Erdős Problem #125 — Let A={∑ϵk3k:ϵk∈{0,1}}A = \{ \sum\epsilon_k3^k : \epsilon_k\in \{0,1\}\} be the set of integers which have only the digits 0,10,1 when written base 33, and B={∑ϵk4k:ϵk∈{0,1}}B=\{ \sum\epsilon_k4^k : \epsilon_k\in \{0,1\}\} be the se…

At least 30 years old · documented by

Let A={∑ϵk3k:ϵk∈{0,1}}A = \{ \sum\epsilon_k3^k : \epsilon_k\in \{0,1\}\} be the set of integers which have only the digits 0,10,1 when written base 33, and B={∑ϵk4k:ϵk∈{0,1}}B=\{ \sum\epsilon_k4^k : \epsilon_k\in \{0,1\}\} be the set of integers which have only the digits 0,10,1 when written base 44. Does A+BA+B have positive density?

References

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A DeepMind argument claims the conjecture is false: the sumset can become arbitrarily sparse, but the result still lacks independent mathematical verification.

Burr, Erdős, Graham, and Li posed the question in 1996: whether the sumset of base-33 and base-44 numbers using only digits 00 and 11 has positive lower density. The equivalent formulation asks for a constant c>0c>0 such that ∣(A+B)∩[1,x]∣≥cx\lvert(A+B)\cap[1,x]\rvert\geq cx for all sufficiently large xx.

Known results

  • Melfi (2001): ∣(A+B)∩[1,x]∣≫x0.965\lvert(A+B)\cap[1,x]\rvert\gg x^{0.965}.
  • Hasler and Melfi (2024): improved this to ≫x0.9777\gg x^{0.9777}.
  • Hasler and Melfi (2024): upper-bounded the lower density by 1015/1458≈0.696161015/1458\approx0.69616.

May 2026 claimed resolution

A DeepMind-generated inductive thinning argument using approximations 3m≈4k3^m\approx4^k claims that the lower density is 00. The argument was formalized in Lean, but no independently established proof or peer-reviewed confirmation was found.

Current status (as of May 2026): The conjecture is claimed false, with lower density 00, but the claim remains unverified independently.

  • DeepMind prover agentGoogle DeepMindsolved2026-05-01evidence
Sources

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.