True or False:
Every odd number greater than 1 is the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Definitions:
Note that the statement is false if and only if there is an odd number greater than 1 that is NOT the smallest member of some primitive Pythagorean triple. For example, there are primitive Pythagorean triples where the smallest member is even, but that's not relevant to the problem.
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.
Proof without algebra: an odd square is always odd. The differences between the successive square numbers are the successive odd numbers, so for every odd number, including every odd square , there are two adjacent square numbers that have that odd number as their difference. These three square numbers must correspond to a Pythagorean triple, since the sum of two of them is equal to the third.
Log in to reply
Oh, very nice! A wonderful observation, thank you :)
Log in to reply
Thanks! To complete the proof, I should have noted that since adjacent numbers (greater than one) are relatively prime, the Pythagorean triple has to be a primitive one.
Log in to reply
@Mark Lama – I didn't understand this part. How can I know that the smaller number is relatively prime with the other two numbers?
Log in to reply
@Marcos Vinicius Queiroz Rocha – For a factor to be shared by all three numbers, it would also have to be shared by every possible pair of them.
This was my observation as well! Great thinking!
I don't understand your proof.
You said for every odd number (7, say) there are two adjacent square numbers that have that odd number as their difference (so 9 and 16). You then said these three numbers must be a Pythagorean triple, but I'm not sure that 7, 9 and 16 do form a Pythagorean triple. In the last part you then said the sum of two of them is equal to the third, but isn't it only a Pythagorean triple if that last statement applies to the squares and not the numbers themselves?
I may have misinterpreted your proof, but could you please clarify how it works?
Thanks
Log in to reply
My language was a little sloppy. Notice that I said for every odd number, including every odd square . So if we have an odd square, such as 121, we know that there are two adjacent square numbers that have a difference of 121. In this case, these square numbers are 3600 and 3721. Thus, the sum of 3600 and 121 is 3721. What I should have said, to be perfectly clear, is that the roots of these three squares form a Pythagorean triple, in this case, (11, 60, 61). That is what I meant. I edited my comment to alleviate the ambiguity.
Log in to reply
@Mark Lama – I think I get it now, so the number you pick first has to be an odd square, then the two adjacent square numbers with that as their difference can form a Pythagorean triple with it (the roots form a pythagorean triple)?
So instead of picking 7, I should have picked something like 9, then 16 and 25 are the adjacent squares with 9 as their difference. Thus, the roots 3, 4 and 5 form a Pythagorean triple. Also, I could pick 49, which is the difference between 625 and 576. Hence, the Pythagorean triple is 7, 24 and 25.
Therefore, that means that since it works for every odd square and all the odd squares have an odd number as a root, then all odd numbers can form a Pythagorean triple. I hope I am on the right track now.
One thing that is still unclear to me is the 'including' part. Do you mean to say that 'for every odd number, there are two adjacent square numbers that have the odd number squared as their difference'? To me, 'including' makes it seem as though any odd number could be used as the difference between two adjacent squares to form a triple. Whereas, here it seems that only odd squares can be used as the difference (hence, three square numbers as opposed to two square numbers and any odd number). That's where I was confused about why 7 doesn't work. Apologies if my question is long-winded and confusing.
Log in to reply
@Akaash Thao – Yes, you could say it that way. What I meant was that any odd number is the difference between some two adjacent square numbers, and that this is relevant to the problem when the odd number is an odd square.
Log in to reply
@Mark Lama – I see, it makes better sense now, thank you very much.
I interpreted the statement wrongly. All of Pythagorean triples are as follows for a 2 + b 2 = c 2 ( a , b , c ) = ( r ( p 2 − q 2 ) , 2 r p q , r ( p 2 + q 2 ) ) Where p > q are co-prime positive integers with different parity. Now, for primitive solutions r = 1 and ( a , b , c ) = ( p 2 − q 2 , 2 p q , p 2 + q 2 ) p 2 − q 2 is odd and I thought the problem states that it is always the smallest! We can choose arbitrary p and q such that p 2 − q 2 > 2 p q . Write p = q + l , then ( q + l ) 2 − q 2 > 2 ( q + l ) q ⟹ l 2 > 2 q 2 We just need to choose l > ⌊ q 2 ⌋ .
