a ( a 2 − 1 ) = 2 b 2
If a and b are positive integers, is there a solution that satisfies this equation?
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.
The smallest difference between positive squares is 1^2-0^2=1 so the equation has a solution a=1 and b=0
Log in to reply
0 is not positive.
Log in to reply
0 is both positive and negative, unless either is specifically excluded. A note might solve this.
This is a wonderful poof! I'm having trouble understanding one part of it though. How does a - 1, a, and a + 1 not sharing any common factors imply that a - 1 and a + 1 must both be squares?
Log in to reply
I guess the fact that they are square does not only come from them not sharing any factors, but also from the 2 b 2 in the equation.
If a is even, you can write the equation like this (a-1).2m.(a+1)=2(b^2) here a=2m then, (a-1)m(a+1)=b^2 b=((a-1)^1/2 ) * (m^(1/2)) * ((a+1)^1/2) all variables that are raised to the power 1/2 must give +ve integer as a result. so all of those three must be squares of some numbers
Log in to reply
Thank you, that was the first explanation to really clarify that for me!
Why is it that you say all variables square root will give a positive integer as a result ? Eg: 2^(1/2) is not an integer value
When discussing the case of a being odd, I think you are overlooking the factor of 2 on the right hand side of the equation. Because of it, a − 1 and a + 1 cannot both be written as 2 x 2 . One can be written that way, and the other can be written ( 2 z ) 2 . That will ensure that the left hand side has an odd number of 2's in its prime factorization.
So one of the even factors is 2 times a perfect square, but the other is exactly a perfect square. But the odd factor a must also be a perfect square. That would imply consecutive positive numbers are both perfect squares, a contradiction.
Log in to reply
that's the problem I've been facing with the above proof.
Log in to reply
This works as another reason - it's just a different route. Went with the parallelism logic because it's easier to spot for beginners.
@Matthew Feig Really great point that was needed to round out the proof above! Nice.
How should we know that the integers are consecutive?
Log in to reply
Since factoring the left hand side we find n 1 = a − 1 , n 2 = a and n 3 = a + 1 are some integers. Now we note that consecutive integers at always in Arithmetic progression since n 2 − n 1 = a − ( a − 1 ) = 1 also n 3 − n 2 = ( a + 1 ) − a = 1 . So here we find that each leading integer has the difference of 1.
Let's take a = 2 then a − 1 = 1 and a + 1 = 3 . Hence a − 1 , a , a + 1 consecutive integers. :)
If you start at an integer a, and subtract 1, you get the consecutive integer before it, or add 1, you get the consecutive integer after it. (They have to all be positive since they multiply to be 2*(something positive).)
The similar solution I had in my mind. Thank you @Jason Dyer sir. :)
would a=b=2.206 be considered a solution?
This is awesome. I don't understand why you have to consider 'a' being odd though because a^2 - 1 is odd and 2b^2 is even. Odd X odd = odd, therefore 'a' must be even.
Log in to reply
a^2-1 will not be odd when a is odd because a^2 is odd and the number before an odd number is even.
But A=B= 0 is a solution for this eq right?
Log in to reply
Yes that is solution but I think 0 is not rated as positive integer. If any whole number would be accepted as solution then that would work.
Log in to reply
Beside the fact the question would be trivial with considering 0 a positive integer, it is actually a positive integer but not strictly positive. The question is not well asked.
Log in to reply
@Minh-Quang Nguyen – 0 is not a positive integer in any circumstances.
Log in to reply
@Jason Dyer – That's debateable
Log in to reply
@Joseph A. Abandoh-Sam – A positive number is defined as a number larger than zero. Zero is not larger than zero.
More information....
I don’t understand why this is considered a basic question. Can someone answer this question so a high schooler can understand?
Log in to reply
This likely should have gone in intermediate (sometimes it's only clearer in retrospect) although this was written by a high schooler. Number theory isn't "standard curriculum" although it is common in contests at that level.
But in essence, you have the solution if you get that
1.) you're trying to get three consecutive integers multiplying to be 2 times a square and 2.) that's going to fail because the distance between squares is too large (even if you handwave over the two cases, you're doing pretty good)
Hey :), I don't understand why a+1 and a-1 have to be squares in the even case and how you find x and y in the odd case. Could you explain this, please?
