Proving something cant be written as a square

  • Thread starter S.Iyengar
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Square
In summary, the proof shows that the expression (p^m+3)(p^a-1)+4 is not a perfect square for any odd prime p and non-negative exponents m and a. This is done by expanding the expression, noting that it can only be a perfect square if it is the square of an even number, and using induction to show that it is impossible for the expression to hold for any value of n. Through this, it is proven that the expression is never equal to a perfect square.
  • #71
haruspex said:
p2n <= 2pa+n- 2pn - pa + 5
Since pa > 5:
p2n <= 2pa+n
pn <= 2pa
Since p > 2, n <= a.

k(kpa+2) = 2kpa+n+2pn-p2n+3
k2pa+2k = 2kpa+n+2pn-p2n+3
So 2k congruent to 3 modulo pn (all other terms are divisible by pn).
2k cannot be negative, so 2k >= pn+3.

Another small misunderstanding sir. You have written that , [itex]k^2p^a+2k=2kp^{a+n}+2p^n-p^{2n}+3[/itex] and have said that, all the other terms are divisible by [itex] p^n[/itex]. But we can't write that, given there is a term [itex] k^2p^a[/itex] on the L.H.S

Thanks a lot again sir.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Ah yes - I overlooked another place I had used the (wrong) "n <= a" result.
This looks more serious...
 
  • #73
haruspex said:
Ah yes - I overlooked another place I had used the (wrong) "n <= a" result.
This looks more serious...

No problem sir.. I am happy that you responded in a nice manner.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
761
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
759
Replies
2
Views
242
  • General Math
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top