A question regarding arithmetic progressions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter drag12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arithmetic
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Erdős conjecture regarding arithmetic progressions within subsets of natural numbers. Specifically, it asserts that if the sum of the reciprocals of a set A diverges, then A contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. An example set A={1,3,5,7,9,11} is analyzed to determine if it contains shorter arithmetic progressions. The consensus is that while the set contains a progression of length 6, the conjecture remains unproven for lengths 3 and beyond.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Erdős conjecture on arithmetic progressions
  • Familiarity with natural numbers and their properties
  • Knowledge of divergent series and their implications
  • Basic concepts of mathematical proofs and conjectures
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the current status of the Erdős conjecture on arithmetic progressions
  • Study the properties of divergent series in number theory
  • Explore existing proofs related to arithmetic progressions of length 3
  • Examine examples of sets with known arithmetic progressions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, number theorists, and students interested in combinatorial number theory and the study of arithmetic progressions.

drag12
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Fairly recently someone started a topic here regarding the conjecture of Erdos about arithmetic progressions, namely that if [itex]A[/itex] is a subset of the natural numbers and the sum of the reciprocals of elements of [itex]A[/itex] diverges, then [itex]A[/itex] contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions.

I'm looking for some clarity on the statement mainly, that I haven't been able to find anywhere else. I'll illustrate my question with an example:

Consider the set [itex]A=\{1,3,5,7,9,11\}[/itex]. This set contains an arithmetic progression of length 6, but can we also say it contains arithmetic progressions of length 5, 4, and 3?

In other words, is the statement "a set of natural numbers does not contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions" equivalent to the statement "there exists some natural number [itex]N[/itex] such that the set contains no arithmetic progressions of length greater than [itex]N[/itex]"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Drag,

I would answer yes to both of your question, but I will not subscribe to your in between phrase "In other words".

As far as I know, the conjecture is not even proved for arithmetic progressions of length 3, so I would start there (and believe me, I have tried, and will probably try again).
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K