Proving the Relationship Between Odd Primes and the Sum of Squares

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Werg22
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a relationship involving odd primes and the sum of squares, specifically addressing the condition that if an odd prime \( p \) divides the sum \( a^2 + b^2 \) but does not divide \( a \) or \( b \), then \( p \) must be congruent to 1 modulo 4. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, references to number theory, and the exploration of related mathematical structures.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to prove that if an odd prime \( p \) does not divide \( a \) or \( b \) but divides \( a^2 + b^2 \), then \( p \equiv 1 \mod 4 \).
  • Another participant introduces the ring of Gaussian integers \( \mathbb{Z}[i] \) and suggests that properties of Gaussian primes could be relevant to the proof.
  • A participant notes that if \( p \equiv 3 \mod 4 \), it leads to a contradiction when considering \( p \) as a prime in \( \mathbb{Z}[i] \).
  • There is a mention of historical results regarding primes expressible as sums of two squares, referencing Fermat, Euler, Lagrange, and Dedekind.
  • One participant points out that the result discussed is more general, stating that primes expressible as a sum of two squares are those congruent to 1 modulo 4, while the current problem only requires \( p \) to divide \( a^2 + b^2 \).
  • Another participant acknowledges the need to solve a modular equation related to the problem, indicating a shift in focus towards a specific mathematical approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the complexity of the problem and the appropriate methods to approach it. There is no consensus on a singular method or solution, and the discussion remains open with multiple perspectives on how to proceed.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of the underlying theory, with some expressing uncertainty about the applicability of Gaussian integers and the historical context of the results mentioned.

Werg22
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1
I've kind of fallen behind in my Algebra class and I really haven't read much about the theory. I'm wondering, how would you go on about proving that if an odd prime, p, does not divide a nor b, but divides the sum of their squares - a^2 + b^2 -, then p = 1 mod 4.

Up to know, I've been considering the special case in which gcd(a,b) = 1. Of course solving for this case solves for the entire problem; also it leaves something to work with since a^2 + b^2 = a + b mod 3 and a^2 + b^2 = 1 mod 4 or a^2 + b^2 = 2 mod 4. From that point all I tried seemingly led to a dead end. Maybe there is a property or something of the kind that I am not aware of and without which the problem becomes very cumbersome?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Do you know anything about the ring of Gaussian integers Z?
 
Nope. Like I said I'm quite weak with the theory right now as I've allowed myself to slip behind. Could you give me some details on this ring so I can read about it?
 
Z = {a+bi : a,b in Z}. Addition and multiplication done like in C turn it into a ring.

Like in Z, there is a notion of "prime number" in Z. The fact I want to exploit is that if p is a prime in Z, and p=3 (mod 4), then p is also a prime in Z (i.e. a Gaussian prime). So maybe you can read up on Gaussian primes.

After that, if we suppose p = 3 (mod 4) in your problem, then p|(a^2+b^2)=(a+bi)(a-bi) would imply that p|(a+bi) or p|(a-bi), which would lead to a contradiction. So p must be = 1 (mod 4).

But there are probably more elementary ways to do this. Number theory isn't my strong suit.
 
Hummm I don't believe we've gone into such theory quite yet. There must be a more elementary way like you said...
 
There is no really easy way on that problem, if what you mean is that p = sum of two squares (in only one way). It was stated by Fermat in 1640 and not proven until 1747 by Euler. 1770 proven by Lagrange. 1887 by Dedikand using Gaussian integers. Wikepedia.

However, it is much easier if you only want an X and Y such that X^2+Y^2 ==0 Mod p, because in that case you only need solve [tex]\frac{X^2}{Y^2}\equiv -1 Mod p[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Isn't the result you're talking about more general, though? That is, it states those primes that are expressible as a sum of two squares are precisely those that are congruent to 1 mod 4 (with the trivial exception of p=2).

Here we only have that p divides a^2 + b^2, and not that it equals it.
 
morphism: Here we only have that p divides a^2 + b^2, and not that it equals it.

Yes, that is true. By the time I recognized that and got around to it, you were ahead of me. We only need solve: [tex]\frac{X^2}{Y^2}\equiv -1 Mod p[/tex]
 
Last edited:
robert Ihnot said:
[tex]\frac{X^2}{Y^2}\equiv -1 Mod p[/tex]
Ah, that's nice. :smile: I should have seen it!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K