How to proof that a curve has no rational points

In summary, the conversation is about proving that the curve x^2 + y^2 - 3 = 0 has no rational points, and the tip given is to first show that a^2 + b^2 = 3c has no solutions other than the trivial, and then investigate the remainders of a sum of squares (mod 4). The expert then presents a proof and asks for feedback on its validity.
  • #1
AndreAo
16
0
Hello, I'm trying to do exercise number 20 from chapter 6 of this http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/index.html, it asks to show that the curve x2 + y2 - 3 = 0 has no rational points. In the answer it has this tip: first show that a2 + b2 = 3c has no solutions, other than the trivial. To do this, investigate the remainders of a sum of squares (mod 4). After you’ve done this, prove that the only solution is indeed the trivial solution...
I'm in trouble with this part, how can I use the information from the tip?

Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Writing the hint a different way:

If there is a rational point x = p/q, y= r/s, then (ps)2 + (qr)2 = 3(qs)2

Any square has remainder 0 or 1 mod 4 (consider (2k)2 and (2k+1)2)
 
  • #3
Hi AlephZero, thanks for rewriting it.
I'd like an opinion about the proof I did.

First I proved, at least I think, that [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4) or [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]1(mod 4).

Proof. Suppose x[itex]\in[/itex]Z. Then either x is even or x is odd. We consider theses cases separately.
Case 1: Suppose x is even. Then x = 2a, for some integer a. Squaring both sides, [itex]x^{2}[/itex] = 4 [itex]a^{2}[/itex]. By definition of divisibility, 4 | [itex]x^{2}[/itex]. Thus [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4).
Case 2: Suppose x is odd. Then x = 2b + 1, for some integer b. Squaring both sides, [itex]x^{2}[/itex] = 4[itex]b^{2}[/itex] + 4b + 1 = 4([itex]b^{2}[/itex] + b) + 1, which means [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]1(mod 4).
So, [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4) or [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]1(mod 4) as we wanted to proof.

The problem: Show that the curve [itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex] - 3 = 0 has no rational points.

Proof. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that there exists an rational point ([itex]x_{0}[/itex], [itex]y_{0}[/itex])[itex]\in[/itex][itex]Q^{2}[/itex]. Then we can write [itex]x_{0}[/itex] = [itex]\frac{p}{q}[/itex] and [itex]y_{0}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{r}{s}[/itex], with p,q,r,s[itex]\in[/itex]Q and q, s[itex]\neq[/itex] 0.
Replacing ([itex]x_{0}[/itex], [itex]y_{0}[/itex]) in the equation, [itex](ps)^{2}[/itex] + [itex](rq)^{2}[/itex] = 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex].

As we already proved [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4) or [itex]x^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]1(mod 4), it's easy to see that ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4) or ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]1(mod 4) or ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]2(mod 4).

Let's analyze the 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex]. We have two cases, qs is even or qs is odd.
Case 1: Suppose qs is even. Then qs = 2a, for some integer a. Then 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex]=3[itex](2a)^{2}[/itex]=12[itex]a^{2}[/itex]=4(3[itex]a^{2}[/itex]). So 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex] is divisible by 4, which means 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4).
Case 2: Suppose qs is odd. Then qs = 2b + 1, for some integer b. Then 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex]=3[itex](2b + 1)^{2}[/itex]= 12[itex]b^{2}[/itex]+12b+3 = 4(3[itex]b^{2}[/itex]+3b) + 3, which means 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]3(mod 4).
But we know that ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4) or ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]1(mod 4) or ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]2(mod 4), for any x,y [itex]\in[/itex] Z and that [itex](ps)^{2}[/itex] + [itex](rq)^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex](mod 4), so it must be the case that 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex] = 0, but this would only be true, if q or s equal zero, as we already said that q,s must be different from zero, we have a contradiction.
Therefore, it's not the case that exists a rational point in the curve [itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex] - 3 = 0.

Are these proofs right? What do you think?
Thanks.
 
  • #4
AndreAo said:
But we know that ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4) or ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]1(mod 4) or ([itex]x^{2}[/itex] + [itex]y^{2}[/itex])[itex]\equiv[/itex]2(mod 4), for any x,y [itex]\in[/itex] Z and that [itex](ps)^{2}[/itex] + [itex](rq)^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex](mod 4), so it must be the case that 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex] = 0, but this would only be true, if q or s equal zero, as we already said that q,s must be different from zero, we have a contradiction.
You only proved [itex] 3(qs)^{2}[/itex] = 0 (mod 4) and not [itex] 3(qs)^{2}[/itex] = 0
 
  • #5
willem2 said:
You only proved [itex] 3(qs)^{2}[/itex] = 0 (mod 4) and not [itex] 3(qs)^{2}[/itex] = 0

If might help to be a bit more precise about what you assume for a solution.

For example you can put both fractions over the same denominator and write
x = p/q, y = r/q
You can also cancel out any common factors between p q and r, so at least one of the three numbers must be odd...
 
  • #6
AlephZero said:
If might help to be a bit more precise about what you assume for a solution.

For example you can put both fractions over the same denominator and write
x = p/q, y = r/q
You can also cancel out any common factors between p q and r, so at least one of the three numbers must be odd...
Thanks both!
I did some mistakes.
1. p,q,r,s [itex]\in[/itex]Z
AlephZero, as you suggest, I think I should have said that p,q have no common factors, and r,s have no common factors, so they're reduced fractions.

Until the point willem2 said, I think it's ok.
Then 3[itex](qs)^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4).
Thus, q or s have to be even. Suppose that q is even. Then p must be odd, as we said the fraction is already reduced. We know that [itex](ps)^{2}[/itex]+[itex](rq)^{2}[/itex][itex]\equiv[/itex]0(mod 4).
Then [itex](ps)^{2}[/itex]+[itex](rq)^{2}[/itex] = 4f, for some natural f.
Then [itex](ps)^{2}[/itex]+[itex](rq)^{2}[/itex] = 2(2f), which implies that both square numbers have to be even. We have rq even, as we suppose q to be even, so we must have s even, as p can't be. Until now we found that, p is odd, q is even, s is even, so r is odd.
I can't figure out any way to show a contradiction from this. Any ideas?

Thanks!
 
  • #7
Actually I can prove this:
first show that a^2 + b^2 = 3c has no solutions, other than the trivial.

by considering the remainder of a sum of squares (mod 3)
 

1. What does it mean for a curve to have rational points?

A curve having rational points means that the coordinates of those points are rational numbers, which can be expressed as a ratio of two integers.

2. Why is it important to prove that a curve has no rational points?

Proving that a curve has no rational points is important in various fields of mathematics, such as number theory and algebraic geometry. It helps to understand the structure and behavior of the curve and can lead to important discoveries and theorems.

3. What methods are used to prove that a curve has no rational points?

There are various methods used to prove that a curve has no rational points, such as the Chabauty-Coleman method, Mordell-Weil theorem, and the Brauer-Manin obstruction. These methods involve techniques from algebraic geometry, number theory, and group theory.

4. Can a curve have some rational points but not others?

Yes, it is possible for a curve to have some rational points but not others. This is known as the "Selmer group" phenomenon, where certain rational points on a curve satisfy certain conditions but not others.

5. Are there any known curves that have been proven to have no rational points?

Yes, there are several known curves that have been proven to have no rational points, such as Fermat's Last Theorem curve and the curves used in the proof of the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture (which led to the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem).

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
15K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top