Log in to reply
They have to be able to part of 2b^2. Since the 2 isn't part of either, they have to be entirely part of the b^2 factor.
Log in to reply
I still don't understand, please help.... if it is even, then why doesn't a as well also need to be square?
I got it first try
In the case when a is odd, how is it possible that all 3 numbers have a prime factor of 2, clearly a is odd. Other than that I follow the proof. Thanks.
Log in to reply
"apart from the prime factor of 2" is referring to the first and last (a-1, a+1) since they are both even so they share a factor of 2.
Log in to reply
Jason, Related to the case of a being odd, could you read my comment from a couple days ago (further down)? I am fairly certain that part of the proof needs adjustment.
my native language is not English, could somebody explain to me why a=b=0 is not correct solution?
Log in to reply
If a and b are positive integers..
0 is not a positive integer.
0 is a special number (among integers) in mathematics, it has different definitions and rules than other integers have. Number Theory is the science that studies properties of the integers in mathematics. Reason why in mathematics some type of numbers are not accepted is that some type of mathematics simply do not work with all kinds of numbers. (or in puzzles like these maker of puzzle wants to make puzzle less trivial)
using R and brute force
j<-350 v3 <- c(rep(0, j)) v2 <- c(rep(0, j)) for (i in 1:j){ v3[i] <- i (i^2 -1) v2[i] <- 2 i^2 } match(v2,v3)
test <- c(rep(0,j)) for(i in 1:j){ b <-v2[j] %in% v3 if (b == TRUE){ test[i] <- 1 }else{ test[i] <- 0 } } result <- sum(test) print(result)
the higher the numbers get the unlikelier it is to find a solution since the primes get further apart. and if you have a 3 in b you need a 9 in the a's if there is a 5 in b you need a 25 in the a's 11 -> 121 etc
or this one maybe: 9³-9 = 2b² 81x9 - 9 = 80x9 = 8x9x9 + 8x9 = 8x9x(9+1) = 2b² |:2 .... 4x9x(9+1) = b² ..... bzw 4 x nx(n+1) = b² ..... but the square root of either n or (n+1) is not good
Why (a - 1) and a +1 always needs to be a square
Log in to reply
because you have to be able to write all the factors on the left side into the form 2 * ( _ )^2. So when you consider the prime factorization, it's either a.) the 2 or b.) part of the thing being squared. When the 2 is already taken by a being an even number, a+1 and a-1 must be writable in the form something squared, which means they both must be squares.
Log in to reply
And when a is odd then how a - 1 and a + 1 are written as 2x^2 and 2z^2 ...
Log in to reply
@Ankit Mukherjee – Both of them are even, hence the 2, but the rest still needs to be squared to fit in the ( _ )^2 part
Log in to reply
@Jason Dyer – Doesn't a have any role here where does it go
Could you see Matthew Feig’s comment here for the other case you would have to cover to round out your proof? (i.e., when a is both odd and a perfect square; a situation that does not require a-1 to be a perfect square) This is a small technicality, but one you should cover in your answer.
2 b 2 ⇒ 2 b = a ( a 2 − 1 ) = a ( a 2 − 1 ) = a − 1 a a + 1
This can only hold if one of the 3 consecutive integers, a − 1 , a , a + 1 , is equal to 2 A 2 , A ∈ Z + , and the remaining two are square numbers. But there is no gap between two consecutive square numbers smaller than 2 2 − 1 2 = 3 , so this is not possible.
This is close but missing a step.
The consecutive integers must be coprime, and g cd ( a − 1 , a + 1 ) must be either 1 or 2. This means most of the numbers must be squares or twice of squares, but you need to account for every combination. From there, we can check every possible combination, and show that none of them lead to a solution.
Same reasoning as me!
I did not get it but I would like to learn. Can you help?
This can only hold if one of the 3 consecutive integers, a-1, a, a+1, is equal to 2A^2, and the remaining two are square numbers. How do you explain that?