As an example choose q = 3 . Then l > ⌊ 3 2 ⌋ = 4 . Take l = 5 . This gives p = 8 and ( a , b , c ) = ( 5 5 , 4 8 , 7 3 ) .
Log in to reply
Aw, no worries man I get you. Beautiful generalization Kazem - great work, as always :)
HEEEEEEEYYYY! #Zachisback #again #upvoted Nice solution btw :P
Log in to reply
Wow, thank you again Angel, you're so kind :)
Log in to reply
No, you are(kind I mean :D) for staying here and posting 'Brilliant' (sorry, my puns are bad, I know that xD) solutions for us all! :P
Log in to reply
@Angel Ong – Haha! Hey, I love puns myself! Go you :)
Nice work, Zach! It is interesting to note that (2m^2 + 2m)^2 = 4[(m^2 + m)/2], meaning that in this series of Pythagorean triples, the second leg of the triangles are four times the successive triangular numbers.
Log in to reply
Wow! What a fascinating property Mark. And thank you :)
Dude, nice! Keep on posting solutions!
Log in to reply
Thank you, Steven! You always lighten me up :)
Log in to reply
You're welcome! And please, I'd love to see more of this!
Log in to reply
@Steven Jim – Your wish shall be granted as long as I'm on Brilliant :)
Log in to reply
@Zach Abueg – Dude, then stay XD That'd make me feel better XD
Log in to reply
@Steven Jim – Me too high fives you Zach's solutions are always (quite? :P) clear and easily understood(if you're not me :D)
Log in to reply
@Angel Ong – Haha, thank you Angel! All I intend is to enlighten - sometimes that requires rigor, and other times that requires nothing more than a little intuition.
@Steven Jim – I definitely will, Steven :)
I thought that the question was asking that every primitive pythagorean triplet has the least number as even, which is false. Consider the numbers(35,12,37). For a general argument, one can take the equation:
(s+t)(s+t) = (s-t)(s-t) + 4st, where s,t are natural numbers with opposite parity and s*t is a square of some natural number.
Then, we just need to find sufficiently large s and sufficiently small t for which, s s + t t - 6st>=0. [Sorry I forgot Latext]
The answer should be false.....just look at the following example: 15^2+8^2 = 17^2...15 is not the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple. Also 21^2 + 20^2 = 29^2.....21 is not the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Log in to reply
Please read the reports to this question. As Jason writes, the question is not asking whether the smallest leg of a primitive Pythagorean triple is always odd; it is asking if every odd number is the smallest leg of some Pythagorean triple out there.
As in my example, take 2 m + 1 = 1 5 ⟹ m = 7 ⟹ ( a , b , c ) = ( 1 5 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 ) , where g cd ( 1 5 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 ) = 1 .
Similarly, take 2 m + 1 = 2 1 ⟹ m = 1 0 ⟹ ( a , b , c ) = ( 2 1 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 1 ) , where g cd ( 2 1 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 1 ) = 1 .
I featured this problem on my blog yesterday, in this post: https://aspi.blog/2017/08/14/monday-miscellany/ and today, as promised to my readers I provided the solution and I also cleared up the side issue raised by various people who answered incorrectly. The new post is: aspi.blog/2017/08/15/answer-to-the-pythagorean-problem/ Here is an excerpt: THE SIDE ISSUE
Some people on Brilliant cavilled at this because there are some Primitive Pythagorean Triples whose smallest term is even (8,15, 17, 20,21,29 and 65,72,97 were all mentioned, although none of the complainers mentioned 12,35,37, 60,91,109 or 696,697,985). The question did not state that the triple of which the odd number is the lowest term was the lowest triple to feature that number, and indeed if one looks carefully at the triangles presented as part of the problem one can see clearly that the odd number is allowed to be in another triple where it is not the lowest term:
<img src="https://aspiblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/pythag.png?w=840" alt="Pythag"/>
Note that the number 5 features twice (ringed in the diagram above, once as the largest term in a triple and once as the smallest).
@Mark Lama - This is a formula for prime pythagorean triplets therefore so much explanation have even proved this formula Thanks
Hey, are there any with 45? I cant find one.
