1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

General solution to Pell-like equation y^2 + 2x^2 = n^2

  1. Jul 7, 2005 #1
    I discovered the following general solution to primitive forms of y^2 + 2x^2 = a^2
    a = 3 + 4n(n+1)
    y = 4n(n+1) - 1
    x = 4n + 2

    Moreover let P = {11, 17, 19, 41, 43 ...} = the set of prime divisors of numbers of the form 3+4n(n+1) without the 3, and let Q = { -1, 7, 17, 23 ...} = the set of prime divisors of numbers of the form 4n(n+1) -1 including the -1. My conjecture is that for any member "p" of set P there is a corresponding member "q" of set Q such that q^2 + 72x^2 = p^2 where x is an interger, e.g.

    11^2 = 7^2 + 72*1
    17^2 = -1^2 + 72*2^2
    19^2 = 17^2 + 72*1
    41^2 = 23^2 + 72*4^2
    43^2 = 7^2 + 72*5^2
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2005 #2

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    y=1, x=0 and a=1 don't appear to be in that solution set.
  4. Jul 7, 2005 #3
    That's true
  5. Jul 7, 2005 #4

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    there is a complete solution to this already using relative elementary number theory. n^" will be of the form x^2+2y^2 iff and only if n is a product of primes that are all congruent to 1 or 3 mod 8. see eg cox numbers of the form x^2+ny^2 chapter 1.
  6. Jul 7, 2005 #5
    OK but my conjecture is more rigid. Do you know if this is discussed in the Cox book titled Primes of the form x^2 + Ny^2.
  7. Jul 7, 2005 #6

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    your conjecture is wrong. you onlyhave a subest of the primes congruent to 3 mod 8 as possible solutions, thus missing a significant proportion of the answers. you give a sufficient condition for a solution but not a necessary one.

    cox does not discuss the x and y associated to a given a.
  8. Jul 8, 2005 #7
    I think you misread my conjecture, I strenthened the wording of it before my last post to avoid such a misreading. As you can see in my list of examples primes in set P include primes of the form 8n+3 and 8n+1 while primes in set Q include primes of the form 8n-1 and 8n + 1. Primes of the form 8n+5 do not appear to be in either subset but that does not contradict Cox.

    Note that if a prime P(i) divides 3+4a(a+1) then it divides all instances of 3+4n(n+1) where n equals either a or P(i)-a-1 mod P(i) thus if a prime P(i) is to appear in set P it must appear as a factor of 3 + 4a(a+1) where a < P(i)/2.

    17 appears in set P since it divides 51 and 51 = 3+4*3*(3+1)

    Similar logic applies to set Q

    I restate my conjecture

    Let P(i) be a prime in set P, There exists either a prime or -1, Q(i), in set Q such that P(i)^2 - Q(i)^2 = 72n^2 where n is an integer.
  9. Jul 8, 2005 #8

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    how can it be that i misread it when you changed it? anyway, i don;t know if your conjecture is true (it is a sufficient condition certainly) so why don't you post the proof? off the top of my head i'd say it might be true but i see no compelling evidence for it to be so.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2005
  10. Jul 8, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If I understand your P and Q sets, this is false. 379 is prime and 3+4*129*(129+1)=379*177, so 379 is in P. The only solutions to 379^2-q^2=72*n^2 are:


    but 379 is not in Q (can check 4*n*(n+1)-1 is never divisible by 379) nor is 343 (it's not prime).
  11. Jul 9, 2005 #10

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    soon as you get a sufficiently large list of primes these things tend to happen.
  12. Jul 11, 2005 #11
    Yes, I did not look far enough. Also p = 113 and 137 are exceptions. However, 113^2 =7^4 + 72*12^2; 137^2= 7^2*17^2 + 72*8^2; and 379^2= 7^6+72*19^2. 7 and 17 are in Q, so my new conjecture is that for every p in P there is a number q that is in Q or is a product of numbers in Q such that p^2-q^2=72*n^2 where n is an integer > 0. This is supported by the facts, since if p and q are odd and not divisible by 3, then p^2-q^2 is divisible by 6. 72= 2*6^2.
  13. Jul 12, 2005 #12

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    how about, instead of making conjectures based only on small examples, you attempt to prove your statement?
  14. Jul 12, 2005 #13

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    how about this

    suppose that 72q^2=2.4.9.q^2=(n-p)(n+p), and we factor the RHS as XY with X>Y, then X-Y=2p. If more than one of the odd primes in the decomps of X and Y occurs in both then we have a contradiction, and if 2 appears with multiplicity greater than 1 in both then we have another contradiction, but 2 must appear in both X and Y. thus we have several cases to consider, but as we only care about an existence one. let's try and pick those that may help.

