(another)interesting number theory problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathguy15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Number theory Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a number theory problem concerning the sequence defined by \( c_n = a^n - b^n \), where \( a \) and \( b \) are real numbers. Participants are tasked with proving that if this sequence contains only integers, then \( a \) and \( b \) must also be integers. The conversation explores various mathematical properties and implications of the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if \( a = b \), then \( c_n = 0 \), suggesting that \( a \) and \( b \) do not need to be integers.
  • Others argue that if \( a \neq b \), then both \( a - b \) and \( a^2 - b^2 \) must be integers, leading to the conclusion that \( a + b \) is rational, and thus \( a \) and \( b \) are rational.
  • A participant challenges the claim that \( a + b \) being rational implies \( a \) and \( b \) are rational by providing a counterexample involving irrational numbers.
  • There is a discussion about the proof methodology, with one participant expressing interest in the reasoning behind the proof and the order of steps taken to arrive at conclusions.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the distinctness of \( a \) and \( b \) after initial misunderstandings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether \( a \) and \( b \) must be integers or rational numbers, as there are competing views and counterexamples presented. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the properties of \( a \) and \( b \).

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the nature of \( a \) and \( b \) are not fully explored, particularly regarding their distinctness and the implications of rationality versus integrality. The proof steps and their dependencies on specific conditions remain partially articulated.

Mathguy15
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
a and b are real numbers such that the sequence{c}n=1--->{infinity} defined by c_n=a^n-b^n contains only integers. Prove that a and b are integers.


Mathguy
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mathguy15 said:
a and b are real numbers such that the sequence{c}n=1--->{infinity}
defined by c_n=a^n-b^n contains only integers. Prove that a and b are integers.


Mathguy

[itex]c_n \ = \ a^n - b^n[/itex]



What about any real numbers a and b, such that a = b, so that [itex]c_n = 0 ?[/itex]
Here, and b don't have to be integers.


Do I have your problem understood, and/or

are there more restrictions on a and b?
 
I assume you mean a≠b.

Since a-b and a2-b2=(a-b)(a+b) are both integers, a+b is rational, and we get a and b are rational.

We can write b=m/t and a=(m+kt)/t with (m,t)=1. Assume t≠1, then there is an integer s such that k is divisible by ts but not by ts+1.

Let p be a prime larger than t and 2s+2.

cp=ap-bp=(pktmp-1+k2t2(...))/tp

Both the second term and the denominator are divisible by t2s+2, while the first term is not, so the fraction is not an integer. It follows that t=1 and we are done.
 
Norwegian said:
a+b is rational, and we get a and b are rational.

Sorry, Norwegian, but why? For example, sqrt(2) and 3-sqrt(2) are both irrational, and they add up to 3.
 
Dodo said:
Sorry, Norwegian, but why? For example, sqrt(2) and 3-sqrt(2) are both irrational, and they add up to 3.

Both a+b and a-b are rational. So (a+b)+(a-b)=2a is rational.
 
Ahhh, thanks, Micromass.
 
By the way, this is a beautiful proof, and I'm still trying to figure out how did you come to it, Norwegian.

I presume you started from both ends. At the finishing end, you needed a^n-b^n to be a rational but not an integer. At the starting end, the way you expressed a=b+k suggests the use of the binomial theorem to evaluate powers of b+k (or powers of the numerator of it). If a and b are rational, then a^n and b^n (with a=b+k) were going to end up having a common denominator, so you concentrated in making the numerator of a^n-b^n a non-integer. Then divisibility / factorization issues enter; though I still don't see in which order did (1) finding the largest power of t dividing k, (2) coprimality conditions, and (3) finding a prime p that does not divide most of the things around, in which order these three came to be, and what suggested them.

I always find instructive to see the genesis of proofs; it adds to the inventory of ways of constructing new ones.
 
Last edited:
checkitagain said:
[itex]c_n \ = \ a^n - b^n[/itex]



What about any real numbers a and b, such that a = b, so that [itex]c_n = 0 ?[/itex]
Here, and b don't have to be integers.


Do I have your problem understood, and/or

are there more restrictions on a and b?

Oh sorry! Yes, a and b had to be distinct.
 
Norwegian said:
I assume you mean a≠b.

Since a-b and a2-b2=(a-b)(a+b) are both integers, a+b is rational, and we get a and b are rational.

We can write b=m/t and a=(m+kt)/t with (m,t)=1. Assume t≠1, then there is an integer s such that k is divisible by ts but not by ts+1.

Let p be a prime larger than t and 2s+2.

cp=ap-bp=(pktmp-1+k2t2(...))/tp

Both the second term and the denominator are divisible by t2s+2, while the first term is not, so the fraction is not an integer. It follows that t=1 and we are done.

That is an interesting proof, and I will take the time to digest it later! Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K