CH6 Sums of squares Flashcards
Definition 6.1.1 (Pythagorean triples)
interested in triangles with sides of integer length
Suppose that x, y, z are positive integers satisfying
x² + y² = z².
Then we call
(x, y, z) a Pythagorean triple.
If x, y, z have no common divisor, then we call (x, y, z) a primitive Pythagorean triple.
(interested in positive integers- neagtive versions)
e.g are Pythagorean triples?
(3, 4, 5)
(5, 12, 13)
(6, 8, 10)
(15, 36, 39)
(3, 4, 5) and (5, 12, 13) are primitive Pythagorean triples, while (6, 8, 10)
and (15, 36, 39) are non-primitive Pythagorean triples.
if d is the greatest
common divisor of the numbers in the Pythagorean triple (x, y, z)
In general, if d is the greatest
common divisor of the numbers in the Pythagorean triple (x, y, z), then (x/d, y/d, z/d)
is a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Lemma 6.1.3.
pythogorean triples
If (x, y, z) is a primitive Pythagorean triple, then one of x and y is even
and the other is odd.
PROOF:
Assume both x,y even: 2 is a common divisor of x and y. so 2 | x² and 2|y² and thus gcd is divisible by 2. 2|x²+ y² so 2 | z. This shows that (x, y, z) is not a primitive Pythagorean
triple.
(i look in mod 4 as 2 divides x so 4 divides x²)
Suppose now that x and y are both odd, then x, y ≡ ±1 (mod 4),
so x², y² ≡ 1 (mod 4),
so z² = x² + y² ≡ 2 (mod 4). But this is impossible, as there is no number n so that n² ≡ 2 (mod 4).
Indeed, suppose for the purposes of contradiction that
z² ≡ 2 (mod 4). Then 2 | z², and since 2 is prime, 2 | z, so 4|z², so z² ≡ 0 (mod 4), a contradiction
Exercise 6.1.4. Let (x, y, z) be a Pythagorean triple. Show that x ̸= y.
(suppose we have this
z² = 2x²)
by lemma If (x, y, z) is a primitive Pythagorean triple, then one of x and y is even and the other is odd. So we can’t have this.
We do have isosceles right angled triangles but none are primitive pythag triples
If (x, y, z) is primitive, Lemma 6.1.3 says that x and y have different
parity, so of course x ̸= y. If (x, y, z) is not primitive, let d be the greatest common
divisor of x, y, z: then
(x/d , y/d, z/d)
is a primitive Pythagorean triple, hence x/d ̸= y/d, so
x ̸= y.
Lemma 6.1.5. If m and n are coprime positive integers and mn is a square then what can we say about m and n?
Lemma 6.1.5. If m and n are coprime positive integers and mn is a square (that is,
mn = a^2 for some a ∈ Z),
then so are each of m and n.
PROOF
Lemma 6.1.5. If m and n are coprime positive integers and mn is a square (that is,
mn = a2 for some a ∈ Z), then so are each of m and n.
Proof. If mn is a square, then in its factorisation into prime powers
mn = p₁ᵃ-¹ . . . pᵣᵃ-ʳ
every α_i must be even, say α_i = 2β_i.
By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, the
prime factorisation of m and n must involve the same primes, and since gcd(m, n) = 1,
each of the primes p_i can only divide one of m and n. Thus the prime factorisation of m is a product of some of the
pᵢᵃ-ᶦ= ( pᵢ ^{βᵢ})^2
and that of n is the product of the others.
Therefore, each of m, n is a product of squares, so is a perfect square. □
Theorem 6.1.6 (Primitive Pythagorean triples
Suppose a and b are positive integers, one is odd and one is even, a > b and
gcd(a, b) = 1.
Then
(a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²)
is a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Conversely, if (x, y, z) is a primitive Pythagorean triple, then there exist positive integers a and b satisfying the above conditions, such that (after possibly exchanging x and y if necessary),
(x, y, z) = (a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²)
all primitive pythagorean triples are in this form!
PROOF
Suppose a and b are positive integers, one is odd and one is even, a > b and
gcd(a, b) = 1.
Then
(a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²)
is a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Conversely, if (x, y, z) is a primitive Pythagorean triple, then there exist positive integers a and b satisfying the above conditions, such that (after possibly exchanging x and y if necessary),
(x, y, z) = (a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²)
all primitive pythagorean triples are in this form!
FIRSTLY SIMLY check its a pythagorean tripple: (a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²) by squaring etc
CHECK PRIMITIVE: if not primitive then a² − b² and a² + b² are both divisible by a prime p
we have also for + and -:
p|2a² and p| 2b²
p /=2 since a²-b² is odd
(since one of a,b is even the other odd)
thus p|a and p|b, contrary to gcd(a,b)=1 so no such prime, so are primitive.
converse:
Suppose that (x, y, z) is a primitive Pythagorean triple.
