Solutions to a linear equation and perfect square

smslca
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
1) Is there any way to find integer solutions for a linear equation ax+by=c, with a,b,c known and without having an another equation to substitute in the above one.
ex : 3x+y=394;

Is there any worst case for c being very large.

2)Is there any easy and fastest way to get t=115734564=9*(3586^2)
from t1=116964=9*(12996) to "t" using the equation t=(81*x*x)+(390240*x)+116964

Actually Here if we don't know the value of "t" and searching for a perfect square using the above equation. "t" is the first perfect square we ecounter at x, and all below x cannot generate a perfect square.

answer is t=280 , can we get "x" in the shortest way without substituting 1,2,3,...280 respectively.
i.e how to get from 12996 to a perfect square using the equation.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If you have only the equation ax+ by= c then you can solve for y "in terms of x":
y= \frac{c- ax}{b}\
Choose any value at all for x and calculate y from the formula.

If you also have the requirement that all numbers, a, b, c, and x and y are integers, this is a "Diophantine" equation. It will have no solution if the largest common divisor of a and b does not also divide c. If it does, then you can divide through by that common divisor so we can assume that a and b are relatively prime.

In the example you give, 3x+ y= 394, note that if x= 1, y= -2, then 3x+ y= 3(1)+ (-2)= 1. Further if we multiply those by 394, so that x= 394, y= -788, then 3x+ y= 3(394)+ (-788)= 394(3(1)+ (-2))= 394(1)= 394.

But, also, if we take x= 394- k and y= -788+ 3k, then 3x+ y= 3(394- k)+ (-788+ 3k)= 3(394)+ (-788()- 3k+ 3k= 3(394)+ (-788)= 394 again.

That is, x= 394- k and y= -788+ 3k, for k any integer, are integer solutions to 3x+ y= 394.

I don't understand what you are asking with "2)Is there any easy and fastest way to get t=115734564=9*(3586^2)
from t1=116964=9*(12996) to "t" using the equation t=(81*x*x)+(390240*x)+116964"

In what sense do you get t from t1?
 
HallsofIvy said:
I don't understand what you are asking with "2)Is there any easy and fastest way to get t=115734564=9*(3586^2)
from t1=116964=9*(12996) to "t" using the equation t=(81*x*x)+(390240*x)+116964"

In what sense do you get t from t1?

u can see t1=116964 and t= (81x^2)+390240x+(t1)
So we have used t1 in t . i.e by adding something to t1 we get t.

also t1= 9*12996;
t = 9*(3568^2);

so by substituting x=280 in (81x^2)+390240x and adding it to t1 we get 12996 to 3568^2;

My question is : If we do not know the value of "t" and by substituting the integer values in
the equation of "t" , to search for a value of "t" which gives a perfect square, we will get it at x=280. So is there any fastest way(method) to say "x" value is 280 without substuting the whole integer values.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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...
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