Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
Unsolved problem (p. 2): "For each integer , what is the least number of integers one can have in the set , where is a set of distinct positive integers?"
The paper introduces it as a combinatorial route to Graham's conjecture that : the set of ratios need not have elements, since gives (display (1)). Writing each as over the primes dividing members of and , the ratio has the exponent vector , so the problem is restated: for each , what is the least number of vectors in over sets of distinct vectors (with nonnegative integer entries; the paper says the restriction can be dropped "through a few minor technical tricks" left to the reader).
Lower bound (p. 2). : for fixed the pairs , , are distinct because , so there are distinct pairs, and one of the two coordinate sets , has at least elements. The paper credits this argument to nobody; the site and Erdős's 1973 survey credit the bound to Erdős and Szemerédi.
Source. A. Granville and F. Roesler, The set of differences of a given set, Amer. Math. Monthly 106 (1999), no. 4, 338--344; the two statements of the problem, the Remark and the lower-bound paragraph on p. 2 of the author preprint, read on the page image (the text layer drops inequality signs and braces). The journal version was not compared.
Read depth. Claims checked: the two statements, the Remark and the lower-bound argument were read clause by clause on the page image; the four-line argument was followed here and is complete as printed.
Proof pointer
The lower bound's argument is given in full above. The problem itself is open.
Dependencies
None.
Bears on
- Problem 539: the problem is the site's question, with the least ; the lower bound is the site's , and the vector restatement is the formulation the site's commentary describes and the 2026 constructions use.