Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated

Problem 728

../

claims/: The 3 claim pages of Problem 728, one per claimant's result; the problem's standing derives from them.


Statement. Let C>0C>0 and ϵ>0\epsilon>0 be sufficiently small. Are there infinitely many integers a,b,na,b,n with a≥ϵna\geq \epsilon n and b≥ϵnb\geq \epsilon n such that

a!b!∣n!(a+b−n)!a! b! \mid n!(a+b-n)!

and a+b>n+Clog⁡na+b>n+C\log n?

Status. PROVED (LEAN). The site labels the problem PROVED (LEAN) (page last edited 6 January 2026) and credits Barreto and ChatGPT-5.2 for a proof that, for any 0<C1<C20<C_1<C_2, gives infinitely many triples with b=n/2b=n/2, a=n/2+O(log⁡n)a=n/2+O(\log n), C1log⁡n<a+b−n<C2log⁡nC_1\log n<a+b-n<C_2\log n and a! b!∣n! (a+b−n)!a!\,b!\mid n!\,(a+b-n)!; the result is recorded on the claim page Barreto 2026. A separate proof by Carl Pomerance, extending his 2015 method and written after the thread asked him about the AI-generated proof, gives a far larger gap for almost all nn; published in Integers in 2026, it is on the claim page Pomerance 2026; two later AI-generated proofs posted to the site's thread are on the pending page Pickhardt 2026. The Lean qualifier refers to Aristotle's formalization of the ChatGPT-5.2 argument, posted by Barreto and shortened by Boris Alexeev in his repository of formalized Erdős problems, which this corpus has not built; nothing about the AI-generated proof is refereed, and the site's commentary notes that the statement as printed is ambiguous (see the assessment below). The standing in the frontmatter derives from the claim pages.

Source. erdosproblems.com/728, accessed 2026-09-04 and, with its discussion thread and the community database, 2026-10-07. Cite as: T. F. Bloom, Erdős Problem #728, https://www.erdosproblems.com/728.

References.

Formalization. Statement in formal-conjectures, which adds the upper bound a+b−n<C′log⁡na+b-n<C'\log n to exclude the trivial solutions, is tagged solved and names as its formal proof the Lean formalization of Pomerance's paper in Alexeev's repository; that file and the formalization of the ChatGPT-5.2 argument are linked, at pinned commits, from the two accepted claim pages. This corpus has built neither.

Current assessment

The question, as the site states it (page last edited 6 January 2026): for small fixed C,ε>0C,\varepsilon>0, are there infinitely many a,b,na,b,n with a,b≥εna,b\ge\varepsilon n, a+b>n+Clog⁡na+b>n+C\log n and a! b!∣n! (a+b−n)!a!\,b!\mid n!\,(a+b-n)!? The problem comes from a closing remark of [EGRS75], which asks whether the divisibility can hold with a,b>εna,b>\varepsilon n and a+b>n+clog⁡na+b>n+c\log n, against the background of Erdős's theorem [Er68c] that a! b!∣n!a!\,b!\mid n! forces a+b≤n+O(log⁡n)a+b\le n+O(\log n). Writing k=a+b−nk=a+b-n and N=a+bN=a+b, the divisibility is (Nk)∣(Na)\binom{N}{k}\mid\binom{N}{a}.

Ambiguity of the printed statement. As printed, the question has trivial answers: a=b=na=b=n works, and so does b=n−1b=n-1 with aa a large divisor of nn, and there are solutions with aa and bb far larger than nn. The site's commentary and the discussion thread settle on the reading in which εn≤a,b≤(1−ε)n\varepsilon n\le a,b\le(1-\varepsilon)n and the question is whether a+b−na+b-n can be a multiple Clog⁡nC\log n of log⁡n\log n for every fixed CC, which is what the authors' remark asks about; the formal-conjectures statement writes that reading with Clog⁡n<a+b−n<C′log⁡nC\log n<a+b-n<C'\log n. The standing here targets the printed statement, which the accepted proofs answer a fortiori, and the claim pages state the intended reading they prove.

Proofs. The accepted claim page Barreto 2026 records the AI-generated proof the site credits: an informal argument of ChatGPT-5.2 formalized by Harmonic's Aristotle and submitted by Kevin Barreto to the thread, with n=2mn=2m, b=mb=m, a=m+ka=m+k and k≍log⁡nk\asymp\log n, where Kummer's theorem, a Chernoff bound on base-pp carries and a union bound over the primes p≤2kp\le2k supply the mm; a first attempt of 2026-01-04 reached only a small multiple of log⁡n\log n, and the every-CC argument, posted informally on 2026-01-05 and as a Lean proof on 2026-01-06, handles every CC. Sothanaphan's writeup [So26] gives the argument as a paper, with εn≤a,b≤(1−ε)n\varepsilon n\le a,b\le(1-\varepsilon)n (its Theorem 1), and its appendices extract a general valuation theorem from which the problem, Problem 729 and Problem 401 follow, together with effective density-one versions. The accepted claim page Pomerance 2026 records the refereed proof [Po26]: for almost all mm, (m+kk)∣(2mm)\binom{m+k}{k}\mid\binom{2m}{m} for every k≤exp⁡(0.8log⁡m)k\le\exp(0.8\sqrt{\log m}), so the gap a+b−na+b-n can be taken far beyond any Clog⁡nC\log n; the method is that of Pomerance's 2015 Monthly paper on divisors of the middle binomial coefficient, and the thread records that a gap in the note's first version was found through its Lean formalization and repaired. The pending page Pickhardt 2026 records two manuscripts of July 2026 by an AI research agent and Jeff Pickhardt claiming deterministic proofs; no one has reviewed them. Earlier literature found by the thread's searches concerns the stronger divisibility a! b!∣n!a!\,b!\mid n! and small constants only, and the authors of [EGRS75] left the question as a remark without a conjecture.

Search scope, 2026-10-07: the site's problem page, its discussion thread (87 comments), the community database, the formal-conjectures file and Alexeev's repository. The site lists no proof claim for the problem, and the forum carries no claim beyond those recorded on the claim pages.

Linked library material

These entries are derived from explicit links on library pages. They are navigation only and do not by themselves record mathematical progress.