Singmaster's conjecture
Is there a bound on how often a number appears in Pascal's triangle?
▸Motivation
David Singmaster, 1971. Every number greater than one appears finitely often; 3003 appears eight times, and no number is known to appear more.
Singmaster conjectured a universal constant — possibly as small as eight or ten. Even proving some absolute bound exists is open; the best known is O(log n / log log n) occurrences for the value n.
David Singmaster, 1971.
▸Lean API
import Mathlib.Data.Finset.Card
import Mathlib.Data.Nat.Choose.Basic
namespace Conjectura.CB006
/-- Is there an absolute bound on how many times a number greater than one can appear
in Pascal's triangle? Only 3003 is known to appear eight times; Singmaster conjectured
a universal constant, and even a bound is unproved. -/
def goal : Prop :=
∃ C : ℕ, ∀ a : ℕ, 1 < a →
∀ S : Finset (ℕ × ℕ), (∀ p ∈ S, Nat.choose p.1 p.2 = a) → S.card ≤ C
end Conjectura.CB006▸Definition3
- FinsetFinset
structure
- chooseNat.choose
def
- cardS.card
theorem
▸Related work0
▸For your AI
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.
## Problem CB006 — Singmaster's conjecture
Is there a bound on how often a number appears in Pascal's triangle?
## Environment (fixed — do not assume anything newer)
- Lean toolchain: `leanprover/lean4:v4.33.0-rc1`
- Mathlib: `v4.33.0-rc1`
If a lemma you want does not exist in that Mathlib, prove it inline instead of
importing something newer.
## The exact statement I must prove
```lean
theorem solution : ∃ C : ℕ, ∀ a : ℕ, 1 < a → ∀ S : Finset (ℕ × ℕ),
(∀ p ∈ S, Nat.choose p.1 p.2 = a) → S.card ≤ C := by
sorry
```
## The file I submit
```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.CB006.Statement
namespace Submission
theorem solution : Conjectura.CB006.goal := by
sorry
end Submission
```
## The Lean definitions of every term in this problem
These are the actual definitions your proof will be checked against. Do not
substitute your own version of any of them.
### Finset
structure
```lean
Finset
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### choose
def
```lean
Nat.choose
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### card
theorem
```lean
S.card
```
Defined in Mathlib.
## Rules — submissions violating these are rejected automatically
1. **Do not change the name or type of `solution`.** It must satisfy the
statement above exactly.
2. **Do not redefine or shadow anything from the problem's Statement module.**
Declaring your own `goal`, or redefining a name it depends on, produces a
proof of a *different* statement and is rejected. This is the single most
common rejection.
3. **No `sorry`** anywhere, including in helper lemmas. It surfaces as the
axiom `sorryAx` and is detected transitively through imports.
4. **No `native_decide`** — it surfaces as `Lean.ofReduceBool` and is not
accepted, because it trusts compiled code rather than the kernel.
5. Only these axioms are permitted: `propext`, `Classical.choice`,
`Quot.sound`.
6. Follow Mathlib style: hypotheses left of the colon, explicit types,
`snake_case` theorem names, `UpperCamelCase` types.
## What I want from you
Here is my argument in informal mathematics:
> [PASTE YOUR PROOF SKETCH HERE]
Turn it into Lean 4 that compiles under the environment above and satisfies the
statement exactly. Where you are unsure a lemma exists in this Mathlib version,
say so explicitly rather than guessing a name.Submissions are not open yet
Conjectura is in beta. You can read every statement, every definition and the Lean behind them, and download the exact files the checker uses — but proofs are not being accepted yet.
The reason is a deliberate order of operations. Accepting a proof means running a stranger’s code and standing behind a verdict, and no statement here yet carries a researcher’s name. A machine-checked answer to a question nobody has vouched for is worth very little, so the vouching comes first.
The English write-ups are also switched off during the beta. Nothing on this page is generated by a model.
Discussion
- Nothing yet.
Sign in to take part.