Answer should be false, as primitive triplets do exist where even number is smallest, like (8, 15, 17). This is the interpretation I took on the basis of Note given below the problem.
Log in to reply
as the note indicates: "For example, there are primitive Pythagorean triples where the smallest member is even, but that's not relevant to the problem."
The problem is specifically about if all odd numbers are the smallest member of some Pythagorean triple. This doesn't exclude the possibility of even numbers.
We notice the following things: 3 2 = 9 = ( 5 + 4 ) ( 5 − 4 ) = 5 2 − 4 2 5 2 = 2 5 = ( 1 3 + 1 2 ) ( 1 3 − 1 2 ) = 1 3 2 − 1 2 2 7 2 = 4 9 = ( 2 5 + 2 4 ) ( 2 5 − 2 4 ) = 2 5 2 − 2 4 2
Now, we try to generalize this. ( 2 n + 1 ) 2 = 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 = ( 2 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 + 2 4 n 2 + 4 n ) ( 2 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 − 2 4 n 2 + 4 n ) = ( 2 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 ) 2 − ( 2 4 n 2 + 4 n ) 2 = ( 2 n 2 + 2 n + 1 ) 2 − ( 2 n 2 + 2 n ) 2
And, two consecutive integers are coprime. So, this triplet is primitive.
P.S. Maybe I need to clarify my generalization process a bit more. Take 4 9 . We'll write it as ( 2 4 8 + 1 ) + 2 4 8 . That's what I did with 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 . I wrote it as ( 2 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 ) + 2 4 n 2 + 4 n .
You know what catches my attention on this, it has words and maths and it is very clear and easy to read. It is very organised so I love this! Thanks for writing this!
Log in to reply
Thanks for your feedback. I actually try to convey my thinking process as clearly as I can.
Same as the " proof without words" but actually shows the thinking and derivation of it for those who want it. Very nice!
@Zach Abueg @Atomsky Jahid @Kazem Sepehrinia You know, I was thinking about this, and realized that for the purpose of this problem, it might be tidier to let the odd number be defined by a single variable. Call it p . Then the Pythagorean triple in question could be defined as [ p , ( p ^2 - 1)/2, ( p ^2 + 1)/2].
Log in to reply
Yes, as a definition it's tidier. We can readily see that p must be odd as 2 p 2 − 1 and 2 p 2 + 1 wouldn't be integers otherwise.
that is a beautiful proof.
We know that the difference between 2 consecutive square quantities is odd number.
So,. (n+1)²—n²=(2k+1).
Now, the square of an odd number is a odd number.i.e. in the form of (2k+1).
It is obvious that, g.c.d. of (n , n+1)=1.
So, the numbers are primitive.
Hence, the statement is true.
29,420,421 is a primitive Pythagorean triple with 29 as the smallest number. The answer is not false, you just didn't find the right triple.
15, 112,113 is likewise a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Thanks for posting Avik. I like your thinking but I think there's a problem: Even though (n+1)²—n²=(2k+1), that doesn't mean that there's always a possible value of n for every value of k?
Log in to reply
@Justin Roughley n = k
I agree with Nashita....as with my example (15,8,17). Nashita's is another example where (21,20,29)....21 is not the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Log in to reply
Look at the triples (15, 112, 113) and (21, 220, 221). The problem only states that every odd number is the smallest member of a Pythagorean triple. It doesn't state that no other possibilities exist.
Log in to reply
@Mark Lama – I don't understand your logic. Is (15,8,17) a primitive Pythagorean triple? YES Is 15 an odd number greater than 1? YES Is 8 a member of the primitive Pythagorean triple? Yes Is 15 smallest member? NO - 8 is smaller than 15. Therefore the statement..."Every odd number greater than 1 is the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple." is FALSE
Log in to reply
@Ron Kowch – Ron, put the emphasis on the word a . "Every odd number greater than 1 is the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple." The argument is that, for every odd number greater than 1, there exists a primitive Pythagorean triple of which that odd number is the smallest member. It is not meant to exclude other possibilities, such as that, for some odd numbers, there may exist other primitive Pythagorean triples in which the number is not the smallest member. The problem's author actually added a note to the problem clarifying this. A fun side note: it works for 1, too, if you allow the triple (1, 0, 1), and eliminate the restriction that it be the smallest member. That would correspond to a triangle where one side has been shrunk to zero length. Of course, that's no longer a triangle, but the Pythagorean theorem still applies. The triple also follows the same algebraic pattern as the others.
