Does there exist a right triangle with three integer sides whose area is 2016? If so, find the largest possible hypotenuse of such a triangle. If not, enter 666
Bonus question (very hard): Does there exist a right triangle with rational sides whose area is 2015?
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.
sir, have you found those integer solution by comparing?
Log in to reply
You can quickly see that m and n have to be odd, which leaves only a few cases to check.
Log in to reply
would you please provide solution to bonus problem?
Log in to reply
@Dev Sharma – See the discussion with Mr Mendrin below. Maybe I will pose this as a separate problem.
An integer which is the area of a Pythagorean triangle with rational sides is called congruent . The bonus question asks if 2 0 1 5 is congruent. The Congruent Number Problem, determining whether a particular integer is congruent or not, is one of the big unsolved problems in Number Theory.
Assuming the Birch-Swinnerton Dyer Conjecture, it has been proved that all square-free integers congruent to any of 5 , 6 , 7 modulo 8 are congruent. This would make it highly likely that 2 0 1 5 is congruent. The number 2 0 1 5 is listed as congruent by Noe in a link that can be followed from OEIS, A003273.
Although I do not have an explicit Pythagorean triad to demonstrate it, I am led to believe that 2 0 1 5 is congruent.
Thank you for this very nice brief summary on congruent numbers, Dr. Hennings!
A student at Claremont- McKenna College, Jonathan Star, has written a fine Senior Thesis discussing these topics in detail, including an example of a rational right triangle with area 2015 (on page 2).
guys, one thing you should know is as one side gets bigger, the other gets smaller, but notice that h u g e 2 + s m a l l 2 = s o m e 2 .we will start from the middle hence. first, let adj=a,opp=b, hyp=c. then 2 a b = 2 0 1 6 ⟹ a b = 4 0 3 2 so lets check from middle: ( a , b ) = ( 1 9 2 , 2 1 ) ⟹ c ∈ / N ( a , b ) = ( 3 2 , 1 2 6 ) ⟹ c = 1 3 0 a , b = ( 6 4 , 6 3 ) ⟹ c ∈ / N it is obvious that further down either path will not result in any more rational 'c's. so we conclude 1 3 0 is the only and the biggest 'c'(hypotenuse).
This method is computationally a bit tedious since 4032 has 42 divisors... but it works!
"Starting from the middle" isn't the right strategy here if you are in a hurry... you get a longer hypotenuse if one leg is really short and the other is really long.
Log in to reply
sir, i meant that we will not get rational as we get up the road. for ex 4 0 3 2 2 + 1 is not rational. the greatest pythagorean triplet for any int N is when n 2 + N 2 = ( n + 1 ) 2 for odd N,we can see that for 21 this is 2 2 0 2 + 2 1 2 = 2 2 1 2 for 32 it is the one that gave us answer. we can conclude since the lenghts are increasing and decreasing in a quick manner, that starting from middle will help. i am not certain of anything i just wrote, so correct me if i am wrong,sir.
Log in to reply
If you "start in the middle", you have to examine all divisors to be certain that you have found the longest possible hypotenuse, but if you start "at the end" you can stop once you found a solution... it's just a minor point of strategy, really.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – that indeed is true sir. i saw opportunity that the values are ordered in such a way that i can reduce my work. but if i thought this was not possible, i would have started from the end. although i have a feeling that this included a lot of hypothetical guess work, so might be rejected perhaps,sir?
i will do the bonus problem after solving that of more fun in 2016, part 4.
Log in to reply
As you can probably see by now, the problems posed in Parts 4 and 5 of "More Fun in 2016" are equivalent: Find three perfect squares in an arithmetic progression and find a Pythagorean triangle with a given integer area.
Using the classic generator for Pythagorean triples, this would have to be true
2 1 ( 2 k m n ) k ( m 2 − n 2 ) = 2 0 1 5
so that we'd quickly end up with this, since 2 0 1 5 is square free
m n ( m − n ) ( m + n ) = 5 ⋅ 1 3 ⋅ 3 1
which won't work out
There certainly are no integer solutions, but I am asking for rational sides... that makes the problem a lot trickier.
Log in to reply
In that case, first we observe that any rational non-integer Pythagorean triple are the same as an integer Pythagorean triple a , b , c divided by a common square factor x . If x doesn't divide into both a , b , then the area cannot be integer. For the area to be integer, one of the sides, say a has to be a multiple of the square of x . Without loss of generality, we can then state that a , b has to have the form
a
=
2
m
x
2
n
b
=
m
2
x
4
−
n
2
so that
( m x 2 n ) ( m 2 x 4 − n 2 ) = 5 ⋅ 1 3 ⋅ 3 1
which, again, does not work out. This is just a brief sketch of a fuller proof.
Log in to reply
I'm looking forward to the fuller proof.... I'm not convinced yet.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Well, first, the major preliminary is that any "rational non-integer Pythagorean triple" can only be your usual integer Pythagorean triple divided by the same factor. I'll get to this later if you do want to expand on this subject.
Log in to reply
@Michael Mendrin – I'm interested in your argument because I came to the opposite conclusion, namely, that such a triangle actually does exist.
I don't understand your claim "If x doesn't divide into both a and b , then the area cannot be integer"
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – In that case, Otto, since that would make an excellent problem, don't reveal the solution here, and post it as another problem. Then I'll give my answer there.
I was going to give my analysis here, but I'll hold off.
Log in to reply
@Michael Mendrin – I posted a much easier version first, replacing 2015 by 5: "Inspired by Fibonacci". It has not been solved yet. You are invited to have some fun with that one!
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Yeah, I already saw that one. I think you should post another for 2015.
Log in to reply
@Michael Mendrin – I will, in due time. But the case of 2015 is almost impossible to solve at this level of "recreational math"
When you look at the case of 5, you see that your claim "if x doesn't divide into both a and b , then the area cannot be integer " does not hold
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – I did say that the proof wasn't complete! It was just a sketch of a proof, IF there really was one.
Besides, what's wrong with posting a really hard problem here, in Brilliant.org?
Log in to reply
@Michael Mendrin – To chime in, there is a rational right triangle with area 2015. Good luck finding the sides.
This (more generally) is known as the Congurent Number theorem. The general case hasn't been solved. Somewhat interestingly, 5 is a congruent number, as seen from the right triangle with sides 2 3 , 3 2 0 , 6 4 1 (1/6 of the (9,40,41) triangle).
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Thank you for "chiming in", Calvin. We continued the discussion of 5 here , and I cited a recent paper where the sides of a rational right triangle with area 2015 are given.
(Calvin edit: Let's continue the discussion on the linked solution.)
@Calvin Lin – As I said, "IF there really was [a proof]" Subsequently, and elsewhere, I've carried on this conversation with Otto, and agreed that a solution [likely] does exist, and it's likely to involve numbers so huge it can't fit in here.
In other words, I'm saying I'm wrong with my initial assessment about this.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We can use Euclid's formula for Pythagorean triples, a = 2 m n and b = m 2 − n 2 for the legs and c = m 2 + n 2 for the hypotenuse. The only integer solution of m n ( m 2 − n 2 ) = 2 0 1 6 is m = 9 , n = 7 , with c = 1 3 0 .