Can all primes of the form 4n + 1 be written as the sum of two squares?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frillth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Squares Sum
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that if the GCD of a and b is 1, any odd prime p dividing a^2 + b^2 must be of the form 4n + 1. Two key proofs are referenced: one stating that every factor of a^2 + b^2 is a sum of two squares, and another asserting that every prime of the form 4n + 1 can be expressed as such. The user contemplates proving that primes of the form 4n + 3 cannot be expressed as the sum of two squares, utilizing modular arithmetic as a potential approach. Hints suggest examining the properties of squares modulo 4 to derive a contradiction for primes of the form 4n + 3. The user expresses uncertainty about the infinite descent proofs mentioned in the Wikipedia article and seeks alternative methods for understanding the proof.
Frillth
Messages
77
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I must prove the theorem that if the GCD of a and b is 1, and if p is an odd prime which divides a^2 + b^2, p is of the form 4n + 1.

Homework Equations



I have seen two proofs that I think might be helpful.

1. If a and b are relatively prime then every factor of a^2 + b^2 is a sum of two squares.
2. Every prime of the form 4n + 1 is a sum of two squares.

I got these from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_Fermat's_theorem_on_sums_of_two_squares

The Attempt at a Solution



I realize now that if I can prove that a prime of the form 4n + 3 cannot be written as the sum of two primes, then I can prove the original theorem. I'm not sure if this is true, however, or how to prove it if it is. If it is not true, I have no idea where to start looking for help. Does anybody have an idea?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hints:
1. look at things in mod 4.

2. case works, suppose p=4n+3, use proofs 1 you posted to get contradiction.
 
I don't understand how I can look at things in mod 4 to help me out. I also don't know how to to use the proofs to show that p = 4n + 3 can't be a divisor.
 
more hints:
look at x^2 mod 4, x^2 must be congruent to either 1 or 0 mod 4.

now look at a^2 + b^2 mod 4, they must be equivalent to 2 or 1 mod 4 (0 is impossible since a,b are relatively prime)

now, you should be able to proceed, assume p=4n+3 which is -1 mod 4.
 
OK, I understand now why 4n + 3 cannot be a sum of squares. I'm not sure I understand, however, why the wikipedia proof for why the sum of squares must have divisors that are sums of squares. I have never even heard of infinite descent proofs before, so I'm wondering if there's a different way that I'm supposed to do this.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K