• Pythagorean Primitives

    From David Entwistle@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 20 08:11:10 2025
    I hope this question is clear. If not, please suggest a change to make the intention clearer (assuming you can work the intention out)...

    Most of us are familiar with the (3, 4, 5) right-triangle. 5 is the
    smallest integer hypotenuse which supports two other sides of a right-
    triangle with integer length. There are many other right-triangles with
    integer sides, such as: (5, 12, 13) and (8, 15, 17). These triples are considered primitive as the terms do not share a common factor.

    On the other hand, although (6, 8, 10) is a right-triangle, it is NOT
    primitive as the elements share a common factor, 2.

    Can you find the first four terms in the series where a(n) is the least hypotenuse of which 2^(n-1) Pythagorean triples are primitive? So, 5 is
    the smallest and supports one triple. Can you find a hypotenuse that
    supports two discrete primitive Pythagorean triples, four and eight?

    Good luck.
    --
    David Entwistle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From IlanMayer@21:1/5 to David Entwistle on Fri Jun 20 17:24:45 2025
    On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 8:11:10 +0000, David Entwistle wrote:

    I hope this question is clear. If not, please suggest a change to make
    the
    intention clearer (assuming you can work the intention out)...

    Most of us are familiar with the (3, 4, 5) right-triangle. 5 is the
    smallest integer hypotenuse which supports two other sides of a right- triangle with integer length. There are many other right-triangles with integer sides, such as: (5, 12, 13) and (8, 15, 17). These triples are considered primitive as the terms do not share a common factor.

    On the other hand, although (6, 8, 10) is a right-triangle, it is NOT primitive as the elements share a common factor, 2.

    Can you find the first four terms in the series where a(n) is the least hypotenuse of which 2^(n-1) Pythagorean triples are primitive? So, 5 is
    the smallest and supports one triple. Can you find a hypotenuse that
    supports two discrete primitive Pythagorean triples, four and eight?

    Good luck.

    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER
    SPOILER


    3 4 5

    16 63 65
    33 56 65

    47 1104 1105
    264 1073 1105
    576 943 1105
    744 817 1105

    716 32037 32045
    2277 31964 32045
    6764 31323 32045
    8283 30956 32045
    15916 27813 32045
    17253 27004 32045
    21093 24124 32045
    22244 23067 32045


    Please reply to ilanlmayer at gmail dot com

    __/\__
    \ /
    __/\\ //\__ Ilan Mayer
    \ /
    /__ __\ Toronto, Canada
    /__ __\
    ||

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Entwistle@21:1/5 to IlanMayer on Fri Jun 20 19:44:21 2025
    On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:24:45 +0000, IlanMayer wrote:

    SPOILER

    Well done. Very nice.

    As I'm sure you know, if you search for that sequence you'll find:

    https://oeis.org/A006278

    and

    "a(n) is the product of the first n primes congruent to 1 (mod 4)".

    Does anyone have any insight into why that would be so?

    --
    David Entwistle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Entwistle@21:1/5 to Charlie Roberts on Fri Jun 20 20:06:36 2025
    On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 13:30:12 -0400, Charlie Roberts wrote:

    a(2) = 145

    with the primitive triples (17, 144, 145) and (24, 143, 145).

    Good effort.

    --
    David Entwistle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Entwistle@21:1/5 to Charlie Roberts on Sat Jun 21 05:45:51 2025
    On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 13:33:15 -0400, Charlie Roberts wrote:

    Ooops! Just saw Ilan Mayer's post.

    Good effort though.

    --
    David Entwistle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gareth Taylor@21:1/5 to qnivq.ragjvfgyr@ogvagrearg.pbz on Wed Jun 25 19:05:44 2025
    In article <1034dml$7dg8$1@dont-email.me>,
    David Entwistle <qnivq.ragjvfgyr@ogvagrearg.pbz> wrote:

    "a(n) is the product of the first n primes congruent to 1 (mod 4)".

    Does anyone have any insight into why that would be so?

    Warning, incoming maths! But I've tried to make it friendly and
    legible.

    It comes down to factorisations in the "Gaussian integers", which are
    numbers of the form a+bi, with a, b integers and i = sqrt(-1).

    For example, using these we can now factorise 5 = (2+i)(2-i), but we
    can't factorise 7 any more than it already is.

    It can be shown (proof omitted!) that all integer primes which are 1 mod
    4 factorise as (a+bi)(a-bi) for some a, b, and moreover that there is
    only one such factorisation. (Well, only one up to moving irrelevant
    factors of -1 or +-i around, e.g. writing 5 = (1+2i)(1-2i) instead).
    The prime 2 also factorises, as (1+i)(1-i), but that's not going to
    matter to us.

    And integer primes which are 3 mod 4 don't factorise. This is easier to
    show. Suppose that p = (a+bi)(c+di) for prime p which is 3 mod 4.
    Multiplying both sides by their complex conjugates gives p^2 = (a^2+b^2)(c^2+d^2), a factorisation in the integers. So we must have
    a^2+b^2 = c^2+d^2 = p. However, you can't write any number which is 3
    mod 4 as a sum of two squares: working mod 4, even numbers square to 0
    and odd numbers square to 1, so a^2+b^2 can only ever be 0 or 1 or 2 mod
    4, and so can never equal p since that's 3 mod 4.

