The discussion centers on finding all triples of positive integers (a, b, c) that satisfy the equation a^3 + b^3 + c^3 = (abc)^2. Participants debate whether a, b, and c must be distinct and explore the implications of allowing duplicates. Empirical searches indicate that the only solution found within a reasonable range is (1, 2, 3), with claims that larger values yield no additional solutions. The conversation also highlights the need for rigorous proofs to demonstrate the absence of solutions beyond the searched range, emphasizing the mathematical intricacies involved. Overall, the consensus leans towards the uniqueness of the solution set, with ongoing discussions about potential proofs and methods for further exploration.
#1
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
3,851
115
Find all triples (a, b, c) of positive integers such that ##a^3+b^3+c^3=(abc)^2##.
Its as easy as one, two, three
if you write a program to see,
but could be harder to find,
if not so inclined.
Python:
for a in range(100):
for b in range(a,100):
for c in range(b,100):
abc = a * b * c
abc2 = abc * abc
a3 = a * a * a
b3 = b * b * b
c3 = c * c * c
sum = a3 + b3 + c3
if sum == abc2:
print("a=%d / b=%d / c=%d\n"%(a,b,c))
Where's your proof that there are no solutions outside of your search range?
No proof here. @anemone asked for three numbers which I took to be three distinct numbers.
However, by inspection one can see that if the numbers were 0, 1, n where n can vary from 1 to infinity the left side value will increase much faster than the right side value implying that the answer must be in small numbers.
Also to be solvable it must be limited to what we can do manually on paper or mentally in our heads.
Being a robot, I initially searched on a much larger range but then realized that 1-100 would be sufficient and not give away the solution. Being a mentor, I tried to disguise my solution like Penn and Teller on Fool Us in clever banter or maybe not so clever banter.
The solution set is not obviously bounded. If ##a=b## and ##c=1##, then the right hand side grows faster.
#10
anuttarasammyak
Gold Member
2,972
1,529
PAllen said:
Where's your proof that there are no solutions outside of your search range?
Let c be variable x
f(x):=x^3-a^2b^2x^2+a^3+b^3
The extremes are
f(0)=a^3+b^3>0
and
f(\frac{2a^2b^2}{3})=a^3+b^3-\frac{2^2}{3^3}a^6b^6=-\frac{2^2}{3^3}(a^3-\frac{3^3}{2^2} )(b^3-\frac{3^3}{2^2})+ \frac{3^3}{2^2}<0
so that f(x)=0 has positive solutions in the range of
0<c_1<\frac{2a^2b^2}{3}<c_2
Say a<b<c with obvious 1<a
a<c<\frac{2b^2c^2}{3}
b<c<\frac{2c^2a^2}{3}
But this inequality fails to give upper limit of a, b, c.
[EDIT] For the case of a=1,b=2
f(x)=(x-3)(x^2-x-3)
So c=3.
I am not sure whether there are positive integer solutions other than this {1,2,3}.
If we allow them to be zero or negative, {0,0,0},{-a,0,a} and {-1,1,1} are the obvious solutions.
Last edited:
#11
bob012345
Gold Member
2,291
1,015
PAllen said:
ambiguity alert: Are a,b, and c required to be different positive integers? I assume not.
That wasn't stated but it is easy to show whether that must be the case or not. Assume they are the same and see if the real root is integer or not.
No proof here. @anemone asked for three numbers which I took to be three distinct numbers.
However, by inspection one can see that if the numbers were 0, 1, n where n can vary from 1 to infinity the left side value will increase much faster than the right side value implying that the answer must be in small numbers.
Also to be solvable it must be limited to what we can do manually on paper or mentally in our heads.
Being a robot, I initially searched on a much larger range but then realized that 1-100 would be sufficient and not give away the solution. Being a mentor, I tried to disguise my solution like Penn and Teller on Fool Us in clever banter or maybe not so clever banter.
Your partial solution and poem are definitely amusing but the above argument is wholly inadequate. Even if you ban duplicates, the following is true: ##for~every~c \gt 3, there~exist~triples~a\lt b\lt c## such that sum of cubes is greater than the product of squares, and other triples where it is less. Thus no matter how large c is, there is crossover region. Once the problem is properly solved, I can give a simple formula for generating near equality triples for arbitrary c. In problems like this, where all solutions are requested, the proper demonstration of that is typically where 'all the real math' is.
