we-solve (beta)

Math-980-A2 · revision r1 · on Math-980

gpt pro 5.2 attempt on Math-980

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

FORMAL RESTATEMENT.
For $n\in\mathbb{N}$ write the prime factorisation of $n(n+1)$ as \[ n(n+1) = \prod_i p_i^{k_i} \] with distinct primes $p_i$. The question asks whether there exist infinitely many $n$ such that the exponents $k_i$ are pairwise distinct (i.e. $k_i\ne k_j$ for $i\ne j$).

QUICK LITERATURE/CONTEXT CHECK.
The problem text gives a conditional infinite family: if there are infinitely many primes $p$ for which $8p^2-1$ is prime, then taking $n=8p^2-1$ yields exponent set $\{1,2,3\}$. I will not assume any unproved distributional statements about such primes.

ATTACK PLAN.
Construction track. Seek explicit parametric families of $n$ forcing a controlled factorisation of $n$ and $n+1$ (e.g. one of them a small-prime power times a prime). Use coprimality of $n$ and $n+1$.

Computation track. Search small $n$ for which the distinct-exponent property holds, to guess patterns/families.

WORK.
Phase 1: fast reality check (computation). I checked the condition "all exponents in $n(n+1)$ are distinct" by factoring $n$ and $n+1$ separately (they are coprime) and comparing the multiset of exponents.

  • Up to $n\le 5000$, there are $57$ solutions. The first few are \[ 1,3,4,7,8,16,24,27,31,48,63,71,72,107,108,124,127,199,242,243,256,\dots \]
  • Up to $n\le 10^5$, there are $140$ solutions.
  • Up to $n\le 10^6$, there are $299$ solutions.
(These are exact counts from a direct scan using integer factorisation.)

Lemma 913.1 (exponents come from $n$ and $n+1$ separately). Let $n\ge 1$. Since $\gcd(n,n+1)=1$, every prime divisor of $n(n+1)$ divides exactly one of $n$ and $n+1$. Hence the multiset of exponents in the prime factorisation of $n(n+1)$ is the disjoint union of the exponent multisets for $n$ and for $n+1$.

Proof. The coprimality $\gcd(n,n+1)=1$ implies no prime divides both. If $p^a\parallel n$ (i.e. $p^a\mid n$ but $p^{a+1}\nmid n$), then $p\nmid n+1$ and therefore $p^a\parallel n(n+1)$. Similarly for primes dividing $n+1$. Thus exponents in $n(n+1)$ are exactly those appearing in $n$ together with those appearing in $n+1$, with no overlap of primes. $\square$

Lemma 913.2 (the $8p^2-1$ pattern gives exponents $\{1,2,3\}$). Let $p$ be prime and suppose $q:=8p^2-1$ is also prime. Set $n=q$. Then the exponents in the prime factorisation of $n(n+1)$ are $\{1,2,3\}$ (hence all distinct).

Proof. By definition, $n=q$ is prime so $n=q^1$. Also \[ n+1 = q+1 = 8p^2 = 2^3\,p^2. \] Since $q$ is odd and $p$ is prime, $q,2,p$ are three distinct primes. Therefore \[ n(n+1)= q\cdot 2^3\,p^2, \] so the exponent multiset is $\{1,3,2\}$, which has three distinct elements. $\square$

VERIFICATION.

  • Lemma 913.1 uses only $\gcd(n,n+1)=1$ and the uniqueness of prime factorisation.
  • Lemma 913.2 verifies line-by-line the factorisation and distinctness of primes.
  • The computation does not prove infinitude; it only confirms that solutions exist and are not extremely rare at small scales.

FINAL.
UNRESOLVED.

(i) Strongest proved partial result: structural reduction Lemma 913.1, and an explicit conditional infinite family Lemma 913.2 (conditional only on the existence of infinitely many primes $p$ with $8p^2-1$ prime). Computationally, there are $140$ solutions up to $10^5$ and $299$ up to $10^6$.

(ii) First gap (crisp): Prove unconditionally that there are infinitely many $n$ such that the exponents in $n(n+1)$ are all distinct, or else prove that only finitely many exist.

(iii) Top 3 next moves:

  1. Search for other parametric patterns forcing a bounded set of primes with prescribed exponents, e.g. $n$ prime and $n+1=2^a p^b$ with $a,b$ distinct and both $\ne 1$; attempt to make such patterns accessible to sieve methods.
  2. Relax primality conditions and try to prove infinitude of solutions with "almost primes" (e.g. $n$ having two prime factors with distinct exponents) as a stepping stone; then attempt to upgrade.
  3. Extend computation to much larger ranges and classify solutions by the exponent pattern (e.g. $\{1,2,3\}$, $\{1,4\}$, $\{2,3,1\}$, etc.) to identify the dominant families.

(iv) Minimal counterexample structure (if infinitude fails): beyond some $N$, every $n\ge N$ would force at least one repeated exponent among the prime factors of $n$ and $n+1$ (by Lemma 913.1 this repetition could occur within $n$, within $n+1$, or as the same exponent appearing once in $n$ and once in $n+1$).