Are there solutions to 4m^(n)=n^(2m) with m,n in Z+

  • Thread starter Thread starter megatyler30
  • Start date Start date
megatyler30
Messages
71
Reaction score
2
Hi, thanks for taking the time to read.
To gain insight into n^m+n^m+1 and when it's prime, I looked at one case where it would be composite.
I equated it to (a+1)^2 and then substituted out to get 4m^n=n^{2m} Using mathematica, I was unable to get a solution. So here's my question: are there any solutions to it with integer n and m?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
By inspection, n=1 and m=2 or is that 2m an exponent?
 
2m is an exponent. I fixed it.
 
There's likely no integer solution. In the simpler case of x^y = y^x the only integer solution is 2 and 4.

My pocket CAS on iOS couldn't find any solutions either but it couldn't solve my easier one either.
 
Well that's pretty interesting since no integer solutions would imply that x^y+y^x+1 will never be a perfect square. Thank you.

Edit: Found m=1 and n=2 is a solution. I wonder if that's the only integer solution.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top