It is true but you would have to say something like that: a-1, a, a+1, are coprimes exept for maybe a 2 in both a-1 and a+1, then one of them would not be multiple of 4 and thus (a-1)/2, a, a+1 or a-1, a, (a+1)/2 or a-1, a/2, a+1 are coprimes. Then we can finaly conclude what you said.
Observe that a ( a 2 − 1 ) = ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) . Hence b 2 = 2 1 ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) . But the product of three consecutive numbers can never be a perfect square, hence b 2 = 2 1 ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) won't be as well. (A generalization of this can be found in the paper "The product of consecutive integers is never a power" by Erdős and Selfridge)
The referenced paper (link) states that ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) = b 2 has no (non-trivial) solution. It does not deal with the current problem of ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) = 2 b 2 .
So Selfridge has an Erdős number of 1 ;-)
Log in to reply
Or, as Selfridge would say, Erdos has a Selfridge number of 1..!
Is there an intuitive way to understand why if "the product of three consecutive numbers can never be a perfect square", then it implies that "the product of three consecutive numbers can never be double a perfect square"?
Log in to reply
I can't think of an intuitive method to proove this implication, but it's a slight modification of my proof for b 2 = ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) , which I did't write down fully. So here it is for the modified statement:
Let a = ∏ p i α i , where p i is the i -th prime number, be the prime factorization (PF) of a . Note that in the PF of a perfect square, all α i have to be even. Now we can observe the following cases:
Case I: There is some odd α i with i = 1 : Here, a can't be a square, because not every exponent in the PF is even, ( a − 1 ) and ( a + 1 ) can't contain p i in the PF, because they are neighbors of a . Hence 2 1 ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) can't be a square, because of the odd α i (the exponent of the 2 doesn't matter here).
Case II: All α i are even, but α 1 is odd: This implies that 2 1 a is a perfect square. For 2 1 ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) to be a perfect square as well, we would need ( a − 1 ) ( a + 1 ) to be a perfect square, which is impossible.
Case III: All α i are even: In 2 1 ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) , we have α 1 being odd, hence it's not a perfect square.
We could use the fact that any two consecutive integers are coprime.
what if a = 1 and b = 0?
Log in to reply
Then b is not a positive integer and that is required in this problem.
This supposed contradiction in the solution doesn't follow, due to the fact a non-integer times a non-integer might be an integer.
We do know that a 2 − 1 cannot be an integer for a > 2 ; since a 2 − 1 and a 2 would be two consecutive perfect squares greater than 3.
It would be much better if you had provided any justification why a 2 − 1 cannot be a integer. Thank you for the solution.
Log in to reply
It's not that hard since a 2 − 1 = ( a − 1 ) ( a + 1 ) . Which is no square.
Log in to reply
Just by observation, we cannot claim it as justification. :)
I explained it to Rishabh Bharadwaj. you can see it.
In fact thats not true, with a=1 a^2-1=0 wich can be considered a square. But this would not even be enought to conclude your proof.
Log in to reply
If a = 1 and it's true that a 2 − 1 = 0 further more, 2 b 2 = 0 ⟹ b = 0 which contradict the purpose of the problem since a and b are positive integers . :)
Like @Naren Bhandari pointed out, you should prove why a 2 − 1 is not an integer. Furthermore, a 2 − 1 not being an integer is not enough to prove that a 2 − 1 2 1 a is not an integer. The product of two non-integers could very well be an integer.
Log in to reply
I explained it to Rishabh Bharadwaj. you can see it.
