we-solve (beta)

Math-5559-A3 · revision r1 · on Math-5559

gpt pro 5.2 attempt on Math-5559

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 #293
  2. 1. FORMAL RESTATEMENT
  3. 2. QUICK LITERATURE/CONTEXT CHECK (only if browsing is available)
  4. 3. ATTACK PLAN
  5. 4. WORK
  6. 4.1 A Sylvester identity and the Sylvester numbers
  7. 4.2 Takenouchi/Curtiss bound and an immediate upper bound on $v(k)$
  8. 4.3 Exact small values $v(k)$ for $k\le 6$ (computer-assisted)
  9. 5. VERIFICATION
  10. 6. FINAL (exactly ONE label and ONE sub-label)
  11. 7. COMPLETION ESTIMATE

Erdős Problem #293

1. FORMAL RESTATEMENT

The statement as written in the prompt is ambiguous: if we literally define "$v(k)$ is the minimal integer that does not appear as a denominator in any $k$--term Egyptian fraction decomposition of $1$," then $1$ never appears as a denominator when $k\ge 2$ (because $1=1/1$ uses only one term), hence $v(k)=1$ for all $k\ge2$, which is trivial and not the intended problem.

Following the standard formulation used in the literature on this Erdős problem, I will interpret $v(k)$ as the smallest integer $>1$ that does not appear.

Definitions.

  • For $k\ge 1$, let $\mathcal{D}_k$ be the set of integers $n>1$ for which there exists a strictly increasing $k$--tuple of integers \[ 2\le n_1< n_2<\cdots<n_k,\qquad \sum_{i=1}^k \frac1{n_i}=1, \] with $n\in\{n_1,\dots,n_k\}$.
  • Define \[ v(k) := \min\{n>1: n\not\in \mathcal{D}_k\}. \]

Goal. Estimate the growth of $v(k)$ as $k\to\infty$ (e.g. find the best possible lower/upper bounds in terms of $k$, and ideally its correct order of magnitude).

2. QUICK LITERATURE/CONTEXT CHECK (only if browsing is available)

From the current problem page and recent literature:

  • Bleicher--Erdős proved a factorial lower bound $v(k)\gg k!$.
  • The Erdős Problems site records an elementary double--exponential upper bound of the shape \[ v(k)\le k\,c_0^{2^k}\qquad (c_0=1.264\dots), \] coming from known upper bounds on the largest denominator in a $k$--term decomposition.
  • A recent preprint by van Doorn--Tang (Dec 2025) improves the lower bound to \[ v(k)\ge \exp(c k^2) \] for some absolute constant $c>0$, and proves monotonicity $\mathcal{D}_k\subseteq \mathcal{D}_{k+1}$ for $k\ge2$.

(These items are context; below I re-derive elementary bounds and compute small values exactly.)

3. ATTACK PLAN

  1. Upper bounds from "largest denominator" control. Use Takenouchi/Curtiss-type results: among all $k$--term unit-fraction decompositions of $1$, the largest denominator is at most a specific Sylvester-type number $u_k$ defined by $u_1=1$ and $u_{j+1}=u_j(u_j+1)$. Then any integer $>u_k$ cannot belong to $\mathcal{D}_k$, yielding $v(k)\le u_k+1$.
  2. Small cases. Compute $\mathcal{D}_k$ (hence $v(k)$) for small $k$ by exhaustive search, using the same upper bound on denominators to keep the search finite.
  3. Lower bounds. Record what is known (factorial / $\exp(c k^2)$), and outline where one might try to improve: forcing congruence obstructions, controlling the structure of short Egyptian fraction identities, etc.

4. WORK

4.1 A Sylvester identity and the Sylvester numbers

Define the integer sequence $(u_k)_{k\ge1}$ by \[ u_1=1,\qquad u_{k+1}=u_k(u_k+1)\quad (k\ge1). \] Thus $u_2=2$, $u_3=6$, $u_4=42$, $u_5=1806$, $u_6=3263442$, etc.

Lemma (Telescoping identity): For all $k\ge 2$, \[ 1=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\frac1{u_i+1}+\frac1{u_k}. \]
Proof: Since $u_{i+1}=u_i(u_i+1)$ we have \[ \frac1{u_i+1}=\frac1{u_i}-\frac1{u_i(u_i+1)}=\frac1{u_i}-\frac1{u_{i+1}}. \] Summing for $i=1,\dots,k-1$ telescopes: \[ \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\frac1{u_i+1}=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\left(\frac1{u_i}-\frac1{u_{i+1}}\right)=\frac1{u_1}-\frac1{u_k}=1-\frac1{u_k}. \] Rearranging gives the claim. ∎

This shows, in particular, that there exist $k$--term decompositions of $1$ whose largest denominator equals $u_k$.

4.2 Takenouchi/Curtiss bound and an immediate upper bound on $v(k)$

A classical theorem of Curtiss $1922$, refined by Takenouchi $1921$ in this context, states that no $k$--term Egyptian fraction decomposition of $1$ can have last denominator exceeding $u_k$.

Theorem (Takenouchi--Curtiss bound on the largest denominator): If \[ 1=\frac1{n_1}+\cdots+\frac1{n_k} \] with integers $2\le n_1<\cdots<n_k$, then \[ n_k\le u_k. \] Moreover, equality is achieved by the Sylvester decomposition from Lemma above.

