Gaussian Integers and Pythagorean Triplets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ramsey2879
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gaussian Integers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of Gaussian integers, specifically in relation to Pythagorean triplets and the conditions under which certain expressions yield squares. Participants explore the implications of the norm of Gaussian integers and the relationships between various mathematical forms.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that for Gaussian integers, the expression 4n(n+1) + 1 results in a square norm, with A and B defined as A = u^2 - v^2 and B = 2uv.
  • Others challenge the initial claim by emphasizing the need to consider the imaginary part when expressing Gaussian integers as A + Bi.
  • Some participants propose examining the form Z = A + Bi and the implications of (2Z + 1)^2, questioning how this relates to the original expressions.
  • A few participants discuss the relationship between the conjugate of Z and the resulting expressions, noting that the product of conjugates leads to A^2 + B^2 but does not necessarily yield a square.
  • There is mention of the conditions under which Gaussian integers can be squares, with some participants noting that not all integers with square norms are Gaussian squares.
  • One participant reflects on the implications of the Axiom of Symbolic Stability and the conditions for primes that decompose over the imaginary unit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationships between Gaussian integers, their norms, and the conditions for forming squares. There is no consensus on several points, particularly regarding the definitions and implications of Gaussian squares and norms.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on specific definitions of Gaussian integers and their properties, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion also touches on the complexities of Pythagorean triples and the conditions under which certain expressions yield squares, indicating that assumptions may vary among participants.

ramsey2879
Messages
841
Reaction score
3
It is well known that 4n(n+1) + 1 is a square if n is an integer but if n is a Gaussian integer i.e., 4n(n+1) + 1 = A + Bi, then the norm (A^2 + B^2) is always a square! The proof is quite easy since A = u^2 - v^2 and B = 2uv.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
4n(n+1)+1 =(2n+1)^2, but it can not equal A+Bi, because you are not considering the imaginary part, are you?

If, instead, we take the form Z=A+Bi, and look at (2Z+1)^2, what do we do now?
 
robert Ihnot said:
4n(n+1)+1 =(2n+1)^2, but it can not equal A+Bi, because you are not considering the imaginary part, are you?

If, instead, we take the form Z=A+Bi, and look at (2Z+1)^2, what do we do now?
If n=Z = 1+2i for example
4*(1+2i)*(2+2i) + 1 = -7+24i = (3+4i)^2 = (2Z+1)^2 = (2A+1 +2Bi)^2)
-7 = (2A+1)^2 - (2B)^2 = u^2 - v^2
24 = 2(2A+1)(2B) = 2uv
So we have the x and y of the Pathagorean triple: (7*7 + 24*24 = 25*25)
 
Last edited:
First let Z* = conjugate of Z, then if (2Z+1)=A+Bi, we have (2Z*+1)(2Z+1) =A^2 +B^2
This then results in (2a+1)^2 + b^2 = A^2+B^2, which is what is expected. But it does not make (2Z+1)(2Z*+1) a square.

You say, quote: The proof is quite easy since A = u^2 - v^2 and B = 2uv.

You introduce the above, in the second sentence, which is what is required to show that A^2+B^2 =(u^2+v^2)^2. But it does not relate to (2Z+1)^2, as introduced in the first sentence.

Anyway, since with sentence 2 you have created the Pythagorian triples, we need only say for example that since 3^2+4^2 = 5^2, the Gaussian integer 3+4i has a square as its norm.
 
robert Ihnot said:
First let Z* = conjugate of Z, then if (2Z+1)=A+Bi, we have (2Z*+1)(2Z+1) =A^2 +B^2
This then results in (2a+1)^2 + b^2 = A^2+B^2, which is what is expected. But it does not make (2Z+1)(2Z*+1) a square.

You say, quote: The proof is quite easy since A = u^2 - v^2 and B = 2uv.

You introduce the above, in the second sentence, which is what is required to show that A^2+B^2 =(u^2+v^2)^2. But it does not relate to (2Z+1)^2, as introduced in the first sentence.

