Find the sum of all (positive) prime numbers p < 3 0 0 such that their squares can be expressed as a 3 − b 2 , for some coprime integers a and b .
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.
So neat!
This problem drove me nuts because I missed the prime 9 7 (otherwise my solution was identical to yours). I argued as follows, if 3 y 2 = p 2 − 1 = ( p + 1 ) ( p − 1 ) and some q 2 ∣ y 2 then q ∣ p + 1 and q ∣ p − 1 hence q ∣ 2 p , so q = 2 which gives us p = 7 . Of course, the above is not quite true because it can happen that q 2 divides only p + 1 or p − 1 but not both. So it is with 9 7 where we have 9 8 = 7 2 ⋅ 2 , 9 6 = 3 ⋅ 2 5 .
First, 2 2 = 5 3 − 1 1 2 . Henceforth, we can assume p is odd. By looking mod 4 , we can see that in this case, b is even and a is odd.
Write ( p + b i ) ( p − b i ) = a 3 . Note that p + b i and p − b i are relatively prime in the Gaussian integers (this makes sense since the Gaussian integers are a Euclidean domain): any common divisor divides their sum and difference, hence 2 p and 2 b , but p ∣ b is impossible because then p ∣ a , contradicting coprimality; so any common divisor divides 2 , but p + b i has odd norm and norms are multiplicative, so nothing with even norm can divide it.
When the product of two relatively prime elements is a cube, they must both be unit multiples of cubes; but all the units are cubes themselves, so p + b i and p − b i are cubes. Write p + b i = ( x + y i ) 3 . (Note that this will imply p − b i = ( x − y i ) 3 and hence a = ( x 2 + y 2 ) . Equating real and imaginary parts gives p = x ( x 2 − 3 y 2 ) . There are two cases: x = ± 1 , x = ± p .
If x = ± 1 , we get 1 − 3 y 2 = ± p . Clearly this must be − p , hence p = 3 y 2 − 1 . Note that y must be even to give odd p . Looking at even values of y ≤ 1 0 gives p = 1 1 , 4 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 9 1 , 2 9 9 ; but 2 9 9 is not prime, so we're left with 1 1 , 4 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 9 1 .
If x = ± p , we get p 2 − 3 y 2 = ± 1 . Looking mod 3 we must have p 2 − 3 y 2 = 1 . The positive solutions to this Pell equation can be enumerated in any number of ways, for instance by starting with a 1 = 2 , b 1 = 1 and then using the recursive formulas a n + 1 = 2 a n + 3 b n , b n + 1 = a n + 2 b n . This gives ( 2 , 1 ) , ( 7 , 4 ) , ( 2 6 , 1 5 ) , ( 9 7 , 5 6 ) , ( 3 6 2 , 2 0 9 ) , … , from which we take the viable solutions 7 , 9 7 .
It is not hard to go through each of the equations once x and y are determined, to solve for a and b , to check that each of these yield solutions.
Summing up, we get 2 + 1 1 + 4 7 + 1 0 7 + 1 9 1 + 7 + 9 7 = 4 6 2 .
The technique here is reminiscent of ones that modern mathematicians use to solve Fermat's famous challenge problems. Here is a nice reference (see section 1.2): http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Ford/Everest-2012.pdf
Log in to reply
Nice reference, thank you! Of course, compared to the modern (and not-so-modern) arithmetic geometry, this problem is just a toy case :)
[Note: The case p = 2 is dealt with seperately. Do you see where in this prove we need p = 2 ? - Calvin] (Some high-power tools are involved) We have a 3 = p 2 + b 2 . It is easy to note that p,a,b must be pairwise coprime (otherwise, if p divides a or b, then it must divide the other). Factoring in Z [ i ] , we have that a 3 = ( p + b i ) ( p − b i ) . However, g cd ( p + b i , p − b i ) = g cd ( p + b i , 2 b i ) = g cd ( p + b i , b i ) , since 2 doesn't divide p + b i as p , b are coprime). This is thus equal to g cd ( p , b i ) = 1 . Thus we have that for some k = x + i y , k 3 = p + b i , k 3 = p − b i .