    Suppose that we have a primitive Pythagorean triple: a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

    First, c must be odd. If c is even then the right-hand side is 0 mod
    4, and then a and b must both be even. (As above: if exactly one is
    odd then the left-hand side is 1 mod 4, and if both are odd then it's
    2 mod 4.) But if all three are even then the triple isn't primitive.

    Can c have any prime factor p which is 3 mod 4? No. Suppose it did,
    and factorise the left-hand side as (a+bi)(a-bi). Since p itself
    doesn't factorise in the Gaussians, we get that each of a+bi and a-bi
    is a multiple of p, so that a and b themselves are multiples of p, and
    so again the triple isn't primitive.

    So c's prime factors are all of the form 1 mod 4. Now we factorise each
    of those primes in the Gaussians. To make a^2+b^2, we aim for
    (a+bi)(a-bi), by gathering together one of each pair of complex factors
    making up each prime to form a+bi, and then gathering their conjugates
    to form a-bi.

    For example, c = 1105 = 5 x 13 x 17.

    In the Gaussians, c = (2+i)(2-i) x (2+3i)(2-3i) x (4+i)(4-i)

    So the factorisation of c^2 has each of these twice.

    Grouping gives the following choices for a+bi.

    [(2+i)(2+3i)(4+i)]^2 = [-4 + 33i]^2 = -1073 + 264i
    [(2+i)(2+3i)(4-i)]^2 = [12 + 31i]^2 = -817 + 744i
    [(2+i)(2-3i)(4+i)]^2 = [32 - 9i]^2 = 943 - 576i
    [(2+i)(2-3i)(4-i)]^2 = [24 - 23i]^2 = 47 - 1104i

    (While there are eight choices of the plus or minus signs for the three factors, there are only four products listed because in each case our
    product gives one of a+bi and a-bi and then the other is forced.
    Equivlently, we could assume that we'll choose plus for the first factor
    and then choose the other two freely. This is where 2^{n-1} comes from
    the final answer.)

    So we get 1105^2 equals:

    1073^2 + 264^2
    817^2 + 744^2
    943^2 + 576^2
    47^2 + 1104^2

    Note that on the way we also found all ways to write 1105 itself as a
    sum of two squares:

    4^2 + 33^2
    12^2 + 31^2
    32^2 + 9^2
    24^2 + 23^2

    If the prime factors aren't distinct then we can still do this but we
    get less choice. For example, c = 325 = 5 x 5 x 13.

    In the Gaussian, c = (2+i)^2 x (2-i)^2 x (2+3i) x (2-3i)

    We can now only group them as:

    [(2+i)^2 (2+3i)]^2 = [-6+17i]^2 = -253 - 204i
    [(2+i)^2 (2-3i)]^2 = [18-i]^2 = 323 - 36i

    We can't choose (2+i)(2-i)(2+3i) because then both it and its complex
    conjugate are multiple of 5, and the triple isn't primitive.

    So we get 325^2 has two non-primitive ways:

    253^2 + 204^2
    323^2 + 36^2

    Hence, to get the smallest number with a given number of distinct
    ways, we need c to be a product of the first N primes which are 1 mod
    4, and then there are 2^{N-1} ways.

    Gareth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gareth Taylor@21:1/5 to croberts@gmail.com on Thu Jun 26 21:08:31 2025
    In article <sm7r5k1qn6jir93tn8jl4nlo75j5uqiufq@4ax.com>,
    Charlie Roberts <croberts@gmail.com> wrote:

    Well, the goose may have finally been cooked (for me, at least).

    "The number of "primitive" triples for any side of a Pythagorean
    triple is 2^(n-1), where n is the number of unique prime factors of
    that side length. There may be more imprimitives than this but not primitives."

    but no proof (or pointers to a proof) is given.

    Hello. Yesterday, I posted some maths waffle in a reply elsewhere in
    this thread. I mention it partly in case you missed it, but partly in
    case it hasn't shown up at all. (I haven't posted to a newsgroup for
    ages and might have got it wrong!)

    Gareth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Terry@21:1/5 to Gareth Taylor on Fri Jun 27 01:20:27 2025
    On 25/06/2025 19:05, Gareth Taylor wrote:
    In article <1034dml$7dg8$1@dont-email.me>,
    David Entwistle <qnivq.ragjvfgyr@ogvagrearg.pbz> wrote:

    "a(n) is the product of the first n primes congruent to 1 (mod 4)".

    Does anyone have any insight into why that would be so?

    Warning, incoming maths! But I've tried to make it friendly and
    legible.

    It comes down to factorisations in the "Gaussian integers", which are
    numbers of the form a+bi, with a, b integers and i = sqrt(-1).

    For example, using these we can now factorise 5 = (2+i)(2-i), but we
    can't factorise 7 any more than it already is.