The answer should be false.....just look at the following example: 15^2+8^2 = 17^2 15 is not the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Log in to reply
read the statement it says "statement is false if and only if there is an odd number greater than 1 that is NOT the smallest member of some primitive Pythagorean triple" focus on the word 'some'
The answer should be false because 29^2=21^2+20^2 !!
Log in to reply
However, 21 is the smallest member of the primitive Pythagorean triple (21, 220, 221). The problem does not state that it has to be the only possible Pythagorean triple using that number.
All primitive Pythagorean triplets can be generated by the formula a = p 2 − q 2 , b = 2 p q , , c = p 2 + q 2 , with p , q coprime and not both odd.
In order to make a = 2 n + 1 an arbitrary odd number, we choose p = n and q = n + 1 . These are obviously coprime and not both odd. Then a = p 2 − q 2 = ( p + q ) ( p − q ) = ( 2 n + 1 ) ⋅ 1 = 2 n + 1 as desired.
Suppose a is an odd positive integer.
Then to be the smallest member of a Pythagorean triple, we need b and c such that a 2 = c 2 − b 2 = ( c − b ) ( c + b ) .
Take c = b + 1 , then 2 a 2 − 1 = b . Because a is odd, b ∈ N .
So a,b,c form a Pythagorean triple and a is the smallest member. Since c = b + 1 , is it also primitive.
We can test this with as many odd numbers as we like. For example, 11^2 = 121, and the two consecutive numbers that add up to 121 are 60 and 61, and 11^2+60^2 = 61^2. 13^2 = 84+85, and 13^2+84^2 = 85^2
Answered in two words: Of course!
Let the smallest side be 2n + 1 (n > 0) and the other sides be y and z, with
the largest side being z, then
z^2 = y^2 + (2n + 1)^2, (1)
Then obviously y and z have different parity. Then
(z – y)(z + y) = (2n + 1)^2
Since the gcd(z – y, z + y) | 2 gcd(z, y) = 2 and z – y and z + y are odd,
so gcd(z – y, z + y) = 1. So, (1) shows that z – y = (2m + 1)^2, z + y = (2k + 1)*2.
z = 2k(k + 1) + 2m(m + 1) + 1, y = 2k(k + 1) – 2m(m + 1) and
(2m + 1)(2k + 1) = (2n + 1). If 2n + 1 is any odd number, we can set, 2k + 1 = 2n + 1,
2m + 1 = 1,So, z = 2n(n + 1) + 1 and y = 2n(n + 1). So we have:
[2n(n + 1) + 1]^2 = [2n(n + 1)]^2 + (2n + 1)^2
This is actually what we are looking for.
Let d = gcd (z, 2n + 1), obviously d | (z – 2n – 1) = 2n^2. Since (2n + 1, 2n^2) = 1,
then d = 1. So obviously 2n + 1, y, and z are a primitive triple.
In general case 2n + 1, factor it as (2k + 1)(2m + 1), such that k > m, and
(2k + 1, 2m + 1) = 1, then z + y = (2k + 1)^2, z - y = (2m + 1)^2.
In this case, z = 2k(k + 1) + 2m(m + 1) + 1, and y = 2k(k + 1) - 2m(m + 1)
[2k(k + 1) + 2m(m + 1) +1]^2 = [2k(k + 1) - 2m(m + 1))^2 + (2n + 1)^2
Since k < n, then y < 2n(n + 1), which shows y < 2n + 1, so in this case 2n + 1 is not the smallest
leg, so we have to choose the first approach as the third example below shows.
1) Let 2n + 1 = 13, then k = n = 6, m = 0, z = 85, y = 84
85^2 = 84^2 + 132, 7225 = 7056 + 169
2) Let 2n + 1 = 81, then k = 40, m = 0, z = 3281, y = 3280
3281^2 = 3280^2 + 81^2, 10764961 = 10758400 + 6561
3) Let 2n + 1 = 63, then k = 4, m = 3, z = 65, y = 16
65^2 = 16^2 + 63^2, 4225 = 256 + 3969
Although this is primitive triplet, it is not what we are looking for.
