68068 as difference of two squares

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert Houdart
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference Squares
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 3K views
Robert Houdart
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In how many ways can 68068 be written as the difference of two squares?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Let (x+a) * (x+a) -x*x =68068=2*2*7*11*13*17
a (2x+a) =2*2*7*11*13*17
As 2x+a is odd ⇒ a is even
∴a=2b
2b (2x+2b) =2*2*7*11*13*17
b (x+b) =7*11*13*17
x= (7*11*13*17) /b - b
Since 7*11*13*17 has 16 factors ∴ x has 16 different values
However, the book states 8 as the answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like you need to account for the pairs (x,b) (b,x) , since those would not be distinct differences of squares.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Robert Houdart
i
RUber said:
It looks like you need to account for the pairs (x,b) (b,x) , since those would not be distinct differences of squares.
I guess you are right. (a, b) and (b, a) are repeated in my solution, taking pair (a,b) and (b,a) as a single pair yields 8 as the answer.
 
Robert Houdart said:
i

I guess you are right. (a, b) and (b, a) are repeated in my solution, taking pair (a,b) and (b,a) as a single pair yields 8 as the answer.

That's not quite the reason. Remember that you had factors b and x+b. That implies a constraint.
 
Could you please explain why 2x+a is odd
 
Rochette_rocket said:
Could you please explain why 2x+a is odd
If you're talking about these lines in post #1:
a (2x+a) =2*2*7*11*13*17
As 2x+a is odd ⇒ a is even
We have ##a(2x + a)## being equal to an even number.
If a were odd, then 2x + a would also be odd, and we would have an odd integer times another odd integer, which can't possibly multiply to make an even integer.
Therefore, a must be even.
All of this can be proven more rigorously than how I've stated things.
 
Last edited: