( m 2 + n 2 ) ÷ ( m + n ) (m^2+n^2) \div (m+n)

1 2 + 2 2 1^2 + 2^2 is not divisible by 1 + 2. 1+2.
2 2 + 3 2 2^2 + 3^2 is not divisible by 2 + 3. 2+3.
3 2 + 4 2 3^2 +4^2 is not divisible by 3 + 4. 3+4.
4 2 + 5 2 4^2 + 5^2 is not divisible by 4 + 5. 4+5.
5 2 + 6 2 5^2 + 6^2 is not divisible by 5 + 6. 5+6.

True or False?

If m m and n n are consecutive positive integers, then m 2 + n 2 m^2 + n^2 is never divisible by m + n m+n .

True False

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.

16 solutions

Here's a visual proof.

Let m 2 m^2 and n 2 n^2 represent two squares. Their combines area is m 2 + n 2 m^2 + n^2 as shown below.

The total length of the bottom is m + n m + n . If we multiply that value by m, we get the following blue area.

However, that's not the total area of m 2 + n 2 m^2 + n^2 , because it misses the 1 n 1 * n rectangle in the top right. So maybe we just need to multiply m + n m + n by one more. Since m and n are consecutive positive integers, the next integer is n. When multiplying m + n m + n by n, we get the following area:

The area of ( m + n ) n (m + n) * n is the blue area and the red area combined. This also isn't the total area of m 2 + n 2 m^2 + n^2 , because it overshoots the area by the red rectangle of 1 m 1 * m .

Therefore m 2 + n 2 m^2 + n^2 is never divisible by m + n m + n .

Moderator note:

The comments mention never seeing a number theory proof done with geometry before. When number theory was invented, it was unified with geometry. One of the most famous number theory proofs of all is that there are infinitely many primes. I have rendered Euclid's original proof from 2,300 years ago below.


(Note: Euclid somtimes names lengths by single letters, sometimes by naming both the start and endpoint. I have kept his convention.)

We assume a unit length that can be used to make all other lengths by repeated iteration. We exclude the unit length from the list of primes.

We can then think of "primes" as distinct lengths where we can't divide the length into equal parts such that the length of those parts represent another prime. (For example, if we know the length of 2 is a prime, then 12 is not prime because we can divide it equally into lengths of 2.)

Let A, B, and C (shown above) represent the entire set of primes. We will show we can make a larger prime in this case. (Note: Euclid doesn't mention this, but we can apply the same logic of this argument without loss of generality to any number of primes in the starting set.)

Form the length DE by combining the lengths of A, B, and C. Add the unit segment to the length to form EF.

EF is either prime or not.

First suppose EF is prime. Then we have found a new prime that is larger then A, B, and C, and so have a contradiction.

Now suppose EF is not prime. Therefore it is measured by some prime number; call it G.

Claim: G is not the same as A, B, or C.

If G was the same as A, B, or C, then G can be used to measure DE. However, since it also measures EF, G measures the remainder (DF) which is a unit segment. Primes aren't the unit segment by definition, so this is a contradiction.

Therefore G is not the same as A, B, or C. Therefore it must be some new distinct prime. So our assumption that A, B, and C was the comlete set of primes is false.

Therefore prime numbers are more than any assigned multitude of prime numbers.

Love this, thanks for posting

J Bolton - 3 years, 4 months ago

Neat, thanks for the graphics

Joel Pablo Vega Cruz - 3 years, 4 months ago

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a geometrical solution to a number theory problem! +1 for making it interesting

Alex Li - 3 years, 4 months ago

Nice, thanks!

Vova Kuzmenkov - 3 years, 4 months ago

the explanation is just awesome thanks for adding ur solution

erica phillips - 3 years, 4 months ago

"never" is impossible for anything.

Henry Straley - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Sorry, could you please explain what this is in context to?

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 3 years, 4 months ago

"It is never possible to have two magnets attract each other with the same poles facing each other."

There. You happy?

CHIN KEE HAW - 3 years, 4 months ago

Larger than, not then

k lahtinen - 3 years, 4 months ago

I didn’t get this one 😕

Nez Brown - 3 years, 4 months ago

"Combining" numbers together generally means adding them. From the wording here it's not clear till you work through your proof that by combining you mean multiply.

