How can I prove that $3n(n^2+6)$ can't be an odd cube?

  • $\begingroup$ You mean an odd cube? $\endgroup$ – joriki Oct 14 '12 at 15:00

If $n$ is not a multiple of 3, $3n(n^2+6)$ is a multiple of 3 but not a multiple of 9, so it cannot be a cube. So let $n = 3m$, and we want to show $9m(9m^2+6) = 27(m(3m^2+2))$ cannot be an odd cube, or equivalently, that $m(3m^2+2)$ cannot be an odd cube.

Now, if it is an odd cube, $m$ must be odd, and thus $\gcd(m,3m^2+2) = 1.$ Therefore, both $m$ and $3m^2+2$ are cubes; let $m = k^3.$ Now, $3m^2+2 = 3k^6+2$ is a cube. But $3k^6+2$ is either 5 or 2 mod 7, while cubes are 1,0, or -1 mod 7. This can be calculated explicitly, or you can note that Fermat's little theorem tells us that $k^6$ is 1 mod 7 if $k$ is not a multiple of 7.

  • $\begingroup$ I got everything except the cubes are 1,0 or -1 mod 7 $\endgroup$ – Jorge Fernández Hidalgo Oct 14 '12 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ By Fermat's little theorem, either $x \equiv 0 \pmod{7}$ or $x^6 \equiv 1 \pmod{7}$. In the second case, we can factor that as $(x^3-1)(x^3+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{7}$, so if $x$ is not a multiple of 7, $x^3$ is 1 or -1 mod 7. $\endgroup$ – only Oct 14 '12 at 15:30

It is worth emphasis that the idea in only's answer works much more generally. Namely

Theorem $\ $ If $\rm\:a,b,j,k,m\:$ are naturals with $\rm\:(m,b) = 1,\:$ and $\rm\:jk+1 = p\:$ is prime then

$\rm\qquad\qquad\quad m\,(a\,m^{\,j} + b)\:$ is a $\rm\:k$-th power of a natural

$\rm\qquad\qquad\!\Rightarrow\ a+b\,\ \ or\,\ \ b\ $ is a $\rm\:k$-th power $\rm(mod\ p)$

Proof $\rm\,\ (m,\,a\,m^{\,j}+b) = (m,b) = 1,\:$ thus $\rm\:m\:$ and $\rm\:a\,m^{\,j}+b\:$ are coprime factors of a $\rm\:k$-th power hence, by unique factorization, they are themselves $\rm\:k$-th powers, say $\rm\:m = c^k,\:$ and $\rm\:d^k\! = a\,m^{\,j} + b = a\, c^{\,j\,k}\!+ b = a\, c^{\,p-1}\!+b\equiv a+b\ \ or\ \ b\pmod p\:$ by little Fermat. $\ \ $ QED

Remark $\ $ This consequence of unique factorization often proves very useful in number theory. Essentially this was exploited by Fermat in his method of infinite descent. Indeed, Weil wrote

Infinite descent a la Fermat depends ordinarily upon no more than the following simple observation: if the product $ab$ of two ordinary integers (resp. two integers in an algebraic number-field) is equal to an $n$-th power, and if the gcd of $a$ and $b$ can take its values only in a given finite set of integers (resp. of ideals), then both $a$ and $b$ are $n$-th powers, up to factors which can take their values only in some assignable finite set. For ordinary integers this is obvious; it is so for algebraic number-fields provided one takes for granted the finiteness of the number of ideal-classes and Dirichlet’s theorem about units.


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.