Conjecture on triangular numbers T(n)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ramsey2879
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conjecture Numbers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around conjectures related to triangular numbers, specifically the properties of triangular numbers T(n) defined as n*(n+1)/2. Participants explore the factorization of triangular numbers, relationships between their factors, and the potential for certain expressions involving these factors to yield triangular numbers for all integer values of t. The conversation includes inquiries about triangular prime numbers and the implications of various mathematical relationships.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant conjectures that products of the form (A+Ct)*(B+Dt) and (A+Et)*(B+Ft) are triangular numbers for all integer t, based on the factorization of T(n).
  • Another participant questions the existence of triangular prime numbers, suggesting that while T(2)=3 is prime, no other triangular numbers are prime due to their inherent structure.
  • A formula for r is proposed, derived from the quadratic equation related to triangular numbers, but its utility in proving the conjecture is debated.
  • Some participants assert that the conjecture holds under specific conditions, such as when n is even and A is a factor of n, while others challenge the validity of certain expressions as triangular numbers.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of gcd values in the conjectured expressions and how they relate to triangular numbers.
  • Participants explore various cases of A and B, including when A is not n/2, and the conditions under which the conjecture may or may not hold.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the conjecture regarding the products yielding triangular numbers, as participants present competing views and challenge each other's claims. The existence of triangular prime numbers is also contested, with some asserting none exist beyond T(2)=3.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the conjecture may depend on specific conditions such as the parity of n and the choice of factors A and B. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the nature of triangular numbers and their factors.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in number theory, particularly those exploring properties of triangular numbers, factorization, and relationships between different classes of numbers may find this discussion relevant.

ramsey2879
Messages
841
Reaction score
3
Let a triangular number T(n) = n*(n+1)/2 be factored into the product A*B with A less or equal to B.
Let gcd(x,y) be the greatest common divisor of x and y
For each of pair (A,B) define C,D,E,F as follows

C = (gcd(A,n+1))^2,
D = 2*(gcd(B,n))^2,
E = 2*(gcd(A,n))^2,
F = (gcd(B,n+1))^2.


As an example.
Let n = 36 then T(n) = 666 which can be factored into 6 distinct pairs A,B. The
six sets (A,B,C,D,E,F) are as follows

1. (1,666,1,648, 1369,2)
2. (2,333,1,162,1369,8)
3. (3,222,1,72,1369,18)
4. (6,111,1,18,1369,72)
5. (9,74,1,8,1369,162)
6. (18,37,1,2,1369,648)

My conjecture is that the products (A+Ct)*(B+Dt) and (A+Et)*(B+Ft) are each triangular numbers (= T(r) = r(r+1))/2) for all integer t. Also, the above example gave a interesting result in that when the 12 results for r (= the integer part of the square root of 2T(r)) are sorted by value the difference between adjacent r values when t = 1 was one of the even factors of 666. It would seem to me that the easiest way to prove this conjecture would be to derive and prove a formula for r. I will give the corresponding r values below for t = 1
1. 72,110
2. 54,184
3. 48,258
4. 42,480
5. 40,702
6. 38,1368

Also I found that r follows an arithmetic series as t varies, so it is important to find the pattern for the above values, since the difference between them and 36 is the difference value of the arithmetic series. Anyone see a pattern?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
just a silly question related with you are posting here: is there triangular prime numbers?

I think should be but in a quick search I didn't find an example
 
ramsey2879 said:
It would seem to me that the easiest way to prove this conjecture would be to derive and prove a formula for r.

A formula can be derived from the (positive) solution of r^2 + r - 2*T(r) = 0, which is
[tex]r = {{\sqrt {1 + 8 T(r)} - 1} \over 2}}[/tex]
But I don't see how this helps to prove your conjecture.
 
Last edited:
al-mahed said:
just a silly question related with you are posting here: is there triangular prime numbers?

I think should be but in a quick search I didn't find an example

ramsey2879 said:
Let a triangular number T(n) = n*(n+1)/2

As stated in the original post, any triangular number can be written in the form n(n+1)/2. Since one of either n or n+1 must be even, that is the product of positive integers. The only way it could be prime is if one of those numbers is 1: if n= 1, then 1(2)/2= 1 which is not a prime number. If (n+1)/2= 1, then n+1= 2 so n= 1 again.

