erdos-problems 0.3.2 → 0.3.3

package/problems/848/EXPLICIT_CANDIDATE_REVIEW.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Problem 848 Explicit Candidate Review
+
+## Current repo candidate
+
+The current repo candidate is:
+
+- `N >= exp(1420)`
+- `T = 250`
+- `eta = 10^-4`
+
+Public context:
+- this is the repo's audited explicit candidate, not the best imported public threshold claim
+- the public forum thread records a stronger external threshold timeline through
+  2026-03-23, ending at `N0 = 2.64 x 10^17`
+
+and the claim-safe conclusion is:
+
+- if `A subseteq [N]` and `ab + 1` is never squarefree for all `a, b in A`
+- and `|A| >= (1/25 - 10^-4) * N`
+- then `A` is contained in either the `7 mod 25` class or the `18 mod 25` class
+
+## Why this is review-ready
+
+The repo now has explicit support notes for:
+- the weakest branch main term
+- explicit Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 bounds
+- the prime-count term
+- a weakest-branch assembly ledger
+- a branch-comparison ledger for the other public branches
+- a certified numerical ledger replacing bare display decimals
+
+Read in this order:
+- `packs/number-theory/problems/848/PROPOSITION_EXPLICIT_CANDIDATE.md`
+- `packs/number-theory/problems/848/THEOREM_STYLE_EXPLICIT_NOTE.md`
+- `packs/number-theory/problems/848/CERTIFIED_NUMERICAL_LEDGER.md`
+- `packs/number-theory/problems/848/WEAKEST_BRANCH_T250_ASSEMBLY.md`
+- `packs/number-theory/problems/848/BRANCH_COMPARISON_LEDGER.md`
+
+## What this is **not** claiming
+
+This review artifact does **not** claim:
+- that Problem 848 is fully solved in the repo
+- that the finite range below `exp(1420)` has been closed
+- that `exp(1420)` is optimal
+- that the current note set is already publication-ready
+
+The current status is:
+- explicit repo candidate: yes
+- publication-ready explicit theorem artifact: not yet
+- full all-`N` closure in this repo: not yet
+
+## Suggested reviewer questions
+
+- Is every displayed decimal used in the witness backed by the certified ledger?
+- Does the theorem-style note consume every branch cleanly without hidden extra losses?
+- Is the distinction between repo candidate and solved/public-truth claim clear enough?
+- Should the next surface be the paper bundle, a public review post, or both?

package/problems/848/REFERENCES.md

@@ -8,6 +8,10 @@
   - <https://www.math.columbia.edu/~msawhney/Problem_848.pdf>
 - Public discussion thread with explicit-threshold and finite-check remarks:
   - <https://www.erdosproblems.com/forum/thread/848>
+  - useful recent timeline:
+    - 2026-03-21: `N0 = 7 x 10^17`
+    - 2026-03-22: `N0 = 3.3 x 10^17`
+    - 2026-03-23: `N0 = 2.64 x 10^17`
 - Publicly surfaced formalization discussion:
   - <https://github.com/The-Obstacle-Is-The-Way/erdos-banger/blob/main/formal/lean/Erdos/Problem848.lean>
 - Public formalization milestone thread:

package/problems/848/ROUTES.md

@@ -18,8 +18,23 @@
   - a public Lean formalization thread exists, but the exact finite closure surface still
     needs review
 
+## Optimization target
+
+- Primary objective: decide the full truth value by closing the finite remainder.
+- Secondary objective: lower the explicit threshold `N0` only insofar as it shrinks the
+  finite remainder that still has to be checked.
+- Hygiene objective: keep imported public threshold improvements separate from the repo's own
+  audited candidate statements.
+
 ## Subroutes
 
+- `external_threshold_tracking`
+  - record the best imported public `N0` timeline without automatically adopting it as
+    canonical repo truth
+  - current imported timeline:
+    - `7 x 10^17` on 2026-03-21
+    - `3.3 x 10^17` on 2026-03-22
+    - `2.64 x 10^17` on 2026-03-23
 - `explicit_threshold_extraction`
   - extract or improve an explicit `N0` from Sawhney's proof
   - likely pressure points:
@@ -41,6 +56,7 @@
 ## Route discipline
 
