3
$\begingroup$

I'm reading "A friendly introduction to number theory" and I'm stuck in this exercise, I'm mentioning this because what I need is a basic answer, all I know about primitive pythagorean triplets is they satisfy $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$ and a, b and c has no common factors.

Now.. my approach (probably kind of silly) was to "classify" the odd numbers (not divisible by 3) as $6k+1$, $6k+2$ and $6k+5$, and the even numbers with $6k+2$ and $6k+4$, then, trying different combinations of that, I could probe all the cases when I assume c is not 3 divisible, but I still have to probe that c cannot be 3 divisible and I don't know how to do it.

Anyway, probably there is a better simpler solution.

(Sorry, if this is a stupid question, I'm trying to teach myself number theory without much math background)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Actually what was the exercise? $\endgroup$ – Praveen Dec 28 '14 at 17:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note that any square is congruent to $0$ or $1$ modulo $3$. So if neither $a$ nor $b$ is divisible by $3$, then $a^2+b^2\equiv 2\pmod{3}$, which is impossible for a square. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Dec 28 '14 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ @supremum: prove that in a pythagorean triple, a or b has to be divisible by 3. Should I put it in the body of the question? I thought it was a bit repetitive but maybe is confusing. $\endgroup$ – Hugo Dec 28 '14 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ @AndréNicolas: thanks! do you want to write that as a answer so I can mark it as accepted? $\endgroup$ – Hugo Dec 28 '14 at 18:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are welcome. When you find out how to do a problem, it is encouraged that you write it up yourself as an answer. If you have trouble with the LaTeX, just write it up as best you can and if you send me a message I can edit things. You made a good choice of book, Silverman's is well-written. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Dec 28 '14 at 19:01
7
$\begingroup$

Any square is congruent to 0 or 1 modulo 3

So having, $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$

Let's suppose neither a nor b is divisible by 3, then, the squares must be 1 modulo 3.

So, the expression can be re-written as:

$(3k + 1) + (3k' + 1) = c^2$

and then

$3 (k + k') + 2 = c^2$

That is, $c^2$ is a square congruent 2 module 3, which is absurd.

Edit: maybe I should add that for definition of Pythagorean triple, only one can be divisible by 3, not both.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The proof above shows that in any Pythagorean triple $(a,b,c)$, we have $3$ divides $a$ or $3$ divides $b$. This "or" as usual includes the possibility of both. For primitive triples, it cannot be both. $\endgroup$ – André Nicolas Dec 28 '14 at 21:06
1
$\begingroup$

\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline n \pmod 3 & n^2 \pmod 3 \\ \hline 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \\ 2 & 1 \\ \hline \end{array}

If neither $a$ nor $b$ is a multiple of $3$, then $a^2 + b^2 \equiv c^2 \pmod 3$ becomes $1 + 1 \equiv c^2 \pmod 3$, which simplifies to $c^2 \equiv 2 \pmod 3$; which has no solution.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I'm reading the book too. I came up with a different approach. Of course, it is not as elegant as the answer given, but here goes.

$$ a = st $$ $$ b = (s^2 - t^2)/2 $$

Choose values for s and t.

If either of s or t is a multiple of 3, then $ a = st $ is a multiple of 3. Both s and t cannot be multiples of 3, as that will cause both a and b to be multiples of 3 and the triplet won't be primitive.

If neither s nor t is a multiple of 3.

$$ s = 3x + y $$ $$ t = 3p + q $$

Here y and q can take values 1 and 2.

a cannot be a multiple of 3. Simplifying b, we get

$$ b = (s - t)(s + t)/2 $$ $$ b = (3x - 3p + y - q)(3x + 3p + y + q)/2 $$

Now y and q can either be 1 or 2.

When y and q are both equal to 1 or 2, the first term becomes $(3x - 3p)$.

When y and q are unequal, but take the values 1 or 2, the second term becomes $(3x + 3p + 3)$.

In both cases, b is a multiple of 3.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think there is a little mistake in the first simplified term (but it doesn't affect your conclusion), I think the first term should be (3x - 3p + y - q) $\endgroup$ – Hugo Sep 10 '15 at 12:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Hugo Aah yes. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – the_kulk Sep 10 '15 at 12:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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