Category: Proofs

  • 1988 IMO Problem 6

    I found about this legendary problem from a Numberphile video and was intrigued. Go watch the video, even if you have seen the problem before. It’s fun!

    Here’s the problem which is can be found on The Official IMO page.


    1988 IMO #6. Let $a$ and $b$ be positive integers such that $ab + 1$ divides $a^2 + b^2$.
    Show that $\dfrac{a^{2} + b^{2}}{ab + 1}$ is the square of an integer.


    I thought about the problem for some time and initially thought it was about Gaussian primes. But I got nowhere, so I wrote a simple Python program to collect some data. Denoting the ratio $\dfrac{a^{2} + b^{2}}{ab + 1}$ by $q$, here’s what I found (notice that I considered non-negative integers, rather than just strictly positive integers).:

    $$\begin{array}{c||cccccccccc}
    a & 1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 8 & 27 & 30 & 112 & 240 & 418 \\ \hline
    b & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 3 & 8 & 30 & 27 & 112 \\ \hline
    q & 1 & 1 & 4 & 9 & 4 & 9 & 4 & 4 & 9 & 4 \\
    \end{array}$$

    More thoughts…
    What struck me about this data were the solutions for $q = 4$. They are adjacent terms in the sequence
    $$0, 2, 8, 30, 112, 418, \dots$$
    After some thought, I realized that this sequence satisfies the recurrence $T_n = 4 T_{n-1} – T_{n-2}$.

    And the solutions for $q = 9$ are adjacent terms in the sequence $$0, 3, 27, 240, \dots$$
    This sequence satisfies the recurrence $T_n = 9 T_{n-1} – T_{n-2}$.

    Could it be, that for a fixed value of $q$, the integer solutions are adjacent terms of a 2nd order linear recurrence $T_n = q T_{n-1} – T_{n-2}$?!?

    Given one solution $(a,b)$ with $a > b$, the recurrence yields the next solution, which is $(q a – b, a)$.

    But the recurrence also determines the previous terms of the sequence: $T_{n-2} = q T_{n-1} – T_n$.

    So the solution before $(a, b)$ would be $(b, q b – a)$. And if we keep generating smaller solutions, the process would have to bottom out somewhere, namely at $(T_1, T_0) = (r, 0)$ for some $r$.

    Computing the ratio $q$ for this smallest solution yields that $q = r^2$, a perfect square, just as claimed in the problem!


    With that intuition, here is what I proved:

    Suppose that $a > b > 0$ are integers, and $\dfrac{a^2+b^2}{ab+1} = q$ is an integer. Define $a’ = b$ and $b’ = qb – a$. Then

    1. The ratio $\dfrac{a’^2+b’^2}{a’b’+1}$ is also equal to $q$.

    2. $q \geq 1$.

    3. $a’ > b’$.

    4. $b’ \geq 0$.

    Thus, given a solution $(a,b)$, we can derive a smaller solution $(a’,b’)$. So the motivation described above is valid; any solution can be stepped down to a minimal solution $(r,0)$ whose $q$-value is the same as for $(a,b)$, and is $q = r^2$.


    Proofs:

    1. The ratio $\dfrac{a’^2+b’^2}{a’b’+1}$ is also equal to $q$.

    Proof: Start by substitution and then use that $(a^2 + b^2) = q(ab+1)$.
    $$\dfrac{a’^2+b’^2}{a’b’+1} = \dfrac{b^2+(qb – a)^2}{b(qb – a)+1} = \dfrac{q^2b^2 – 2qab + (a^2 + b^2)}{qb^2 – ab + 1} = \dfrac{q^2b^2 – 2qab + q(ab+1)}{qb^2 – ab + 1} = \dfrac{q^2b^2 – qab + q}{qb^2 – ab + 1} = q$$

    2. $q \geq 1$. Proof: This is because $q$ is a positive integer!

