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of the constant have been given (see [St23] for a history), with the current record $\sqrt{2/\pi}$ first proved in unpublished work of Elkies and Gleason.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].
An alternative, simpler, proof was given by Balister, Bollobás, Morris, Sahasrabudhe, and Tiba [BBMST22], who improved the bound on the smallest modulus to $616000$.
Hough and Nielsen [HoNi19] proved that at least one modulus must be divisible by either $2$ or $3$. A simpler proof of this fact was provided by Balister, Bollobás, Morris, Sahasrabudhe, and Tiba [BBMST22].
Selfridge has shown (as reported in [Sc67]) that such a covering system exists if a covering system exists with moduli $n_1,\ldots,n_k$ such that no $n_i$ divides any other $n_j$ (but the latter has been shown not to exist, see [586]).
The sequence of such numbers is A006286 in the OEIS.
Granville and Soundararajan [GrSo98] have conjectured that at most $3$ powers of 2 suffice for all odd integers, and hence at most $4$ powers of $2$ suffice for all even integers. (The restriction to odd integers is important here - for example, Bogdan Grechuk has observed that $1117175146$ is not the sum of a prime and at most $3$ powers of $2$, and pointed out that parity considerations, coupled with the fact that there are many integers not the sum of a prime and $2$ powers of $2$ (see [9]) suggest that there exist infinitely many even integers which are not the sum of a prime and at most $3$ powers of $2$).
Blecksmith, Erdős, and Selfridge [BES99] proved that the number of such primes is \[\ll_A \frac{x}{(\log x)^A}\] for every $A>0$, and Elsholtz [El03] improved this to \[\ll x\exp(-c(\log\log x)^2)\] for every $c<1/8$.
Are there infinitely many practical $m$ such that \[h(m) < (\log\log m)^{O(1)}?\] Is it true that $h(n!)<n^{o(1)}$? Or perhaps even $h(n!)<(\log n)^{O(1)}$?
The sequence of practical numbers is A005153 in the OEIS.
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.
In [Er81] offered \$1000 for a proof or disproof even just in the special case when $k=3$, which he expected 'contains the whole difficulty'. He also wrote 'I really do not see why this question is so difficult'.
The usual focus is on the regime where $k=O(1)$ is fixed (say $k=3$) and $n$ is large, although for the opposite regime Kostochka, Rödl, and Talysheva [KoRoTa99] have shown \[f(n,k)=(1+O_n(k^{-1/2^n}))k^n.\]
Tenenbaum asked the weaker variant (still open) where for every $\epsilon>0$ there is some $k=k(\epsilon)$ such that at least $1-\epsilon$ density of all integers have a divisor of the form $a+k$ for some $a\in A$.
The answer is no, as proved by Filaseta, Ford, Konyagin, Pomerance, and Yu [FFKPY07], who (among other results) prove that if \[1< C \leq N^{\frac{\log\log\log N}{4\log\log N}}\] then, for any $N\leq n_1<\cdots< n_k\leq CN$, the density of integers not covered for any fixed choice of residue classes is at least \[\prod_{i}(1-1/n_i)\] (and this density is achieved for some choice of residue classes as above).
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].
An explicit construction was given by Jain, Pham, Sawhney, and Zakharov [JPSZ24].
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 $n$.
Indeed, we must trivially have $\sum_{d|n_k}1/d \geq k$, or else there is a greedy colouring as a counterexample. Since $\prod_{p}(1+1/p^2)$ is finite we must have $\prod_{p|n_k}(1+1/p)\gg k$. To achieve the minimal $\prod_{p|n_k}p$ we take the product of primes up to $T$ where $\prod_{p\leq T}(1+1/p)\gg k$; by Mertens theorems this implies $T\geq C^{k}$ for some constant $C>1$, and hence $n_k\geq \prod_{p\mid n_k}p\geq \exp(cC^k)$ for some $c>0$.
Solved by Tao [Ta23b], who proved that \[ \lvert A\rvert \leq \left(1+O\left(\frac{(\log\log x)^5}{\log x}\right)\right)\pi(x).\]
In [Er95c] Erdős further asks about the situation when $\phi(a_1)\leq \cdots \leq \phi(a_t)$.
See also [694].
There is likely nothing special about the integers in this question, and indeed Erdős and Szemerédi also ask a similar question about finite sets of real or complex numbers. The current best bound for sets of reals is the same bound of Rudnev and Stevens above. The best bound for complex numbers is \[\max( \lvert A+A\rvert,\lvert AA\rvert)\gg\lvert A\rvert^{\frac{5}{4}},\] due to Solymosi [So05].
