Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. Section 4.1, printed pp. 386–387 (PDF pp. 6–7). This is the full pruning deduction used by the original upper proof. Use from the common definitions.
Statement. There is a nonnegative function such that, for every sufficiently large real , every admissible family with , and every choice of its disjoint residue classes, a subset exists with satisfying
- ;
- for every ;
- for every ;
- there is one integer , , with for every ;
- the kernels , , are distinct.
The same and sufficiently-large threshold work for all such families and residues. In particular, for every fixed one may replace by eventually. The retained progressions remain disjoint because only members are removed.
Full proof
The lower construction gives , independently of the extremal family chosen. Remove all moduli , all those with , and all those with . The numbers removed are at most, respectively,
These follow from elementary counting, Lemma 3.2, and Lemma 3.1. Each is ; for the middle expression, tends to infinity. Consequently at least members remain for all sufficiently large , uniformly over the original family.
Also , so these remaining moduli are greater than one and have at least one prime divisor. Their integer values of lie in , giving at most possibilities. One value occurs at least times. This treats the endpoints without assuming that is an integer.
For this group, apply Lemma 3.3 with the real value . At most members have any one kernel. Keeping one representative of every kernel leaves
The expression subtracted in (1) is . Its ratio to defines a choice of valid for every retained and every original family. All five properties follow. The construction never changes a residue, so no dependence on a favorable residue choice has entered the estimates.
Scope. Modulus one is removed by the lower cutoff, not silently allowed in an intersecting-support argument. This page proves the same-paper reduction once; later arguments may import these five properties and their uniform loss without repeating the proof.
Bears on. Problem 202, as an input to the original upper bound. This is a counting lemma, not a current-status claim or a formal verification.