 - Do not widen `decidable` into `solved` without an explicit finite completion artifact.
+- Do not confuse "best imported public threshold" with "repo-owned audited threshold."
 - Count a route breakthrough only if we either:
   - extract a fully explicit threshold that reduces the remainder to a bounded finite check, or
   - finish the finite range directly.
@@ -49,11 +65,14 @@
 
 ## Immediate next move
 
-- Read Sawhney's Proposition 1.1 and enumerate every place where `sufficiently large` enters
-  quantitatively.
-- Record whether each such place is:
-  - already explicit in the note
-  - explicit but very weak
-  - still purely existential
-- Only then decide whether the next serious lane is threshold extraction or direct finite
-  computation.
+- The repo now has a committed, claim-safe review package for its own audited explicit
+  candidate.
+- The imported public thread currently reports a better external threshold
+  `N0 = 2.64 x 10^17` on 2026-03-23.
+- The repo has now chosen the bounded finite-verification lane for the next cycle.
+- The next concrete task is to freeze:
+  - a regime split for the finite remainder
+  - a certificate format for bounded interval claims
+  - an audit ledger for imported verification work
+- The right optimization target remains the size of the remaining finite gap, not the
+  threshold race in isolation.

package/problems/848/SHARE_READY_SUMMARY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Problem 848 Share-Ready Summary
+
+Current repo candidate:
+- `N >= exp(1420)`
+- `T = 250`
+- `eta = 10^-4`
+
+Important context:
+- this is the repo's current audited candidate package
+- it is not the best imported public threshold currently visible on the forum thread
+- as of 2026-03-23, the public thread reports `N0 = 2.64 x 10^17` as a stronger external
+  threshold claim
+
+Claim-safe conclusion:
+- if `A subseteq [N]` and `ab + 1` is never squarefree for all `a, b in A`
+- and `|A| >= (1/25 - 10^-4) * N`
+- then the current repo candidate forces `A` into either the `7 mod 25` class or the
+  `18 mod 25` class
+
+What is ready now:
+- a theorem-style proof note in the paper bundle
+- a dossier-level explicit-candidate review note
+- supporting explicit ledgers for the branch bounds and numerical witness
+- a bounded finite-verification lane with regimes, certificate requirements, and external
+  audit notes
+
+What is not being claimed:
+- not full all-`N` closure in the repo
+- not a publication-ready proof artifact
+- not an update from `decidable` to `solved`
+- not the current best public `N0`
+
+Best pointers:
+- `problems/848/EXPLICIT_CANDIDATE_REVIEW.md`
+- `packs/number-theory/problems/848/PROPOSITION_EXPLICIT_CANDIDATE.md`
+- `packs/number-theory/problems/848/THEOREM_STYLE_EXPLICIT_NOTE.md`

package/problems/848/STATEMENT.md

@@ -14,6 +14,13 @@ Current public posture:
   large `N`.
 - Remaining gap: close the finite-check range between the asymptotic theorem and a full
   all-`N` resolution.
+- Public explicit-threshold discussion on the forum currently records a descending external
+  timeline:
+  - `N0 = 7 x 10^17` on 2026-03-21
+  - `N0 = 3.3 x 10^17` on 2026-03-22
+  - `N0 = 2.64 x 10^17` on 2026-03-23
+  These are useful imported progress markers, but they are not yet the repo's own audited
+  candidate statement.
 - Public theorem shape:
   - there exists an integer `N0` such that for all `N >= N0`, every admissible set has size
     at most `|{n in [N] : n ≡ 7 (mod 25)}|`
@@ -25,4 +32,6 @@ Working interpretation for this repo:
 - Treat `848` as a finite-check completion problem, not as a fully open asymptotic frontier.
 - Keep the asymptotic theorem, the stability statement, and the unresolved finite remainder
   separated in every claim.
+- Treat threshold-lowering as a tool for shrinking the remaining finite range, not as the
+  final objective by itself.
 - Use related problem `844` only as support context unless a direct reduction is written down.