Remark. For purposes of this writeup I use Theorem Theorem (Takenouchi--Curtiss bound on the largest denominator) as a known input (it is explicitly stated in modern expositions, e.g. Lagarias notes that the maximum possible last denominator equals the Sylvester number $u_k$).

Corollary (Simple double--exponential upper bound): For every $k\ge 1$, \[ v(k)\le u_k+1. \]
Proof: If $n>u_k$, then $n$ cannot occur as a denominator in any $k$--term decomposition, because every denominator in such a decomposition is $\le n_k\le u_k$ by Theorem Theorem (Takenouchi--Curtiss bound on the largest denominator). Hence the smallest missing integer is at most $u_k+1$. ∎

Since $u_{k+1}=u_k^2+u_k$, the recursion implies $\log u_k$ grows on the order of $2^k$, i.e. $u_k$ (hence the bound on $v(k)$) is doubly exponential in $k$.

4.3 Exact small values $v(k)$ for $k\le 6$ (computer-assisted)

Using Theorem Theorem (Takenouchi--Curtiss bound on the largest denominator) to bound denominators (hence make the search finite), one can enumerate all solutions for fixed $k$ by backtracking with the standard pruning rule \[ \frac1{n_j}+\frac1{n_{j+1}}+\cdots+\frac1{n_k}\le \frac{k-j+1}{n_j}. \] I implemented such a search (exact rational arithmetic) and obtained the following.

(i) $k=1$. There is no solution with $n_1>1$, so $\mathcal{D}_1=\emptyset$ and $v(1)=2$.

(ii) $k=2$. There is no solution with distinct denominators, so $\mathcal{D}_2=\emptyset$ and $v(2)=2$.

(iii) $k=3$. The unique solution is \[ 1=\frac12+\frac13+\frac16, \] so $\mathcal{D}_3=\{2,3,6\}$ and therefore $v(3)=4$.

(iv) $k=4$. All $4$--term solutions are: \[ \begin{aligned} 1&=\frac12+\frac13+\frac17+\frac1{42},\\ 1&=\frac12+\frac13+\frac18+\frac1{24},\\ 1&=\frac12+\frac13+\frac19+\frac1{18},\\ 1&=\frac12+\frac13+\frac1{10}+\frac1{15},\\ 1&=\frac12+\frac14+\frac15+\frac1{20},\\ 1&=\frac12+\frac14+\frac16+\frac1{12}. \end{aligned} \] Hence \[ \mathcal{D}_4=\{2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,15,18,20,24,42\}, \] and the smallest integer $>1$ missing is $11$, i.e. $v(4)=11$.

(v) $k=5$. Exhaustive enumeration with the bound $n_5\le u_5=1806$ yields $72$ solutions. Every integer $2\le m\le 16$ appears in at least one solution, but $17$ does not. Hence \[ v(5)=17. \]

(vi) $k=6$. Exhaustive enumeration with the bound $n_6\le u_6=3263442$ yields $2320$ solutions. The set $\mathcal{D}_6$ contains every integer $2\le m\le 102$ but does not contain $103$. Hence \[ v(6)=103. \] (As a sanity check that new denominators can appear when increasing $k$: $17\notin\mathcal{D}_5$ but $17\in\mathcal{D}_6$, e.g. $1=\frac12+\frac13+\frac1{12}+\frac1{17}+\frac1{68}+\frac1{102}$.)

5. VERIFICATION

  • The $k=3$ and $k=4$ solution lists were verified by direct exact summation.
  • For $k=5$ and $k=6$, completeness of the enumeration uses the input $n_k\le u_k$ from Theorem Theorem (Takenouchi--Curtiss bound on the largest denominator); within that finite search space, the backtracking algorithm checks every increasing $k$--tuple whose reciprocal sum could still reach $1$.
  • The computed values $v(k)$ are nondecreasing for $k\ge2$ in this range (consistent with $\mathcal{D}_k\subseteq\mathcal{D}_{k+1}$).

6. FINAL (exactly ONE label and ONE sub-label)

LABEL: UNRESOLVED
SUBLABEL: (PARTIAL RESULTS)

  • What I proved (complete arguments here):
    • The Sylvester telescoping identity giving an explicit $k$--term decomposition whose largest denominator is $u_k$.
    • Using the known Takenouchi/Curtiss bound $n_k\le u_k$, the immediate upper bound $v(k)\le u_k+1$.
    • Exact small values $v(k)$ for $k\le 6$ (computer-assisted, with justification of finiteness via $n_k\le u_k$).
  • What remains missing for a full solution: an asymptotically sharp estimate of $v(k)$; in particular narrowing the current gap between known lower bounds (currently at least $\exp(c k^2)$) and double--exponential upper bounds.
  • Most promising next steps: exploit the monotonicity $\mathcal{D}_k\subseteq\mathcal{D}_{k+1}$ and study which integers are "forced" into $\mathcal{D}_k$ via systematic splitting identities; on the lower-bound side, seek structural obstructions preventing small denominators from appearing (e.g. via congruence classes or density arguments for admissible denominators).

7. COMPLETION ESTIMATE

I would rate the above as 35% complete toward an "estimate" in the spirit of the problem: we have a clean (but very loose) doubly exponential upper bound and exact values for $k\le 6$, but no new asymptotically sharp growth law.