---

Claim. Problem 951, read with the inequality $\#\{a_i\le x\}\le\pi(x)$ required for every $x\ge1$, has the answer no: there is a sequence $1<a_1<\cdots$ of reals whose power products $\prod_ia_i^{k_i}$ are pairwise at least $1$ apart and which has more than $\pi(10)=4$ terms below $10$. The note, posted to the site's thread on 27 January 2026 by Kevin Barreto, reports a finite sequence of more than four reals below $10$ with unit-separated power products and its extension to an infinite sequence with the separation property by a greedy step that adds one generator at a time; the thread's later comments call that step the Barreto--Price extension. The note was produced by a chain of ChatGPT-5.2 Pro instances prompted by the account Leeham, each instance asked to correct the errors found in the previous instance's output. It is a document on a file-sharing service, linked above; this page records the claim as the thread and the site's commentary describe it, not from the document.

Covers. The part every_x of the problem page, the reading in which the inequality must hold for every $x$, refuted at $x=10$. It says nothing about the part large_x, the reading for all sufficiently large $x$, which the site's label follows and the formal-conjectures statement encodes; the curator's reply of 27 January 2026 notes that the construction may still satisfy the inequality for all large $x$ and that the question is in spirit about the asymptotic behavior.

Standing. Claimed. The site's curator, T. F. Bloom, wrote into the problem's commentary (page last edited 06 April 2026) that the reading for every $x$ can be disproved by finite calculation, since a finite sequence with the separation property extends greedily to an infinite one, and that the finite counterexample for $x=10$ was found by ChatGPT-5.2 Pro prompted by Leeham; the page's acknowledgment line thanks Kevin Barreto and Leeham, but the label stays OPEN, so the credit is commentary and not acceptance; there is no entry on the site's proof-claim tab and no refereed publication. No independent check of the numerical certificate is recorded; a thread comment of 27 January 2026 by Nat Sothanaphan reports a ChatGPT check that found no error in the note as written, which is not a review.

Depends on. Nothing in this wiki; the argument is the note's own finite construction and extension step.