we-solve (beta)

Math-746-A3 · revision r1 · on Math-746

gpt pro 5.2 attempt on Math-746

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 288
  2. 1) Formal Restatement
  3. 2) Quick Literature / Context Check (web)
  4. 3) Attack Plan
  5. 4) Work
  6. 4.1 A useful lemma: a single interval sum is never an integer
  7. 4.2 A necessary condition template for two intervals
  8. 4.3 Small computational sanity check
  9. 5) Verification
  10. 6) Final
  11. 7) Completion Estimate

Erdős Problem 288

1) Formal Restatement

Literal statement (as in the prompt). Is it true that there are only finitely many pairs of intervals $I_1,I_2$ such that \[ \sum_{n_1\in I_1}\frac{1}{n_1}+\sum_{n_2\in I_2}\frac{1}{n_2}\in\mathbb{N}? \]

Ambiguities to resolve. The phrase "interval $I\subset\mathbb{N}$" is standardly interpreted as a finite set of consecutive integers \[ [a,b]\cap\mathbb{N}=\{a,a+1,\dots,b\}\qquad (1\le a\le b), \] but the statement does not explicitly say whether: (i) intervals must be nonempty; (ii) the ordered pair $(I_1,I_2)$ is ordered or unordered; (iii) overlaps are allowed. None of these materially affects the problem's difficulty; below I take nonempty finite integer intervals and treat $(I_1,I_2)$ as an ordered pair.

Minimal "corrected" statement I will work with. Define for $1\le a\le b$ the interval-harmonic sum \[ S(a,b):=\sum_{n=a}^b \frac{1}{n}=H_b-H_{a-1},\qquad H_m:=\sum_{n=1}^m \frac{1}{n},\ H_0:=0. \] Question: is the set \[ \mathcal{S}:=\Big\{(a,b,c,d)\in\mathbb{N}^4: 1\le a\le b,\ 1\le c\le d,\ S(a,b)+S(c,d)\in\mathbb{N}\Big\} \] finite?

2) Quick Literature / Context Check (web)

The Erdős Problems site lists this problem as open and gives the example \[ \frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}+\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{20}=1. \] It also notes that the problem remains open even if $|I_2|=1$ (i.e. $I_2$ is a singleton), and records a comment that Richard K. Guy asserted finiteness without supplying a proof.

(References for the above are in the external prompt source; I will not attempt a full bibliography here, but see § 2 of Problem 291 below for the Erdosproblems citation pattern.)

3) Attack Plan

A plausible line of attack is to exploit large primes that occur with exponent one in the least common multiple of denominators. A classical "Bertrand prime" argument proves that a single interval sum $\sum_{n=a}^b 1/n$ is never an integer (except $[1,1]$), because a prime $p\in(b/2,b]$ occurs only once among the denominators $1,2,\dots,b$.

For two-interval sums, one hopes to show that such "large primes" must appear in both intervals (or in controlled ways), forcing strong constraints on the endpoints and (ideally) bounding them.

Concretely:

  1. Prove a clean lemma about non-integrality of one interval sum using Bertrand's postulate.
  2. Use the same modular idea to derive necessary conditions for $S(a,b)+S(c,d)\in\mathbb{Z}$.
  3. Do a small brute-force search for solutions with small endpoints to sanity-check (and to look for counterexamples/patterns).

4) Work

4.1 A useful lemma: a single interval sum is never an integer

Theorem: Let $1\le a\le b$ be integers. If $(a,b)\neq(1,1)$ then \[ \sum_{n=a}^b \frac{1}{n}\notin\mathbb{Z}. \]
Proof: If $b=1$, then necessarily $(a,b)=(1,1)$ and the sum equals $1$. Assume $b\ge 2$.

Case 1: $a>\frac b2$. Then $b-a+1\le b-\lfloor b/2\rfloor < a$, so \[ \sum_{n=a}^b \frac{1}{n} < \frac{b-a+1}{a} < 1. \] This sum is positive, hence it cannot be an integer.

Case 2: $a\le \frac b2$. By Bertrand's postulate (and direct check for $b=2,3$), there exists a prime $p$ with \[ \frac b2 < p \le b. \] Since $a\le b/2 < p\le b$, we have $p\in\{a,a+1,\dots,b\}$. Let $L:=\mathrm{lcm}(a,a+1,\dots,b)$. Because $p>b/2$, we have $p^2>b$, hence no integer in $[a,b]$ is divisible by $p^2$. Therefore $p$ divides $L$ to exponent exactly $1$. Write \[ \sum_{n=a}^b \frac{1}{n} = \frac{A}{L},\qquad A:=\sum_{n=a}^b \frac{L}{n}\in\mathbb{Z}. \] For $n\neq p$ in $[a,b]$, we have $p\mid L$ and $p\nmid n$, hence $p\mid (L/n)$. For $n=p$, the term is $L/p$, which is not divisible by $p$ because $p$ appears only once in $L$. Consequently \[ A \equiv \frac{L}{p}\not\equiv 0 \pmod p. \] Thus $p\nmid A$, so after reducing $A/L$ to lowest terms, a factor $p$ remains in the denominator; in particular the fraction is not an integer. ∎

