26 is unique between a square (5^2) and a cube (3^3)

In summary: The conversation is discussing the equation a^2 ± 2 = b^3 and whether (25, 27) is the only solution. The conversation also mentions using Z[sqrt(-2)] and Z[sqrt(2)] to prove the statement, and different approaches to proving it. In summary, the conversation is discussing the proof and solutions for the equation a^2 ± 2 = b^3.
  • #1
al-mahed
262
0
i.e, [tex]a^{2} \pm 2 = b^{3}[/tex] has (25,27) as the only solution.

Now, can you prove it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think this is difficult problem. However, there is a trivial solution (1)^2-2=(-1)^3.
 
  • #3
robert Ihnot said:
I think this is difficult problem. However, there is a trivial solution (1)^2-2=(-1)^3.

Hi Robert, I'm sorry I didn't clarify that a, b must be positive integers.
 
  • #4
Are you asking for help in proving the statement or challenging us to give a proof?
 
  • #5
Petek said:
Are you asking for help in proving the statement or challenging us to give a proof?

second option :)
 
  • #6
It's easy if you use Z[sqrt(-2)] and Z[sqrt(2)] (they're both UFD).

For example look at a^2 + 2 = b^3. This factors as (a + sqrt(-2))(a - sqrt(-2)) = b^3, and the units of Z[sqrt(-2)] are just +/-1, so

a + sqrt(-2) = (c + d*sqrt(-2))^3 for some c,d in Z.

So

a = c^3 - 6cd^2 = c*(c^2 - 6d^2) and
1 = d*(3c^2 - 2d^2).

So d = +/-1 and c = +/- 1, whence you get a = +/-5, and so b = 2.

Same situation for a^2 - 2 = b^3.
 
  • #7
hochs said:
It's easy if you use Z[sqrt(-2)] and Z[sqrt(2)] (they're both UFD).

For example look at a^2 + 2 = b^3. This factors as (a + sqrt(-2))(a - sqrt(-2)) = b^3, and the units of Z[sqrt(-2)] are just +/-1, so

a + sqrt(-2) = (c + d*sqrt(-2))^3 for some c,d in Z.

So

a = c^3 - 6cd^2 = c*(c^2 - 6d^2) and
1 = d*(3c^2 - 2d^2).

So d = +/-1 and c = +/- 1, whence you get a = +/-5, and so b = 2.

Same situation for a^2 - 2 = b^3.

Seem O.K. to me, except b=3. In the second case we have a=+/-1 b=-1. However, Dr. Math makes it more complicated: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51569.html
 
  • #8
robert Ihnot said:
Seem O.K. to me, except b=3. In the second case we have a=+/-1 b=-1. However, Dr. Math makes it more complicated: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51569.html

Yea, I don't know why the post in that link is using both a + sqrt(-2) = w^3 and a - sqrt(-2) = t^3 (conjugate). You only need the first, you get just as much information just more quickly.
 
  • #9
To go from

[tex](a + \sqrt{-2})(a - \sqrt{-2}) = b^3[/tex]

to

[tex]a + \sqrt{-2} = (c + d\sqrt{-2})^3[/tex]

don't we need that [itex]a + \sqrt{-2}[/itex] and [itex]a - \sqrt{-2}[/itex] are relatively prime? In fact, as Doctor Rob points out on the Math Forum, GCD([itex]a + \sqrt{-2}, a - \sqrt{-2}[/itex]) divides [itex]2\sqrt{-2}[/itex]. I think that's why he has to consider several cases.
 
  • #10
Petek said:
To go from

[tex](a + \sqrt{-2})(a - \sqrt{-2}) = b^3[/tex]

to

[tex]a + \sqrt{-2} = (c + d\sqrt{-2})^3[/tex]

don't we need that [itex]a + \sqrt{-2}[/itex] and [itex]a - \sqrt{-2}[/itex] are relatively prime? In fact, as Doctor Rob points out on the Math Forum, GCD([itex]a + \sqrt{-2}, a - \sqrt{-2}[/itex]) divides [itex]2\sqrt{-2}[/itex]. I think that's why he has to consider several cases.

Yes, that's right. So what I wrote above is not entirely correct, but one gets the idea - just factor and use UFD-ness of Z[sqrt(-2)].

More importantly, does anyone know how to use tex here without having to type itex and \itex everytime I want it? for example i prefer to $ $, just much easier.
 
  • #11
The pdf file linked at the beginning of this thread strongly suggests that itex, /itex and its variants are the only format that works here.
 
