A pretty good challenge
1 Attachment(s)
A PGC (pretty good challenge). Given:
x=(y^2(n^2n))/(2n1)=(y^2Oblong)/Odd To prove, 1. If n>0, there will be Integer solution for x iff (2n1) are the numbers that are divisible only by primes congruent to 1 mod 4 ([url]http://oeis.org/A004613[/url], [url]https://oeis.org/A008846[/url], [url]https://oeis.org/A020882[/url]). 2. If n≤0, there will be Integer solution for x iff n=2m negative Even (negative sequence [url]https://oeis.org/A226485[/url], or twice the negative sequence [url]http://oeis.org/A094178[/url]). 
[QUOTE=Charles Kusniec;577933]A PGC (pretty good challenge). Given:
x=(y^2(n^2n))/(2n1)=(y^2Oblong)/Odd To prove, 1. If n>0, there will be Integer solution for x iff (2n1) are the numbers that are divisible only by primes congruent to 1 mod 4 ([url]http://oeis.org/A004613[/url], [url]https://oeis.org/A008846[/url], [url]https://oeis.org/A020882[/url]). 2. If n≤0, there will be Integer solution for x iff n=2m negative Even (negative sequence [url]https://oeis.org/A226485[/url], or twice the negative sequence [url]http://oeis.org/A094178[/url]).[/QUOTE](y^2  (n^2  n))/(2*n  1) is an integer when n^2  n == y^2 (mod 2*n1) 4*n^2  4*n == 4*y^2 (mod 2*n  1) [sup]†[/sup] (2*n  1)^2 == 4*y^2 +1 (mod 2*n  1) 4*y^2 + 1 == 0 (mod 2*n  1); that is, 2*n  1 divides 4*y^2 + 1 Since 4*y^2 + 1 is divisible only by primes congruent to 1 (mod 4), the same is true of its divisor 2*n  1. This solves (1) straightaway. If n = 0, we have y^2 == 0 (mod 1) which is trivial. If n < 0, we have that 2*n + 1 divides 4*y^2 + 1. This implies all divisors of 2*n + 1 are congruent to 1 (mod 4), so that n is even, solving (2) in the formulation of the second OEIS sequence. [sup]†[/sup]Multiplying the congruence through by 4 is allowed, since 4 is relatively prime to 2*n  1. 
Dear Dr Sardonicus, I read your proof and found no fault. Apparently it is perfect. Congratulations. I think the way I asked already giving the answers helped. Now, the challenge is to find at least one other form of proof where you use the sum of two squares theorem. A very interesting surprise will appear, and that is the only hint for now.

[QUOTE=Charles Kusniec;577969]Now, the challenge is to find at least one other form of proof where you use the sum of two squares theorem.[/QUOTE]I forgot to point out that the thing is also trivial when n = 1, y^2 = 0 (mod 1).
What I proved was that your given hypotheses imply that 2*n  1 divides 4*y^2 + 1 if n > 1 2*n + 1 divides 4*y^2 + 1, if n < 0. The fact that every prime divisor p of 4*y^2 + 1 is congruent to 1 (mod 4) is elementary, and does not require the twosquares theorem. Using Fermat's "little theorem," p divides (2*y)^(p1)  1. From the above, p divides (2*y)^4  1, but p does [i]not[/i] divide (2*y)^2  1. Therefore, 2*y has multiplicative order 4 (mod p), from which it follows that p1 is divisible by 4. 
Actually, we have 2 trivialities for n. We have n=0 and n=1 as trivialities. I agree with what you said. What I am complementing is that there is another way to do this proof and in it we have to use the sum of 2 squares theorem. When we do the proof by this second way, we find a very interesting equality.

Nice.
A numeric example for 2n1 = 65: [url]https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%28x%5E2%28%28%2865%2B1%29%2F2%29%5E2%28%2865%2B1%29%2F2%29%29%29%2F65+solve+for+over+the+integer[/url] ETA: No solutions for 2n1 = 21 even though it is of the form 4m+1 since it has at least one prime factor of the form 2m+1 with odd m: [url]https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y%3D%28x%5E2%28%28%2821%2B1%29%2F2%29%5E2%28%2821%2B1%29%2F2%29%29%29%2F21+solve+for+over+the+integer[/url] 
Dear a1call,
Thanks for the example. I like you used 65 as an example, because this is one of those cases of multiplicity of primitive Pythagorean triangle. At 65, we have 2 solutions because we have 2 ways to make the Pythagorean triangle. That’s why I don’t really like how WolframAlpha and many others present this kind of solution. The way they present it looks like we have 4 sequences of solutions, when in fact, we only have 2 sequences. They should present only the sequences a(n) = 65 n^2 + 8 n  16 and a(n) = 65 n^2 + 18 n  15. These two sequences are at offset Zero. For more details about offset I have a study that explains well this phenomenon... 
All times are UTC. The time now is 10:11. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.