Anyway, since with sentence 2 you have created the Pythagorian triples, we need only say for example that since 3^2+4^2 = 5^2, the Gaussian integer 3+4i has a square as its norm.
You must multiply 4*Z*(Z+1) and add 1 to get a square that I am talking about.
However any Gaussian integer squared is of the form A+Bi where A= u^2 - v^2 and B = 2uv since I read that the norm of a product of two complex numbers is the product of their norms. So yes it is possible to have two squares that do not sum to a square but that is not possible for the A and B where A+Bi is the square of a Gaussian integer.
 
Last edited:
ramsey2879 said:
You must multiply 4*Z*(Z+1) and add 1 to get a square that I am talking about.
However any Gaussian integer squared is of the form A+Bi where A= u^2 - v^2 and B = 2uv since I read that the norm of a product of two complex numbers is the product of their norms. So yes it is possible to have two squares that do not sum to a square but that is not possible for the A and B where A+Bi is the square of a Gaussian integer.
The last couple of posts are troubling at first glance. Of course the product of two conjugates equals A^2 + B^2 but here that is of the form A' = A^2 + B^2 and B' =0 so the norm is (A^2+B^2)^2 which what is to be expected. What my first post states is that 4Z(Z+1)+1 = (2Z+1)^2 = A + Bi where A = u^2 + v^2 and B = 2uv which I showed in a later post to be true. The product of two conjugates are also of the form A' = u^2+v^2 abd B' = 2uv since this is a trival case where v = 0.
 
Last edited:
O.K., you have (a+bi)^2 = a^2-b^2 +2abi. Thus N(a+bi)^2 =(a^2-b^2)^2+(2ab)^2 = (A^2+b^2)^2.

So then you are saying (2Z+1)^2 = A+Bi is such that (2Z*+1)^2(2Z+1)^2 = A^2 +B^2.

I guess I was confused about how you were writing that up.
 
robert Ihnot said:
O.K., you have (a+bi)^2 = a^2-b^2 +2abi. Thus N(a+bi)^2 =(a^2-b^2)^2+(2ab)^2 = (A^2+b^2)^2.

So then you are saying (2Z+1)^2 = A+Bi is such that (2Z*+1)^2(2Z+1)^2 = A^2 +B^2.

I guess I was confused about how you were writing that up.
I guess we confused each other. I went back and corrected my last post since A = u^2-v^2 not u^2+v^2; but I don't think I ever said anything about the product of the squares of two conjugates except that by inference they too are of the form A+Bi where A = u^2-v^2 and B =2uv.
 
It is easily shown that all Gaussian integers that are squares are of the form A+Bi where A=u^2-v^2 and B = -2uv. Therefore all Gaussian integers that are squares have a square norm. But not all Gausian integers that have a square norm are squares since 3 is not a Guassian square but has a square norm and 3*Z^2 has a square norm but likewise is not a square. Is it true that all Gaussian integers that have a square norm are either a Gaussian square or a product of a Gaussian square and an integer which is not a Gaussian square?
Thanks for reply
Edit, I forgot to consider the Gaussian units, "i" is not a Gaussian square so I have to amend my question. Are only the only Gaussian integers that have a square norm either a Gaussian square or the product of i and or an integer and a Gaussian square?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I think the first problem here was The Axiom of Symbolic Stability. It is well known that 4n(n+1) + 1 is a square if n is an integer but if n is a Gaussian integer i.e., 4n(n+1) + 1 = A + Bi, then the norm (A^2 + B^2) is always a square! The proof is quite easy since A = u^2 - v^2 and B = 2uv. I failed to recognize that A+Bi was the same as u+vi.

I also was considering, wrongly, a Gaussian integer to be only those that decomposed over the imaginary. I had not considered 3, for example. With the exception of 2 the only primes that will decompose are those congruent to 1 Mod 4. Thus the Pythagorian triples are built up from 5, 13, 17, etc. For example 5 =(1+2i)(1-2i) =(2+i)(2-i). Or products of primes==1 Mod 4 such as: 65 = 8^2+1^1 = 7^2+4^2. (Which can be done in two distinct ways.) However, 3 can be present only in a squared form, such as: (15)^2=9^2+12^2.

Without going into the question of a Gaussain square, I think you are right. As for 2, (1+i) and (1-i) and not distinct primes since (-i)(1+i) = (1-i), so they differ only by a unit.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K