Dave Crigger - 3 years, 4 months ago

I really like this proof!

I simply did long division to prove the result.

A Former Brilliant Member - 3 years, 4 months ago

Hey it can be 0 and 1 the it is divisible

Sanju Gupta - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

They can't, because both must be positive integers, and 0 isn't considered to be positive.

Stefan van der Waal - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

in this case we say strictly positive, it's basic mathematical rigor.

Abelian Group - 2 years, 2 months ago
Anirudh Sreekumar
Dec 25, 2017

Relevant wiki: Modular Arithmetic - Problem Solving - Basic

Since m and n are consecutive Let, m = x n = x + 1 We have, m 2 + n 2 ( m o d m + n ) x 2 + ( x + 1 ) 2 ( m o d x + ( x + 1 ) ) 2 x 2 + 2 x + 1 ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) ( 2 x 2 + x ) + ( x + 1 ) ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) ( x + 1 ) ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) 2 x 2 + x ( m o d 2 x + 1 ) 0 We have 0 < x + 1 < 2 x + 1 m 2 + n 2 is not divisible by m + n for any pair of consecutive positive integers m,n \begin{aligned}\text{Since m and n are }\text{consecutive }\\ \text{Let, }\\ m&=x\\ n&=x+1\\ \text{We have,}\\ m^2+n^2\pmod{m+n}&\equiv x^2+(x+1)^2\pmod{x+(x+1)}\\ &\equiv 2x^2+2x+1 \pmod {2x+1}\\ &\equiv (2x^2+x)+(x+1) \pmod {2x+1}\\ &\equiv(x+1) \pmod {2x+1}\small\hspace{14mm}\color{#3D99F6}2x^2+x\pmod{2x+1}\equiv 0\\ \text{We have } 0<x+1<2x+1 \\ \implies m^2+n^2 \text{is not divisible by }& m+n \text{ for any pair of consecutive positive integers m,n}\end{aligned}

But why can't m =0 and n =1?

Rahme Awad - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

positive integers only.

hey its me - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

hmm the thing is that it could cause some confusion since some discipline consider it as a positive integer while others seperate zero of negative or positive. I think they should mention it ...

Rahme Awad - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Rahme Awad 0 is never considered positive.

The term "natural number" can be fuzzy, as can "whole number", but positive has the very specific meaning of "greater than 0" which can't include zero.

Jason Dyer Staff - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jason Dyer Ah ok thanks :)

Rahme Awad - 3 years, 4 months ago

what is mod?

Jao Garcia - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

If you divide the first number by the second, what's the remainder? 10 mod 7 is 3. 100 mod 3 is 1.

Jason Dyer Staff - 3 years, 4 months ago

Shouldn't the question specify that the result is an integer? It seems to me all of the solutions are divisible. They just don't result in an integer.

John Stone - 3 years, 4 months ago

One can also notice at the step when you divide 2 x 2 + 2 x + 1 2x^2+2x+1 by 2 x + 1 2x+1 that it would be integer iff 2 x + 1 2x+1 divides 2 x 2 2x^2 , but one obviously odd and another one is even, therefore it's impossible QED

Nikolay Murzin - 3 years, 4 months ago
Robert DeLisle
Jan 15, 2018

I believe that this is just long division, not synthetic division

Joel Brown - 3 years, 4 months ago

Log in to reply

Somewhere along the way performing division with polynomials rather than numbers was called "synthetic division" by someone I had reason to think would use the correct terms, in either a math or computer programming class, and that bit of misinformation stuck with me until today. I have made the necessary change and posted it.

Robert DeLisle - 3 years, 3 months ago

m 2 + n 2 = ( m + n ) 2 2 m n m^2 + n^2 = (m + n)^2 - 2mn

If m + n m 2 + n 2 m+n | m^2 + n^2 , then m + n 2 m n m + n | 2mn . As they are consecutive, m + n m n m + n|mn .

m = 0 [ n ] m = 0 [n] is never satisfied for m higher than 2 2 .

How do you justify that the sum of two consecutive numbers does not divide their product?