By Lemma 6.1.3, one of x and y is odd and one is even, (swap x and y if needed), we may assume that x is odd and y even: y = 2w. Then z is also odd since x² + y² = z².
and each of z ± x is even (and positive). Then
4w² = y² = z² − x²,
(z+x)(z-x)
so
w² =((z − x)/2)((z + x)/2)
The two numbers
(z−x)/2 and (z+x)/2
are coprime, for if some prime p divides each of
(z±x)/2 , then p also divides (z+x)/2 ± (z−x)/2, so p | x and p | z.
Then p divides z² − x² = y², so
p | y. This would contradict the assumption that (x, y, z) is primitive.
Hence we have two numbers which are coprime and positive, and their product is a
square. From Lemma 6.1.5, it follows that they must each be a square too. Let
(z + x)/2= a², and (z − x)/2= b²,
then x = a² − b², z = a² + b² and y = 2w = 2√w² = 2√{a²b²} = 2ab.
Furthermore,
a > b, one of a and b is even and the other is odd, and gcd(a, b) = 1. Thus (x, y, z) =
(a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²)
, as required
□
Corollary 6.1.7 (Pythagorean triple
Can be written as
Let a > b and s be positive integers. Then
(s(a² − b²),s(2ab),s(a² + b²))
is a Pythagorean triple.
Conversely, let (x, y, z) be a Pythagorean triple.
Then there exist coprime positive
integers a and b, with a > b, one of them even and the other odd, and such that,
exchanging x and y if necessary, letting
s = gcd(x, y, z) we get
(x, y, z) =
(s(a² − b²),s(2ab),s(a²+b²))
PROOF
Let a > b and s be positive integers. Then
(s(a² − b²),s(2ab),s(a² + b²))
is a Pythagorean triple.
Conversely, let (x, y, z) be a Pythagorean triple.
Then there exist coprime positive
integers a and b, with a > b, one of them even and the other odd, and such that,
exchanging x and y if necessary, letting
s = gcd(x, y, z) we get
(x, y, z) =
(s(a² − b²),s(2ab),s(a²+b²))
Proof. It is straightforward to check that
(s(a² − b²),s(2ab),s(a²+b²)) is a Pythagorean triple.
Conversely suppose that (x, y, z) is a Pythagorean triple, and let s be the greatest common divisor of x, y and z. We define
x′ = x/s, y′ = y/s, and z′ = z/s. Then
(x′, y′, z′)
is a Pythagorean triple, and it is primitive since if h > 1 is a common divisor of
x′, y′, z′, then hs > s is a common divisor of x, y, z. We may now apply Theorem 6.1.6,
from which the result follows
proof talked through in lectures only as similar to prev proof
if (x,y,z) is oythagorean then using gcd(x,y,z)=d
is a primitive pythagorean
(x/d,y/d,z/d)
EXANPLE check triple
(5,12,13)
can be written as prev form mentioned with a and b
checking (15+13)/2 = 18/2=9 = 3^2
(13-5)/2 = 4=2^2
we can write with a=3 and b =2
Remark 6.1.8
Note that
x^2 + y^2 = z^2 =⇒
(x/z)² + (y/z)²=1
Therefore, we can use Theorem 6.1.6 to describe all rational solutions to the equation
u² + v² = 1. E.g., (x, y, z) = (3, 4, 5) gives (u, v) =(3/5, 4/5)
with
(3/5)²+ (4/5)²= 1. In
general, if (x, y, z) a primitive Pythagorean triple, then by Theorem 6.1.6 we can find a
and b so that (x, y, z) =
a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²
. Thus
u =x/z=
(a² − b²)/(a² + b²)
v =y/z=2ab/(a²+ b²)
Dividing by a² and denoting t = b/a, we get
u =(1 − t²)/(1 + t²)
v =(2t)/(1 + t²)
.
Exercise 6.1.9. Let (x, y, z) be a Pythagorean triple. Show that 60 divides xyz
not discussed?
We observe that 60 = 2^2 · 3 · 5. We will split the proof into three parts, first to show that 3 | xyz, the second to show that 5 | xyz, and finally we will show that 4 | xyz, which will complete the proof.
(1) First we compute the squares modulo 3: 0^2 ≡ 0 (mod 3), 1^2 ≡ 1 (mod 3) and
2^2 ≡ 1 (mod 3). If neither x nor y were divisible by 3, then that would imply that z^2 ≡ 1 + 1 (mod 3), but this is impossible since 2 is not a square modulo 3.
Therefore, 3 | xy (which is in fact a stronger result than saying that 3 | xyz).
