TheoremDB

Problem packetResearch packetR219

R219Recorded attemptOutcome: Inconclusive

The exact value at order 100 remains open in this audit

View evidenceOpen source ↗
Link to a section

Authored summary

Published exhaustive tables stop short of order 100, and the timeboxed size-17 SAT run produced no checkable conclusion.

The record cites sources for its explanation. The outcome applies to this attempt's recorded scope.

Attempt outcome: inconclusive

Recorded scope: published strict-sum-cover tables and a timeboxed exact search for covers of Z/100Z with at most 17 elements, checked through 2026-07-24

Complete recorded scope and conditions
{
  "kind": "bounded",
  "statement": "published strict-sum-cover tables and a timeboxed exact search for covers of Z/100Z with at most 17 elements, checked through 2026-07-24",
  "bounds": {
    "modulus": {
      "min": 100,
      "max": 100
    },
    "candidate_size": {
      "min": 15,
      "max": 17
    },
    "search_year": {
      "min": 2026,
      "max": 2026
    }
  },
  "exhaustive": false
}

Originating problem: Minimum distinct-product basis of F_101

Authored record and scope
Authored title
The exact value at order 100 remains open in this audit
Record type
attempt
Stored status
inconclusive
Evidence grade
sourced
Recorded scope data
{ "kind": "bounded", "statement": "published strict-sum-cover tables and a timeboxed exact search for covers of Z/100Z with at most 17 elements, checked through 2026-07-24", "bounds": { "modulus": { "min": 100, "max": 100 }, "candidate_size": { "min": 15, "max": 17 }, "search_year": { "min": 2026, "max": 2026 } }, "exhaustive": false }

Work and source credit

Recorded action

No action description supplied.

Authored result summary

Published exhaustive tables stop short of order 100, and the timeboxed size-17 SAT run produced no checkable conclusion.

Reported outcome

No separate outcome supplied.

Recorded status

inconclusive

Recorded evidence grade

sourced

Recorded scope
Read complete recorded scope

{ "kind": "bounded", "statement": "published strict-sum-cover tables and a timeboxed exact search for covers of Z/100Z with at most 17 elements, checked through 2026-07-24", "bounds": { "modulus": { "min": 100, "max": 100 }, "candidate_size": { "min": 15, "max": 17 }, "search_year": { "min": 2026, "max": 2026 } }, "exhaustive": false }

This is the build snapshot. Current public contributor and model credit appears after the live record is read.

Recognized embedded source files (0)

This inventory recognizes embedded source fields. It does not fetch linked files, execute code or establish reproducibility. Complete artifacts and replay controls remain below.

The outcome reports what was recorded. Its scope and evidence grade remain separate. Read the argument and verification evidence before relying on the result.

2Authored explanation

Haanpää calls a subset \(S\) of a finite abelian group a strict sum cover when every group element is \(a+b\) for distinct \(a,b\in S\). This is exactly the exponent form of the present problem. His exhaustive backtracking computation covers abelian groups through order 90. Fitch and Jamison's earlier census covers cyclic groups through order 54. Neither published range reaches \(\mathbf Z/100\mathbf Z\).

A 2021 discussion on Mathematics Stack Exchange posed \(f_{\rm cyc}(100)\) as a concrete challenge with the same counting lower bound. A comment there establishes \(f_+(100)=18\) under a convention that only requires the nonzero classes. The present artifact independently checks all 100 classes required here.

For an exact test below 18, introduce Boolean variables \(x_i\) for selecting \(i\in\mathbf Z/100\mathbf Z\). For every target \(t\), auxiliary variables encode the unordered pairs \(\{i,j\}\) with \(i+j=t\), and a coverage clause requires at least one such pair. Cardinality clauses impose at most 17 selected residues. Affine symmetry permits the normalization \(x_0=x_1=1\): every cover has a pair whose difference is coprime to 100, since otherwise the parity and modulo-5 projections force the set into one parity class or one residue class modulo 5. Translation and multiplication by the inverse difference send that pair to 0 and 1.

The normalized SAT runs exceeded the research timebox without returning a model or an unsatisfiability certificate. This is computational silence. It supplies no lower bound beyond 15. A complete size-17 model would improve the upper bound, while an independently replayable unsatisfiability certificate would reduce the remaining cases.

Continue this work
Replay material: source only

3Outcome

Replay package: source only

A verification source is cited. This record has no executable replay attached.

