Register to reply

Simple Number Theory Proof, Again!

by nastygoalie89
Tags: number theory, proofs, simple
Share this thread:
nastygoalie89
#1
Mar21-10, 03:59 PM
P: 17
Alright, having problems with this question too. It seems to be the same type of number theory problem, which is the problem.

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Prove "The square of any integer has the form 4k or 4k+1 for some integer k.


2. Relevant equations

definition of even= 2k
definition of odd= 2k+1

3. The attempt at a solution

Basically I have: Case 1. 2k(2k) = 4k
Case 2. 2k+1(2k+1) = 4k2+4k+1 = 4k+1(k+1)

Not sure if it's correct. Do I need to use different indices? I feel I am missing something. Thanks for any help!
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Sapphire talk enlivens guesswork over iPhone 6
Geneticists offer clues to better rice, tomato crops
UConn makes 3-D copies of antique instrument parts
Mark44
#2
Mar21-10, 05:21 PM
Mentor
P: 21,216
Quote Quote by nastygoalie89 View Post
Alright, having problems with this question too. It seems to be the same type of number theory problem, which is the problem.

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
Prove "The square of any integer has the form 4k or 4k+1 for some integer k.


2. Relevant equations

definition of even= 2k
definition of odd= 2k+1

3. The attempt at a solution

Basically I have: Case 1. 2k(2k) = 4k
Case 2. 2k+1(2k+1) = 4k2+4k+1 = 4k+1(k+1)

Not sure if it's correct. Do I need to use different indices? I feel I am missing something. Thanks for any help!
For case 1, (2k)(2k) != 4k
For case 2, you need parentheses.
(2k + 1)(2k + 1) = 4k2 + 4k + 1 != 4k + 1(k + 1)

Your last expression above is equal to 5k + 1, which is different from (2k + 1)(2k + 1).
icystrike
#3
Mar22-10, 03:56 AM
P: 437
You've expanded it yet you factorised it? it will be taking you back to what you got initially. you should have changed your [tex]4m^{2}+4m+1[/tex] into [tex]4(m^{2}+m)+1[/tex] and explain that it is similar to the form 4k+1 .

Imaginer1
#4
Mar5-12, 10:46 AM
P: 6
Simple Number Theory Proof, Again!

Even though this is my first post on Physics Forums and this was done a year ago, I'm going to tell everyone you've made it way too complicated. I'm a pretty new mathematician, and I feel this isn't in the spirit of a proof, but it still works.

Take the case n^2.
if n==0 (mod 4), n^2 will also be congruent to 0 modulo 4. Check.
if n==1, 1^2 will also be congruent to 1 modulo 4. Check.
if n==2, 2^2=4 and 4 modulo 4 == 0. Check.
if n==3, 3^3=9, 9==1 modulo 4. Check.

That's all the cases.
HallsofIvy
#5
Mar5-12, 11:50 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,338
The only difference is that you have "hidden" the complications under the name "mod". That's fine if the person knows about modular arithmetic but the proof originally given is much simpler in that it does not use modular aritymetic.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Simple Proof, Number Theory Precalculus Mathematics Homework 1
Proof about number theory Linear & Abstract Algebra 2
Number theory proof? Linear & Abstract Algebra 5
Another number theory proof Calculus & Beyond Homework 0
Number theory proof Calculus & Beyond Homework 7