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 3 years, 4 months ago

If k ( m + n ) = m n k(m+n) = mn , then k m = 0 [ n ] km = 0 [n] . We can deduce that k n > 0 k \geqslant n > 0 is not possible, and as m = 1 [ n ] m = -1[n] , there is a contradiction.

Steven De Oliveira - 3 years, 4 months ago

(m+n)^2 = m^2 + n^2 + 2mn. The LHS can be divided by m+n. But m^2 + n^2 cannot be divided by m+n unless m and n are 0.

Thiago Ramos
Jan 16, 2018

Let n = m + 1 n=m+1 , then

m 2 + ( m + 1 ) 2 = 2 m 2 + 2 m + 1 = ( 2 m + 1 ) m + ( m + 1 ) m^2 + (m+1)^2 = 2m^2+2m+1 = (2m+1)m + (m+1)

where m + 1 m+1 is the integer remainder of the division 2 m 2 + 2 m + 1 2m^2+2m+1 by 2 m + 1 2m+1 . But m + 1 = 0 m+1 = 0 only if m = 1 m=-1 , which is not positive.

Raahulan A R
Jan 17, 2018

Lets have m^2 + n^2 modified as (m+n)^2 - 2mn

Hence (m^2 + n^2) / (m+n) is equivalent to (m+n)^2)/(m+n) - 2mn/(m+n)

So the question is just about the last term 2mn/(m+n)

Numerator 2mn - always even Denominator m+n - always odd (m,n are consequtive)

Hence they never divide each other.

This explanation is flawed i suppose , because 2mn which is an even number could be a multiple of odd number such as m+n if it is multiplied even times . For ex. 6/3 =2

Aniket Ani - 3 years, 4 months ago

yes.. you are correct aniket.. that was a mistake from my side

RAAHULAN A R - 1 year, 11 months ago

I think my solution is a bit lengthy compared to other, but this is what I found.

Suppose there exists 2 consecutive positive integers m m and n n such that m + n m 2 + n 2 m+n | m^2 + n^2

Let m = k m = k

n = k + 1 n=k+1

for some k N k \in \mathbb N

\Rightarrow

m 2 + n 2 = 2 k 2 + 2 k + 1 m^2 + n^2 = 2k^2 + 2k + 1

\Rightarrow

m + n = 2 k + 1 m+n = 2k+1

Then,

2 k 2 + 2 k + 1 2 k + 1 = 2 k 2 2 k + 1 + 1 \frac{2k^2 + 2k + 1}{2k+1} = \frac{2k^2}{2k+1} + 1

Now we have to show that 2 k 2 2 k + 1 \frac{2k^2}{2k+1} is irreducible \forall k k \in N \mathbb N

By Extended Euclidean Algorithm, one can show that,

2 k 2 = ( 2 k + 1 ) ( k ) k 2k^2 = (2k+1)(k) - k

\Rightarrow

2 k 2 ( 2 k + 1 ) k = k 2k^2 - (2k+1)k = -k

2 k + 1 = ( k ) ( 2 ) + 1 2k+1 = (-k)(-2) +1

\Rightarrow

2 k + 1 + 2 ( k ) = 1 2k+1 + 2(-k) = 1

Substituting k -k in the equation, we have

2 k + 1 + 2 [ 2 k 2 ( 2 k = 1 ) k ] = 1 2k+1 + 2[2k^2 - (2k=1)k] = 1

\Rightarrow

( 2 k + 1 ) ( 1 2 k ) + 2 ( 2 k 2 ) = 1 (2k+1)(1-2k) + 2(2k^2) = 1

Therefore there are No \textbf{No} consecutive positive integers that satisfy the condition.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Created on Mon Jan 15 20:00:27 2018

@author: Michael Fitzgerald
"""

# https://brilliant.org/weekly-problems/2018-01-15/basic/?p=3

# 1^2 + 2^2 is not divisible by 1 + 2
# 2^2 + 3^2 is not divisible by 2 + 3
# 3^2 + 4^2 is not divisible by 3 + 4
# .....
#True or False?
# If m and n are consecutive positive integers, then m^2 + n^2
# is never divisible by m + n

for i in range (1,100):
    x = i**2 + (i+1)**2
    if x%(2*i+1) != 0:
        print '%d/%d: rem %d   %d^2+%d^2 is not divisible by %d+%d' \
            %(x,2*i+1,x%(2*i+1),i,i+1,i,i+1)