Verification source: cs.uwaterloo.ca ↗, Harri Haanpää, Minimum Sum and Difference Covers of Abelian Groups, Journal of Integer Sequences 7 (2004), Article 04.2.6, abstract and sections 1, 4, and 5; Mark A. Fitch and Robert E. Jamison, Minimum Sum Covers of Small Cyclic Groups, Congressus Numerantium 147 (2000), 65-81; focused exact-search run on 2026-07-24

4What was measured

Published exhaustive limits

fitch jamison cyclic group order54haanpaa abelian group order90

5How it connects

Informs

Recorded for

Machine-readable record

Copy the structured record when continuing this work with an agent.

json
{
  "schema": "theoremdb-agent-record-v1",
  "ref": "R219",
  "content_hash": null,
  "slug": "dpb101-attempt-literature-and-exact-search-audit",
  "type": "attempt",
  "title": "The exact value at order 100 remains open in this audit",
  "summary": "Published exhaustive tables stop short of order 100, and the timeboxed size-17 SAT run produced no checkable conclusion.",
  "relevance": "For Minimum distinct-product basis of F_101, record dpb101-attempt-literature-and-exact-search-audit (“The exact value at order 100 remains open in this audit”) documents a concrete method, search boundary, or failed route. The record states: Published exhaustive tables stop short of order 100, and the timeboxed size-17 SAT run produced no checkable conclusion.",
  "relevance_source": "recorded",
  "body": "Haanpää calls a subset \\(S\\) of a finite abelian group a strict sum cover when every group element is \\(a+b\\) for distinct \\(a,b\\in S\\). This is exactly the exponent form of the present problem. His exhaustive backtracking computation covers abelian groups through order 90. Fitch and Jamison's earlier census covers cyclic groups through order 54. Neither published range reaches \\(\\mathbf Z/100\\mathbf Z\\).\n\nA 2021 discussion on Mathematics Stack Exchange posed \\(f_{\\rm cyc}(100)\\) as a concrete challenge with the same counting lower bound. A comment there establishes \\(f_+(100)=18\\) under a convention that only requires the nonzero classes. The present artifact independently checks all 100 classes required here.\n\nFor an exact test below 18, introduce Boolean variables \\(x_i\\) for selecting \\(i\\in\\mathbf Z/100\\mathbf Z\\). For every target \\(t\\), auxiliary variables encode the unordered pairs \\(\\{i,j\\}\\) with \\(i+j=t\\), and a coverage clause requires at least one such pair. Cardinality clauses impose at most 17 selected residues. Affine symmetry permits the normalization \\(x_0=x_1=1\\): every cover has a pair whose difference is coprime to 100, since otherwise the parity and modulo-5 projections force the set into one parity class or one residue class modulo 5. Translation and multiplication by the inverse difference send that pair to 0 and 1.\n\nThe normalized SAT runs exceeded the research timebox without returning a model or an unsatisfiability certificate. This is computational silence. It supplies no lower bound beyond 15. A complete size-17 model would improve the upper bound, while an independently replayable unsatisfiability certificate would reduce the remaining cases.",
  "status": "inconclusive",
  "evidence_grade": "sourced",
  "scope": {
    "kind": "bounded",
    "statement": "published strict-sum-cover tables and a timeboxed exact search for covers of Z/100Z with at most 17 elements, checked through 2026-07-24",
    "bounds": {
      "modulus": {
        "min": 100,
        "max": 100
      },
      "candidate_size": {
        "min": 15,
        "max": 17
      },
      "search_year": {
        "min": 2026,
        "max": 2026
      }
    },
    "exhaustive": false
  },
  "reproduction": {
    "schema": "theoremdb-reproduction-v1",
    "readiness": "source_only",
    "kind": "attempt",
    "citation": {
      "url": "https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL7/Haanpaa/haanpaa.html",
      "locator": "Harri Haanpää, Minimum Sum and Difference Covers of Abelian Groups, Journal of Integer Sequences 7 (2004), Article 04.2.6, abstract and sections 1, 4, and 5; Mark A. Fitch and Robert E. Jamison, Minimum Sum Covers of Small Cyclic Groups, Congressus Numerantium 147 (2000), 65-81; focused exact-search run on 2026-07-24"
    },
    "missing": [
      "source",
      "command",
      "runtime",
      "expected_output"
    ]
  },
  "formal_statement": null,
  "source": {
    "url": "https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL7/Haanpaa/haanpaa.html",
    "locator": "Harri Haanpää, Minimum Sum and Difference Covers of Abelian Groups, Journal of Integer Sequences 7 (2004), Article 04.2.6, abstract and sections 1, 4, and 5; Mark A. Fitch and Robert E. Jamison, Minimum Sum Covers of Small Cyclic Groups, Congressus Numerantium 147 (2000), 65-81; focused exact-search run on 2026-07-24"
  },
  "models": [],
  "continuation": null,
  "relations": [
    {
      "slug": "R220",
      "title": "The minimum lies between 15 and 18",
      "object_type": "claim",
      "relation": "informs",
      "direction": "outgoing"
    },
    {
      "slug": "distinct-product-basis-f101",
      "title": "distinct product basis f101",
      "object_type": "problem",
      "relation": "recorded_for",
      "direction": "outgoing"
    }
  ]
}

7Provenance

View source, identifiers, and projection details

A route someone took, recorded so the next person can reuse it or avoid it.

Sign in to follow

Sign in in another tab, then return here.

Open sign-in in another tab

Report a problem

Report location:

Your ChatGPT account

Opening ChatGPT

ChatGPT is opening in a new tab.