So, we should let k = 31, m = 0, then z = 1985, y = 1984,
1985^2 = 1984^2 + 632 3940225 = 3936256 + 3969.
This is what we are looking for.
Every Pythagorean triplet is of the form
2 k m n , k ( m 2 − n 2 ) and k ( m 2 + n 2 )
Allow k to be 1 and then the second member is
( m + n ) ( m − n ) = O for any odd integer O .
One way can be
m + n = O and m − n = 1 . There always exists such integers m and n , right?
[We can also show that they are primitive.]
Notice that the large sides are always b and b+1. Solve:
(2a+1)^2 + b^2 = (b+1)^2
Reduces to 2a^2 + 2a = b
So for each value of a there is an odd short side (2a +1) and two long sides length 2a^2 + 2a and 2a^2 + 2a +1.
Using Euler's formula for constructing Pythagorean triples, instead of using two distinct values m and n , if we instead use m and m + 1 for all the natural numbers, we will see that the first term n 2 − m 2 will simplify to 2 m + 1 which is the general term for all the odd natural numbers.
Furthermore, subbing in m and m + 1 into the other two values of 2 m n and n 2 + m 2 , we get two terms with a value of 2 m 2 + 2 m and 2 m 2 + 2 m + 1 , which are two consecutive natural numbers whose sum is equivalent to ( 2 m + 1 ) 2 , therefore always making the value of the other two sides of the primitive triple add up to the square of that shortest side.
Another way of looking at this is by choosing any natural number m and then making substitutions of a = 2 m + 1 and b = 2 m 2 + 2 m , we create Pythagorean triples of the form a , b , b + 1 , where a 2 = 2 b + 1 .
Here is an interesting way to find the larger two members of a Pythagorean triple of any odd number a, a >1 in terms of the sums of odd numbers. (Still working on the primitive part for this one).
Here is a complete proof. Given any odd number greater than 1 a primitive Pythagorean triple can be derived directly as follows:
Take the nth odd number A = 2 n + 1 n = 1,2,3,...
A 2 = ( 2 n + 1 ) 2 = 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1
Set B = n A + n = n ( 2 n + 1 ) + n = 2 n 2 + 2 n = 2 n ( n + 1 )
Set C = B + 1
C 2 = ( B + 1 ) 2 = B 2 + 2 B + 1
C 2 − B 2 = 2 B + 1 = 2 ( 2 n ( n + 1 ) ) = 4 n ( n + 1 ) + 1 = 4 n 2 + 4 n + 1 = A 2
Therefore for any odd number, A, there are values B and C such that C 2 = A 2 + B 2 , forming a Pythagorean triple.
A and B have no common factors therefore it is also a primitive Pythagorean triple.
Does not really draw much blood. The consecutive squares in the given examples provide an excellent clue that suggests the proof above.
For any odd number n, you can calculate n^2, then find a such that 2a+1=n^2. Once you have this, you can write the expression n^2+a^2, and we said that n^2=2a+1, so the expression comes out to be a^2+2a+1, which factors to (a+1)(a+1), or just (a+1)^2. Thus, we have found a Pythagorean triple.
Let a = 2m + 1 be an arbitrary odd positive integer. Let b = 2m(m + 1), and c = m^2 + (m + 1)^2. Then a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is clearly a primitive Pythagorean Triplet. Ed Gray
Let 1 < a < b < c , and let a be odd as per the statement. The Pythagorean statement can be stated as a 2 = c 2 − b 2 . Since a is odd, a 2 > 1 is guaranteed to be odd as well.
Notice the pattern between pairs of consecutive squares: ( n + 1 ) 2 − n 2 = 2 n + 1 , which is also always odd. Obviously, a 2 = 2 n + 1 for some positive n . This means that we can say a 2 = ( 2 a 2 − 1 + 1 ) 2 − ( 2 a 2 − 1 ) 2 , forming the Pythagorean triple a 2 , 2 a 2 − 1 , 2 a 2 − 1 + 1 where a 2 is both odd and the smallest member of such triple.
