Erdős Problem 503
What is the size of the largest such that every three points from determine an isosceles triangle? That is, for any three points , , from , at least two of the distances , , are equal.
Questions, not proof records
Each statement record keeps the mathematical question, a dated status source, accessible references, and any pinned Lean formulation separate from proof verification.
sorry marks an admitted statement, not a proof. Source indexing does not mean the formulation has been independently built or certified by Therefore.What is the size of the largest such that every three points from determine an isosceles triangle? That is, for any three points , , from , at least two of the distances , , are equal.
Given points in , no five of which are on a line, the number of lines containing four points is .
Probably there is no such for the polynomial for any . This is asked in [Sek59].
Does every almost-disjoint family of countably infinite sets whose pairwise intersections all have size ≠ 1 have Property B?
Formally: let α be any type, let (A_i)_{i ∈ I} be a family of countably infinite subsets
of α such that for all i ≠ j, the intersection A_i ∩ A_j is finite and
|A_i ∩ A_j| ≠ 1. Does there exist a 2-colouring f : α → Fin 2 such that no A_i is
monochromatic?
This is an open question about Property B for almost-disjoint families with a
forbidden intersection size of 1.
Note:* This generalises the formulation in which the ground set is ℕ. Since every
countably infinite set is in bijection with ℕ, the two formulations are equivalent, but
working over an arbitrary ground type makes the statement apply immediately to, e.g.,
almost-disjoint families of countable subsets of an uncountable space.
If f(z) = ∑ aₖzⁿₖ is an entire function (with aₖ ≠ 0 for all k) such that nₖ / k → ∞,
is it true that f assumes every value infinitely often?
Let be such that every set of points in the unit disk contains three points which determine a triangle of area at most . Estimate .
Let be minimal such that any points in , no three on a line, contain points which form the vertices of a convex -gon. Prove that .
Let be a random polynomial, where independently uniformly at random for .
Is it true that, if is the number of roots of in , then
almost surely?
There is some ambiguity as to whether the intended coefficient set is or ,
see erdos_522.variants.zero_one for the alternate version.
Let be a set of cardinality and be a function from the finite subsets of to such that for all . Must there exist an infinite that is independent - that is, for all finite we have ?
Does there exists an entire non-zero transcendental function f : ℂ → ℂ such that for any
sequence n₀ < n₁ < ..., { z | ∃ k, iteratedDeriv (n k) f z = 0 } is dense.
If with is such that the subset sums are distinct for all then
Estimate a lower bound for.
Erdős conjectured that the triangular lattice is best possible in 2D, in particular that .
Note: in [Er75f] is read , but this seems to be a typo.
Let be a random polynomial, where independently uniformly at random for .
Is it true that, if is the number of roots of in , then
almost surely?
Erdős Problem 70*: Let be the cardinality of the continuum, let be a countable ordinal, and let . Is it true that ?
Note: The cases are trivially true (see omega_three), so the
genuine content of the conjecture begins at .
A generalisation of the problem to sets of real numbers, such that the subset sums all differ by at least is proposed in [Er73] and [ErGr80].
[Er73] Erdős, P., Problems and results on combinatorial number theory. A survey of combinatorial theory (Proc. Internat. Sympos., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colo., 1971) (1973), 117-138.
[ErGr80] Erdős, P. and Graham, R., Old and new problems and results in combinatorial number theory. Monographies de L'Enseignement Mathematique (1980).
Estimate an upper bound for.
Is the lower bound in 3D also an upper bound?.
First open case beyond Erdős–Rado*: .
Erdős and Rado proved for every finite
(see erdos_rado), which covers all red ordinals below .
This variant asks whether the result extends to , the simplest
countable ordinal not covered by their theorem.
Is there some such that every integer is the sum of a prime and at most powers of ?