Can You Find a Number n with Rational Square Roots for n-7, n, and n+7?

musicgold
Messages
303
Reaction score
19
Hi,

I am struggling with this puzzle from a book.

Puzzle : Can you find a number n such that, the numbers n-7, n, and n+7 have rational square roots (can be expressed as integers or fractions)?
According to the book one of the solutions is n =113569 /14400

This is what I have done so far:

Let p, q, r be the square roots of n-7, n, and n+7, respectively.

(n-7) * n * (n+7) = p^2 * q^2 * r^2

n^3 -49n = p^2 * q^2 * r^2

As I have 4 unknowns and only one equation, I do not know how to proceed from here. What should I do?

Thanks.


Cross posted at:
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2370848
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would suggest setting n=(p/q)^2 with p,q relatively prime.

Then if (p^2/q^2) - 7 = a^2/b^2, what can you say about b? Then you work the other condition on n+7 similarly and then you will end up with 2 equations, both of which look quite similar to the equation for Pythagorean triples. I didn't finish the problem, so I can't guarantee this line of reasoning.
 
Last edited:
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
202
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Back
Top