However, we have not yet shown that the Pythagorean triple is primitive, not sharing a factor. If just two members are relatively prime, the entire triple must also be and thus primitive. Let's examine 2 a 2 − 1 and 2 a 2 − 1 + 1 . Adjacent numbers are always relatively prime (try to think of a number that divides both). We are now guaranteed the Pythagorean triple is primitive. Q.E.D.
Lemma: every odd number greater than 1 can be represented by (x^2 - (x-1)^2.)
Proof: x 2 − ( x − 1 ) 2 = x 2 − ( x 2 − 2 x + 1 ) = 2 x − 1
Using the equation a 2 + b 2 = c 2 , let b equal c-1 and subtracting it to get a 2 = c 2 − ( c − 1 ) 2 . Notice the RHS can be any odd number by the Lemma above. Since a^2 is odd when a is odd, we can represent it with sides c and b. The triple must be primitive because gcd(a,c-1,c)>=gcd(c,c-1)=1.
I remember there is a formula for Pythagorean triple
x=2*k+1
y=2 k (k+1)
z=(k+1)^2 +k^2
Where k is some natural number and x^2+y^2=z^2
So from those formula is clear than the smallest member is x, which is an odd number
The answer is false. Here a triple: (20, 21, 29). The smalles number of the triple (20) is an even number.
Log in to reply
Really, the answer is false
The problem needs to be reported
I did report, better to spawn multiple reports
think about it people ( its 3)
n^2 + x = (n+1)^2 => x = 2n +1 so yeah not only "Every odd number greater than 1 is the smallest member of a primitive Pythagorean triple.", but the other 2 numbers are consecutive one's.
We can represent all odd numbers greater than 1 as 1 + 2 x ∀ x ∈ N + So, using the pythagorean theorem, we get ( 1 + 2 x ) 2 + a 2 = b 2 ( 1 + 2 x ) 2 = b 2 − a 2 ( 1 + 2 x ) 2 = ( b − a ) ( b + a ) Because 1 + 2 x is odd, either a or b is odd and the other is even. Let's assume a is even, so we can represent a as 2 y , so we get ( 1 + 2 x ) 2 = ( b + 2 y ) ( b − 2 y ) . Based on the calculated pythagorean triples given to us, let's assume that b = a + 1 = 2 y + 1 . Now, plugging this into our equation, we get ( 1 + 2 x ) 2 = ( 2 y + 2 y + 1 ) ( 2 y + 1 − 2 y ) ( 1 + 2 x ) 2 = ( 4 y + 1 ) ( 1 ) = 4 y + 1 Calculating this out, we get 4 x 2 + 4 x + 1 = 4 y + 1 4 ( x 2 + x ) + 1 = 4 y + 1 ⟹ y = x 2 + x Because x is a positive natural number and 2 y = 2 x 2 + 2 x > x , we now know that for all odd numbers greater than 1, it is the smallest member of a pythagorean triple.
...for every odd integer j, there exist infinitely many primitive Pythagorean triples in which the hypotenuse and the even leg differ by j^2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triple
For any odd a, b = (a^2-1)/2 and c = b+1 form a Pythagorean triple, and as long as a>2 (which is true for all odd numbers >1), a<b<c. b and c are obviously relatively prime, and it is possible to show that a is relatively prime with both b and c.
x^2 + y^2 = z^2. Now write that differently, so x^2 = z^2 - y^2. Now we'll think only of a Pythagorean triple with the largest number only 1 greater than the 2nd number. So z = y + 1. So x^2 = (y + 1)^2 - y^2. Hence x^2 = (y^2 + 2y + 1) - y^2. Hence x^2 = 2y + 1 - which is of course odd. Hence 2y = x^2 - 1. Hence y = 1 / 2 x (x^2 - 1), And then z is one more than that. So z = 1 / 2 x (x^2 + 1). So for any value of x>1 (because when x=1, y=0 and then z=1 so this is not a triangle) y and z can be found. So for example when x=19 y = 1 / 2 (19^2-1) which is 180 and then z is 1 more than it, so z = 181.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Proof without words:
( 2 m + 1 ) 2 + ( 2 m 2 + 2 m ) 2 = ( 2 m 2 + 2 m + 1 ) 2