How Can Infinitely Many Integers Make n² + (n+1)² a Perfect Square?

  • Thread starter Thread starter qaz
  • Start date Start date
qaz
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
i am having some trouble with this problem.

show that there are infinitely many integers n so that n^2+(n+1)^2 is a perfect square. (reduce to pell's equation).

i know pell's equation but don't know how to apply it with this problem.

pell's equation: n*x^2 + 1 = y^2.

-thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've seen Pell's equation also written as nx^2 - 1 = y^2, so maybe there are two forms, one with a plus sign, one with a minus sign. One fact about Pell's equation is that there are an infinite number of positive integer pair solutions (x,y) when n is not a perfect square integer (hopefully this holds for the case where there's a minus sign, otherwise my hint will be useless!).

Anyway, here's the hint: see what condition(s) you can extract when you try to solve the equation that results when you write n^2 + (n+1)^2 as a perfect square (i.e. when you solve the following equation for n: n^2 + (n+1)^2 = m^2)
 
cragwolf said:
I've seen Pell's equation also written as nx^2 - 1 = y^2, so maybe there are two forms, one with a plus sign, one with a minus sign. One fact about Pell's equation is that there are an infinite number of positive integer pair solutions (x,y) when n is not a perfect square integer (hopefully this holds for the case where there's a minus sign, otherwise my hint will be useless!).

Anyway, here's the hint: see what condition(s) you can extract when you try to solve the equation that results when you write n^2 + (n+1)^2 as a perfect square (i.e. when you solve the following equation for n: n^2 + (n+1)^2 = m^2)


hmmm, ok, but i still don't see how you can apply that to get further.
 
Alright. So we want to solve the following equation for n:

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

where m is an integer. After a bit of manipulation we arrive at:

2n^2 + 2n + (1 + m^2) = 0

The solutions of this equation are:

n = (-2 +/- sqrt(4 - 8(1 + m^2))/4)

Or:

n = 1/2 (-1 +/- sqrt(2m^2 - 1))

Now the only way that n is going to be an integer is if the expression inside the square root sign is a square number. Or in other words:

2m^2 - 1 = k^2

where k is an integer. This is the same as Pell's equation (with the minus sign), i.e.:

Dx^2 - 1 = y^2

Now we know that Pell's equation has infinitely many integer pair solutions (x,y) if D is not a square number. In our case, D is 2, which is not a square number. So there are an infinite number of integer pair solutions (m,k). And so there are an infinite number of integers n which are solutions to our first equation. And so there are infinitely many integers n such that n^2 + (n+1)^2 is a perfect square.
 
In the Pell equation for a prime of the form p=4k+1 or 2, we have:

Y^2 -pX^2 = +/- 1.

Now for the Pathagorean triples, we have X^2 + Y^2 = Z^2, where it can be shown that absolute value of X=b^2-a^2, Absolute value of Y = 2ab, Z = a^2 + b^2, for a, b integers.

Thus we have a form like N=b^2-a^2, N+1 = 2ab.

Subtracting we get 1 = a^2 +2ab - b^2 = (a+b)^2 - 2b^2. This is a Pellian equation. Here we could also have the equation (b-a)^2 -2a^2 =-1, if N+1 had been chosen as absolute value of b^2-a^2.

Take the case of 3^2 -2x2^2 = 1. In this case we have a+b =3, b =2, a=1,

This gives: 3^2 +4^2 = 5^2. Now in the case, 7^2 -2x5^2 = -1. Here in the second case where n+1 = absolute value of b^2-a^2, we have b=2, -a=5. This gives the form 20^2 + 21^2 = 29^2.

Since there is an infinite number of solutions to X^2-2Y^2 = +/- 1, we have an infinite number of solutions to n^2 + (n+1)^2 = u^2 in integers.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
902
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
713
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K