One can in general ask this question in any setting where addition and multiplication are defined (once one avoids any trivial obstructions such as zero divisors or finite subfields). For example, it makes sense for subsets of finite fields. The current record is that if $A\subseteq \mathbb{F}_p$ with $\lvert A\rvert <p^{5/8}$ then \[\max( \lvert A+A\rvert,\lvert AA\rvert)\gg\lvert A\rvert^{\frac{11}{9}+o(1)},\] due to Rudnev, Shakan, and Shkredov [RSS20].
There is also a natural generalisation to higher-fold sum and product sets. For example, in [ErSz83] (and in [Er91]) Erdős and Szemerédi also conjecture that for any $m\geq 2$ and finite set of integers $A$ \[\max( \lvert mA\rvert,\lvert A^m\rvert)\gg \lvert A\rvert^{m-o(1)}.\] See [53] for more on this generalisation and [808] for a stronger form of the original conjecture. See also [818] for a special case.
Burr and Erdős [BuEr85] showed that there exists a constant $c>0$ such that it cannot be true that \[\lvert A\cap \{1,\ldots,N\}\rvert \leq c(\log N)^2\] for all large $N$ and that there exists a Ramsey $2$-complete $A$ such that for all large $N$ \[\lvert A\cap \{1,\ldots,N\}\rvert < (2\log_2N)^3.\] Improve either of these bounds.
Solved by Conlon, Fox, and Pham [CFP21], who constructed for every $r\geq 2$ an $r$-Ramsey complete $A$ such that for all large $N$ \[\lvert A\cap \{1,\ldots,N\}\rvert \ll r(\log N)^2,\] and showed that this is best possible, in that there exists some constant $c>0$ such that if $A\subset \mathbb{N}$ satisfies \[\lvert A\cap \{1,\ldots,N\}\rvert \leq cr(\log N)^2\] for all large $N$ then $A$ cannot be $r$-Ramsey complete.
Erdős later asked ([Er92b] and [Er95]) if the conjecture remains true provided $N\geq (1+o(1))p_k^2$ (or, in a weaker form, whether it is true for $N$ sufficiently large depending on $k$).
See also [534].
David Penman has observed that this is certainly true if the graph has uncountable chromatic number, since by a result of Erdős and Hajnal [ErHa66] such a graph must contain arbitrarily large finite complete bipartite graphs (see also Theorem 3.17 of Reiher [Re24]).
Zach Hunter has observed that this follows from the work of Liu and Montgomery [LiMo20]: if $G$ has infinite chromatic number then, for infinitely many $r$, it must contain some finite connected subgraph $G_r$ with chromatic number $r$ (via the de Bruijn-Erdős theorem [dBEr51]). Each $G_r$ contains some subgraph $H_r$ with minimum degree at least $r-1$, and hence via Theorem 1.1 of [LiMo20] there exists some $\ell_r\geq r^{1-o(1)}$ such that $H_r$ contains a cycle of every even length in $[(\log \ell)^8,\ell]$.
See also [64].
This was solved in the affirmative if the minimum degree is larger than some absolute constant by Liu and Montgomery [LiMo20] (therefore disproving the above stronger conjecture of Erdős and Gyárfás). Liu and Montgomery prove a much stronger result: if the average degree of $G$ is sufficiently large then there is some large integer $\ell$ such that for every even integer $m\in [(\log \ell)^8,\ell]$, $G$ contains a cycle of length $m$.
An infinite tree with minimum degree $3$ shows that the answer is trivially false for infinite graphs.
See also the entry in the graphs problem collection.
See also [57].
Erdős was 'almost certain' that if $A$ is the set of powers of $2$ then no such $c$ exists (although he conjectured that $n$ vertices and average degree $\gg (\log n)^{C}$ suffices for some $C=O(1)$). If $A$ is the set of squares (or the set of $p\pm 1$ for $p$ prime) then he had no guess.
Solved by Verstraëte [Ve05], who gave a non-constructive proof that such a set $A$ exists.
Liu and Montgomery [LiMo20] proved that in fact this is true when $A$ is the set of powers of $2$ (more generally any set of even numbers which doesn't grow too quickly) - in particular this contradicts the previous belief of Erdős.
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]).
The answer is yes, proved by Gruslys and Letzter [GrLe20].
In [Er97d] Erdős also asks for a lower bound for the count of edge-disjoint monochromatic triangles in single colour (the colour chosen to maximise this quantity), and speculates that the answer is $\geq cn^2$ for some constant $c>1/24$.