  • #12
Hi folks, I followed a different direction.

first notice that a and b must have the same parity, so first case:

1) a, b = even

[tex](2k)^{2}\pm 2 = (2n)^{3}[/tex]
[tex]4k^{2}\pm 2 = 8n^{3}[/tex]
so,
[tex]2k^{2}\pm 1= 4n^{3}[/tex]

absurd, since even number cannot be equal to odd number, so second case:

2) a, b = odd

[tex](2k+1)^{2}\pm 2 = (2n+1)^{3}[/tex]

2.1) + 2

[tex]4k(k+1)+3 = 8n^{3}+12n^{2}+6n+1[/tex]

wich means

[tex]8n^{3}+12n^{2}+6n+1\equiv\ 3 \mod 4[/tex]
[tex]8n^{3}+12n^{2}+6n+1\equiv\ 3 \mod k[/tex]
and
[tex]8n^{3}+12n^{2}+6n+1\equiv\ 3 \mod (K+1)[/tex]

so

[tex]4n^{3}+6n^{2}+3n\equiv\ 1 \mod 4[/tex]
[tex]4n^{3}+6n^{2}+3n\equiv\ 1 \mod k[/tex]
and
[tex]4n^{3}+6n^{2}+3n\equiv\ 1 \mod (K+1)[/tex]

given [tex]f(x) = a_{0} + a_{1}x + a_{2}x^{2} + a_{3}x^{3} + ... + a_{i}x^{m_{i}}[/tex]
and [tex]g(x) = b_{0} + b_{1}x + b_{2}x^{2} + b_{3}x^{3} + ...+ b_{j}x^{n_{j}}[/tex]

we know that

[tex]f(x)\equiv\ g(x)\mod W[/tex] [tex]\Leftrightarrow[/tex]
[tex] a_{0}+a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+ ... +a_{i}\equiv\ b_{0}+b_{1}+b_{2}+b_{3}+ ...+b_{j}\ mod W[/tex]

lets make

[tex]f(x) = 4n^{3}+6n^{2}+3n[/tex]

and

[tex]g(x) = 1[/tex]

finally (skip obvious manipulations)

[tex]12\equiv\ 0 \mod 4[/tex]
[tex]12\equiv\ 0 \mod k[/tex]
and
[tex]12\equiv\ 0 \mod (K+1)[/tex]

k must be = 2

2.2) - 2

(...) (after the same steps)

finally

[tex]14\equiv\ 0 \mod 4[/tex]

what is untrue

Any remarks would be apreciated.
 
  • #13
Is there anything not clear, or perhaps wrong? I apreciate some feedback
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Thinking again, I suspect I misunderstood the theorem found here:

http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/PolynomialCongruence.html

and jumped to a conclusion prematurely.

[tex]f(x)\equiv\ g(x)\mod W[/tex]
[tex] a_{0}+a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+ ... +a_{i}\equiv\ b_{0}+b_{1}+b_{2}+b_{3}+ ...+b_{j}\ mod W[/tex]

Seems that the conclusion above is wrong.

Anyway, I'd preciate if anyone could make the theorem more clear to me, and make any comments about what I've posted :)

thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
[tex]8n^{3}+12n^{2}+6n+1\equiv\ 3 \mod 4[/tex]
[tex]8n^{3}+12n^{2}+6n+1\equiv\ 3 \mod k[/tex]
and
[tex]8n^{3}+12n^{2}+6n+1\equiv\ 3 \mod (k+1)[/tex]

so

[tex]4n^{3}+6n^{2}+3n\equiv\ 1 \mod 4[/tex]
[tex]4n^{3}+6n^{2}+3n\equiv\ 1 \mod k[/tex]
and
[tex]4n^{3}+6n^{2}+3n\equiv\ 1 \mod (k+1)[/tex]


that's also wrong, but do not detroy the following argument because

[tex]24\equiv\ 0 \mod 4[/tex]
[tex]24\equiv\ 0 \mod k[/tex]
and
[tex]24\equiv\ 0 \mod (k+1)[/tex]

still would imply that k must be = 2
 

FAQ: 26 is unique between a square (5^2) and a cube (3^3)

What does it mean for 26 to be unique between a square (5^2) and a cube (3^3)?

This means that 26 is the only number that is both a perfect square and a perfect cube. In other words, it is the only number that can be expressed as both the square of a whole number (5^2) and the cube of a whole number (3^3).

Why is 26 the only number that is unique between a square and a cube?

This is because of the relationship between squares and cubes. Squares are numbers multiplied by themselves, while cubes are numbers multiplied by themselves twice. Therefore, there are only a few numbers that can be both a square and a cube, with 26 being the only one that is not a perfect square or cube itself.

Can you give an example of another number that is both a square and a cube?

Yes, 64 is another number that is both a square (8^2) and a cube (4^3). However, unlike 26, it is also a perfect square and a perfect cube individually.

Is 26 the only number that is unique between a square and a cube?

No, 0 is also unique between a square and a cube. It is the only number that is both a square (0^2) and a cube (0^3), and it is also a perfect square and a perfect cube individually.

What is the significance of 26 being unique between a square and a cube?

This fact is interesting to mathematicians and can also be used to solve certain mathematical problems. It also highlights the connection between squares and cubes and the limited number of numbers that can be both.

Back
Top