(2) Now we compute the squares modulo 5: 0^2 ≡ 0 (mod 5), 1^2 ≡ 1 (mod 5)
and 2^2 ≡ 4 (mod 5), 3^2 ≡ 4 (mod 5) and 4^2 ≡ 1 (mod 5). If 5 did not divide neither x, nor y, nor z, then by looking at the possible cases we obtain that this
would imply that z^2 ≡ 2 (mod 5) or z^2 ≡ 3 (mod 5), but neither 2 nor 3 is a square modulo 5. Therefore, 5 | xyz.
(3) For the final step, we use Corollary 6.1.7, so let a, b, s be positive integers, with
a > b and 2 | ab, such that (x, y, z) = (s(a^2 − b^2), s(2ab), s(a^2 + b^2)). Then
xyz = 2abs^3(a^2 − b^2)(a^2 + b^2).
Since 2 | ab, then 4 | xyz, completing the proof.
Exercise 6.1.10. Show that the equation x^2 + y^2 = z^4 has infinitely many solutions in
the positive integers
If I have a sol then (X, Y, Z^2) will be a primitive pythag triple
the condition that the last is a square imposes the new condition
a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²
as we can divide through by gcd(x,y,z) and so we can just assume the gcd =1 so thm 6.1.6 gives the method to produce the primitive Pythagorean triple
the extra condition is that (a,b,z) to be a pythag triple!
which we have infinitely many
integer sols of x^2 + y^2 =1
unit circle
if only looking for integer sols they’re going to have to be less than 1?
(1,0)
(0,1)
(-1,0)
(0,-1)
what about rational sols?
rational x=m/n
y= r/s
(m/n)²+ (r/s)²=1
s²m²+n²r²= n²s²
finding a rational sol is the same as finding a pythag triple!
Using our formula we have:(assuming m,n coprimer and s coprime to give primitive pythag triple)
a² − b², 2ab, a² + b²
so we have
m²/n² =
(a² − b²)/(a² + b²)
and i can use to find all rational sols
Theorem 6.2.1 (Fermat’s Last Theorem,Wiles 1995)
If n > 2, the equation xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ has no solutions among the positive (non-zero) integers.
(later on we look at n=4 and n=prime, as composite can be split up)
Pierre de Fermat in 1637, in his copy of Diophantus’ Arithmetica
“It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power
into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the
second, into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvellous
proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.”
In order to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem, it is sufficient to prove the result in the cases
where n = 4 and where n is equal to an odd prime. Indeed, if we can solve xᵃᵇ + yᵃᵇ =zᵃᵇ then we get solutions for n = a and n = b too. Fermat did manage to prove the
first of these cases, which was discovered posthumously, although it does not seem
that he ever publicly announced this.
its sufficient because we can split to (xᵃ)ᵇ+(yᵃ)ᵇ= (zᵃ)ᵇ
Theorem 6.2.2 (Fermat)
n=4
The equation
x⁴ + y⁴=z²
has no solutions for integers x, y, z > 0.
In particular,
there is no solution in which z is in addition a square, so Fermat’s Last Theorem holds for n = 4.
proof of
x⁴ + y⁴=z² having no sols
method of infinite descent: find the smallest sol in some sense, try to find one even smaller which contradicts the original idea that there was a sol- like the proof that root 2 is irrational!
suppose x⁴ + y⁴=z² holds for some positive integers, among all triples (x,y,z) of positive integers satsifying we choose the minimum possible z. In particular, this means any two of x,y,z are coprime, as if any two have common factor p then we have p | x, p | y, and p²| z, meaning that we can divide through by p⁴,
giving a counterexample with a smaller value of z
(primitive as coprime)
Now (x²,y² ,z) is a primitive Pythag triple so by thm 6.1.6 (swapx,y if req.) we can write x² =a² -b² and y² =2ab z=a² +b²
x is odd so x² ≡ 1 (mod 4).
Hence it follows that a is odd and b is even (the other way around leads to x² ≡ −1, a contradiction)
Let b=2c for c ∈ Z. Then y²=4ac but a and b are coprime meaning a and c also coprime, a and c squares by lemma 6.1.5.
a=v² & c=w²
so x²=a²-4c²=v⁴ -4w⁴=v⁴ giving another primitive pythag triple
(x,2w²,v²)
repeating argument there exists A and B s.t
x=A²-B²
2w²=2AB
v²= A²+B² with A and B corpime and one of them even and one odd
AB=w² so A and B also squares by lemma 6.1.5 say
A=P² & B=Q²
so
P⁴ + Q⁴ = A² + B² = v²
, which means that (P, Q, v) is another solution of the
equation x⁴ + y⁴ = z²
. But we know that v =
√a < a² + b² = z, contradicting the
minimality of z
(called a proof of infinite descent!)