Dual View Random Solved Random Open
OPEN This is open, and cannot be resolved with a finite computation.
Let $P$ be a finite set of primes with $\lvert P\rvert \geq 2$ and let $\{a_1<a_2<\cdots\}=\{ n\in \mathbb{N} : \textrm{if }p\mid n\textrm{ then }p\in P\}$. Is the sum\[\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{[a_1,\ldots,a_n]},\]where $[a_1,\ldots,a_n]$ is the lowest common multiple of $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ irrational?
Disclaimer: The open status of this problem reflects the current belief of the owner of this website. There may be literature on this problem that I am unaware of, which may partially or completely solve the stated problem. Please do your own literature search before expending significant effort on solving this problem. If you find any relevant literature not mentioned here, please add this in a comment.
If $P$ is infinite this sum is always irrational (in [Er88c] ErdΕ‘s says this is a 'simple exercise').

View the LaTeX source

This page was last edited 28 September 2025.

External data from the database - you can help update this
Formalised statement? Yes

When referring to this problem, please use the original sources of Erdős. If you wish to acknowledge this website, the recommended citation format is:

T. F. Bloom, Erdős Problem #269, https://www.erdosproblems.com/269, accessed 2025-11-16
Order by oldest first or newest first.
  • Here is a proof for the case where $P=\{p_1<p_2<\cdots\}$ is infinite. Denote the series in consideration by $S$. Let $\{q_i\}_{i\ge1}$ be the ascending sequence of the powers of primes in $P$, and let $x_i:=[q_1,...,q_i]$ for $i\ge1$. For each prime power $q=p^k$, define $\alpha(q):=p$. Then $x_{i+1}=\alpha(q_{i+1})x_i$ and $q_{i+1}\le p_1q_{i}$ for all $i\ge1$. Observe that\[S=\sum_{i\ge1}\frac{m_i}{x_i},\]where $m_i$ counts the number of $a_n$'s in $[q_i,q_{i+1})$.

    It is not hard to see that $m_i=o(q_i)$. Indeed, when $\sum_{p\not\in P}\frac{1}{p}=\infty$, Brun's sieve yields\[m_i\ll(q_{i+1}-q_i)\prod_{\substack{p\le q_{i+1}-q_i\\p\notin P}}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right).\]So for sufficiently large $i$, either $q_{i+1}-q_i=o(q_i)$ or the product above is $o(1)$. In both cases we have $m_i=o(q_i)$. When $\sum_{p\not\in P}\frac{1}{p}<\infty$, the Prime Number Theorem with the classical error term gives\[\sum_{\substack{p\le x\\p\in P}}\frac{1}{p}=\log\log x+C+O\left(e^{-c_0\sqrt{\log x}}\right)\]with some absolute constants $C$ and $c_0>0$, which implies particularly that given any $\epsilon>0$, every interval $(x,(1+\epsilon)x]$ with $x$ sufficiently large contains a prime in $P$, so that $m_i\le q_{i+1}-q_i\le\epsilon q_i$.

    Assume now that $S=\frac{a}{b}$, where $a,b\in\mathbb{N}$. Suppose that $q_{N+1}\in P$ . Then\[bx_N\sum_{i\ge N+1}\frac{m_i}{x_i}=ax_N-bx_N\sum_{i\le N}\frac{m_i}{x_i}\in\mathbb{N}.\]Since $q_i\le p_1^{i-N-1}q_{N+1}=p_1^{i-N-1}\alpha(q_{N+1})$, we have\[bx_N\sum_{i\ge N+1}\frac{m_i}{x_i} =o\left(\sum_{i\ge N+1}\frac{q_i}{\alpha(q_{N+1})\cdots \alpha(q_{i})}\right)=o\left(\sum_{i\ge N+1}\frac{p_1^{i-N-1}}{\alpha(q_{N+2})\cdots \alpha(q_{i})}\right)\]for sufficiently large $N$. Note that\[\sum_{i\ge N+1}\frac{p_1^{i-N-1}}{\alpha(q_{N+2})\cdots \alpha(q_{i})}\le\sum_{i\ge N+1}\left(\frac{p_1}{p_2}\right)^{n_i}=\sum_{k\ge0}\left(\frac{p_1}{p_2}\right)^{k}\sum_{\substack{i\ge N+1\\n_i=k}}1,\]where $n_i:=\#\{j\in[N+2,i]\colon\alpha(q_j)>p_1\}$. Since each interval $(p_1^{r},p_1^{r+l}]$ with $l=\lceil\frac{\log p_2}{\log p_1}\rceil$ contains a power of $p_2$, we have\[\sum_{\substack{i\ge N+1\\n_i=k}}1\le l+1,\]so that\[\sum_{k\ge0}\left(\frac{p_1}{p_2}\right)^{k}\sum_{\substack{i\ge N+1\\n_i=k}}1\le(l+1)\sum_{k\ge0}\left(\frac{p_1}{p_2}\right)^{k}\ll1.\]So\[bx_N\sum_{i\ge N+1}\frac{m_i}{x_i} =o(1)\]for sufficiently large $N$, a contradiction.

    • (EDIT: This comment was in reply to an earlier version of Steve's comment, which has since been edited.)

      It's not true that $x_{n+1}\geq 2x_n$ for all $n$ - for example, this certainly fails when $P$ is the set of all primes.

      Your proof can be amended to do without this assumption though, just showing convergence of the final tail series more directly.

      • Thank you very much for pointing this out. I guess I was a bit careless. I will fix it soon.

  • Erdos conjectured these are always irrational. One is inclined to these general conclusions under the guise of so called meta conjectures, Which assert that series are irrational unless there is a clear reason they should not be.

All comments are the responsibility of the user. Comments appearing on this page are not verified for correctness. Please keep posts mathematical and on topic.

Log in to add a comment.

Back to the forum