Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Gaussian integers are the set: $$\mathbb{Z}[\imath] =\{a+b\imath : a,b \in\mathbb{Z} \}$$ With norm: $$\mathrm{N}(a+b\imath)=a^{2}+b^{2}.$$ It satisfies $\mathrm{N}(\alpha\cdot \beta )=\mathrm{N}(\alpha)\cdot\mathrm{N}( \beta )$

The units of $\mathbb{Z}[\imath]$ are precisely: $1,-1,\imath,-\imath$

Result: If $p=4k+1$ ( p : prime), there are $x<p$ such that $p/(x^{2}+1)$

$Theorem$: If $p$ is a prime with $p=4k+1$, then $p$ is an sum of two squares. Proof. If $p=4k+1$ there are $x<p$ such that $p/(x^{2}+1)$, then $p/(x+\imath)(x-\imath)$.

Note that, if $p/(x+\imath)$, there are $(a+b\imath)$ such that: $$(x+\imath)=p(a+b\imath)=pa+pb\imath.$$ This implies that $x=pa$, this is imposible as $x\lt p$.

Therefore $p\nmid(x+\imath)$, also $p\nmid(x-\imath)$.

Then $p$ is not an Gaussian prime, so $p = \alpha \beta$ with $\mathrm{N}(\alpha)\gt 1$ and $\mathrm{N}(\beta)\gt 1$.

If $ \alpha=a+b\imath $ and $\beta=c+d\imath$, we get: $$\mathrm{N}(p)=\mathrm{N}(\alpha \beta)=\mathrm{N}\alpha\cdot\mathrm{N}\beta,$$ which implies: $$p^{2}=(a^{2}+b^{2})(c^{2}+d^{2}).$$

Note that the last equation is an integer, so $(a^{2}+b^{2})|p^{2}$.

By this last equation $(a^{2}+b^{2}),(c^{2}+d^{2})\neq 1,$ so therefore: $$p=a^{2}+b^{2}$$


It's beautiful! Does anyone have other proofs ?


share|cite|improve this question
@Bryan: did you see this:… – anonymous Nov 22 '10 at 0:52
I did not know, thanks .. – Bryan Yocks Nov 22 '10 at 0:59
I have voted to close as duplicate. It is a fine question, but seems to be asking for the exact same thing as the question Chandru1 linked to. – Jonas Meyer Nov 22 '10 at 1:15
In retrospect, the other question just asked for an explanation, not specifically for other proofs, so hopefully my vote wasn't hasty. Nonetheless, I think having both open would be redundant; perhaps they could be merged? – Jonas Meyer Nov 22 '10 at 1:24
@Jonas: Yes, this is a good question. Perhaps bryan was not aware of the fact that this has been already asked. – anonymous Nov 22 '10 at 1:26
up vote 2 down vote accepted

This is best viewed from a slightly more general perspective as follows. In any $\rm UFD$, if $\rm\ a\ $ is not prime, i.e. $\rm\ a\:|\:bc\ $ but $\rm\ a\nmid b,\ a\nmid c\ $ then $\rm\ \gcd(a,b)\ $ is a proper factor of $\rm\:a\:$. Moreover this gcd can be computed when a $\rm UFD$ has a constructive Euclidean algorithm, as does $\rm \mathbb Z[i]\:$. Therefore this yields a constructive proof that nonprime nonunits are reducible in Euclidean domains (i.e. the nontrivial half of the equivalence of irreducible and prime elements in $\rm UFDs$).

Applying this above we deduce that $\rm\ gcd(p,x-i)\ = a + bi $ is a proper factor of $\rm\:p\:$, so it must have norm a proper factor of $\rm\ N(p) = p^2\ $, i.e. it must have norm $\rm\:p\:$. Therefore $\rm\ p = a^2 + b^2\ $ as desired. This leads to an elegant efficient few-line Euclidean algorithm to compute a representation of a prime $\rm\ p = 4k+1\ $ as a sum of two squares - see my post here for an implementation.

share|cite|improve this answer

There is a proof by Roger Heath-Brown and another by John Ewell.

Heath-Brown's proof was later adapted into a "one-sentence" proof by Zagier. Zagier's proof is available at the wikipedia link given in Sivaram's answer.

share|cite|improve this answer
I met this proof in number theory class, is very beutiful ... – Bryan Yocks Nov 22 '10 at 1:15

There is a nice proof using Minkowski's theorem which also proves the four-square theorem. It is Proof #2 here.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.