The solution given above is about as good as not giving one. I don't know how to post a proper solution, but here goes my attempt. Let $p$ be a prime. Observe that if $p$ is a prime dividing $a(a^2-1)$, then if $p\ge 3$, $p$ divides precisely one of $a$, $a-1$, or $a+1$, additionally, $p$ divides $2b^2$, so $p$ must divide $a$, $a-1$, or $a+1$ an even number of times. Thus, up to factors of 2, $a$, $a-1$, and $a+1$ must be squares. Now, one of $a$ or $a-1$ is odd. If $a-1$ is odd, then we have that $a-1$ and $a+1$ are both odd, and up to factors of 2, both squares. Thus they would have to both be squares, but no two squares differ by 2. Thus $a$ must be odd. Thus $a$ is a square, so we can let $c=b/\sqrt{a}$, and instead look at the equation $a^2-1=2c^2$, or $a^2-2c^2=1$. This is of course recognizable as Pell's equation for $d=2$. Thus all solutions to this equation are found in the usual way, by looking at the units in $\ZZ[\sqrt{d}]$, and exponentiating the smallest unit, which in this case is $3+2\sqrt{2}$. Thus the possible values of $a$ are given by the $x i$ sequence defined by the pair of recurrences, $x 0=3$, $y 0=2$, and $x i=3x {i-1}+4y {i-1}$ and $y i=3y {i-1}+2x {i-1}$. Note that the $x i$ are at least always odd, so we just need to prove that $x i$ is never a square. Taking $x i$ mod 4, we see that $x i\equiv -x {i-1}\pmod{4}$. Thus when $i$ is even, $x i$ is 3 mod 4, and hence not a square. Similarly, taking $x i$ mod 3, we find that $x i\equiv -x {i-2}\pmod{3}$, so when $i$ is $1$ mod 4, $x i$ is 2 mod 3, and hence not a square. Thus for $x i$ to be a square, $i$ had better be 3 mod 4. Alright, I can't get further rn. Also, just figured out how to properly format latex, but I'm not changing all my $$ to parens.
Are you sure?! If the second expression in brackets is not an integer, the whole expression cannot be an integer? I don't find the reasoning and approach accurate. Please explain it further...
Log in to reply
a 2 − 1 cannot be a integer because it is 1 less that a perfect square (that is a 2 ) .
For example , let us put the value of a as 2 .
Then , a 2 − 1 = 4 − 1 = 3 = 1 . 7 3 2
Log in to reply
First of all, this is not what I asked. I asked if fraction multiplied by something can be an integer or not?! Because you didn't mention the other part of the multiplication. If the root gives you 1.5 and the other part is 3, you will end up with an integer result.
The other thing is that use induction to prove your results not examples. Even if you give infinite number of examples and it's not showing a particular pattern (that happens in induction), it's not accurate.
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Bhardwaj – But you too are giving examples to prove your argument .
Moreover , if the roots give 1.5 and 3 how can it be an integer .
Log in to reply
@Ram Mohith – Don't you remember that "one counter example is enough to prove your hypothesis false" but infinite number of examples cannot prove it true.
Other thing is I am not proving anything, just asking for a solid proof. The product is never going to be an integer, which you haven't proved. Did you?
I have edited, it should be 2 in place of 3(apologies) :)
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Bhardwaj – Ok . You say that you changed 1.5 to 2 . Now, the two numbers are integer but according to your argument you should have atleast 1 non integer .
Log in to reply
@Ram Mohith – I changed 3 not 1.5.
You didn't prove anything mathematically. If you don't have any solid proof that why the product is not an integer, there is no point of discussion.
and it's not only me who is asking, that means we are not convinced by your answer.
(See, the first line of Jason)
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Bhardwaj – Exactly Rishabh Bhardwaj , this proof is not complete.
I am asking Neeraj Singh, why am I getting replies from Ram Mohith?
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Bhardwaj – Why ? I should not reply to you . Is that your point .
Log in to reply
@Ram Mohith – I think, I should report this to Brilliant.org team. I doubt that someone is using two profiles. [Corrected guess - > think]
(I am signing off)
Thanks for your time!
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Bhardwaj – Can you guess who is using two profiles .
@Rishabh Bhardwaj – @Rishabh Bhardwaj Every user has the ability to see and reply to your comments in the solution discussion. There is no reason to believe that Ram or Neeraj have more than one account.
Log in to reply
@Andrew Hayes – Hi Andrew! I am a machine learning engineer (working in fake news/account detection) and pretty much know how accounts behave when it's not fake. This id seems new and other guy is supporting as if the solution is written by him. Most of the conversation is replied by him and text seems that author is tackling the accusations.
BTW, I work with millions of accounts, this is nothing.
