we-solve (beta)

Math-749-A3 · revision r1 · on Math-749

gpt pro 5.2 attempt on Math-749

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 #295
  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 universal harmonic-series lower bound
  7. 4.2 Converting to an explicit bound using an integral
  8. 4.3 Small cases
  9. 5. VERIFICATION
  10. 6. FINAL (exactly ONE label and ONE sub-label)
  11. 7. COMPLETION ESTIMATE

Erdős Problem #295

1. FORMAL RESTATEMENT

For an integer $N\ge1$, define $k(N)$ to be the least integer $k$ such that there exist integers \[ N\le n_1<n_2<\cdots<n_k \] with \[ \sum_{i=1}^k \frac1{n_i}=1. \] The problem asks whether \[ \lim_{N\to\infty}\left(k(N)-(e-1)N\right)=+\infty. \]

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

The Erdős Problems site attributes to Erdős--Straus $1971$ the bounds \[ -c < k(N)-(e-1)N \ll \frac{N}{\log N} \] for some constant $c>0$ (so $k(N)=(e-1)N+O(N/\log N)$ and the deviation is bounded below by a negative constant). The question is whether the deviation necessarily grows without bound.

3. ATTACK PLAN

  1. Prove easy, self-contained necessary conditions on $k(N)$ using harmonic sums (these immediately yield $k(N)\ge (e-1)N-O(1)$).
  2. Check small cases by hand (find exact $k(N)$ for small $N$) to see what the deviation looks like.
  3. Outline a route one might try for showing unbounded deviation: understand the "granularity" of achievable sums of distinct reciprocals near $1$ when restricted to denominators $\ge N$, and show a growing "integrality gap" between $1$ and the closest such sums.

4. WORK

4.1 A universal harmonic-series lower bound

Proposition (Consecutive-denominator domination): If $N\le n_1<\cdots<n_k$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k 1/n_i = 1$, then \[ 1\le \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac1{N+i}. \]
Proof: Since $n_i\ge N+i-1$ for each $i$, we have $1/n_i\le 1/(N+i-1)$. Summing gives \[ 1=\sum_{i=1}^k \frac1{n_i}\le \sum_{i=1}^k \frac1{N+i-1}=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac1{N+i}. \] ∎

Thus, to even have a chance of writing $1$ as a sum of $k$ distinct reciprocals with all denominators $\ge N$, it is necessary that the first $k$ reciprocals starting at $N$ already sum to at least $1$.

4.2 Converting to an explicit bound using an integral

Using $\frac1{N+i}\le \int_{N+i-1}^{N+i}\frac{dx}{x}$ (because $1/x$ decreases), we have \[ \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac1{N+i} \le \int_{N-1}^{N+k-1}\frac{dx}{x} =\log\left(\frac{N+k-1}{N-1}\right). \] Combining with Proposition Proposition (Consecutive-denominator domination) gives:

Corollary (A clean asymptotic lower bound): For all $N\ge2$, \[ k(N)\ge (e-1)(N-1)+1. \] In particular $k(N)\ge (e-1)N - (e-2)$.
Proof: From Proposition Proposition (Consecutive-denominator domination), $1\le\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}1/(N+i)\le \log((N+k-1)/(N-1))$. Hence $\log((N+k-1)/(N-1))\ge 1$, so $(N+k-1)/(N-1)\ge e$, i.e. $k\ge e(N-1)-(N-1)+1$. ∎

This recovers (in a very elementary way) the right main term $(e-1)N$ up to an additive constant.

4.3 Small cases

  • $N=1$: $k(1)=1$ since $1=1/1$.
  • $N=2$: $k(2)=3$ via $1=\frac12+\frac13+\frac16$.
  • $N=3$: one has $k(3)=5$, because there is a $5$--term representation \[ 1=\frac13+\frac14+\frac15+\frac16+\frac1{20}, \] and (by the explicit enumeration of all $4$--term decompositions in the solution to Problem #293 above) every $4$--term decomposition uses the denominator $2$, hence none can have all denominators $\ge 3$.

5. VERIFICATION

  • Proposition Proposition (Consecutive-denominator domination) is a direct termwise comparison and is airtight.
  • The integral comparison $\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}1/(N+i)\le\int_{N-1}^{N+k-1}dx/x$ follows from monotonicity of $1/x$ on each unit interval.
  • The small-case identities were checked by exact arithmetic.

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

LABEL: UNRESOLVED
SUBLABEL: (PARTIAL RESULTS)

  • What I proved here: an elementary, self-contained lower bound $k(N)\ge (e-1)(N-1)+1$, and exact values for $k(1),k(2),k(3)$.
  • What remains: determine whether $k(N)-(e-1)N\to\infty$.
  • A concrete possible direction: quantify how closely one can approximate $1$ from below by sums of distinct reciprocals in $[N,\infty)$ using only $\approx (e-1)N+O(1)$ terms, and show that exact equality forces a growing "extra budget" in the number of terms.

7. COMPLETION ESTIMATE

I would rate this as 25% complete: the main-term lower bound is easy and done, but the central question about the divergence of the deviation has not been resolved.