a 3 + b 3 = c 3 + d 3
What is the smallest positive integer that is the sum of 2 distinct perfect cubes in 2 different ways?
Note: A perfect cube is a cube of an integer (which could be positive, negative, or zero).
The answer is 91.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
2 solutions
@Brian Charlesworth I was equally surprised too. I was looking at the Fermat-Pythagoream Problem and realized interestingly that c could be negative.
Log in to reply
We also have that 9 3 − 1 3 = 6 3 + 8 3 = 1 2 3 − 1 0 3 = 7 2 8 , so there are at least two values less than the Taxicab number.
Log in to reply
Oh wow! Sum of cubes in 3 different ways! Maybe that could lead to another problem?
I like how you manipulated the Taxicab number. That leads to another example like 1 2 3 − 9 3 = 1 0 3 − 1 3 = 9 9 9 :)
Can we not prove it mathematically??
Log in to reply
The only way that I know of is trial and error for all smaller values.
I don't know how to show that it is the smallest, other than listing out all the values and checking.
Log in to reply
oh ok I see thanks!!!!pls share if u get any proof on this pls
Actually I disagree the answer, because I have found a much smaller number: 1 9 .
It's 3 3 − 2 3 and equivalent to 2 . 5 3 + 1 . 5 3
I edited in "perfect cubes". Otherwise, we could have 1 = 3 2 3 − 1 3 = 3 9 3 − 2 3 .
Log in to reply
I think it should say perfect cubes of integers or something similar.
We can extend the ring of integers by the roots of the polynomial ( x 3 − 2 ) ( x 3 − 9 ) = x 6 − 1 1 x 3 + 1 8 to get a ring of algebraic integers containing both 3 2 and 3 9 .
In that ring it is perfectly valid to say that 2 and 9 are perfect cubes, yielding the solution 1 you described.
Of course, perfect cube usually means either a cube of a positive integer or a cube of a negative integer if not otherwise stated, but this ambiguity led me to first try the famous 1 7 2 9 .
Log in to reply
I added a comment to the question.
Even though I get what you mean, it becomes very smart-aleky. It's like saying
Well, 5 is not a prime under Guassian integers. So, you have to define which integer system you're in when you say "primes in the integers".
Log in to reply
@Chung Kevin – Sorry. My intention wasn't to be cocky. I just get annoyed when the answer I've given should be correct, but is regarded as incorrect because of a mistake or, in this case, an ambiguity in the problem.
Most people would think of the taxicab number 1 0 3 + 9 3 = 1 7 2 9 = 1 2 3 + 1 3 .
This is the smallest positive integer that is the sum of 2 distinct positive cubes in 2 different ways.
However, because we are allowed to use negative cubes, there is a smaller answer, which is
3 3 + 4 3 = 9 1 = 6 3 + ( − 5 ) 3 .
I don't know how to show that it is the smallest, other than listing out all the values and checking.
In the comments, other examples which are smaller than the taxicab number are:
9 3 + ( − 1 ) 3 = 6 3 + 8 3 = 1 2 3 + ( − 1 0 ) 3 = 7 2 8 ,
1 2 3 + ( − 9 ) 3 = 1 0 3 + ( − 1 ) 3 = 9 9 9