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
5/3: rem 2   1^2+2^2 is not divisible by 1+2
13/5: rem 3   2^2+3^2 is not divisible by 2+3
25/7: rem 4   3^2+4^2 is not divisible by 3+4
41/9: rem 5   4^2+5^2 is not divisible by 4+5
61/11: rem 6   5^2+6^2 is not divisible by 5+6
85/13: rem 7   6^2+7^2 is not divisible by 6+7
113/15: rem 8   7^2+8^2 is not divisible by 7+8
145/17: rem 9   8^2+9^2 is not divisible by 8+9
181/19: rem 10   9^2+10^2 is not divisible by 9+10
221/21: rem 11   10^2+11^2 is not divisible by 10+11
265/23: rem 12   11^2+12^2 is not divisible by 11+12
313/25: rem 13   12^2+13^2 is not divisible by 12+13
365/27: rem 14   13^2+14^2 is not divisible by 13+14
421/29: rem 15   14^2+15^2 is not divisible by 14+15
481/31: rem 16   15^2+16^2 is not divisible by 15+16
545/33: rem 17   16^2+17^2 is not divisible by 16+17
613/35: rem 18   17^2+18^2 is not divisible by 17+18
685/37: rem 19   18^2+19^2 is not divisible by 18+19
761/39: rem 20   19^2+20^2 is not divisible by 19+20
841/41: rem 21   20^2+21^2 is not divisible by 20+21
925/43: rem 22   21^2+22^2 is not divisible by 21+22
1013/45: rem 23   22^2+23^2 is not divisible by 22+23
1105/47: rem 24   23^2+24^2 is not divisible by 23+24
1201/49: rem 25   24^2+25^2 is not divisible by 24+25
1301/51: rem 26   25^2+26^2 is not divisible by 25+26
1405/53: rem 27   26^2+27^2 is not divisible by 26+27
1513/55: rem 28   27^2+28^2 is not divisible by 27+28
1625/57: rem 29   28^2+29^2 is not divisible by 28+29
1741/59: rem 30   29^2+30^2 is not divisible by 29+30
1861/61: rem 31   30^2+31^2 is not divisible by 30+31
1985/63: rem 32   31^2+32^2 is not divisible by 31+32
2113/65: rem 33   32^2+33^2 is not divisible by 32+33
2245/67: rem 34   33^2+34^2 is not divisible by 33+34
2381/69: rem 35   34^2+35^2 is not divisible by 34+35
2521/71: rem 36   35^2+36^2 is not divisible by 35+36
2665/73: rem 37   36^2+37^2 is not divisible by 36+37
2813/75: rem 38   37^2+38^2 is not divisible by 37+38
2965/77: rem 39   38^2+39^2 is not divisible by 38+39
3121/79: rem 40   39^2+40^2 is not divisible by 39+40
3281/81: rem 41   40^2+41^2 is not divisible by 40+41
3445/83: rem 42   41^2+42^2 is not divisible by 41+42
3613/85: rem 43   42^2+43^2 is not divisible by 42+43
3785/87: rem 44   43^2+44^2 is not divisible by 43+44
3961/89: rem 45   44^2+45^2 is not divisible by 44+45
4141/91: rem 46   45^2+46^2 is not divisible by 45+46
4325/93: rem 47   46^2+47^2 is not divisible by 46+47
4513/95: rem 48   47^2+48^2 is not divisible by 47+48
4705/97: rem 49   48^2+49^2 is not divisible by 48+49
4901/99: rem 50   49^2+50^2 is not divisible by 49+50
5101/101: rem 51   50^2+51^2 is not divisible by 50+51