#13
bob012345
Gold Member
2,291
1,015
I took it that ##a,b,c≥1##. They can't be zero. It is also easy to show if they could be negative there would be an infinite number of triples.
#14
bob012345
Gold Member
2,291
1,015
Office_Shredder said:
The solution set is not obviously bounded. If ##a=b## and ##c=1##, then the right hand side grows faster.
But there is no (integer) real root thus no solution in terms of integer triples in that case for any ##a##.
Just checking policy here - my understanding was that no science advisors or homework helpers should provide a solution until a valid solution was posted by someone else (I see no issue with hints and commentary). Is this still the policy expected here? I would think it should be, but just asking.
Given no new activity, I'll post some more possibly useful hints. Note, I have not succeeded in solving this - twice I thought I had argument for why no more solutions, and twice I exploded the argument.
The way to find 'near solutions' that I referred to is to note, assuming ##a\le b \le c##, that ##a^2b^2=c## implies that the sum of cubes is greater than the product of squares. Generally, for any a,b as close as possible (from below) this condition (or matching it) increasing either a or b by 1 means that the product of squares is greater than or equal to the sum of cubes. More rigorously, for c above some small minimum, it is easy to show that ##a^2b^2=2c## forces the product of squares to be larger. Note, all of this is just algebra.
From here, I also looked at what can be concluded by treating this as an polynomial in c. Then, since the cubic coefficient is 1, the rational roots theorem directly gives criteria for integer roots. Playing around with this I could conclude that a positive integer root required that factors of an expression of cubes of a and b must make another expression involving squares of a and b and the candidate root a perfect square. However I could not see any way to argue from this how there is a finite number of solutions. Perhaps some other approach is needed.
Empirically, after not having programmed in 6 years, and never having seen python before, I downloaded an installation of it and developed the following program from results I derived. It searches by increasing c, and is ##O(c^{1.25})## instead of brute force ##O(c^{3})##. Forgive any neophyte features, as this is literally the first day I touched python.
Code:
d=0
rat=10
for c in range(4,10000001):
for a in range(1,int(c**.25)+1):
b=int(c**.5/a)+1
while 1:
L=a**3 + b**3 + c**3
R=(a*b*c)**2
if R==L: d=1
nrat=R/L
if nrat<rat:
rat=nrat
sa=a
sb=b
sc=c
if R >= L : break
b=b+1
if d==1: break
if d==1: break
print(sa,sb,sc)
print(rat)
Using this, varying the search limits (the lower limit must be greater than 2 for proper behavior), I find no solutions beyond (1,2,3) up to c=10 million. However, what I do find is that the larger limit of c you search, the closer you get to a solution. With lower search bound of 4, the following show best case up to indicated upper bound:
Up to 100:
1,10,99 ratio of R/L = 1.01 (rounded)
Up to 1000
1,31,960 ratio of R/L = 1.001 (rounded)
Up to 10000
1,100,9999 ratio R/L = 1.0001 (rounded)
Up to 100,000
1,316,99855 ratio R/L = 1.00001 (rounded)
Up to 1,000,000
1,1000,999999 ratio R/L = 1.000001 (rounded)
Up to 10,000,000
1,3162,9998243 ratio R/L = 1.0000001 (rounded)
(At this point, it seemed the next large order magnitude search would take over an hour, and I don't have that patience. I'm sure my code is not the fastest way to do this in Python.)
I hope this helps someone else solve the problem, but I admit I am stuck at this point.
Last edited:
#18
anuttarasammyak
Gold Member
2,972
1,529
a^3+b^3+c^3=(abc)^2...(1)
integers
0<a \leq b \leq c
a^3+b^3=(a+b)(a^2-ab+b^2) \equiv 0 (mod\ c^2)...(2)
a+b < 2c because a=b=c does not satisfy formula (1)
If a+b##\neq##c, a^2-ab+b^2=a(a-b)+b^2 < c^2 (2) is not satisfied.
So a+b=c, a^2-ab+b^2=c^2-3ab\equiv 3ab \equiv 0(mod\ c)
Let 3ab=kc with a positive integer k, (1) gives
k^2c^2-18c+9k=0
as a quadratic equation of c
D=18^2-36k^2 \ge 0
9\ge k^2
k=1,2,3 are candidates.
k=1: c^2-18c+9=0
c=9\pm 6\sqrt{2} not an integer
k=2:
2c^2-9c+9=0
(2c-3)(c-3)=0
Thus a=1,b=2,c=3 is a set of integer solution
k=3:
c=1 but a=b=c=1 does not satisfy (1).
