27
$\begingroup$

It is easy to find 3 squares (of integers) in arithmetic progression. For example, $1^2,5^2,7^2$.

I've been told Fermat proved that there are no progressions of length 4 in the squares. Do you know of a proof of this result?

(Additionally, are there similar results for cubes, 4th powers, etc? If so, what would be a good reference for this type of material?)


Edit, March 30, 2012: The following question in MO is related and may be useful to people interested in the question I posted here.

$\endgroup$
24
$\begingroup$

Here are a few proofs: 1, and the somewhat bizarre 3. I'd previously linked to Kiming's exposition to prove this result, but the link has been removed. This is the proof described in lhf's answer --- and I think of this as a very elementary approach.

Unfortunately, there are no cases where you have nontrivial arithmetic progressions of higher powers. This is a string of proofs. Carmichael himself covered this for n = 3 and 4, about a hundred years ago. But it wasn't completed until Ribet wrote a paper on it in the 90s. His paper can be found here. The statement is equivalent to when we let $\alpha = 1$. Funny enough, he happens to have sent out a notice on scimath with a little humor, which can still be found here.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Oh, this is excellent! Many thanks! $\endgroup$ – Bruce George Jun 6 '11 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ The link at the end from sci.math is now broken. It looks like the whole "Mathematical Atlas" site that Rusin set up and hosted on his webpages is now gone. $\endgroup$ – KCd Jun 7 '15 at 21:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @KCd, the link is still available through the Internet Archive: link. $\endgroup$ – FredH Feb 25 '16 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ Link number 2 is also gone. No backup in Internet Archive. $\endgroup$ – SasQ Jul 10 '19 at 11:56
6
$\begingroup$

A quick Google search found this paper: On 4 Squares in Arithmetic Progression by Ian Kiming. It contains a sketch of an elementary proof at the end and cites Dickson's History of the theory of numbers. It is reproduced below.


There do not exist $4$ rational squares in arithmetic progression:

Theorem 1. Suppose that $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are rational numbers such that: $$\beta^2-\alpha^2=\gamma^2-\beta^2=\delta^2-\gamma^2.$$ Then $\pm\alpha=\pm\beta=\pm\gamma=\pm\delta$.

1.2. Elementary proof. The following elementary proof of theorem 1 is outlined by Dickson in [9], p. 440. As an exercise, fill in the details of the following steps.

I. To prove theorem 1 assume that we are given rational numbers $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ satisfying the hypothesis of the theorem. We may assume that they are relatively prime, non-negative integers. The theorem then states that $\alpha=\beta=\gamma=\delta$. Assume that this is not true. Then we see that $\alpha^2<\beta^2<\gamma^2<\delta^2$.

Show that $\gcd(\alpha,\beta)=\gcd(\beta,\gamma)=\gcd(\gamma,\delta)=1$ and that $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ are all odd. Conclude that $\gcd(\beta+\alpha,\beta-\alpha)=\gcd(\gamma+\beta,\gamma-\beta)=\gcd(\delta+\gamma,\delta-\gamma)=2$.

II. Defining positive integers $a,b,c,d$ by: $$2a:=\gcd(\beta+\alpha,\gamma+\beta),\\ 2b:=\gcd(\beta+\alpha,\gamma-\beta),\\ 2c:=\gcd(\beta-\alpha,\gamma+\beta),\\ 2d:=\gcd(\beta-\alpha,\gamma-\beta),$$ show that we have: $$\beta+\alpha=2ab,\\ \beta-\alpha=2cd,\\ \gamma+\beta=2ac,\\ \gamma-\beta=2bd,\\ \delta+\gamma=2bc,\\ \delta-\gamma=2ad.$$

III. Then $(a+d)b=(a-d)c$ and $(c+d)a=(c-d)b$, and we have the number $\gcd(a+d,a-d)$ and $\gcd(c+d,c-d)$ are both either $1$ or $2$. We can then conclude that $$a+d=mc,\\a-d=mb,\\c+d=nb,\\c-d=na,$$ with $m,n\in\{1,2\}$.

IV. The conclusion in the last step is incompatible with the positivity of $a,b,c,d$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice write-up. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Bruce George Jun 6 '11 at 2:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The link seems to be dead. Does anyone have a backup or another link to the exposition? $\endgroup$ – PrimeRibeyeDeal Oct 19 '14 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ @PrimeRibeyeDeal, that's too bad. Perhaps you can ask the author Ian Kiming ? $\endgroup$ – lhf Oct 19 '14 at 19:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SasQ, here is a copy: pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9fcc/… $\endgroup$ – lhf Jul 10 '19 at 12:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SasQ, see my edited answer. $\endgroup$ – lhf Jul 10 '19 at 12:21
5
$\begingroup$

My favourite proof of this is Van der Poorten's — it uses descent, as Fermat almost certainly would have.

$\endgroup$
0

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.