality proof (done below).
  3. Computation. Numerically approximate $S(\mathcal{P})$ for small $\mathcal{P}$ to look for rational patterns (none observed).

4. Work

4.1 Convergence (complete)

Lemma (Absolute convergence): For any finite set of primes $\mathcal{P}$, the series $\sum_{n\ge 1}1/L_n$ converges.
Proof: Since $a_n\le L_n$ for each $n$, we have $0<1/L_n\le 1/a_n$. Therefore \[ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac1{L_n}\le \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac1{a_n}=\sum_{m\in S(\mathcal{P})}\frac1m. \] The last sum factorizes as a finite Euler product: \[ \sum_{m\in S(\mathcal{P})}\frac1m =\prod_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\left(\sum_{e=0}^\infty p^{-e}\right) =\prod_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\frac{1}{1-1/p}<\infty. \] Hence $\sum 1/L_n$ converges by comparison. ∎

4.2 The one-prime case (complete)

As already noted in §1, if $\mathcal{P}=\{p\}$ then $a_n=p^{n-1}$ and $L_n=p^{n-1}$, so \[ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac1{L_n}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty p^{-k}=\frac{p}{p-1}\in\mathbb{Q}. \]

4.3 Irrationality after removing duplicate summands (complete)

Define the distinct-denominator subsequence: let $1\le n_1<n_2<\cdots$ be the indices for which $L_{n_{i+1}}>L_{n_i}$ and set \[ d_i:=L_{n_i}. \] Then $d_1<d_2<\cdots$ and $d_i\mid d_{i+1}$ for all $i$, and the "duplicates removed" series is \[ S^\ast(\mathcal{P}):=\sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac1{d_i}. \]

Lemma (A general irrationality criterion): Let $d_1<d_2<\cdots$ be positive integers with $d_i\mid d_{i+1}$ for all $i$, and suppose that \[ r_i:=\frac{d_{i+1}}{d_i}\ge 2 \ \text{ for all }i,\qquad\text{and } r_i\ge 3 \text{ for infinitely many }i. \] Then $\sum_{i\ge 1} 1/d_i$ is irrational.
Proof: Let $x:=\sum_{i\ge 1}1/d_i$. Suppose for contradiction that $x=A/B$ in lowest terms.

Choose an index $k$ such that $B\mid d_k$ and $r_k\ge 3$. (Such $k$ exists because $d_k\to\infty$ and thus eventually contains every prime power dividing $B$, and by hypothesis there are infinitely many $k$ with $r_k\ge 3$.)

Let $s_k:=\sum_{i=1}^k 1/d_i$. Since $d_i\mid d_k$, we can write $s_k=m/d_k$ for some integer $m$.

The tail is bounded using $r_i\ge 2$ for all $i\ge k$: \[ 0<x-s_k=\sum_{i>k}\frac1{d_i} \le \sum_{j\ge 1}\frac1{d_{k+1}\,2^{j-1}} =\frac{2}{d_{k+1}} =\frac{2}{r_k d_k} \le \frac{2}{3d_k} <\frac{1}{d_k}. \] On the other hand, since $B\mid d_k$, both $x$ and $s_k$ are rationals with denominator dividing $d_k$, hence $x-s_k$ is a nonzero rational with denominator dividing $d_k$, so \[ x-s_k\ge \frac1{d_k}, \] a contradiction. Therefore $x$ is irrational. ∎

Proposition (Duplicates removed $\implies$ irrational for $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$): If $\mathcal{P}$ is a finite set of primes with $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$, then $S^\ast(\mathcal{P})$ is irrational.
Proof: Because $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$, $\mathcal{P}$ contains some prime $p\ge 3$. For each $k\ge 1$, the $\mathcal{P}$--smooth number $p^k$ occurs among the $a_n$, so eventually $L_n$ is multiplied by $p$ when passing from $\operatorname{lcm}(\dots,p^{k-1})$ to $\operatorname{lcm}(\dots,p^k)$. Therefore, among the distinct values $d_i$, the ratio $d_{i+1}/d_i$ equals $p$ infinitely often, in particular $\ge 3$ infinitely often. Also each step multiplies $d_i$ by at least $2$, so $r_i\ge 2$ always. Lemma Lemma (A general irrationality criterion) applies. ∎