So {1,2,3} is a unique set of solution.
[EDIT] Take a look at my post #21 for the incompleteness of the above.
@anuttarasammyak , there is an early point on your argument I don't follow. You have a+b<2c, and another factor ##<c^2##. However, suppose the first is 1.5c, and the other is ##2/3 c^2##. Then your equation 2 would be satisfied. I don't see how you exclude cases like this.
@anuttarasammyak , I wonder if you could use my result with your argument, that a solution must have ##c\lt a^2b^2\lt 2c##, except for very low c, which could be handled explicitly.
#21
anuttarasammyak
Gold Member
2,972
1,529
The formula (2) in post #18 gives the cases of
Case 1
a+b\equiv 0(mod\ c^2)
Case 2
a^2-ab+b^2 \equiv 0(mod\ c^2)
Case 3
a+b\equiv 0(mod\ p),
a^2-ab+b^2 \equiv 0(mod\ q)
where ##pq=c^2## where p is a devisor of c.
Only case 3 is possible because
Case 1
a+b<2c \leq c^2
Case 2
a^2-ab+b^2 \leq b^2 \leq c^2 where two equals, i.e. a=b=c which does not satisfy (1) is excluded. so ##a^2-ab+b^2 < c^2##
As for case 3, in my post #8 I made
p=q=c
Now I find that other cases should be investigated for possible c of non prime number.
Notice that the LHS is just our original equation with ##n## instead of ##a##. Also, notice that the RHS is always positive since ##b^2c^2>3n## yet the LHS can be negative or positive. Demanding ##n=0## removes the inconsistency thus the smallest integer is ##a=1##.
Now we have
$$1 + b^3 + c^3 =b^2c^2$$ apply the same logic to ##b## letting ##b=n+2## ##n≥0##.
The formula (2) in post #18 gives the cases of
Case 1
a+b\equiv 0(mod\ c^2)
Case 2
a^2-ab+b^2 \equiv 0(mod\ c^2)
Case 3
a+b\equiv 0(mod\ p),
a^2-ab+b^2 \equiv 0(mod\ q)
where ##pq=c^2## where p is a devisor of c.
I’m not sure even this can be required without further justification. You could have c=42, p=63, q=28. p is < 2c, q < ##c^2##, both are factors of ##c^2##, but neither are factors of c. And, of course, the product is ##c^2##. There may well be an argument to exclude this possibility, but it has to be given
You've lost me here. Where does ##-n^2b^2c^2## come from?
#25
anuttarasammyak
Gold Member
2,972
1,529
PAllen said:
I’m not sure even this can be required without further justification. You could have c=42, p=63, q=28. p is < 2c, q < c2, both are factors of c2, but neither are factors of c. And, of course, the product is c2. There may well be an argument to exclude this possibility, but it has to be given
Thanks. p is a divisor of c^2, not of c, my bad.
For the case of non-prime c, more work should be done.
Last edited:
#26
bob012345
Gold Member
2,291
1,015
PAllen said:
You've lost me here. Where does ##-n^2b^2c^2## come from?
Sorry, I corrected a double counting of that term but it comes from the first term of $$b^2c^2(n^2 + 2n + 1)$$ from the RHS just moved to the LHS. It should not have been on the LHS at that point and has been corrected. Thanks.
Notice that the LHS is just our original equation with ##n## instead of ##a##. Also, notice that the RHS is always positive since ##b^2c^2>3n## yet the LHS can be negative or positive. Demanding ##n=0## removes the inconsistency thus the smallest integer is ##a=1##.
This argument is not valid as stated. All you have shown is that n=0 is part of a possible solution. The fact that many choices of n,b,c don't work, and some make the LHS negative, proves nothing. You need an argument that no such choices work, if n>0.
Notice that the LHS is just our original equation with ##n## instead of ##a##. Also, notice that the RHS is always positive since ##b^2c^2>3n## yet the LHS can be negative or positive. Demanding ##n=0## removes the inconsistency thus the smallest integer is ##a=1##.
I don't see the inconsistency here. ##n = a-1## is fixed. It's not a free variable.
#29
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
3,851
115
Thanks everyone for the overwhelming participation. I want to encourage for those who have "partially" solved the question right but cannot prove those are the unique answers to have further attempt and I wish you success in finding the proof.
However, here is one brilliant solution of someone that I want to share: