Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Let and let be the minimal integer which does not appear as some in a solution to
with . Estimate the growth of .
Let and let be the minimal integer which does not appear as some in a solution to
with . Estimate the growth of .
Source: erdosproblems.com/293
No claim settles this problem.
Open on the site: the label is OPEN, which the commentary
attaches to the corrected Statement (page last edited 29 December 2025; no
proof claim on its tab; read 2026-10-07), and the standing derived from the
claim pages is open, since every claim is partial. The growth of is
fixed at the double-logarithmic scale and not beyond: for all large ,
and with
and , by Corollary 1.3
of the OpenAI mathematics release's manuscript of 25 September 2026, accepted
as a partial claim on formalized evidence
(its claim page (OpenAI, 2026)).
The best upper bound remains with
the Vardi constant, from van Doorn and Tang's inequality
(1.2) and the Elsholtz–Planitzer count (the paper prints ;
see the Upper bound below); whether the slope tends to and any
asymptotic for are open. Before the release
the best lower bound was (van Doorn and Tang, Theorem 1.1,
for every ), accepted as a refereed partial claim
(its claim page (van Doorn and Tang, 2025));
a claimed intermediate bound, doubly exponential in , has its own
page
(van Doorn and GPT-6 Astra Pro, 16 September 2026).
The site's is degenerate for every . The integer occurs as a denominator only in the one-term solution , since a solution with terms that contains sums to more than ; so for every the least positive integer in no solution is , and over all integers there is no least one. Either way there is no growth to estimate, at every and not only at boundary values. The change inserts "" after "minimal integer"; nothing else changes. The evidence is the poser's own statement of the question: the 1980 monograph [ErGr80], printed p. 35, asks for "the least integer which does not occur as an ". The site's own commentary reads the same quantity, since its and van Doorn and Tang's are false of the site's wording; van Doorn and Tang define as the least integer above missing from every -term solution, a comment of 8 December 2025 in the site's discussion clarifies the definition the same way, and the community database marks the statement "ambiguous statement". The defect is the site's: the monograph prints the condition. No result concerns the site's wording beyond the observation above, which is this corpus's own and counts for nothing. The standing judges the corrected Statement.