4.4 Numerical evidence for the original series

Using exact partial sums $S_N=M_N/L_N$ (with $M_{n+1}=M_n\cdot(L_{n+1}/L_n)+1$), I computed high-precision approximations for the original series for several small $\mathcal{P}$: \[ \begin{array}{rcl} \mathcal{P}=\{2,3\}: & S(\mathcal{P})\approx& 1.8541655198989682312628678975872517001576\ldots\\ \mathcal{P}=\{2,5\}: & S(\mathcal{P})\approx& 1.4651446526821165569780824808414807518065\ldots\\ \mathcal{P}=\{3,5\}: & S(\mathcal{P})\approx& 1.2843912422550503447214007946752098555857\ldots\\ \mathcal{P}=\{2,3,5\}: & S(\mathcal{P})\approx& 1.9012010608647925442436935551811169862973\ldots \end{array} \] No obvious rational pattern emerged, but this is not decisive.

5. Verification

  • Lemma Lemma (Absolute convergence) is straightforward comparison to a finite Euler product; the only subtlety is $a_n\le L_n$, which holds since each $a_n$ divides $L_n$.
  • Lemma Lemma (A general irrationality criterion) is a standard "tail $<1/d_k$" irrationality argument; the key is ensuring a step with ratio $\ge 3$ after the denominator contains $B$.
  • Proposition prop:dup269 uses the fact that powers $p^k$ occur in the $\mathcal{P}$-smooth list, hence the lcm must pick up the factor $p$ infinitely often; this is correct.
  • The numerical computations are only sanity checks.

6. Final

UNRESOLVED.

  1. Farthest-reaching partial results proved here.
    • The series converges for all finite $\mathcal{P}$ (Lemma Lemma (Absolute convergence)).
    • If $|\mathcal{P}|=1$, the sum is rational: $p/(p-1)$.
    • If duplicate denominators are removed (i.e. sum over distinct $L_n$ values once each), the resulting series is irrational for every finite $\mathcal{P}$ with $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$ (Proposition prop:dup269).

  2. Precise obstacle. The original series has repeated denominators: writing it as $\sum_i c_i/d_i$ where $d_i$ are distinct and $c_i\ge 1$ are multiplicities, the tail bound in Lemma Lemma (A general irrationality criterion) can fail because $c_i$ may be large compared to $d_{i+1}/d_i$ (which is bounded when $\mathcal{P}$ is finite). Controlling the multiplicities $c_i$ sharply enough to force "tail $<1/d_i$" at a stage where the (hypothetical) rational denominator divides $d_i$ is exactly what is missing.

  3. Most promising next steps.
    • Understand growth/structure of the multiplicities $c_i$ (how many $\mathcal{P}$-smooth numbers share the same lcm level) and whether $c_i$ is frequently $< d_{i+1}/d_i$ or otherwise bounded on an infinite subsequence.
    • Seek a more robust irrationality criterion for $\sum c_i/d_i$ with $d_i\mid d_{i+1}$ that tolerates occasional large digits $c_i$ (a "Cantor series" approach).
    • Exploit $p$-adic information at a prime $p\in\mathcal{P}$ where the $p$-adic exponent in $L_n$ jumps, hoping to isolate a non-cancellable $p$-adic contribution.

  4. Belief about truth value. Based on the "duplicates removed" result and numerical experiments, I would guess the original sum is irrational for all finite $|\mathcal{P}|\ge 2$, but I do not see a rigorous route from the arguments above to the full statement.

7. Completion estimate

\[ \textbf{30\%} \] (I proved convergence and the "duplicates removed" irrationality, but not the original statement.)