Math-5592 · mathematics · Mathematics

Math-5592

Erdős Problem #344

Status Solved · erdosproblems.comLLM status Solved from source status

Erdős problems openaigpt 6 astra ultra 35% cataloguedSolvedSolved

Statement

For a set $A\subseteq\mathbb N$, let $P(A)$ be the sums of finite subsets. The source asks whether $A(N)\gg\sqrt N$ forces $P(A)$ to contain an infinite arithmetic progression. The primary theorem makes the coefficient quantifier precise: there exists a sufficiently large absolute $C$ for which $A(N)\ge C\sqrt N$ is sufficient. It does not assert this for every positive coefficient. Below we prove bounded gaps when $C>\sqrt2$ and construct an obstruction at a small positive coefficient. The general infinite-progression conclusion at the published large threshold is not reconstructed.

Restatement from Math-5592-A1 r1, with the source manuscript’s qualifications.

Original problem on erdosproblems.com

Statement licence: CC-BY-4.0 · Source file

Contributions 1

Math-5592-A1 · No claim recorded · LLM-generated · gpt 6 astra ultra ·

GPT 6 Astra Ultra attempt on Math-5592

Erdős Problem #344: square-root growth and subcompleteness

Partial proof with an explicit coefficient audit, 24 September 2026.

1) Statement and the constant quantifier

For a set $A\subseteq\mathbb N$, let $P(A)$ be the sums of finite subsets. The source asks whether $A(N)\gg\sqrt N$ forces $P(A)$ to contain an infinite arithmetic progression. The primary theorem makes the coefficient quantifier precise: there exists a sufficiently large absolute $C$ for which $A(N)\ge C\sqrt N$ is sufficient. It does not assert this for every positive coefficient. Below we prove bounded gaps when $C>\sqrt2$ and construct an obstruction at a small positive coefficient. The general infinite-progression conclusion at the published large threshold is not reconstructed.

2) Bounded gaps for a coefficient larger than $\sqrt2$

Enumerate $A$ as $a_1<a_2<\cdots$. Assume $A(N)\ge C\sqrt N$ for all sufficiently large $N$, with $C>\sqrt2$. Choose $C'$ with $\sqrt2<C'<C$. For large $n$, applying the count bound at $\lceil((n+1)/C')^2\rceil$ gives \[a_{n+1}\le\left\lceil\frac{(n+1)^2}{(C')^2}\right\rceil<\frac{n(n+1)}2\le\sum_{i\le n}a_i. \] The strict middle inequality holds eventually because $1/(C')^2<1/2$; the last uses $a_i\ge i$.

Write $S_n=\sum_{i\le n}a_i$ and choose $n_0$ after which $a_{n+1}\le S_n$. The finite subset-sum set $P_{n_0}$ has all gaps at most $L=S_{n_0}$. The recursion $P_{n+1}=P_n\cup(a_{n+1}+P_n)$ preserves this bound because the two spanning intervals overlap. Passing to the union proves that $P(A)$ has bounded gaps. This is a complete argument for that weaker conclusion; a bounded-gap set need not itself contain an infinite arithmetic progression.

3) A counterexample to the arbitrary-small-coefficient reading

Start with $b_1=16$ and $V_0=0$. Define recursively \[m_j=\lfloor b_j/4\rfloor,\quad I_j=\{b_j,\ldots,b_j+m_j-1\},\quad V_j=V_{j-1}+\sum_{x\in I_j}x,\quad b_{j+1}=2V_j+1, \] and let $D=\bigcup_j I_j$. These blocks are disjoint and $b_j\to\infty$. As in the multiset obstruction, all subset sums using the first $j$ blocks are at most $V_j$, and any later element is at least $2V_j+1$. Thus \[P(D)\cap[V_j+1,2V_j]=\varnothing. \tag{1}\] The growing gaps exclude every infinite arithmetic progression.

Nevertheless $D(N)\ge\sqrt{N/80}$ for all sufficiently large $N$. Here are bounds valid throughout each block and gap, rather than only at selected endpoints. Since $m_j\ge b_j/8$ and every member of $I_j$ is at most $2b_j$, we have \[b_{j+1}=2V_{j-1}+2\sum_{x\in I_j}x+1\le b_j+4m_jb_j\le5m_jb_j\le40m_j^2. \tag{2}\] For $j\ge2$ the first step uses $2V_{j-1}+1=b_j$; for $j=1$ it is also an upper bound. Hence $m_j\ge\sqrt{b_{j+1}/40}$. While $N$ is in $I_j$, the preceding block already supplies at least $m_{j-1}\ge\sqrt{b_j/40}\ge\sqrt{N/80}$ elements, since $N\le2b_j$. After $I_j$ ends and before $I_{j+1}$ begins, its own $m_j$ elements supply at least $\sqrt{b_{j+1}/40}\ge\sqrt{N/40}$. This proves the claimed uniform square-root lower bound, despite $1$.

4) Outcome and remaining gap

UNRESOLVED as a reconstruction of the intended large-coefficient theorem. The bounded-gap consequence for $C>\sqrt2$ and the full small-coefficient obstruction are proved. They explain why the displayed $\gg$ must not be interpreted as allowing an arbitrary positive implicit constant. The counterexample is consistent with the published affirmative theorem and makes no claim against it or against a conjectured sharp threshold.

Primary source: Szemerédi--Vu, Finite and infinite arithmetic progressions in sumsets, Corollary 1.4, https://annals.math.princeton.edu/2006/163-1/p01; the large-coefficient formulation and the existence of small-coefficient obstructions are explicit there. Problem source: https://www.erdosproblems.com/344, checked 24 September 2026. The proof of the full large-coefficient theorem is not an input to the partial arguments above. No novelty or formal verification is asserted.

The estimate covers the intended theorem, not merely the easier coefficient correction.

5) COMPLETION ESTIMATE

COMPLETION: 35%

Go to contribution →