    It can be shown (proof omitted!) that all integer primes which are 1 mod
    4 factorise as (a+bi)(a-bi) for some a, b, and moreover that there is
    only one such factorisation. (Well, only one up to moving irrelevant
    factors of -1 or +-i around, e.g. writing 5 = (1+2i)(1-2i) instead).
    The prime 2 also factorises, as (1+i)(1-i), but that's not going to
    matter to us.

    And integer primes which are 3 mod 4 don't factorise. This is easier to show. Suppose that p = (a+bi)(c+di) for prime p which is 3 mod 4. Multiplying both sides by their complex conjugates gives p^2 = (a^2+b^2)(c^2+d^2), a factorisation in the integers. So we must have
    a^2+b^2 = c^2+d^2 = p. However, you can't write any number which is 3
    mod 4 as a sum of two squares: working mod 4, even numbers square to 0
    and odd numbers square to 1, so a^2+b^2 can only ever be 0 or 1 or 2 mod
    4, and so can never equal p since that's 3 mod 4.

    Suppose that we have a primitive Pythagorean triple: a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

    First, c must be odd. If c is even then the right-hand side is 0 mod
    4, and then a and b must both be even. (As above: if exactly one is
    odd then the left-hand side is 1 mod 4, and if both are odd then it's
    2 mod 4.) But if all three are even then the triple isn't primitive.

    Can c have any prime factor p which is 3 mod 4? No. Suppose it did,
    and factorise the left-hand side as (a+bi)(a-bi). Since p itself
    doesn't factorise in the Gaussians, we get that each of a+bi and a-bi
    is a multiple of p, so that a and b themselves are multiples of p, and
    so again the triple isn't primitive.

    So c's prime factors are all of the form 1 mod 4. Now we factorise each
    of those primes in the Gaussians. To make a^2+b^2, we aim for
    (a+bi)(a-bi), by gathering together one of each pair of complex factors making up each prime to form a+bi, and then gathering their conjugates
    to form a-bi.

    For example, c = 1105 = 5 x 13 x 17.

    In the Gaussians, c = (2+i)(2-i) x (2+3i)(2-3i) x (4+i)(4-i)

    So the factorisation of c^2 has each of these twice.

    Grouping gives the following choices for a+bi.

    [(2+i)(2+3i)(4+i)]^2 = [-4 + 33i]^2 = -1073 + 264i
    [(2+i)(2+3i)(4-i)]^2 = [12 + 31i]^2 = -817 + 744i
    [(2+i)(2-3i)(4+i)]^2 = [32 - 9i]^2 = 943 - 576i
    [(2+i)(2-3i)(4-i)]^2 = [24 - 23i]^2 = 47 - 1104i

    (While there are eight choices of the plus or minus signs for the three factors, there are only four products listed because in each case our
    product gives one of a+bi and a-bi and then the other is forced.
    Equivlently, we could assume that we'll choose plus for the first factor
    and then choose the other two freely. This is where 2^{n-1} comes from
    the final answer.)

    So we get 1105^2 equals:

    1073^2 + 264^2
    817^2 + 744^2
    943^2 + 576^2
    47^2 + 1104^2

    Note that on the way we also found all ways to write 1105 itself as a
    sum of two squares:

    4^2 + 33^2
    12^2 + 31^2
    32^2 + 9^2
    24^2 + 23^2

    If the prime factors aren't distinct then we can still do this but we
    get less choice. For example, c = 325 = 5 x 5 x 13.

    In the Gaussian, c = (2+i)^2 x (2-i)^2 x (2+3i) x (2-3i)

    We can now only group them as:

    [(2+i)^2 (2+3i)]^2 = [-6+17i]^2 = -253 - 204i
    [(2+i)^2 (2-3i)]^2 = [18-i]^2 = 323 - 36i

    We can't choose (2+i)(2-i)(2+3i) because then both it and its complex conjugate are multiple of 5, and the triple isn't primitive.

    So we get 325^2 has two non-primitive ways:

    253^2 + 204^2
    323^2 + 36^2

    Hence, to get the smallest number with a given number of distinct
    ways, we need c to be a product of the first N primes which are 1 mod
    4, and then there are 2^{N-1} ways.

    Gareth


    Excellent work!
    Mike.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Entwistle@21:1/5 to Gareth Taylor on Fri Jun 27 07:33:55 2025
    On 25 Jun 2025 19:05:44 +0100 (BST), Gareth Taylor wrote:

    Warning, incoming maths! But I've tried to make it friendly and
    legible.

    It comes down to factorisations in the "Gaussian integers", which are
    numbers of the form a+bi, with a, b integers and i = sqrt(-1).

    For example, using these we can now factorise 5 = (2+i)(2-i), but we
    can't factorise 7 any more than it already is.

    It can be shown (proof omitted!) that all integer primes which are 1 mod
    4 factorise as (a+bi)(a-bi) for some a, b, and moreover that there is
    only one such factorisation. (Well, only one up to moving irrelevant
    factors of -1 or +-i around, e.g. writing 5 = (1+2i)(1-2i) instead). The prime 2 also factorises, as (1+i)(1-i), but that's not going to matter
    to us.

    Thanks Gareth for the comprehensive and clear explanation.

    That's an great insight.



    --
    David Entwistle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)