Can 2z^n(z^n + x^n + y^n) Ever Be a Perfect Square for Prime n Greater Than 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ramsey2879
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Extension
ramsey2879
Messages
841
Reaction score
3
Is it true that 2z^n(z^n + x^n + y^n) can never be a perfect square if n is a prime greater than 2 and x,y,z are prime to each other?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If there is a perfect square of the form 2x^p(x^p+y^p+z^p) for p an odd prime, then 2x(x^p+y^p+z^p) is also a perfect square, so consider that instead.

Since x, y, and z are coprime, at most one can be odd. If all three were odd then 2x(x^p+y^p+z^p)\equiv2\pmod4 and so it is not a perfect square. Thus exactly one of x, y, and z is even -- and without loss of generality, we can assume that z is odd.
 
ramsey2879: Is it true that 2z^n(z^n + x^n + y^n)
can never be a perfect square if n is a prime greater than 2 and x,y,z are prime to each other?


If x^p + y^p = z^p, then 2z^p(z^p + x^p + y^p)
=2z^p(2z^p)

However, does this imply the converse? Not at all, consider this case of cubes:
x=2, y=3, z=5:

(2)(5^3)(2^3+3^3+5^3)=250x 160 = 25(100)(16)=(200)^2

Or look at: (2)(19^3)(5^3+14^3+19^3) =(2)(19^4)(151+19^2)=(2^{10})(19^4)
 
Last edited:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top