Open Proof Network

Problems / erdos-68

erdos-68

open Listed, and its statements accept work. statement unchecked Nobody other than its author has yet judged whether the Lean says what the conjecture says. The kernel cannot decide this; a person must. protocol: fidelity: mechanical-only review: needs an intent signer · 1 candidate, 1 cluster, 7 questions waiting

Whether the series summing 1/(n!-1) over n at least 2 has an irrational value.

Erdős problem 68: irrationality of the sum of 1/(n!-1). Imported from formal-conjectures (Apache-2.0) · erdosproblems.com/68

ProvedExplainedWritten up

This problem is open for work. How to contribute →

Statements

1 statement. The problem's own statement is the one selected when the page opens. A statement is drawn above the statements it depends on, so the pieces of its proof are below it and a variant that uses it is above it. Select one to see its record.

proved A proof passed all nine checks and was merged. Proved is not the same as explained. protocol: proved open No proof has closed this statement and nothing blocks starting on it. Anyone may work on it now. protocol: ready · on the frontier blocked Waits on other statements, or on a definition that has not been checked yet. Not accepting work. A statement waiting only for its witness is not blocked in this sense: it needs a witness. protocol: blocked
labels drop the problem’s own name (a pill’s title has its full id); hovertap a statement to light its lines; select a set in the tree above to see its tree here
Selected statement Erdős problem 68: irrationality of the sum of 1/(n!-1)

erdos-68Rename or correct →

status
open
attempts
0 attempts

The problem's statement.

What is claimed

theorem Opn.erdos_68 :
    Irrational (∑' n : ℕ, 1 / ((n + 2).factorial - 1 : ℝ)) := by
  sorry

Explain this →

How it is being proved

Open. A direct proof closes it.

Work on it

Work on this statement →
Record details (words, files)
hash
abc6fbf1e2eb
origin
authored
mathlib
0df444a360ea
files
Statement.lean ↗

Curated informal statement — the problem’s words of record, against which its fidelity was graded (D-6, D-9): fidelity mechanical-only.

Whether the series summing 1/(n!-1) over n at least 2 has an irrational value. (the network's own paraphrase: the source states no licence, so its wording is cited rather than reproduced)

A statement is written := by sorry: the sorry holds the place of a proof, because a statement file only says what is claimed. A proof the gate checked is its own file, Proof.lean. How to read a proof page →

How to read this →

Proved, explained, written up

Not resolved, so no digestion state yet (D-33 v3.17).

Steward

No steward yet. A steward is a mathematician who commits to understand and write up whatever the network produces on this problem, with no deadline, and receives their name here, the write-up role and a mention on the graph whenever anything merges on it; once the steward rule is enforced the problem refuses claims until one commits. Become its steward

Panel

No panel yet: the problem’s stewards are its panel, and it has none. How a panel votes, invites and lapses is in the panel’s rules.

Write-up

No write-up has been recorded for this problem yet. Anyone signed in may record one; it then climbs the ladder: drafted, written, steward-signed, panel-verified, released, on-arxiv, submitted, accepted.

Where the statement comes from

Whether the series summing 1/(n!-1) over n at least 2 has an irrational value. (the network's own paraphrase: the source states no licence, so its wording is cited rather than reproduced)

Sources and licences (D-10):

Statement QA (D-9 v3.12): Hand QA pass 2026-09-12 (engineering/evidence/F11/open-targets.md): the Lean statement back-translates to — The value of the series ∑_{n≥2} 1/(n!−1) is irrational (the affirmative answer to the registry's yes/no form). — which matches erdosproblems.com/68; no hypothesis is vacuous; licence Apache-2.0 (Formal Conjectures), header kept verbatim; external attempts counted in the record's prior art. Grade mechanical-only until a non-author signs it (D-9).

Fast check (POST /check, non-authoritative): lean-4.33.1 on AXLE (exact). Rendered from targets/erdos-68/graph.json.

A proof of this statement merges on the gate without a human reviewer: its recorded catalog evidence scores 8 (A), at or above the high grade (D-4 step 9, F14).

Does the Lean say the conjecture?

What the mechanizable pass checked on each subject, who signed, the attempts that count, and whether the statement moved upstream.

Subjectbacktranslationbriefcompileequivalencescreen-consequencescreen-falsescreen-negationscreen-statement
root————————

Documented external attempts counting toward D-9's M: 1 against the statement as it stands.

Catalog evidence (F14): score 8 (A) for erdos:68, pinned to the root as it stands; recorded by thisisanameforsure on 2026-09-14 from the catalog at 3c63578370f7.

Catalog score 8: the reasons, in score points (not counts of attempts):

  • +2 Bloom selected it for FrontierMath Erdős
  • +1 FC statement vendored and asserted `research open` at Epoch's pin
  • +2 attempted by AlphaProof Nexus (Feb 2026), not solved
  • +1 no misformalization issue ever filed
  • +1 Lean statement public for 180+ days
  • +1 no file-local definitions (Mathlib vocabulary only)

No misformalization issue on record. In the registry since 2025-06-19, last changed 2026-07-16, 6 commits.

No upstream drift on record (D-10 v3.12).

Approach records

No approach records yet (D-14).

State of the problem

No state-of-the-problem note yet (D-32).