Erdos conjecture on arithmetic progression

jinchuriki300
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I read this through wikipedia and some other sources and find it to be unsolved. Erdos offer a prize of $5000 to prove it. A mathematician at UW has looked at it and verify them to be correct. However, i still have some doubt about it because the proof i give is pretty simple. Can anyone take a look at it?
STATEMENT AND DEFINITION from wikipedia

Formally, if

\sum_{n\in A} \frac{1}{n} = \infty

(i.e. A is a large set) then A contains arithmetic progressions of any given length.

If true, the theorem would generalize Szemerédi's theorem.

Erdős offered a prize of US$3000 for a proof of this conjecture at the time. The problem is currently worth US$5000.

The Green–Tao theorem on arithmetic progressions in the primes is a special case of this conjecture

Proof

For positive arithmetic progression which d ≥ 1

let's say f(x) = 1/n + 1/(n+d) + 1/(n+2d) + ...+1/(n+xd)

then n.f(x) = n/n + n/(n+d) + n/(n+2d) +...+n/(n+xd) = 1 + 1/(1+d/n) + 1/(1+2d/n) +...1/(1+xd/n)

x starts at 1 and goes to infinity, then there are some x that could be divisible by n,

then n.f(x) = 1 + 1/(1+d/n) +...1/(1+d) + 1/(1+xd/n) +...1/(1+2d)+...

n.f(x) = a(x) + b(x) + c(x) +...

a(x) = 1 + 1/(1+d) + 1/(1+2d) +...

hence f(x) = a(x)/n + b(x)/n +...

now, a new function series m(x) = a(x) - 1 = 1/(1+d) + 1/(1+2d) +...

defined a new function n(x) = 1/(d+d) + 1/(d+2d) + 1/(d+3d) +... = 1/2d + 1/3d + 1/4d +...= (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5+...)/d

Thus, (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5+...) diverges so does (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5+...)/d, then n(x) diverges, m(x) > n(x), hence m(x) diverges, m(x) + 1 diverges, therefore a(x) diverges, that mean a(x)/n diverges for all n, then f(x) diverges.

For negative arithmetic progression which d ≥ 1 ; d > n

let's say f(x) = 1/n + 1/(n-d) + 1/(n-2d) + ...+1/(n-xd)

Using the same method above: f(x) = (1+ 1/(1-d) + 1/(1-2d) + 1/(1-3d) + ...)/n + b(x)/n +...

a(x)=1 + 1/(1-d) + 1/(1-2d) + 1/(1-3d) + ... = negative result =∞ when d = 1, therefore we have to prove d > 1

Now, m(x) = a(x) - 1 = 1/(1-d) + 1/(1-2d) + 1/(1-3d) + ...

n(x) ≥ m(x)

because n(x) = 1/(-d-d) + 1/(-d-2d) + ...= 1/(-2d) + 1/(-3d) + ... = - (1/2+1/3+1/4+...)/d = ∞

Hence f(x) diverges

now we have proved d ≥ 1

But considered f(x) = 1/(n+y) + 1/(n+2y) and g(x) = 1/(n+t) + 1/(n+2t) +...

if y > t and f(x) diverges, then g(x) diverges. So 1 ≥ d is true if d ≥ 1 is true
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, in your proof, I read various statements to the effect that the harmonic (1+1/2+1/3+1/4+...) and similar series are divergent. I do not see anything related to the properties of a given large set A.

It is interesting to note that the Erdos-conjecture you mention is not even known for arithmetic sequences of length 3. I really think someone should finally settle that.
 
what do you mean by length of 3?
 
jinchuriki300 said:
I read this through wikipedia and some other sources and find it to be unsolved. Erdos offer a prize of $5000 to prove it. A mathematician at UW has looked at it and verify them to be correct. However, i still have some doubt about it because the proof i give is pretty simple. Can anyone take a look at it?
STATEMENT AND DEFINITION from wikipedia

Formally, if

\sum_{n\in A} \frac{1}{n} = \infty

(i.e. A is a large set) then A contains arithmetic progressions of any given length.

If true, the theorem would generalize Szemerédi's theorem.

Erdős offered a prize of US$3000 for a proof of this conjecture at the time. The problem is currently worth US$5000.

The Green–Tao theorem on arithmetic progressions in the primes is a special case of this conjecture

Proof

For positive arithmetic progression which d ≥ 1

let's say f(x) = 1/n + 1/(n+d) + 1/(n+2d) + ...+1/(n+xd)

then n.f(x) = n/n + n/(n+d) + n/(n+2d) +...+n/(n+xd) = 1 + 1/(1+d/n) + 1/(1+2d/n) +...1/(1+xd/n)

x starts at 1 and goes to infinity, then there are some x that could be divisible by n,

then n.f(x) = 1 + 1/(1+d/n) +...1/(1+d) + 1/(1+xd/n) +...1/(1+2d)+...

n.f(x) = a(x) + b(x) + c(x) +...

a(x) = 1 + 1/(1+d) + 1/(1+2d) +...

hence f(x) = a(x)/n + b(x)/n +...

now, a new function series m(x) = a(x) - 1 = 1/(1+d) + 1/(1+2d) +...

defined a new function n(x) = 1/(d+d) + 1/(d+2d) + 1/(d+3d) +... = 1/2d + 1/3d + 1/4d +...= (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5+...)/d

Thus, (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5+...) diverges so does (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5+...)/d, then n(x) diverges, m(x) > n(x), hence m(x) diverges, m(x) + 1 diverges, therefore a(x) diverges, that mean a(x)/n diverges for all n, then f(x) diverges.

For negative arithmetic progression which d ≥ 1 ; d > n

let's say f(x) = 1/n + 1/(n-d) + 1/(n-2d) + ...+1/(n-xd)

Using the same method above: f(x) = (1+ 1/(1-d) + 1/(1-2d) + 1/(1-3d) + ...)/n + b(x)/n +...

a(x)=1 + 1/(1-d) + 1/(1-2d) + 1/(1-3d) + ... = negative result =∞ when d = 1, therefore we have to prove d > 1

Now, m(x) = a(x) - 1 = 1/(1-d) + 1/(1-2d) + 1/(1-3d) + ...

n(x) ≥ m(x)

because n(x) = 1/(-d-d) + 1/(-d-2d) + ...= 1/(-2d) + 1/(-3d) + ... = - (1/2+1/3+1/4+...)/d = ∞

Hence f(x) diverges

now we have proved d ≥ 1

But considered f(x) = 1/(n+y) + 1/(n+2y) and g(x) = 1/(n+t) + 1/(n+2t) +...

if y > t and f(x) diverges, then g(x) diverges. So 1 ≥ d is true if d ≥ 1 is true
I don't see where you taken an arbitary infinite random set of numbers and shown that if the sum of the recipricals diverges i.e. equals infinity then the random set of numbers contains arithmetic progressions of any given length. It looks like you chose specific arithmetic sequences, not infinite random sets of numbers.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős_conjecture_on_arithmetic_progressions
for a statement of the conjecture
 
Last edited:
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top