This is the first post of a series devoted to Number theory. I decided to start it off with a well-known fact about the primes in the form .This fact can be extremely useful in solving problems.
Lemma: If is divisible by a prime in the form , then px and py.
Proof:First let's note that if one of the numbers x and y is divisible by p, then so is the other.Let's prove the lemma by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum). So let and both x and y are coprime to p.Then .We have just risen the both sides to the power of .But by Fermat's little theorem (since x and y are coprime to p) we get that , which is impossible p divides at least one of the numbers x and y , but as we said before, that means that p divides both of them!
So from this lemma we can see that if a number can be represented as the sum of two squares of natural numbers, then in its prime factorization primes of the form 4k+3 are included in an even power. So if , then for some natural numbers a, b and r.Now for a little bit of exercise I will post a problem for you to try yourself.
Problem:Show that has no solutions in natural numbers.
Hint:Try to factorize.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Multiplying by 4 and adding 1 yields:
(4x−1)(4y−1)=4z2+1
Now let p=4k+3 be a prime for some integer k. We have that p∣LHS so p∣RHS. By the theorem in the post, we must then have p∣1. But p>1, so there are no solutions.
Log in to reply
Since both the factors on the LHS are of the form 4k+3 it must have a prime fsctor of that form and hence your proof follows right?
Log in to reply
Yep, that is how it's supposed to be.
I am sorry if the title was misleading!Anyways, if you found this post helpful in any way, make sure to keep track of my future posts!Also, make sure to post your solutions to the problem at the end of the post!
Log in to reply
Good, but a better title might have been "primes and sum of 2 squares" or something like that, just a suggestion.
A good exercise is also by this lemma, and Fermat's theorem on sum of two squares, characterize all integers that can be represented as sum of two squares.
Log in to reply
Maybe I will do that...but I think it's better by starting with something simpler.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply