Beaver Math Olympiad (BMO): Set
BMO#2 formulation variant
Alternative statement of beaver_math_olympiad_problem_2_antihydra using set size comparison instead of a recurrent sequence b.
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.BMO#2 formulation variant
Alternative statement of beaver_math_olympiad_problem_2_antihydra using set size comparison instead of a recurrent sequence b.
Does for almost all ?
Let and be two sequences such that and
(a_n+1, b_n-f(a_n)) & \text{if } b_n \ge f(a_n) \\ (a_n, 3b_n+a_n+5) & \text{if } b_n < f(a_n) \end{cases}$$ where $f(x)=10\cdot 2^x-1$ for all non-negative integers $x$. Does there exist a positive integer $i$ such that $b_i = f(a_i)-1$? [BMO#5](https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Beaver_Math_Olympiad#5._1RB0LD_1LC0RA_1RA1LB_1LA1LE_1RF0LC_---0RE_(bbch)) is equivalent to asking whether the 6-state Turing machine [`1RB0LD_1LC0RA_1RA1LB_1LA1LE_1RF0LC_---0RE`](https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/1RB0LD_1LC0RA_1RA1LB_1LA1LE_1RF0LC_---0RE) halts or not. There is presently no consensus on whether the machine halts or not, hence the problem is formulated using `answer(sorry) ↔`. The machine was discovered by [bbchallenge.org](bbchallenge.org) contributor mxdys on August 7th 2024. The correspondence between the machine's halting problem and the below reformulation has been proven in [Rocq](https://github.com/ccz181078/busycoq/blob/BB6/verify/1RB0LD_1LC0RA_1RA1LB_1LA1LE_1RF0LC_---0RE.v).Are there infinitely many primes such that is the only for which ?
Let and be two sequences such that and
(a_n - \lfloor b_n/2 \rfloor - 3, 3 \lfloor (b_n+1)/2 \rfloor + 6) & \text{if } a_n > \lfloor b_n/2 \rfloor \\ (3 a_n + 5, b_n - 2 a_n) & \text{if } a_n \le \lfloor b_n/2 \rfloor \end{cases}$$ for all positive integers $n$. Does there exist a positive integer $i$ such that $a_i = \lfloor b_i/2 \rfloor + 1$? [BMO#8](https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Beaver_Math_Olympiad#8._1RB0LD_0RC1RB_0RD0RA_1LE0RD_1LF---_0LA1LA_(bbch)) is equivalent to asking whether the 6-state Turing machine [`1RB0LD_0RC1RB_0RD0RA_1LE0RD_1LF---_0LA1LA`](https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/1RB0LD_0RC1RB_0RD0RA_1LE0RD_1LF---_0LA1LA) halts or not. There is presently no consensus on whether the machine halts or not, hence the problem is formulated using `answer(sorry) ↔`.More generally, let denote the least prime which does not divide . This problem asks whether infinitely often.
Taking to be the product of primes between and gives an example where
Can one prove that for all large and some ?
Let denote the least common multiple of . Let be the -th prime. Is it true that for all , ?
Is there a function with as such that, for all large , there is a composite number such that
Here is the least prime factor of .
Let be the set of all such that with distinct proper divisors of , but this is not true for any with . Does:
converge?
Are there any odd weird numbers?
Are there infinitely many primitive weird numbers?
Is it true that, for all , there are infinitely many such that ?
For each choose some . Let . Must have a logarithmic density?
Let be a set such that . Let . If then is it true that exists (and is finite)?
For example, when then is the set of squarefree numbers, and the existence of this limit was proved by Erdős.
See also [208].
Let . Is it true that? This is also known as the Littlewood conjecture.
Let be the asymptotic distribution function of , so that for each , is the natural density of . Is it true that there is no such that the derivative exists and is positive?
Is there an infinite set such that for every , there is an integer n such that , and yet if is the smallest such integer, then as ?
Chowla's cosine problem*
If is a finite set of positive integers of size then is there some absolute constant and such that
Let be a finite set of integers. Is it true that for every