PS: :)
Log in to reply
@Rishabh Bhardwaj – You totally misunderstood Rishabh . When I am satisfied with any answer I will argue for it on that side whether that solution is written by me or any others . If you want you can look through my answer and comments to the question Two Possiblities (it will be in my contributions page) . Although I know that my solution has a mistake in it I argued for it till the end only because I am satisfied with my answer .
@Ram Mohith , you claim that a 2 − 1 is not an integer and hence no integral solutions for b .
You yourself see that is this claim correct?
You can write 2 = 2 × 2 , in other words, an irrational times an irrational might give you rational and integer too .
It seems to me that if a=1 then b=0 and 0 and 1 are both integers
Log in to reply
0 is not positive
Log in to reply
It is not negative either
Log in to reply
@David Hansen – "a and b are both positive integers" in the problem setup. Neither can be 0.
I substituted k + 1 = a. Now the problem can be stated k(k+1)(k+2) = 2b^2. Dividing by 2 creates k(k+1)(k/2 + 1) = b^2. Since k and k+1 are consecutive integers, they would be relatively prime. This means that k/2 + 1 = k(k +1). This equation can be written as k + 2 = 2k^2 + 2k. In standard form set equal to zero, you get 2k^2 + k - 2 = 0. The discriminant of the equation is 5, which isn't a perfect square. This means k is not an integer, which contradicts a given condition for the problem.
calculating the discriminant I get sqrt(18) which is not any better for the problem
In the range from the first positive integer 1 to +Infinity both functions are monotonically increasing.
f(a)= a ( a 2 − 1 ) starts at 0 and increases faster being a 3rd degree polynomial compared to 2nd degree polynomial
f(b)= 2 b 2 which starts at 2 and increases slower.
Therefore, for the proof, it suffices to show that the single crossover point is not an integer.
Simple check for function output for a=1,2,3 and b=1,2,3 shows that the crossover happens at a non-integer point between 2 and 3.
f(a) = 0, 6, 24, ...
f(b) = 2, 8, 18, ...
This doesn't quite work, because we're not talking about two functions where the input needs to be the same. The actual graph we're thinking about in this problem is below.
Best solution here.
thank you for adding the graph for my solution !
Log in to reply
Note: please be careful, don't use the same "f" for different functions.
Practice my number theory solving skill:
I have modified my solution as below:
When a ≡ 0 ( m o d 2 ) , let a = 2 k , so k ( 2 k − 1 ) ( 2 k + 1 ) = b 2 , because g cd ( k , 2 k − 1 ) = g cd ( k , − 1 ) = 1 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ g cd ( k , 2 k + 1 ) = g cd ( k , 1 ) = 1 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ g cd ( 2 k − 1 , 2 k + 1 ) = g cd ( 2 k − 1 , 2 ) = g cd ( − 1 , 2 ) = 1 , so integers in the set { k , 2 k − 1 , 2 k + 1 } are pairwise coprime, thus we can conclude that each can be expressed as square, but this leads to { p 2 = 2 k − 1 q 2 = 2 k + 1 for some positive integers p , q , hence ( q + p ) ( q − p ) = 2 , but because q + p ≡ q − p ( m o d 2 ) so the product is either odd or multiple of 4 , contradiction.
Now consider a ≡ 1 ( m o d 4 ) , let a = 4 k + 1 , we can get k ( 4 k + 1 ) ( 2 k + 1 ) = ( 2 b ) 2 , now again consider are them coprime, and the fact is indeed true: g cd ( k , 4 k + 1 ) = g cd ( k , 1 ) = 1 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ g cd ( k , 2 k + 1 ) = g cd ( k , 1 ) = 1 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ g cd ( 4 k + 1 , 2 k + 1 ) = g cd ( − 1 , 2 k + 1 ) = 1 , so the integer in the set { k , 4 k + 1 , 2 k + 1 } are pairwise coprime, therefore each of them can again be square, but this leads to { p 2 = 4 k + 1 q 2 = k for some positive integers p , q . Thus 4 q 2 + 1 = p 2 , ( p + 2 q ) ( p − 2 q ) = 1 , own a solution p = ± 1 , q = 0 . All of these making a = 1 , b = 0 , which isn't a suitable answer due to question need, contradiction.