5305/103: rem 52   51^2+52^2 is not divisible by 51+52
5513/105: rem 53   52^2+53^2 is not divisible by 52+53
5725/107: rem 54   53^2+54^2 is not divisible by 53+54
5941/109: rem 55   54^2+55^2 is not divisible by 54+55
6161/111: rem 56   55^2+56^2 is not divisible by 55+56
6385/113: rem 57   56^2+57^2 is not divisible by 56+57
6613/115: rem 58   57^2+58^2 is not divisible by 57+58
6845/117: rem 59   58^2+59^2 is not divisible by 58+59
7081/119: rem 60   59^2+60^2 is not divisible by 59+60
7321/121: rem 61   60^2+61^2 is not divisible by 60+61
7565/123: rem 62   61^2+62^2 is not divisible by 61+62
7813/125: rem 63   62^2+63^2 is not divisible by 62+63
8065/127: rem 64   63^2+64^2 is not divisible by 63+64
8321/129: rem 65   64^2+65^2 is not divisible by 64+65
8581/131: rem 66   65^2+66^2 is not divisible by 65+66
8845/133: rem 67   66^2+67^2 is not divisible by 66+67
9113/135: rem 68   67^2+68^2 is not divisible by 67+68
9385/137: rem 69   68^2+69^2 is not divisible by 68+69
9661/139: rem 70   69^2+70^2 is not divisible by 69+70
9941/141: rem 71   70^2+71^2 is not divisible by 70+71
10225/143: rem 72   71^2+72^2 is not divisible by 71+72
10513/145: rem 73   72^2+73^2 is not divisible by 72+73
10805/147: rem 74   73^2+74^2 is not divisible by 73+74
11101/149: rem 75   74^2+75^2 is not divisible by 74+75
11401/151: rem 76   75^2+76^2 is not divisible by 75+76
11705/153: rem 77   76^2+77^2 is not divisible by 76+77
12013/155: rem 78   77^2+78^2 is not divisible by 77+78
12325/157: rem 79   78^2+79^2 is not divisible by 78+79
12641/159: rem 80   79^2+80^2 is not divisible by 79+80
12961/161: rem 81   80^2+81^2 is not divisible by 80+81
13285/163: rem 82   81^2+82^2 is not divisible by 81+82
13613/165: rem 83   82^2+83^2 is not divisible by 82+83
13945/167: rem 84   83^2+84^2 is not divisible by 83+84
14281/169: rem 85   84^2+85^2 is not divisible by 84+85
14621/171: rem 86   85^2+86^2 is not divisible by 85+86
14965/173: rem 87   86^2+87^2 is not divisible by 86+87
15313/175: rem 88   87^2+88^2 is not divisible by 87+88
15665/177: rem 89   88^2+89^2 is not divisible by 88+89
16021/179: rem 90   89^2+90^2 is not divisible by 89+90
16381/181: rem 91   90^2+91^2 is not divisible by 90+91
16745/183: rem 92   91^2+92^2 is not divisible by 91+92
17113/185: rem 93   92^2+93^2 is not divisible by 92+93
17485/187: rem 94   93^2+94^2 is not divisible by 93+94
17861/189: rem 95   94^2+95^2 is not divisible by 94+95
18241/191: rem 96   95^2+96^2 is not divisible by 95+96
18625/193: rem 97   96^2+97^2 is not divisible by 96+97
19013/195: rem 98   97^2+98^2 is not divisible by 97+98
19405/197: rem 99   98^2+99^2 is not divisible by 98+99
19801/199: rem 100   99^2+100^2 is not divisible by 99+100

