Erdős Problem 887: Ii
Is there an absolute constant such that, for every , if is sufficiently large then has at most divisors in .
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.Is there an absolute constant such that, for every , if is sufficiently large then has at most divisors in .
Erdős and Rosenfeld, ask whether is the best possible for the infinitude of with (at least) divisors in .
Let count the prime factors of which do not divide for . Is it true that as ?
Let . For every fixed , as
[ErSe67] Erdős, P. and Selfridge, J. L., Some problems on the prime factors of consecutive integers. Illinois J. Math. (1967), 428--430.
Does have finite solutions?
[ErSe67] Erdős, P. and Selfridge, J. L., Some problems on the prime factors of consecutive integers. Illinois J. Math. (1967), 428--430.
Does have finite solutions?
This is a modification of erdos_889.variants.v1_eq_1_finite,
which might make it more amenable to attack according to [ErSe67].
[ErSe67] Erdős, P. and Selfridge, J. L., Some problems on the prime factors of consecutive integers. Illinois J. Math. (1967), 428--430.
If counts the number of distinct prime factors of which are , then is it true that, for every ,
Is it true that where counts the number of distinct prime factors without restriction?
Let be the primes and . Is it true that, for all sufficiently large , there must exist an integer in with many prime factors?
This is unknown even for - that is, is it true that in every interval of (sufficiently large) consecutive integers there must exist one with at least prime factors?
Weisenberg has observed that Dickson's conjecture implies the answer is no if we replace with . Indeed, let be the lowest common multiple of all integers at most . By Dickson's conjecture [Wikipedia], there are infinitely many such that is prime for all . It follows that, if , then all integers in have at most prime factors.
Let be an additive function (so that if ) such that and or . Is it true that ?
The known counterexample does not satisfy either of these extra hypotheses, so this variant remains open.
Let be an additive function (so that if ) such that and or . Is it true that ?
The known counterexample does not satisfy either of these extra hypotheses, so this variant remains open.
Prove that there exists some such that as .
A heuristic of Tao using the Cramér model for the primes suggests this is true with .
Are there infinitely many such that if
is the factorisation into distinct primes then all exponents are distinct?
It is likely that there are infinitely many primes such that is also prime.
Is it true that, for every , there is a such that if are disjoint intervals of consecutive integers, all of length at least , then
is not a perfect power?
Let . Are there only finitely many such that
have the same prime factors?
Erdős thought perhaps if the two products have the same factors then . It is an open question whether this is true when allowing a finite number of counterexamples.