Finally, consider a ≡ 3 ( m o d 4 ) , let a = 4 k + 3 , we can get ( 2 k + 1 ) ( 4 k + 3 ) ( k + 1 ) = ( 2 b ) 2 , same procedure:
g cd ( 2 k + 1 , 4 k + 3 ) = g cd ( 2 k + 1 , 1 ) = 1 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ g cd ( 2 k + 1 , k + 1 ) = g cd ( − 1 , k + 1 ) = 1 ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ g cd ( 4 k + 3 , k + 1 ) = g cd ( − 1 , k + 1 ) = 1 ,
So the integers in the set { 2 k + 1 , 4 k + 3 , k + 1 } are pairwise coprime, each of them must expressible as square, but this says { p 2 = k + 1 q 2 = 4 k + 3 for positive integers p , q , so 4 p 2 − q 2 = 1 , ( 2 p − q ) ( 2 p + q ) = 1 , own solution as p = ± 2 1 , q = 0 , contradiction.
As a conclusion, a ( a 2 − 1 ) = 2 b 2 does not have any positive integer solution, this completes the proof.
This is a much better solution. Rather similar to the proof that sqrt (2) is irrational.
Log in to reply
Thanks! I hope I had written a strong based solution.
Log in to reply
Sadly it doesn't look to be comprehensive. It's a deceptive problem and the proof still eludes me.
Note: line 3 doesn't follow from line 2. For example, it might be possible that p 2 ∣ k , p ∣ b , p 2 ∣ b , . What we have is that if p is a prime such that p ∣ k , then p ∣ b .
We can push through with this in the following manner:
Let
k
=
p
k
q
k
,
b
=
p
k
t
, where
g
cd
(
q
k
,
t
)
=
1
and
q
k
∣
p
k
.
We get that
q
k
(
4
p
k
2
q
k
2
−
1
)
=
p
k
t
2
. Since
p
k
∣
4
p
k
2
q
k
2
−
1
, hence
p
k
∣
q
k
. Thus,
p
k
=
q
k
, or that
4
p
k
2
−
q
k
2
−
1
=
t
2
.
However, taking mod 4, we get that
−
1
≡
t
2
(
m
o
d
4
)
, which is a contradiction.
Relatedly, the claim in g c d ( a , 2 ) = 1 ⇒ a ∣ b is not correct. It will be a good exercise for you to see if it can be pushed through.
Log in to reply
You're right, I don't realize square of b , I will try to modify my solution. Thanks!
Log in to reply
It looks correct, but I didn't work through all of the details.
FYI, when a ≡ 1 ( m o d 2 ) , there is a much easier approach. See Jason's solution.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Just looked at it, wow! Thanks for comment.
I have modified my solution, please take a look.
I like your solution. It's simple and straightforward.
Another variation of your method would be this. Since a or b can only be odd or even, then let's look at the 2 cases with respect to a! -For a = 2k + 1 (odd) with k belonging to N; We have: (2k + 1) 2k * (2k + 2) = 2 * b ^ 2 <==> 2k (k + 1) (2k + 1) = b ^ 2. Here the product of any 2 factors here will never be equal to the 3rd factor. Which means that 2k (k + 1) (2k + 1) will never give a perfect square in N *. So, no solution in N * -For a = 2k (even) with k belonging to N; We have: (2k-1)2k (2k + 1) = 2 * b ^ 2 <==> k (2k-1) (2k + 1) = b ^ 2.The same reasoning as above; k (2k-1) (2k + 1) will never be a perfect square in N * either. Obviously, no solution in N * either. Conclusion: No solution.
Log in to reply
Yes, I agree! I dig in the statement when a is odd: 2 k ( k + 1 ) ( 2 k + 1 ) = b 2 , you said that the product of any two factor will not equal to another, it is equivalent to proof that each of 2 k ( k + 1 ) = 2 k + 1 , 2 k ( 2 k + 1 ) = k + 1 , ( k + 1 ) ( 2 k + 1 ) = 2 k will not have non-negative integer solution. Thanks for your comment!
