Is the following conjecture true ?

$$\left\{\sum\limits_{\begin{array}{c}k=1\\k\in\mathbb{Z}\end{array}}^nk \ |\ n\in\Bbb Z\right\} \cap \left\lbrace \sum\limits_{\begin{array}{c}k=1\\k\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\mathbb{P}\end{array}}^nk \ |\ n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\mathbb{P}\right\rbrace \cap \left\{\sum\limits_{\begin{array}{c}k=2\\k\in\Bbb P\end{array}}^nk\ |\ n\in\Bbb P\right\}= \{ 28 \}$$

(that is : A000217 $\cap$ A051349 $\cap$ A007504 = { 28 } )

I didn't find any other number below $10^{14}$ with this property (Haskell script here).

I originally posted this question here: math.stackexchange/questions/1357530, with an interesting contribution by joriki in favor of the conjecture:

Unless there's a systematic reason for these sequences to coincide or avoid each other (which I doubt), we can estimate the number of triple coincidences of these three sequences by integrating over the product of their densities. The first one has density $1/n$ at $a_n=n(n+1)/2$, so at $x$ it has density $\sim(2x)^{−1/2}$. The others both omit numbers, so at given $x$ their densities are lower than this.

Thus we can get an upper bound for the "probability" of there being such numbers beyond some $x_0$ from this integral:

$\int_{x_0}^\infty\left(2x\right)^{-3/2}\mathrm dx=(2x_0)^{-1/2}$.

As you've searched up to $10^{14}$, the "probability" of finding a triple coincidence beyond that is less that one in ten million. Unless there's a systematic reason...

  • 3
    If we intersect only the last two of the three sets, we get A154587. – Jeppe Stig Nielsen Mar 27 '16 at 0:36
  • I think proving such assertion is likely very hard. -- But I also wouldn't rate your claim as such as particularly interesting. So where does it come from, respectively, why are you interested in this? – Stefan Kohl Mar 28 '16 at 20:02
  • I found intriguing that the intersection of these simple related sequences comes down to a single element. This is probably not that useful on a mathematical research point of view, I agree, but fun. In fact, it comes from an old french book on Tarots, the author claimed that 78 was the only number with this property (he thougt that 1 was a prime number) :-) – mmai Mar 29 '16 at 7:40

Your Answer

 
discard

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.