Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Source. Section 3, especially physical pp. 5–8, and the completion remarks on physical p. 23 of the selected author version. The fresh-prime realization below is the paper's explicitly permitted alternative on physical p. 7. The proof spells out the nested finite closure that the source leaves informal.

Statement

Let qq be prime and m≥1m\ge1 an integer. Fix an explicit ancestor context C=b(modL)C=b\pmod L, with gcd⁡(L,q)=1\gcd(L,q)=1, and an explicit qq-coordinate modulo qm−1q^{m-1}. Represent that coordinate by the unique

1≤c≤qm−1,(1)1\le c\le q^{m-1}, \tag{1}

where c=qm−1c=q^{m-1} represents zero. Let the target set TT lie in the intersection of CC with this qq-coordinate. The context CC consists only of congruence conditions actually present in the expression; unrelated conditions defining TT are not inherited.

Suppose each AjA_j is either a finite package or a finite acyclic arrow expression and, when intersected with the successive explicit qq-children below, covers the corresponding portions of TT. Then

(qm)↑(A1,…,Aq−1)(2)(q^m)^\uparrow(A_1,\ldots,A_{q-1}) \tag{2}

has a finite realization covering TT.

For a finite dependency expression made from such arrows, assume separately that the regular modulus signatures generated by its finite descents are distinct. Then all arrows can be realized so that the resulting family is finite and all moduli remain distinct. Terminal moduli may be forced above any prescribed bound.

One normalized arrow

For k≥mk\ge m and 1≤j<q1\le j<q, define the jjth nonmarked qq-coordinate at level kk by

Qk,j:x≡c+jqk−1−qm−1(modqk).(3)Q_{k,j}:\quad x\equiv c+jq^{k-1}-q^{m-1}\pmod {q^k}. \tag{3}

For k≥m−1k\ge m-1, define the marked coordinate by

Qk∗:x≡c−qm−1(modqk).(4)Q_k^*:\quad x\equiv c-q^{m-1}\pmod {q^k}. \tag{4}

The normalization (1) makes (3), in increasing jj, exactly the first q−1q-1 compatible children in increasing least-positive order; (4) is the last child. At k=mk=m, these qq classes partition the parent qq-coordinate. At the next level, the classes in (3) partition the first q−1q-1 children of Qk−1∗Q_{k-1}^*, and Qk∗Q_k^* is its last child. Induction proves the same statement at every level.

At each level kk, intersect every explicit class of AjA_j with C∩Qk,jC\cap Q_{k,j}. If that class has modulus dd, the output modulus is

lcm⁡(L,qk,d),(5)\operatorname{lcm}(L,q^k,d), \tag{5}

with no additional factor coming from the target TT. By hypothesis these packages cover all nonmarked pieces of TT. After levels m,m+1,…,nm,m+1,\ldots,n, only T∩C∩Qn∗T\cap C\cap Q_n^* remains.

Closing the marked tail

Before choosing the cutoff, reserve a fresh prime rr. It is chosen outside the finite regular-prime alphabet, different from qq, coprime to LL, and different from every terminal prime reserved earlier. Now choose

n≥m+r−2(6)n\ge m+r-2 \tag{6}

and as large as any requested terminal-modulus bound requires. For 1≤i≤r1\le i\le r, take the explicit class determined by

C,x≡i(modr),Qn+1−i∗.(7)C,\qquad x\equiv i\pmod r,\qquad Q_{n+1-i}^*. \tag{7}

Every integer in T∩C∩Qn∗T\cap C\cap Q_n^* has one residue i(modr)i\pmod r and satisfies Qn+1−i∗Q_{n+1-i}^*, so (7) covers the remaining target. Its rr moduli have qq-adic exponents

n,n−1,…,n+1−r,n,n-1,\ldots,n+1-r,

which are distinct and, by (6), at least m−1m-1. Hence they preserve the explicit parent coordinate.