Neat code. But does this work for all consecutive positive integers ( m m and n n ) larger than 100 as well?

Pi Han Goh - 3 years, 4 months ago

Often there are number theory conjectures that hold for very large values. A famous example is A^4 + B^4 + C^4 = D^4

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 3 years, 4 months ago
Paul Sinnett
Jan 21, 2018

My question was to ask what is the result of dividing m 2 + n 2 m^2 + n^2 by m + n m + n ? The answer must be less than n n because n ( m + n ) = n m + n n n * (m + n) = n * m + n * n which is more than m m + n n m * m + n * n . And it must be more than m m because m ( m + n ) = m m + m n m * (m + n) = m * m + m * n which is less than m m + n n m * m + n * n . And there's no positive integer between two consecutive integers so it will never be exactly divisible, the answer will always be m m with remainder n n .

K. Seitz
Jan 21, 2018

Any number squared results always in an even number.

One of two consecutive numbers is always odd. So the sum two consecutive numbers is always odd.

Since even numbers can never be divisible by odd numbers the statement has to be true.

Why would any number squared be always even

Aniket Ani - 3 years, 4 months ago

A squared number isn't always even, For instance- 3^2 is 9, which is odd. Even numbers can be divisible by odd numbers, for instance, 6 is even, and can be divided by 3, which is odd, to yield 2.

eyal ronen - 3 years, 3 months ago
Gabriel Gross
Jan 21, 2018

Because m m and n n are consecutive:

n = m + 1 n=m+1

In order to be divisible by m + n m+n there must be an integer k k that fulfils:

m 2 + ( m + 1 ) 2 = k ( m + ( m + 1 ) ) m^2+(m+1)^2=k·(m+(m+1))

By reordering we get:

2 m 2 + ( 2 2 k ) m + ( 1 k ) = 0 2m^2+(2-2k)·m+(1-k)=0

where we can solve m m as a second order equation:

m = k 1 ± k 2 1 2 m=\frac { k-1\pm \sqrt { { k }^{ 2 }-1 } }{ 2 }

We know that m m must be an integer, so the square root must solve as an rational number. The only way k 2 1 \sqrt { { k }^{ 2 }-1 } is rational, is when k = 1 k=1 , which gives the solution m = 0 m=0 , n = 1 n=1 , which is not valid because m m is not positive. So, there is no valid solution.

Yuxi Liu
Jan 20, 2018

◆int x≧3 ◆m=(x-1)/2 ◆n=(x+1)/2 ◆(m²+n²)/(m+n)=(((x-1)/2)²+((x+1)/2)²)/((x-1)/2+(x+1)/2)=…=1/2(x+1/x) ◆m²+n² is never divisible bym+n .

Sourjyo Deb
Jan 20, 2018

m 2 n 2 m^2-n^2 is divisible by m + n m+n

For m 2 + n 2 m^2+n^2 to be divisible, ( m 2 n 2 ) ( m 2 + n 2 ) = k ( m + n ) (m^2-n^2)-(m^2+n^2)=k(m+n)

Or, 2 n 2 = k ( m + n ) 2n^2=k(m+n)

2 n 2 = k ( 2 m + 1 ) 2n^2=k(2m+1) (m and n are consecutive);

The above expression is clearly false as m,n are integers.

Clearly false?

Jasper Bear - 3 years, 4 months ago
Zyberg Nee
Jan 18, 2018

Suppose, that the fact is f a l s e false .

Let those numbers be k k and k + 1 k+1 .

Then k 2 + ( k + 1 ) 2 = 2 k 2 + 2 k + 1 = 1 ( k + ( k + 1 ) ) + 2 k 2 k^2 + (k+1)^2 = 2k^2 + 2k + 1 = 1\cdot(k + (k+1)) + 2k^2 . So, we need to prove that 2 k 2 2k^2 is divisible by k + ( k + 1 ) = 2 k + 1 k + (k+1) = 2k + 1 .

However, 2 k 2 2k^2 is always even and 2 k + 1 2k + 1 is always odd. No even number is divisible by odd number.

We got a contradiction, hence the fact is t r u e \boxed{ true }

But 6 is divisible by 3 isn't it

Vu Vincent - 3 years, 4 months ago
Super Symmetry
Jan 18, 2018

Let m = n + 1 m=n+1 . Therefore, m 2 + n 2 = 2 n 2 + 2 n + 1 = 2 n 2 + ( m + n ) m^2+n^2=2n^2+2n+1=2n^2+(m+n) which is divisible by m + n m+n if and only if 2 n 2 = k ( m + n ) 2n^2 = k(m+n) , where k = 1 , 2 , 3 , . . . k=1,2,3,... . In other words 2 n 2 2 k n k = 0 2n^2-2kn-k=0 . This quadratic eqution solves for n = k 2 ( 1 ± 1 + 2 k ) n=\frac{k}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{2}{k}}\right) , which is not an integer because 1 + 2 k 1+\frac{2}{k} cannot be a square number.

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...