A number of improvements of the constant have been given (see [St23] for a history), with the current record $\sqrt{2/\pi}$ first proved in unpublished work of Elkies and Gleason. Two proofs achieving this constant are provided by Dubroff, Fox, and Xu [DFX21], who in fact prove the exact bound $N\geq \binom{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$.
In [Er73] and [ErGr80] the generalisation where $A\subseteq (0,N]$ is a set of real numbers such that the subset sums all differ by at least $1$ is proposed, with the same conjectured bound. (The second proof of [DFX21] applies also to this generalisation.)
This problem appears in Erdős' book with Spencer [ErSp74] in the final chapter titled 'The kitchen sink'. As Ruzsa writes in [Ru99] "it is a rich kitchen where such things go to the sink".
The sequence of minimal $N$ for a given $n$ is A276661 in the OEIS.
See also [350].
Kahn [Ka92] proved that $\chi(G)\leq (1+o(1))n$ (for which Erdős gave him a 'consolation prize' of \$100). Hindman has proved the conjecture for $n<10$. Kang, Kelly, Kühn, Methuku, and Osthus [KKKMO21] have proved the answer is yes for all sufficiently large $n$.
In [Er97d] Erdős asks how large $\chi(G)$ can be if instead of asking for the copies of $K_n$ to be edge disjoint we only ask for their intersections to be triangle free, or to contain at most one edge.
Is it true that \[f(n) \ll n?\]
This problem was solved by Kahn [Ka94] who proved the upper bound $f(n) \ll n$. The Erdős-Lovász lower bound of $\frac{8}{3}n-O(1)$ has not been improved, and it has been speculated (see e.g. [Ka94]) that the correct answer is $3n+O(1)$.
Another stronger conjecture would be that the hypothesis $\lvert A\cap [1,N]\rvert \gg N^{1/2}$ for all large $N$ suffices.
Erdős and Sárközy conjectured the stronger version that if $A=\{a_1<a_2<\cdots\}$ and $B=\{b_1<b_2<\cdots\}$ with $a_n/b_n\to 1$ are such that $A+B=\mathbb{N}$ then $\limsup 1_A\ast 1_B(n)=\infty$.
See also [40].
Erdős and Rényi have constructed, for any $\epsilon>0$, a set $A$ such that \[\lvert A\cap \{1\ldots,N\}\rvert \gg_\epsilon N^{1/2-\epsilon}\] for all large $N$ and $1_A\ast 1_A(n)\ll_\epsilon 1$ for all $n$.
In [Er81] it is further conjectured that \[\max_{md\leq x}\left\lvert \sum_{1\leq k\leq m}f(kd)\right\rvert \gg \log x.\]
In [Er85c] Erdős also asks about the special case when $f$ is multiplicative.
Rödl [Ro82] has proved this for hypergraphs, and also proved there is such a graph (with chromatic number $\aleph_0$) if $f(n)=\epsilon n$ for any fixed constant $\epsilon>0$.
It is open even for $f(n)=\sqrt{n}$. Erdős offered \$500 for a proof but only \$250 for a counterexample. This fails (even with $f(n)\gg n$) if the graph has chromatic number $\aleph_1$ (see [111]).
Proved by Ahlswede and Khachatrian [AhKh97], who more generally showed the following. Let $2\leq t\leq k\leq m$ and let $r\geq 0$ be such that \[\frac{1}{r+1}\leq \frac{m-2k+2t-2}{(t-1)(k-t+1)}< \frac{1}{r}.\] The largest possible family of subsets of $[m]$ of size $k$, such that the pairwise intersections have size at least $t$, is the family of all subsets of $[m]$ of size $k$ which contain at least $t+r$ elements from $\{1,\ldots,t+2r\}$.
A stronger form (see [604]) may be true: is there a single point which determines $\gg n/\sqrt{\log n}$ distinct distances, or even $\gg n$ many such points, or even that this is true averaged over all points.
See also [661].
This would be the best possible, as is shown by a set of lattice points. It is easy to show that there are $O(n^{3/2})$ many such pairs. The best known upper bound is $O(n^{4/3})$, due to Spencer, Szemerédi, and Trotter [SST84]. In [Er83c] and [Er85] Erdős offers \$250 for an upper bound of the form $n^{1+o(1)}$.
Part of the difficulty of this problem is explained by a result of Valtr (see [Sz16]), who constructed a metric on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a set of $n$ points with $\gg n^{4/3}$ unit distance pairs (with respect to this metric). The methods of the upper bound proof of Spencer, Szemerédi, and Trotter [SST84] generalise to include this metric. Therefore to prove an upper bound better than $n^{4/3}$ some special feature of the Euclidean metric must be exploited.
See a survey by Szemerédi [Sz16] for further background and related results.
Is it true that $f(n)\leq n^{o(1)}$? Or even $f(n) < n^{c/\log\log n}$ for some constant $c>0$?
The set of lattice points imply $f(n) > n^{c/\log\log n}$ for some constant $c>0$. Erdős offered \$500 for a proof that $f(n) \leq n^{o(1)}$ but only \$100 for a counterexample.
It is trivial that $f(n) \ll n^{1/2}$. A result of Pach and Sharir implies $f(n) \ll n^{2/5}$.
Fishburn (personal communication to Erdős) proved that $6$ is the smallest $n$ such that $f(n)=3$ and $8$ is the smallest $n$ such that $f(n)=4$, and suggested that the lattice points may not be best example.
See also [754].
In [Er97e] Erdős clarifies that the \$500 is for a proof, and only offers \$100 for a disproof.
This problem is #1 in Ramsey Theory in the graphs problem collection.
In [Er73] mentions an unpublished proof of Haight that \[\lim \frac{\lvert A\cap [1,x]\rvert}{x}=0\] holds if the elements of $A$ are independent over $\mathbb{Q}$.
See also [858].
For fixed $n,t$ as we change $\alpha$ from $0$ to $1/2$ does $F^{(t)}(n,\alpha)$ increase continuously or are there jumps? Only one jump?
Erdős believed there might be just one jump, occcurring at $\alpha=0$.
Conlon, Fox, and Sudakov [CFS11] have proved that, for any fixed $\alpha>0$, \[F^{(3)}(n,\alpha) \ll_\alpha \sqrt{\log n}.\] Coupled with the lower bound above, this implies that there is only one jump for fixed $\alpha$ when $t=3$, at $\alpha=0$.
For all $\alpha>0$ it is known that \[F^{(t)}(n,\alpha)\gg_t (\log n)^{c_\alpha}.\] See also [563].
See also [712] for the general case.
Is there some constant $c>0$ such that \[R_3(n) \geq 2^{2^{cn}}?\]
It may be true that there are $\gg n$ many such points, or that this is true on average. In [Er97e] Erdős offers \$500 for a solution to this problem, but it is unclear whether he intended this for proving the existence of a single such point or for $\gg n$ many such points.
In [Er97e] Erdős wrote that he initially 'overconjectured' and thought that the answer to this problem is the same as for the number of distinct distances between all pairs (see [89]), but this was disproved by Harborth. It could be true that the answers are the same up to an additive factor of $n^{o(1)}$.
The best known bound is \[\gg n^{c-o(1)},\] due to Katz and Tardos [KaTa04], where \[c=\frac{48-14e}{55-16e}=0.864137\cdots.\]
See also [500] for the case $r=3$ and $k=4$.
See also [571].