Expanding the brackets we get:
a³ - a = 2b²
Bringing all the terms to one side:
-a³ + 2b² + a = 0
Factorising:
a (a² + 2b + 1) = 0
Since a ≠ 0 , a² + 2b + 1 must equal 0 in order for the equation to be valid.
a² + 2b + 1 = 0
a² + 2b = -1
As no positive integers could possibly be the values of a and b, the answer is No.
So many wrong answers... how did you take a common out from 2 b 2 ?
The left side must always be odd and the right side even. No solution in positive integers.
Hi, a(a^2-1) is always even. This is trivial when a is even. In case a is odd, a^2 is odd and a^2-1 is even.
simply put, when you re arrange the terms, you get a^3- a - 2(b^2) =0. This equation is unsolvable, as only has one b term .
By any means it isn't possible by taking the root of both sides ot isn't possible also by multiplying through on the left side bringing the rhs to the left and trying to solve the resulting polynomial it isnt possible as there is no common term I.e an ab term
Among the 3 consecutive integers a-1, a, a+1, only one will be divisible by 3. Thus their product cannot be either a perfect square or twice a perfect square because there will only be one factor of 3.
a(a^2-1)=2b^2 Here a & b are +ive integers If we take a= any integer Then it must to be that the value of 'b' accordance to 'a' is an integer
Now let us take a=2 on puting in given expression we get b^2 = √3 => 'b' is not an integer Hence the given expresion is not true for a&b are integers
Because a ( a 2 − 1 ) = 2 b 2 g c d ( a , a 2 − 1 ) = 1 ,
we know a = x 2 , ( a 2 − 1 ) = 2 y 2 o r a = 2 x 2 , ( a 2 − 1 ) = y 2
i) a = x 2 , ( a 2 − 1 ) = 2 y 2
x 4 − 1 = 2 y 2
( x 2 − 1 ) ( x 2 + 1 ) = 2 y 2
In this case, g c d ( x 2 − 1 , x 2 + 1 ) = 2
x 2 − 1 = 2 c 2 , x 2 + 1 = 4 d 2 or x 2 − 1 = 4 c 2 , x 2 + 1 = 2 d 2
1) x 2 − 1 = 2 c 2 , x 2 + 1 = 4 d 2
1 = 4 d 2 − x 2 = ( 2 d ) 2 − x 2 : no solution
2) x 2 − 1 = 4 c 2 , . x 2 + 1 = 2 d 2
1 = x 2 − 4 c 2 = x 2 − ( 2 c ) 2 : no solution
so i) case : no solution
ii) a = 2 x 2 , ( a 2 − 1 ) = y 2
: a 2 − y 2 = 1 : no solution
By i), ii) we have no solution
At first I tried to make equation and solve by trying to make perfect square etc. but then I tried it like this: a 2 -1 = a b 2 . Now we know that LHS is basically a half parabola. and RHS is a half parabola divided by a constant value which in our case is basically square root of LHS ignoring 1. So I don't see a way that both sides can be equal anyway. So I say NO.
The expression on the right has to be even. If a is an even number, the expression on the right will be an even times an odd. If a is an odd number, the expression on the right will be an odd times an even. Therefore the left side cannot be even, so it will never be equal to the right side.
The right hand side of the equation is even. Therefore, the left hand side must also be even. If a is even, the factor in brackets is odd (since the square of an even number is even), and therefore the left hand side in total is odd. If a is odd, then the factor in brackets is even, again resulting in an odd total for the left hand side. Thus, there are no solutions.
If a is even, the factor in brackets is odd (since the square of an even number is even), and therefore the left hand side in total is even because even times odd equals even.
Thanks to Sandro for his help : The left hand side is a(a-1)(a+1) and the three factors are coprime, up to factors of 2. In particular, excluding the factors of 2 in the left and right side, we must have that each of a-1, a and a+1 are squares (if c, d, e = f^2, with c,d,e coprime, than c,d,e are all squares). But a-1, a and a+1 can never be simultaneously squares. Even when dividing one of them by 2 (in order to exclude the factor 2), the remaining numbers cannot be squares and distant by 1 or 2.
