Skip to content

Conversation

@Paul-Lez
Copy link
Member

@Paul-Lez Paul-Lez commented Jan 21, 2026

Fixes #1829.

@felixpernegger
Copy link
Contributor

Missing references

@felixpernegger
Copy link
Contributor

felixpernegger commented Jan 22, 2026

The mathoverflow top comment mentions that the 2, 3, 5 theorem (and as a corollary the one with all naturals) follows from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_exponentials_theorem

So it feels natural to include this, maybe its even easy enough to prove the 2,3,5 case directly using that.

Furthermore, according to the comment the 2,3 case follows from the four exponentials conjecture

@felixpernegger
Copy link
Contributor

Regarding this, the Wikipedia page contains following nice picture:
N-Exponentials Conjecture.png

@Paul-Lez
Copy link
Member Author

Sounds reasonable - will add the statements of the implications!

@YaelDillies YaelDillies added the awaiting-author The author should answer a question or perform changes. Reply when done. label Jan 22, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

awaiting-author The author should answer a question or perform changes. Reply when done. mathoverflow

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

If 2^x and 3^x are integers, must x be as well?

3 participants