Plectis

Cross-problem paper

Reading Eight Erdős Problems Together

Eight Erdős problems read together By 22 September 2026 Authorship, AI use and citation

Précis. One account of the mathematics developed across the programmes: an exact tail-capacity criterion under eventual congruences, its sharp factorial support-gap threshold, rational and irrational Lambert subsums across bases, and the limits of finite greedy tests and other irrationality methods. Full arguments, exact counterexamples, unsuccessful routes and attribution are retained together. The principal proofs are ordinary mathematics; cited Lean ingredients have their own stated scope. Historical novelty and independent expert review are not established.

This paper owns the synthesis exposition and ordinary proofs across the covered problems: capacity and congruence constructions, Lambert subsums, rational-point counts, method limits and their research record.

It is not authority for a solution to any original Erdős target, historical novelty, independent expert review, or a full Lean proof of the analytic capacity criterion or Lambert-chain theorem.

In this paper

Further questions

  1. Is 1/2 a subsum of ∑(2n−1)−1? The exact obligation is in [33]. By Lemma 6.8 the general question is one-sided approximation of a rational by finite subsums XF to within gmaxF.

  2. Does the count of fractions of height at most Q rejected at step n stay close to (3Q2/π2)2n−1gn in the joint range n≤(2−ε)log2⁡Q, counted modulo the translations of Lemma 6.9? A persistent excess would be the first sign of an arithmetic mechanism for #257.

  3. Theorem 6.6 settles every divisibility chain at every real algebraic base t>1, and includes non-chain hosts of unbounded width. Which supports lacking separated cuts admit comparable control of the cleared prefix height and the initial tail patterns? The full support at 3/2 still has neither conclusion nor such a transfer here.

  4. Is there one inequality behind #1049 Theorem 5 and the cover cost of #257?

The capacity criterion already covers non-power and oscillating allowances. For factorial gaps of fixed length m, a bounded multiple of nm still gives the lattice obstruction, whereas nmL(n) with L(n)→∞ permits interval filling. A further question concerns the null case: what finer tail data determine its Hausdorff dimension? The criterion itself does not separate dimension zero from full-dimensional null sets. Outside integer divisibility chains the prefix lattice changes, so no corresponding necessity is asserted here.

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 at sha256:83e0788b73c2144a. It matched the published source manifest, 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.