RHS will be even as 2 is multiplied with an integer.
For LHS,
a is even, LHS is odd
a is odd, LHS is odd
even is not equal to odd
therefore , no solution
Well if you talk about even or odd, then let me tell you L.H.S will always be even and R.H.S will also be always even, so you cannot and I repeat you cannot give your answer just by checking the parity (parity means even or odd).
since 2b² is even for every b∈ℤ, and a(a²-1) is always odd for every a∈ℤ, they cannot be equal.
again wrong answer... atleast think before writing anything...
Note that
g
cd
(
a
,
a
2
−
1
)
=
1
, and hence
a
and
a
2
−
1
are coprime. But it is clear that any two coprime factors of
b
2
whose product is
b
2
must themselves be squares. So we have
(
a
,
a
2
−
1
)
=
(
2
x
2
,
y
2
)
,
(
x
2
,
2
y
2
)
, for positive integers
x
and
y
.
In the first case,
4
x
4
−
y
2
=
1
, which implies
y
2
≡
3
(
mod
4
)
, a contradiction.
In the second case,
x
4
−
2
y
2
=
1
, which implies
x
is odd. So let
x
=
2
m
+
1
and factorise, yielding
2
m
(
2
m
+
2
)
(
4
m
2
+
4
m
+
2
)
=
2
y
2
, and thus
4
m
(
m
+
1
)
(
2
m
2
+
2
m
+
1
)
=
y
2
. So
m
(
m
+
1
)
(
2
m
2
+
2
m
+
1
)
=
m
(
m
+
1
)
(
2
m
(
m
+
1
)
+
1
)
must itself be a perfect square. But
m
,
m
+
1
, and
2
m
(
m
+
1
)
+
1
are pairwise coprime, so
m
,
m
+
1
, and
2
m
(
m
+
1
)
+
1
must all be perfect squares themselves, implying
m
=
0
. This gives
x
=
1
, and thus
y
=
0
, a contradiction. Hence, there exist no positive integer solutions to the given equation.
Note: it's much faster if you factor a 2 − 1 = ( a − 1 ) ( a + 1 ) at the start and proceed from the fact that a − 1 , a , and a + 1 are pairwise coprime.
"But it is clear that any two factors of b^2 whose product is b^2 must share a factor greater than 1, unless these factors are 1 and b^2."
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this isn't true. If b=6, then b^2= 4 * 9 while 4 and 9 are co-prime.
This is close, but you're not quite there yet.
What you have is that ( a , a 2 − 1 ) = ( 2 x 2 , y 2 ) or ( x 2 , 2 y 2 ) . How can we eliminate these as possibilities?
E.g. The first case leads to 4 x 4 − y 2 = 1 , which has no solutions mod 4.
Log in to reply
Yes sorry, I totally forgot about that - it's fixed now!
a(a² - 1) = 2b².
a and (a² - 1) are coprime.
so a or (a² - 1) must divide 2, and then other must divide b².
case 1:
if a|2 than a = 2.
meaning (2² - 1) = 3. 3 has no natural square root.
case 2:
There is no a such that (a² - 1) = 2.
So there is no solution.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Factoring the left hand side, we know ( a − 1 ) a ( a + 1 ) = 2 b 2 . We want, in other words, three consecutive positive integers that multiply to be twice a square number.
Suppose a is even. Then a − 1 , a , and a + 1 do not share any common factors. Hence, a − 1 and a + 1 must both be squares. Then a − 1 and a + 1 are odd squares that are 2 apart, but the smallest difference between positive squares is 2 2 − 1 2 = 3 .
Suppose a is odd. Then a − 1 and a + 1 are both even. Apart from the prime factor of 2, these 3 numbers do not share any common factors. Then a − 1 and a + 1 can be written for some positive integers x and z as 2 x 2 and 2 z 2 which are 2 apart. However, the smallest difference between the double of positive squares is 2 ( 2 2 ) − 2 ( 1 2 ) = 6 .
Since a can be neither even nor odd, there is no solution for which a and b are both positive integers.