MHB Methods of elementary Number Theory

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the Diophantine equation x² + y² = z² using elementary number theory methods. It emphasizes that solving such equations involves expressing solutions in a simpler, parameterized form that allows for easy enumeration. The conversation confirms that proving the provided parameterization qualifies as a solution, though it is not the only possible parameterization. The importance of classifying and enumerating solutions is highlighted as a key aspect of solving Diophantine equations. Overall, the thread reinforces the concept that multiple parameterizations can exist for the same equation.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Cool)

I am given the following exercise:Try to solve the diophantine equation $x^2+y^2=z^2$ , using methods of elementary Number Theory.

So, do I have to write the proof of the theorem:

The non-trivial solutions of $x^2+y^2=z^2$ are given by the formulas:

$$x=\pm d(u^2-v^2), y=\pm 2duv, z=\pm d(u^2+v^2)$$

or

$$x=\pm d2uv, y=\pm d(u^2-v^2), z=\pm d(u^2+v^2)$$

? (Thinking)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes. That's what solving an equation means, express its solutions in a simpler form, preferably one where all the solutions can be classified and easily enumerated.
 
Given a diophantine equation $P(X_1, X_2, \cdots, X_n) = 0$ over $\Bbb Q$, "solving" it means "enumerate the solutions". Now if the zero locus (the solution set) is (countably) infinite then enumeration is essentially done by parameterization, i.e., producing a set $\{(T_1, T_2, \cdots, T_k) \in \Bbb Z^k : X_i = F_i(T_1, T_2, \cdots, T_k) \, \forall i < n\}$ for some function $F_i$ which maps integers to integers when restricted to $\Bbb Z$.

So yes, proving the parameterization you mentioned would also qualify as "solving". But it is absolutely not nessesary that this is a unique parameterization -- there are a lot of ways to completely parameterize $X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = 0$.
 
Bacterius said:
Yes. That's what solving an equation means, express its solutions in a simpler form, preferably one where all the solutions can be classified and easily enumerated.

mathbalarka said:
Given a diophantine equation $P(X_1, X_2, \cdots, X_n) = 0$ over $\Bbb Q$, "solving" it means "enumerate the solutions". Now if the zero locus (the solution set) is (countably) infinite then enumeration is essentially done by parameterization, i.e., producing a set $\{(T_1, T_2, \cdots, T_k) \in \Bbb Z^k : X_i = F_i(T_1, T_2, \cdots, T_k) \, \forall i < n\}$ for some function $F_i$ which maps integers to integers when restricted to $\Bbb Z$.

So yes, proving the parameterization you mentioned would also qualify as "solving". But it is absolutely not nessesary that this is a unique parameterization -- there are a lot of ways to completely parameterize $X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = 0$.

Nice, thanks a lot! (Smile)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top