Plectis

Long paper

Reciprocal Mersenne Subseries

Summary. A weighted summability criterion proves irrationality of reciprocal Mersenne subseries: if h is the part of a supported on a finite nonempty prime set P, every infinite A with ∑ h(a)/(a(bh(a)−1)) finite has irrational ∑ (ba−1)−1. The base-two condition gives the conclusion at every integer base for every infinite subset, and permits an example with divergent reciprocal sum, while excluding full support and all odd exponents. The proof averages over a finite part of the support and over dyadic observation lengths. Erdős's weaker reciprocal-summable theorem is proved in full, and a common window extends both arguments to unions of weighted and positive-cover supports. Finite-denominator and achievement-set calculations formulate tests for the targets 1/2 and 1/21; those tests do not decide either target or the universal question. Prime support at base 2 and squarefree support at power-of-two bases are attributed as existing work.

This paper covers a claim-bounded problem-specific reasoning surface for Erdős #257: selected checked premises, finite computations, closed routes, surviving obligations, and their exact evidence bands.

It does not establish the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #257, whose universal and half-value questions remain open.

In this paper
Restrictions on a support with rational value

The next results impose separate restrictions on rational-valued supports. The related strict-gap result is Proposition 6.99.

Theorem 6.108 (A restriction on dyadic rational values). If an infinite support A⊆N>0 has XA(2)=p/2c for integers p and c≥0, then ∑a∈A1/a either diverges or converges to a value greater than 1. The cited proof averages the shifted integer recurrence and uses a common multiple of two distinct support elements. Thus a convergent reciprocal sum of at most 1 is excluded. This is a separate necessary condition: the reciprocal-summable criterion proved earlier already excludes every support with a convergent reciprocal sum, not just those whose sum is at most 1.

Theorem 6.109 (Unboundedness of a positive shifted recurrence). Let A⊆N>0 be infinite, fix a shift c≥0 and a positive integer v, and let u be a positive integer sequence satisfying

u(n+1)+vcA(c+n+1)=2u(n)(n≥0).

Then u is unbounded. Indeed, under a proposed bound u(n)≤B, choose 2B+1 distinct support elements and a common multiple larger than c. At the corresponding index the divisor count is at least 2B+1, contradicting the recurrence. This does not conflict with Theorem 6.105, whose condition is u(n)/2n→0, not boundedness. An unbounded sequence can still satisfy that limit.

Theorem 6.110 (Bounds for intervals with zero divisor counts). Suppose that XA(2)=p/(2cv) for an infinite positive support A and an odd positive integer v. For every ε>0 there is B such that, for N≥1, a run of h zero divisor counts starting after c+N satisfies h≤εlog2⁡N+B. In fact this conclusion holds without rationality: fix any a∈A. Every a consecutive positive integers include a multiple of a, where cA is positive. Hence h≤a−1, so one can take B=a−1. The zero-run conclusion therefore imposes no additional restriction on a fixed nonempty support, regardless of the tail estimates used in the linked proof.

Proposition 6.111 (A subpower bound for divisor counts). For positive integers n,k, τ(n)k≤(k2k)k⋅n, or equivalently τ(n)≤k2kn1/k. The constant absorbs the finitely many primes below 2k; for larger primes, (ν+1)k≤pν controls each factor of the divisor product. This estimate is independent of the support problem. The elementary zero-run bound above already follows from a single positive support element, without this estimate or a recurrence.

Proposition 6.112 (Two distinct prime-power differences commute). Lemma 6.57 gives the four-term expansion and its divisor-count interpretation. Commutation is elementary for arbitrary positive multipliers. The extraction formula uses distinct primes, positive exponents e,f and gcd(n,pq)=1. The example A={12} shows the extracted coefficient explicitly. No rationality statement about multiplicative subsequences follows from commutation alone.

About this paper

Authorship and AI use. Will Cook built and directed the research infrastructure and maintains the public release. He reviewed claims when he could. AI agents did most of the research and drafting. Cook did not independently verify every claim.

Cite and contact. Cite this paper by its title, author and date above, with its PDF; cite the earlier sources it uses for a mathematical result. For software, use the release citation and give the commit used. Contact Will with questions or corrections.

Prefer the manuscript?

Equations typeset from the exact TeX. Rendered from the LaTeX manuscript source with file fingerprint sha256:47cf6a152738f17c. Its file fingerprint matched the published source record, so the PDF above, the LaTeX, and this page are one manuscript. Redeploying the site regenerates this page from whatever the public repository holds at that moment.