Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. K. Barreto, J. Kang, S. Kim, V. Kovač and S. Zhang, Irrationality of rapidly converging series: a problem of Erdős and Graham, arXiv:2601.21442v3 (8 July 2026). Theorem 2 is stated on pp. 2--3 of that PDF. Bibliographic details and the edition read are on the source card.
Statement
Fix a positive integer and let be the unique positive solution of .
Part (1) (p. 3). If is a monotonically increasing sequence of positive integers (the paper's footnote 2: non-decreasing) with
then the sum
(the paper's (2.4)) is irrational.
Part (2) (p. 3). For every there is a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers with for which the sum (2.4) is rational.
The case (p. 3). Then is the golden ratio . The paper draws two consequences: the hypothesis of its Question 1 suffices for to be irrational, while the hypothesis does not.
Proof pointer
The paper does not prove Theorem 2 separately (p. 3). For , where , it says Part (1) is an easy consequence of Erdős's theorem (J. Math. Sci. 10 (1975), Theorem 1) and that the Sylvester sequence gives an explicit example for Part (2). For it says Part (1) is a special case of Theorem 3 and Part (2) a particular instance of Theorem 5. With all weights equal to the defining polynomials of and both reduce to . The heuristic on p. 3, which the paper says Tao sketched for the golden ratio, compares the denominator of the -th partial sum with the size of the tail for and arrives at , that is .
Read depth. Claims checked: the statement, footnote 2 and the paragraph after the theorem were read clause by clause on pp. 2--3 of the arXiv v3 PDF. The reduction to Theorems 3 and 5 is the paper's own remark and was not re-derived here.
Dependencies
Theorem 3 and Theorem 5 for ; Erdős's 1975 theorem on and the Sylvester sequence for .
Bears on
- Problem 1051: the paper's Question 1 quotes the problem, and the paper says (p. 3) that Part (1) with implies its hypothesis suffices for the irrationality of , an affirmative answer. By the same remark, Part (2) with shows that the hypothesis does not suffice. The paper offers Theorem 2 (p. 2) as its answer to Erdős and Graham's request for the strongest theorem of this type.