    3. $a’ > b’$. Proof: Start with $q = \dfrac{a^2+b^2}{ab+1}$ and decrease the denominator to get
    $q < \dfrac{a^2+b^2}{ab} = \dfrac{a}{b} + \dfrac{b}{a} < \dfrac{a}{b} + 1$. Then note that $q < \dfrac{a}{b} + 1$ is equivalent to $b > bq – a$ which is just $a’ > b’$.

    4. $b’ \geq 0$.
    Proof: In part 1 we saw that $\dfrac{b^2+(qb – a)^2}{b(qb – a)+1} = q$. We know that the numerator and the right hand side are positive. So the denominator must also be positive, which means that $b’ = qb-a \geq 0$.

  • Uniqueness of Factorization

    A few days ago I came across a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic (aka Unique Factorization) in Courant and Robbin’s What is Mathematics that I hadn’t seen it before. I liked it enough to learn it.

    Then another surprise – I saw it again yesterday in Primes and Programming by Peter Giblin, a book that Larry Zimmerman had recommended to a student from the summer high school program.

    The usual proof that I know is based on Euclid, and basically is a proof by Strong Induction. This new proof is by the Principle of Least Element. So the key is to suppose that unique factorization fails, and to reason about the least positive integer \(N\) that has more than one factorization into primes. Even though we’ll show this number doesn’t exist, we can deduce lots of information about it!

    First, some notation. Let’s say that two distinct prime factorizations of \(N\) are

    \[\text{(1)}\qquad N = p_1 p_2 \dots p_r \text{ and } N = q_1 q_2 \dots q_s\]

    Of course, we’ll arrange the primes in non-decreasing order, so that in particular, \(p_1\) and \(q_1\) are the smallest primes in those factorizations.

    The other primes don’t take a big role in what comes next, so let’s write \(P = p_2 \dots p_r\) and \(Q = q_2 \dots q_s\), so that we have

    \[N = p_1 P = q_1 Q.\]

    The first observation is that \(p_1\) and \(q_1\) are different primes, otherwise if they were equal, we could factor them off and then \(N/p_1 = P\) would be a smaller positive integer with two distinct prime factorizations.

    Now that that’s done, let’s assume without loss of generality that \(p_1 < q_1\), and we’ll form a new number:

    \[\text{(2)}\qquad M = (q_1 – p_1) Q\]

    By equation (2), it’s clear that \(M\) is a positive integer that is less than \(N\), and therefore does factor uniquely into primes. Now we rewrite \(M\) as follows:

    \[M = (q_1 – p_1) Q = q_1 Q – p_1 Q = N – p_1 Q = p_1 P – p_1 Q = p_1 (P – Q)\]

    That is, \[\text{(3)}\qquad M = p_1 (P – Q)\]

    We’re almost there. Note that because of equation (3), the prime \(p_1\) is a prime factor of \(M\). Now consider the factorization of \(M\) given in equation (2). Since we were careful to list the primes in non-decreasing order, \(p_1\) can’t be any of the primes in \(Q = q_2 \dots q_s\), and so it must be a factor of \((q_1 – p_1)\). Suppose that \((q_1 – p_1) = p_1 t\). Then solving for \(q_1\), we find that \(q_1 = p_1 (t+1)\). And this is a contradiction, since then \(q_1\) would not be a prime number!

  • Teaching Proofs

    Here’s a nice guide to what is a proof and how to write one:
    How to write proofs: a quick guide by Eugenia Cheng.

    This is brief, has a nice outline, and gives some good examples. I love the analogy made, that a good proof is like a good story: it has a beginning, middle and end. The point: a proof can be bad by having the parts in the wrong order.

    A shortcoming of the article, in my opinion, is the explanation of an induction proof. It’s a pet-peeve of mine, but I dislike seeing “n = k” and “n = k+1” in the same paragraph. Problems with teaching and learning induction is a greater issue that is partially addressed in the May/June 2008 article Some Observations on Teaching Induction by Mary E. Flahive and John W. Lee.