MHB Proof that the product of 4 consecutive numbers is not a perfect square.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the product of four consecutive integers is not a perfect square. Participants suggest starting with the formulation of the product of four consecutive integers and analyzing it algebraically. A key insight is that among any four consecutive integers, there is always one multiple of 4 and an odd multiple of 2, which contributes to the proof. A specific approach involves evaluating the product and demonstrating that it can be expressed as a difference of squares, leading to a contradiction if assumed to be a perfect square. The conclusion is that the product of four consecutive integers cannot be a perfect square.
speencer
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey,

I was thinking and I realized that this is true and I want to prove it but I have nowhere to start. If anyone knows any way to prove can you give me some advice on where to start.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
speencer said:
Hey,

I was thinking and I realized that this is true and I want to prove it but I have nowhere to start. If anyone knows any way to prove can you give me some advice on where to start.
Hint: Any four consecutive integers include one multiple of 4 and an odd multiple of 2.
 
Opalg said:
Hint: Any four consecutive integers include one multiple of 4 and an odd multiple of 2.
And obviously "an odd multiple of 2" here means the product of 2 and an odd number, not a multiple of 2 that is odd.
 
speencer said:
Hey,

I was thinking and I realized that this is true and I want to prove it but I have nowhere to start. If anyone knows any way to prove can you give me some advice on where to start.

The correct formulation should be...

Prove that the product of four consecutive numbers all different from 0 is not a perfect square...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Hello, speencer!

Prove that the product of four consecutive positive integers is not a perfect square.
The four consecutive positive integers are: .x,\,x+1,\,x+2,\,x+3

Suppose their product is a perfect square.
. . x(x+1)(x+2)(x+3) \:=\:k^2\;\text{ for some integer }k.

We have: .. . . x(x+3)\cdot(x+1)(x+2) \:=\:k^2

. . . . . . . . . . . . (x^2+3x)(x^2+3x+2) \:=\: k^2

. \big[(x^2+3x+1)-1\big]\big[(x^2+3x+1) + 1\big] \:=\:k^2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (x^2+3x+1)^2 - 1^2 \:=\:k^2

And we have: .(x^2+3x+1)^2 - k^2 \:=\:1
. . The difference of two squares is 1.

The only case is when: x^2+3x+1 \:=\:1\,\text{ and }\,k\:=\:0

If k = 0, then one of the four integers must be zero.
We have our contradiction.

Therefore, the product of four consecutive positive integers cannot be a square.
 
speencer said:
Hey,

I was thinking and I realized that this is true and I want to prove it but I have nowhere to start. If anyone knows any way to prove can you give me some advice on where to start.
To know how to start its a good idea to "get your hands dirty". Start putting values of $n$ in $f(n)=n(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)$.

You get:
$f(1)=24, f(2)=120, f(3)=360, f(4)=840$.
Each of these is equal to a one less a square.
So one can guess that $f(n)$ always is equal to $k^2-1$ for some $k$.
Then one can go ahead in the direction of proving it which many have done in the previous posts.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
Back
Top