    Take the case where X=2a^2 Y=4b^2 where b is odd, and thus p=a^2-2b^2. We haven't factored in the 3 yet, so let us suppose that the powers of 3 that must occur are factors of b (so replece b with 3c), hence we need to find a and c such that

    the other variations will lead to similiar. if you can find something about these you will have the answer.

    sadly we're not non-positive definite forms here and i know nothing about those.

    take another case that where a prime may divide both X and Y say the prime is r, then

    X=4ra^2, Y=2r or X=2ra^2 Y=4r etc but this leads to the degenerate case when n=p.
  15. Jul 13, 2005 #14
    OK I get the idea. From Cox we know that
    p^2 = y^2 + 2x^2 with gcd p,y = 1 (1)
    if and only if p is of the form 8n+1 or 8n+3. Note that we must imposed the condition that gcd p,y = 1 or else we could multiply each side of (1) by 25 or 49 to yield a contradiction. Then p and y must have the same parity and both are odd since gcd=1.
    We can then make the substitutions v=(p-y)/2 and u=(p+y)/2 which gives
    p = u+v and y = u-v (2)
    By (1) gcd u,v = 1 since gcd p,y=1
    substituting (2) into (1) gives
    uv = 2x^2 (3)
    now we suppose that x = r*s with the factor s having the requirement of being odd so that p,y can be odd
    But since gcd u,v and gcd p,y = 1
    u=2r^2, v=s^2, with gcd r,s = 1 (4.1) or
    u=s^2, v=2r^2, with gcd r,s = 1 (4.2)
    then substituting 4 into 2 then into 1 with the requirement that p,y are odd gives
    p = 2s^2 + r^2, y = 2s^2 - r^2, x = 2rs (5.1) or
    p = 2s^2 + r^2, y = r^2 - 2s^2, x = 2rs (5.2)

    as the general solution of (1)

    Thus we know that p^2-y^2 must equal 8r^2s^2
    Thus since 3 does not divide p (my condition of this post) and since p and y are both odd all I have to prove is that 3 does not divide y to show that 9 divides either r^2 or s^2.

    Thus I need to show that 3 does not divide r^2-2s^2 as well as not dividing r^2+2s^2
    1. if 3 divides either r or s then 3 does not divide y since gcd r,s =1
    2. if r and s each = +/- 1 mod 3 then p is divisible by 3, this contradicts my conditions. QED
  16. Jul 13, 2005 #15

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    we impose the restriction to make a primitive solution. if gcd(p,y) weren't 1 then it must be p, hence p divides y, and thus x so we have, after dividing through, that 1=a^2+2b^2, and thus a=1, b=0, which we shall call the degenrate case. p divides x since...

    p is odd since it is congruent to 1 or 3 mod 8, it is not the coprimality, personlally i wouldn't cite the gcd as the "cause" of this stuff. the gcd being 1 doesn't force y to be odd: it is because if it were even then y^2+2x^2 would be even too, and hence 2 wolud divide p, but p is an odd prime.

    oh, and p as is an odd prime, so if it divided y^2 it would divide 2x^2 and thus x to complete the argument in the last comment. the gcd stuff is always assumed.

    this is all true, if there is a coprime solution

    this is all fine, though i don't think it supports your conclusion as is.

    let p be congruent to 1 or 3 mod 8, then there are integers r and s such that


    let y be 2r^2-s^2 (the sign doesn't matter) then


    then your analysis implies that 3 must divide on of r or s, hence p^2=y^2+72n^2 as required.

    no problem with that. but your conjecture is stronger in that it restricts the prime factors of y to be only of a certain kind, and i don't immediately see why that is true. so what is the argument here? we know that y^2 is 1 mod 8, but that doesn't even tell us that y is 1 or -1 mod 8, never mind its prime factors.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2005
  17. Jul 13, 2005 #16
    Ok I will work on my proof some more. My conjecture is based upon p being a prime divisor of (2n+1)^2 + 2*1^2 other than 3 and y being a divisor of (2m+1)^2-2*1^2 for some m. Now (2n+1)^2 +2*1 is a valid form for p in the most general solution of p^2 = y^2+2x^2, thus p must be a prime of the form 8n+1 or 8n+3 and also must not be 3. It is easy to show that any divisor of (2m+1)^2-2^1 is not divisible by 3. So what I have left to show is that there is a divisor y of a number of the form (2m+1)^2 - 2 such that p^2=y^2+72n^2 for any prime p of the form 8n+1 or 8n+3 other than 3 .

    Returning to the most general solution we have p = 2r^2+s^2 = a prime not divisible by 3 and y = |2r^2-s^2| and x=2rs, s is odd. From my last post either r or s must be divisible by 3 in order for 3 not to divide p. Let r be divisible by 3, then y = 18t^2-s^2. It can easily be shown that s=1 or 5 mod 6. Substitute 6a+1 for s then y=18t^2-36a^2-12a-1. I have to go now
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: General solution to Pell-like equation y^2 + 2x^2 = n^2
  1. 2a x 2x = 4ax (Replies: 2)