For q=2,m=1,c=1,C=Zq=2,m=1,c=1,C=\mathbb Z, formula (7) is the source's family

x≡i(modr),x≡2 n+1−i(mod2 n+1−i),1≤i≤r.(8)x\equiv i\pmod r,\qquad x\equiv2^{\,n+1-i}\pmod {2^{\,n+1-i}}, \qquad1\le i\le r. \tag{8}

Thus an arrow is a finite cover macro. The recurrence

q↑(A1,…,Aq−1)=q(A1,…,Aq−1,q↑(A1,…,Aq−1))q^\uparrow(A_1,\ldots,A_{q-1}) =q(A_1,\ldots,A_{q-1},q^\uparrow(A_1,\ldots,A_{q-1}))

describes its regular levels, but an infinite literal expansion would not be a finite covering system.

Domination of the ideal arrow

The finite realization contains, in the sense of unions of integer sets, the entire ideal regular union represented by the infinite arrow. Indeed, every regular class at a level at most the cutoff is included explicitly. Every deeper regular class lies inside Qn∗Q_n^*, and (7) covers all of that marked tail. If an input package itself contains arrows, apply the same statement inductively to its realized child occurrences.

The same domination holds for a partial arrow with blank inputs: it contains all ideal regular classes arising from its nonblank inputs, while making no claim about a blank input. Therefore a later xx may use coverage supplied by an earlier ideal-arrow calculation even when the two arrow occurrences are ultimately assigned different cutoffs. The proof relies on containment of unions, not on the finite realization retaining every deeper ideal class as a literal member.

A selected input's arrow portion

If the jjth displayed input is omitted from q↑(A1,…,Aq−1)q^\uparrow(A_1,\ldots,A_{q-1}), then its classes C∩Qk,j∩AjC\cap Q_{k,j}\cap A_j are missing for every k≥mk\ge m. A contextually selected shifted package beginning at qm+1q^{m+1}, denoted in the source by (qm+1)↑ ⁣⋅Aj(q^{m+1})^\uparrow\!\cdot A_j, restores precisely the copies with k≥m+1k\ge m+1. The first class C∩Qm,j∩AjC\cap Q_{m,j}\cap A_j remains a hole.

Indeed, the outer marked child Qm∗Q_m^* has normalized representative

c′=c−qm−1+qm.c'=c-q^{m-1}+q^m.

The jjth regular coordinate of the shifted arrow at level k≥m+1k\ge m+1 is

c′+jqk−1−qm=c+jqk−1−qm−1,c'+jq^{k-1}-q^m=c+jq^{k-1}-q^{m-1},

which is exactly Qk,jQ_{k,j}. Thus the shifted arrow begins on the old marked child and reproduces the later copies; it does not descend inside the first-level jjth child.

This “arrow portion” is an input tail and is distinct from the marked spine Qk∗Q_k^*. It explains the two deleted prime-1717 inputs and the single unfilled prime-1919 input.

Nested arrows and collisions

Realize a finite acyclic dependency expression recursively.

  1. At the current arrow occurrence, reserve its fresh terminal prime.
  2. Choose a finite cutoff satisfying (6), and expand its finitely many regular levels.
  3. Recursively realize the finitely many child-arrow occurrences created by that expansion. The dependency depth decreases, so this terminates.
  4. Add the current occurrence's terminal classes (7).

All terminal primes are chosen outside the regular alphabet. A terminal prime is introduced only in the terminal leaves owned by its occurrence; it never becomes part of another occurrence's fixed regular context. Descendants created under an ancestor's regular level retain their own fresh primes, while the ancestor contributes only its explicit regular coordinate.

A terminal leaf contains the unique prime assigned to its owner. It cannot share a modulus with a regular leaf or with a terminal leaf owned by another occurrence. Within one occurrence, the distinct qq-adic exponents in (7) separate the terminal moduli. The assumed regular-signature injectivity separately handles every nonterminal leaf.

That assumption is essential. Choosing a deeper cutoff or a fresh terminal prime changes tail classes only; it cannot repair two equal regular moduli. The construction ledger checks regular signatures before this lemma is applied. The proof also does not certify the optional assertion that a single prime 107107 suffices for every occurrence; fresh terminal primes already prove the existence theorem.

Bears on. Problem 2.