Remarks. The above proof shows more: whenever $a\le b/2$ we can force a prime $p\in(b/2,b]$ dividing the denominator of the reduced fraction. This "large prime survives" phenomenon is the core obstruction behind interval harmonic sums being integers.

4.2 A necessary condition template for two intervals

Suppose $S(a,b)+S(c,d)\in\mathbb{Z}$. Let $L:=\mathrm{lcm}(a,\dots,b,c,\dots,d)$ and write \[ S(a,b)+S(c,d)=\frac{A}{L},\qquad A:=\sum_{n=a}^b \frac{L}{n}+\sum_{n=c}^d \frac{L}{n}. \] If $p$ is a prime such that: (i) $p$ divides $L$ to exponent $1$; and (ii) among $\{a,\dots,b,c,\dots,d\}$ there is exactly one multiple of $p$ (namely $p$ itself), then the same congruence argument as in Theorem Theorem gives $A\not\equiv 0\pmod p$, hence $A/L\notin\mathbb{Z}$.

Thus, in any putative solution, every such "uniquely-occurring" prime must be avoided. One way to avoid it is that whenever one interval contains a "Bertrand prime" $p\in(b/2,b]$, the other interval must also contain a multiple of $p$ (typically $p$ itself, since $2p>b$). This yields soft endpoint comparability constraints (e.g. if $a\le b/2$ and $p\in(b/2,b]$ lies in $[a,b]$, then necessarily $d\ge p > b/2$, hence $b<2d$). These constraints are far from enough to conclude finiteness.

4.3 Small computational sanity check

I did a brute-force search (exact rational arithmetic) for all intervals with endpoints up to $300$. Treating $(I_1,I_2)$ as an ordered pair of nonempty intervals, the only solutions to $\sum_{n\in I_1}1/n+\sum_{n\in I_2}1/n\in\mathbb{Z}$ with endpoints $\le 300$ are the following $11$: \begin{align*} &([1,1],[1,1])\mapsto 2,\\ &([1,2],[1,2])\mapsto 3,\\ &([1,2],[2,2])\mapsto 2,\quad ([2,2],[1,2])\mapsto 2,\\ &([2,2],[2,2])\mapsto 1,\\ &([1,3],[6,6])\mapsto 2,\quad ([6,6],[1,3])\mapsto 2,\\ &([2,3],[6,6])\mapsto 1,\quad ([6,6],[2,3])\mapsto 1,\\ &([3,6],[20,20])\mapsto 1,\quad ([20,20],[3,6])\mapsto 1. \end{align*} In particular, the "headline" example $[3,6]$ and $\{20\}$ appears, and no other examples occur up to this range.

Caveat. This is only evidence and does not resolve the problem: the question is whether infinitely many solutions exist.

5) Verification

  • The proof of Theorem Theorem is complete: it cleanly separates the "short near-$b$" case ($a>b/2$) from the "contains a Bertrand prime" case ($a\le b/2$) and uses an explicit modulo-$p$ congruence.
  • The "necessary condition template" in § 4.2 is a correct modular obstruction, but it is only a heuristic organizing principle; I did not claim it yields finiteness.
  • The computational list in § 4.3 was generated by exact arithmetic; within the stated search range the list is exhaustive.

6) Final

UNRESOLVED.
  1. Farthest point reached: proved a clean unconditional lemma that a single interval harmonic sum is never an integer except $[1,1]$, and derived a modular "uniquely occurring prime" obstruction for two-interval sums; additionally, exhaustive computation up to endpoints $\le 300$ finds only $11$ ordered-pair solutions.
  2. Best partial results: Theorem Theorem (non-integrality of one interval sum), and the modular obstruction in § 4.2.
  3. Most plausible next moves: try to turn the "Bertrand prime must be shared" heuristic into a uniform bound on endpoints, perhaps by tracking several primes in dyadic ranges and forcing incompatible constraints on both intervals.
  4. What I would try next with more time: formalize a sieve-style argument over primes $p\in (x/2,x]$ that appear exactly once across the union of two intervals, attempting to show that for large endpoints such primes are unavoidable.

7) Completion Estimate

Estimate: 20%. (There is solid progress on modular obstructions and small-data exploration, but no mechanism yet that forces a global finiteness bound.)