This problem is #3 in Ramsey Theory in the graphs problem collection.
This problem is #4 in Ramsey Theory in the graphs problem collection.
Are there infinitely many graphs $G$ which are not Ramsey size linear but such that all of its subgraphs are?
A split graph is one where the vertices can be split into a clique and an independent set. Every split graph is chordal. Chen, Erdős, and Ordman [CEO94] have shown that any split graph can be partitioned into $\frac{3}{16}n^2+O(n)$ many cliques.
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 $\{1,\ldots,t+2r\}$.
Prove that $f(n)=o(2^n)$.
Prove that $f(n)/2^{n/2}\to \infty$.
One can also ask about the existence and value of $\lim f(n)^{1/n}$.
A similar question can be asked for other even cycles.
See also [666] and the entry in the graphs problem collection.
Even stronger, is there some $c>0$ such that, for all large $k$, $R(G)>cR(k)$ for every graph $G$ with chromatic number $\chi(G)=k$?
Since $R(k)\leq 4^k$ this is trivial for $\epsilon\geq 3/4$. Yuval Wigderson points out that $R(G)\gg 2^{k/2}$ for any $G$ with chromatic number $k$ (via a random colouring), which asymptotically matches the best-known lower bounds for $R(k)$.
This problem is #12 and #13 in Ramsey Theory in the graphs problem collection.
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].
Szemerédi conjectured (see [Er97e]) that this stronger variant remains true if we only assume that no three points are on a line, and proved this with the weaker bound of $n/3$.
See also [660].
If this fails for $4$, perhaps there is some constant for which it holds?
Erdős suggested this as an approach to solve [96]. Indeed, if this problem holds for $k+1$ vertices then, by induction, this implies an upper bound of $kn$ for [96].
The answer is no if we omit the requirement that the polygon is convex (I thank Boris Alexeev and Dustin Mixon for pointing this out), since for any $d$ there are graphs with minimum degree $d$ which can be embedded in the plane such that each edge has length one (for example one can take the $d$-dimensional hypercube graph on $2^d$ vertices). One can then connect the vertices in a cyclic order so that there are no self-intersections and no three consecutive vertices on a line, thus forming a (non-convex) polygon.
Erdős [Er94b] wrote 'I could not prove it but felt that it should not be hard. To my great surprise both B. H. Sendov and M. Simonovits doubted the truth of this conjecture.' In [Er94b] he offers \$100 for a counterexample but only \$50 for a proof.
The stated problem is false for $n=4$, for example taking the points to be vertices of a square. The behaviour of such sets for small $n$ is explored by Bezdek and Fodor [BeFo99].
See also [103].
Grünbaum [Gr76] constructed an example with $\gg n^{3/2}$ such lines. Erdős speculated this may be the correct order of magnitude. This is false: Solymosi and Stojaković [SoSt13] have constructed a set with no five on a line and at least \[n^{2-O(1/\sqrt{\log n})}\] many lines containing exactly four points.
See also [102]. A generalisation of this problem is asked in [588].
It is easy to see that $h_c(n) \ll_c n^{1/2}$, and Erdős originally suggested that perhaps a similar lower bound $h_c(n)\gg_c n^{1/2}$ holds. Zach Hunter has pointed out that this is false, even replacing $>3$ points on each line with $>k$ points: consider the set of points in $\{1,\ldots,m\}^d$ where $n\approx m^d$. These intersect any line in $\ll_d n^{1/d}$ points, and have $\gg_d n^2$ many pairs of points each of which determine a line with at least $k$ points. This is a construction in $\mathbb{R}^d$, but a random projection into $\mathbb{R}^2$ preserves the relevant properties.
This construction shows that $h_c(n) \ll n^{1/\log(1/c)}$.
In [Er75h] Erdős also asks how many such unit circles there must be if the points are in general position.
It is trivial from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that $f(k^2)=4k$. Erdős also asks for which $n$ is it true that $f(n+1)=f(n)$.
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.
The graph $H_5$ can also be described as $K_4^*$, obtained from $K_4$ by subdividing one edge. ($K_4$ itself is not Ramsey size linear, since $R(4,n)\gg n^{3-o(1)}$, see [166].) Bradać, Gishboliner, and Sudakov [BGS23] have shown that every subdivision of $K_4$ on at least $6$ vertices is Ramsey size linear, and also that $R(H_5,H) \ll m$ whenever $H$ is a bipartite graph with $m$ edges and no isolated vertices.
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 \[c=\frac{48-14e}{55-16e}=0.864137\cdots.\]