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.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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