No, there are no prime triangular numbers.
 
HallsofIvy said:
As stated in the original post, any triangular number can be written in the form n(n+1)/2. Since one of either n or n+1 must be even, that is the product of positive integers. The only way it could be prime is if one of those numbers is 1: if n= 1, then 1(2)/2= 1 which is not a prime number. If (n+1)/2= 1, then n+1= 2 so n= 1 again.

No, there are no prime triangular numbers.


Yes, this is obvious, I didn't see the most obvious thing !
 
Actually, T(2)=3 is prime... but the reasoning holds for higher n.
 
Progress report

ramsey2879 said:
Let a triangular number T(n) = n*(n+1)/2 be factored into the product A*B with A less or equal to B.
Let gcd(x,y) be the greatest common divisor of x and y
For each of pair (A,B) define C,D,E,F as follows

C = (gcd(A,n+1))^2,
D = 2*(gcd(B,n))^2,
E = 2*(gcd(A,n))^2,
F = (gcd(B,n+1))^2.

My conjecture is that the products (A+Ct)*(B+Dt) and (A+Et)*(B+Ft) are each triangular numbers (= T(r) = r(r+1))/2) for all integer t. Also, the above example gave a interesting result in that when the 12 results for r (= the integer part of the square root of 2T(r)) are sorted by value the difference between adjacent r values when t = 1 was one of the even factors of 666. It would seem to me that the easiest way to prove this conjecture would be to derive and prove a formula for r.

While only one prime, 3, can be represented as a triangular number, all primes other than 3 can be represented as n(n+1)/2 -i where i is a positive integer less than n in one and only one way, and as another posted noted triangular numbers and square numbers are related since 8T(n) + 1 = (2n+1)^2.

Progress report: my conjecture does indeed hold where n is even and A is a factor of n other than n. First of all I forgot to note that my formula for C,D,E,F was meant only for the case where n is even, if n is odd then make the substitution n' = -(n+1) and the formula also works. I still am working on the general conjecture.

Proof of my simplified conjecture follows:

The new values of A,B,C,D,E, and F can now be expressed as

1A. A,B,1,2*(n/2A)^2,2*A^2,(n+1)^2

The second conjectured result follows directly from the relation

[tex]T_{(n + 2A(n+1)t)} = (A +2t*(A^2))*(B+ t*(n+1)^2)[/tex]

The first conjectured result (using C and D) follows directly from the relation

[tex]T_{(n + nt/A)} = (A + t)*(B + 2t*(n/2A)^2)[/tex]


The above relations follow directly by expansion of both sides and comparison of like terms after making the substitution n(n+1)/2 = AB

Although the above is presumably dealing with integers only, I think the same relationship hold for n and A being within the field of rationals or within the complex number field as long as A,B,C,D,E,and F are defined as in line 1A. In this case the conditions that n is odd or that A is a factor of n are not necessary as long as T(n) is defined as n(n+1)/2 regardless of the nature of n.

I will concentrate on A = a factor of n+1 next
 
Last edited:
You conjecture is true for A = n/2 and B = n+1, when n = even number, for the expression (A+Dt)(B+Ct)

as gcd(n,n+1) = 1, then C = 1 and D = 2

[tex](A+Dt)(B+Ct) = (n/2 + t)(n+1 + 2t) = \frac{[n+2t]*[(n+2t)+1]}{2}[/tex]

But (A+Et)(B+Ft) is not a triangular number for all t

gcd(A,n) = n/2 ==> [tex]2[gcd(A,n)]^2 = \frac{n^2}{2}[/tex] ==>

==> [tex]A+Et = \frac{n + n^2t}{2}[/tex]

gcd(B,n+1) = n+1 ==> [tex]gcd(B,n+1)^2 = (n+1)^2[/tex] ==>

==> [tex]B+Ft = n + 1 + (n+1)^2t = n + n^2t + (2nt + t + 1)[/tex]

