Square pyramidal numbers and Tetrahedral numbers

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Helios
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers Square
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Square pyramidal numbers and tetrahedral numbers are defined by the formulas: Square pyramidal numbers = n(n + 1)(2n + 1)/6 and Tetrahedral numbers = n(n + 1)(n + 2)/6. The only integer solution where a square pyramidal number equals a tetrahedral number is n = 1, as proven in 1988 by F. Beukers. The probability of finding additional solutions decreases significantly as n increases, making it highly unlikely to find any beyond n = 100.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical sequences and series
  • Familiarity with algebraic manipulation and solving equations
  • Knowledge of combinatorial number theory
  • Basic understanding of probability theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of square pyramidal numbers in detail
  • Explore the derivation and applications of tetrahedral numbers
  • Study the proof techniques used in combinatorial number theory
  • Investigate related mathematical problems in number theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of number theory, and anyone interested in the properties of polygonal numbers and their relationships.

Helios
Messages
267
Reaction score
63
There are square pyramidal numbers and tetrahedral numbers, defined

Square pyramidal numbers = n ( n + 1 )( 2 n + 1) / 6
1, 5, 14, 30, 55, 91, 140, 204, 285, 385, 506, 650, ...

Tetrahedral numbers = n ( n + 1 )( n + 2 ) / 6

1, 4, 10, 20, 35, 56, 84, 120, 165, 220, 286, 364, ...

and I was wondering if there's a number(s) besides 1 that is both.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have to guess no. Purely for probabilistic reasons. For any number n, the probability that there is a pyramidal number equal to n(n+1)(n+2)/6 is ~1/n^2, falling off too fast as n -> infinity. So, for example, the probability of a hit for n>100 is ~0.01. Once we've checked the first 100 n's, we can be fairly sure that there won't be any hits beyond that.

But I have no idea how to give a proper proof.
 
The answer is no. You are looking for solutions of the equation:

<br /> \frac {n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} = \frac {n(n+1)(n+2)}{6}<br />

Cancelling terms we get

<br /> 2n+1 = n+2<br />

Solving for n you find n = 1 as the only solution
 
csco said:
The answer is no. You are looking for solutions of the equation:

<br /> \frac {n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} = \frac {n(n+1)(n+2)}{6}<br />

Cancelling terms we get

<br /> 2n+1 = n+2<br />

Solving for n you find n = 1 as the only solution

The OP is looking for solutions to

<br /> \frac {n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} = \frac {m(m+1)(m+2)}{6}<br />
not

<br /> \frac {n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} = \frac {n(n+1)(n+2)}{6}<br />
.
 
According to Mathworld, 1 is the only solution, and this fact was only proven in 1988 (so, no easy proof is forthcoming).
 
hamster143 said:
According to Mathworld, 1 is the only solution, and this fact was only proven in 1988 (so, no easy proof is forthcoming).

really? Can you give a cite?
 
MathWorld gives
Beukers, F. "On Oranges and Integral Points on Certain Plane Cubic Curves." Nieuw Arch. Wisk. 6, 203-210, 1988.​
but Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde's online archives only go back to 2000.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
13K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K