Now we expand the first equation: p + b i = ( x + i y ) 3 = x ( x 2 − 3 y 2 ) + i y ( 3 x 2 − y 2 ) Thus p = x ( x 2 − 3 y 2 ) . This implies x = 1 or -1, or that x 2 − 3 y 2 = 1 or -1. We have the following cases
If x = 1 , then p = 1 − 3 y 2 < 2 , contradiction
If x = − 1 , then p = 3 y 2 − 1 . We may now list a few such values to obtain ( y , p ) = ( 1 , 2 ) ( 2 , 1 1 ) ( 4 , 4 7 ) ( 6 , 1 0 7 ) ( 8 , 1 9 1 ) However, taking ( y , p ) = 1 , 2 will not give coprime values of p and b since b = 2 . It is simple to verify that the other solutions are valid.
If x 2 − 3 y 2 = − 1 , we note that there are no integer solutions by taking mod 4, which is equivalent to x 2 + y 2 ≡ − 1 ( m o d 4 ) . Of course, we know that x 2 + y 2 can only be congruent to 0,1,2 mod 4.
If x 2 − 3 y 2 = 1 , then we have a Pell's equation (,as well as p = x ). The fundamental solution is x = 2 , y = 1 . Then, we expand ( 2 + 3 ) n to get solutions: ( x , y ) = ( 2 , 1 ) ( 7 , 4 ) , ( 9 7 , 5 6 )
This gives us the last three solutions, and we may easily check that these solutions are also valid. Thus 2 + 7 + 1 1 + 4 7 + 9 7 + 1 0 7 + 1 9 1 = 4 6 2 .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We want to find integers a , b , p such that a 3 = p 2 + b 2 = ( p + i b ) ( p − i b ) where p is prime and a , b are coprime. Working the in Euclidean domain Z [ i ] of Gaussian integers, consider the irreducible factors of a .
No integer u ∈ Z , with u > 1 , can be a factor of p + i b . If such a u existed, then it would have to divide p in Z , and hence would be equal to p . But this would imply that p divided b , and hence that p divided a , which would mean that a and b were not coprime.
No irreducible element ζ of Z [ i ] exists such that both ζ and its complex conjugate ζ ⋆ divide p + i b . If such a ζ existed, then ∣ ζ ∣ 2 would be a nontrivial integer factor of p + i b .
If ζ is an irreducible factor of a , then it divides exactly one of p + i b and p − i b (it cannot divide both, for that would make ζ and ζ ⋆ both divide p + i b ). Since a 3 = ( p + i b ) ( p − i b ) , if the index of ζ in a is α then the index of ζ in either p + i b or p − i b must be 3 α , a multiple of 3 . Thus we deduce that p + i b must be a product of cubes of irreducible factors of Z [ i ] , none of which are integers, and hence we deduce that p + i b = ( x + i y ) 3 for some integers x , y . This tells us that a b p = = = x 2 + y 2 3 x 2 y − y 3 x 3 − 3 x y 2 = x ( x 2 − 3 y 2 ) There are now four possibilities for x :
If x = p , then 1 = p 2 − 3 y 2 , and hence y 2 = 3 1 ( p 2 − 1 ) . There are only three primes less than 3 0 0 which have this property, and we have the following table of corresponding values: p 2 7 9 7 x 2 7 9 7 y 1 4 5 6 a 5 6 5 1 2 5 4 5 b 1 1 5 2 4 1 4 0 5 0 9 6 and a and b are coprime in all three cases.
If x = 1 , then p = 1 − 3 y 2 , and hence y 2 = 3 1 ( 1 − p ) < 0 , which is not possible.
If x = − 1 , then − p = 1 − 3 y 2 , and hence y 2 = 3 1 ( 1 + p ) . There are five primes less than 3 0 0 which have this property, and we have the following table of corresponding values: p 2 1 1 4 7 1 0 7 1 9 1 x − 1 − 1 − 1 − 1 − 1 y 1 2 4 6 8 a 2 5 1 7 3 7 6 5 b 2 − 2 − 5 2 − 1 9 8 − 4 8 8 and a and b are coprime in all but the first case. Happily, the prime 2 has already qualified.
If x = − p , then − 1 = p 2 − 3 y 2 , and hence y 2 = 3 1 ( p 2 + 1 ) . But n 2 + 1 is never a multiple of 3 .
Thus there are 7 primes less than 3 0 0 for which this decomposition can be made: 2 , 7 , 9 7 , 1 1 , 4 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 9 1 . Their sum is 4 6 2 .
The main trick is to rewrite the identity p 2 = a 3 − b 2 in the form a 3 = p 2 + b 2 . The sum of squares then should remind you of the Gaussian integers!