showing that (A+Et)(B+Ft) is triangular if and ony if t = 0
 
Last edited:
We have to test when A is not n/2, say A = kx and B = wy
 
  • #10
write A = kx and B = wy

its easy to see that if k divides n/2 and x not, then x divides n+1
same argument for B factors

supose we take A and B such that k divides n/2, x does not, w divides n+1, y does not, so n/2 = ky and n+1 = xw ==> 2ky + 1 = xw

gcd(A,n+1) = x ==> C = x^2
gcd(B,n) = y ==> D = 2y^2
gcd(A,n) = k ==> 2k^2
gcd(B,n+1) = w ==> w^2

now we have to find a r(r+1)/2 form
 
  • #11
al-mahed said:
You conjecture is true for A = n/2 and B = n+1, when n = even number, for the expression (A+Dt)(B+Ct)

as gcd(n,n+1) = 1, then C = 1 and D = 2

[tex](A+Dt)(B+Ct) = (n/2 + t)(n+1 + 2t) = \frac{[n+2t]*[(n+2t)+1]}{2}[/tex]

But (A+Et)(B+Ft) is not a triangular number for all t

gcd(A,n) = n/2 ==> [tex]2[gcd(A,n)]^2 = \frac{n^2}{2}[/tex] ==>

==> [tex]A+Et = \frac{n + n^2t}{2}[/tex]

gcd(B,n+1) = n+1 ==> [tex]gcd(B,n+1)^2 = (n+1)^2[/tex] ==>

==> [tex]B+Ft = n + 1 + (n+1)^2t = n + n^2t + (2nt + t + 1)[/tex]

showing that (A+Et)(B+Ft) is triangular if and ony if t = 0
You didn't look far enough!
[tex](A + Et)*(B+Ft) = \frac{n+n^2t}{2} *(n+n^2t +2nt + t + 1)[/tex]

[tex]= \frac{n+n^{2}t}{2}*((n+n^{2}t+ nt+1) + nt + t)[/tex]

[tex]= \frac{n +n^{2}t +nt}{2}*(n+n^{2}t + nt + 1)[/tex]

[tex]= T_{n + n^{2}t +nt}[/tex]

What's more important you can let A be any integer, rational or complex number and still the product
(A+Et)*(B+Ft) = m(m+1)/2 where T(n) = A*B is a triangular number and E and F are defined as in line 1A of my January 20 post and m = n + 2A(n+1)t
 
Last edited:
  • #12
al-mahed said:
write A = kx and B = wy

its easy to see that if k divides n/2 and x not, then x divides n+1
same argument for B factors

supose we take A and B such that k divides n/2, x does not, w divides n+1, y does not, so n/2 = ky and n+1 = xw ==> 2ky + 1 = xw

gcd(A,n+1) = x ==> C = x^2
gcd(B,n) = y ==> D = 2y^2
gcd(A,n) = k ==> 2k^2
gcd(B,n+1) = w ==> w^2

now we have to find a r(r+1)/2 form

Thanks that is helpful, I will use these new terms in my next response.
 
  • #13
al-mahed said:
write A = kx and B = wy

its easy to see that if k divides n/2 and x not, then x divides n+1
same argument for B factors

supose we take A and B such that k divides n/2, x does not, w divides n+1, y does not, so n/2 = ky and n+1 = xw ==> 2ky + 1 = xw

gcd(A,n+1) = x ==> C = x^2
gcd(B,n) = y ==> D = 2y^2
gcd(A,n) = k ==> 2k^2
gcd(B,n+1) = w ==> w^2

now we have to find a r(r+1)/2 form
For (A+Ct)*(B + Dt); r = n+2xyt
by symmetry
For (A+Et)*(B+Ft); r = n+2wkt
 
  • #14
al-mahed said:
write A = kx and B = wy

its easy to see that if k divides n/2 and x not, then x divides n+1
same argument for B factors

supose we take A and B such that k divides n/2, x does not, w divides n+1, y does not, so n/2 = ky and n+1 = xw ==> 2ky + 1 = xw

gcd(A,n+1) = x ==> C = x^2
gcd(B,n) = y ==> D = 2y^2
gcd(A,n) = k ==> 2k^2
gcd(B,n+1) = w ==> w^2

now we have to find a r(r+1)/2 form

Now put k = (a^n)/2, y = 1/b^n, x = 1/b^n and w = c^n then my equations become

T(2ky + 2xyt) = (kx +tx^2)*(wy+2ty^2)

T(2ky +2kwt) = (ky +2tk^2)*(wy+tw^2)

Is it true that for n>2 this can have no solution except a = 0 since the requirement that 2ky + 1 = wx can not be met due to Fermat's theorem?
 
