24
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
23
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 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 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.

enter image description here

enter image description here enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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 at 12:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SasQ, see my edited answer. $\endgroup$ – lhf Jul 10 at 12:21
5
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$

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.