Last edited:
  • #15
ramsey2879 said:
[tex]= \frac{n+n^{2}t}{2}*((n+n^{2}t+ nt+1) + nt + t)[/tex]

[tex]= \frac{n +n^{2}t +nt}{2}*(n+n^{2}t + nt + 1)[/tex]

This is not correct, you cannot put "nt" in the other side like this, and what about "t"?
 
  • #16
al-mahed said:
This is not correct, you cannot put "nt" in the other side like this, and what about "t"?

(n+n^2t)*(nt+t)=nt*(1+nt)*(n+1) = nt*(n + n^2t + nt + 1) so I was right to express it that way. Sorry for not showing all steps but I had trouble with my latex expressions.
 
  • #17
we have to write (A+Et)*(B+Ft) in the r(r+1)/2 form, right?

if [tex]A+Et = \frac{n + n^2t}{2}[/tex], then [tex]n + n^2t[/tex] can be called "r"

as[tex]B+Ft = n + (n+1)^2t + 1[/tex], and [tex]n + n^2t \neq n + (n+1)^2t[/tex], I can NOT write the product (A+Et)*(B+Ft) in the r(r+1)/2 form, since [tex]n + (n+1)^2t[/tex] is not "r",

try to find a concrete counter example proving that (A+Et)*(B+Ft) is triangular for t > 0, I may be mistaken, but I believe that there is not such example.
 
  • #18
al-mahed said:
we have to write (A+Et)*(B+Ft) in the r(r+1)/2 form, right?

if [tex]A+Et = \frac{n + n^2t}{2}[/tex], then [tex]n + n^2t[/tex] can be called "r"

as[tex]B+Ft = n + (n+1)^2t + 1[/tex], and [tex]n + n^2t \neq n + (n+1)^2t[/tex], I can NOT write the product (A+Et)*(B+Ft) in the r(r+1)/2 form, since [tex]n + (n+1)^2t[/tex] is not "r",

try to find a concrete counter example proving that (A+Et)*(B+Ft) is triangular for t > 0, I may be mistaken, but I believe that there is not such example.
I just finished showing that r = n + n^2t + nt . You are under the false impression that r must equal (A+Et) or (B+Ft) but all I said was that r(r+1)/2 = (A+Et)*(B+Ft)
In the example you chose r = n+n^2t +nt . Work it out and see for yourself.
 
  • #19
Sorry, my big mistake, pure laziness ! Of course you're right
 
  • #20
al-mahed said:
write A = kx and B = wy

its easy to see that if k divides n/2 and x not, then x divides n+1
same argument for B factors

supose we take A and B such that k divides n/2, x does not, w divides n+1, y does not, so n/2 = ky and n+1 = xw ==> 2ky + 1 = xw

gcd(A,n+1) = x ==> C = x^2
gcd(B,n) = y ==> D = 2y^2
gcd(A,n) = k ==> 2k^2
gcd(B,n+1) = w ==> w^2

now we have to find a r(r+1)/2 form
Let T(r) = r(r+1)/2
I have used this format as follows
Let n = 2ab and n+1 = cd then the following 4 equations hold for all t
T(n + 2act) = ac(b+ct)(d + 2at)
T(n + 2adt) = ad(b+dt)(c + 2at)
T(n + 2bct) = bc(a+ct)(d + 2bt)
T(n + 2bdt) = bd(a+dt)(c + 2bt)

Knowing that T(n) + T(n+1) = (n+1)^2, I tried letting a=c=1, b = x^n/y^n and c = z^n/y^n in the above formulas and got

(z^n/y^n)^2 = z^n(z^n + y^n + x^n)/2y^(2n) each time by choosing t = 1/2ac etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K