16

Given integers $x_1,\dots,x_n>1$.

Let's assume WLOG that ${x_1}\leq\ldots\leq{x_n}$.

I want to prove that the only integer solutions to any equation of this type are:

  • $x_{1,2,3 }=3\implies\prod\limits_{i=1}^{3}x_i=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}x_i^2=27$
  • $x_{1,2,3,4}=2\implies\prod\limits_{i=1}^{4}x_i=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4}x_i^2=16$

I have a partial proof below, but there are a few holes in it that I would be happy to get help with.


For $n=1$:

  • $x_1<x_1^2$
  • $\color{green}{\text{Done.}}$

For $n=2$:

  • ${x_1x_2}\leq{x_2x_2}={x_2^2}<{x_1^2+x_2^2}$
  • $\color{green}{\text{Done.}}$

For $n=3$ and $x_1=2$:

  • $\color{red}{\text{This seems to be the most difficult case.}}$
  • $\color{red}{\text{I suspect that there might even be a solution here.}}$

For $n=3$ and $x_{1,2,3}=3,3,3$:

  • $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{3}x_i=27=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}x_i^2$
  • $\color{blue}{\text{This is a solution.}}$

For $n=3$ and $x_{1,2,3}=3,3,4$:

  • $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{3}x_i=36>34=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}x_i^2$
  • $\color{red}{\text{How do we prove that it holds for every }x_i\text{ being replaced with a larger value?}}$

For $n=4$ and $x_{1,2,3,4}=2,2,2,2$:

  • $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{4}x_i=16=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4}x_i^2$
  • $\color{blue}{\text{This is a solution.}}$

For $n=4$ and $x_{1,2,3,4}=2,2,2,3$:

  • $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{4}x_i=24>21=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4}x_i^2$
  • $\color{red}{\text{How do we prove that it holds for every }x_i\text{ being replaced with a larger value?}}$

For $n>4$ and $x_{1,\dots,n}=2,\dots,2$:

  • $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i=2^n>4n=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i^2$ can prove by induction
  • $\color{red}{\text{How do we prove that it holds for every }x_i\text{ being replaced with a larger value?}}$

UPDATE:

Based on @sciona's comments:

  • For $n=3$ and $x_1=2$, we can show that there are no solutions:

    $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i^2-\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i=4+x_2^2+x_3^2-2x_2x_3=4+(x_2-x_3)^2>0$

    $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i^2-\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i>0\implies\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i^2>\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i\implies\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i^2\neq\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}x_i$

  • We can use the solution $(3,3,3)$ in order to generate infinitely many more:

    If $(a,b,c)$ is a solution, then so is $(b,c,bc-a)$

    For example, $(3,3,3)\rightarrow(3,3,6)\rightarrow(3,6,15)\rightarrow\dots$

  • We can use the solution $(2,2,2,2)$ in order to generate infinitely many more:

    If $(a,b,c,d)$ is a solution, then so is $(b,c,d,bcd-a)$

    For example, $(2,2,2,2)\rightarrow(2,2,2,6)\rightarrow(2,2,6,22)\rightarrow\dots$

So my question narrows-down to proving that there are no other types of solutions.

Will Jagy
  • 139,541
barak manos
  • 43,109
  • For $n = 3$ and $x_1 = 2$, doesn't the expression become $4+x_2^2+x_3^2 - 2x_2x_3 = 4+(x_2-x_3)^2 > 0$ ? – sciona Jan 24 '15 at 09:34
  • @sciona: Yeah well... so much for the "most difficult case" :) ... I was going in other directions, like trying to prove that the right side of the equation would not be divisible by at least one of the divisors on the left side of the equation (I guess that's why I thought it was difficult). Thanks. – barak manos Jan 24 '15 at 09:37
  • @sciona: I guess that the other "reds" can be proved by induction somehow, but I couldn't find a "standard" way to write down a proof-by-induction here, because of the multi-variable equation. – barak manos Jan 24 '15 at 09:39
  • 1
    I think the $n = 3$ case has infinitely many solutions owing to the fact that once we see $(3,3,3)$ is a solution, we can see if $(x,y,z)$ is a solution then so is $(yz-x,y,z)$, by symmetry and the iteration $(x,y,z) \to (yz-x,y,z)$ we should have infinitely many solutions. – sciona Jan 24 '15 at 09:46
  • @sciona: Yep, I see that now. My original purpose was to obtain an answer to a previous question of mine. I've figured that the answer to this question would also cover that other question. Now that you've mentioned this solution, I think it still does cover that other question, because $yz-x$ is definitely not a prime number (in particularly, it is divisible by $3$). So if the rest of my assumptions above can be proved, then it might be an eligible answer to that other question. Thanks again! – barak manos Jan 24 '15 at 10:01
  • @sciona: BTW, I see now that your method also works for $(2,2,2,2)$, where if $(x,y,z,w)$ is a solution, then so is $(y,z,w,yzw-x)$. For example, $(2,2,2,6)=48$, then $(2,2,6,22)=528$. I guess that it makes my question more of an attempt to find which solution patterns exist. And in order to answer that other question, I will need to show that every such solution consists of at least one element which is not prime. – barak manos Jan 24 '15 at 10:30
  • yes! It's a kind of Vieta Jumping (since, its a quadratic in $x_i$). – sciona Jan 24 '15 at 10:32
  • @sciona: I've updated the question according to your comment. Thanks. – barak manos Jan 24 '15 at 10:46
  • @Barak manos did you read my solution – Elaqqad Apr 13 '15 at 15:21
  • @Elaqqad: Yes I did. I also up-voted it, but I must say that I didn't fully understand it. Thanks. – barak manos Apr 13 '15 at 15:46
  • barak, it is more natural to allow a fixed integer coefficient in front of the product of the $x_i.$ See http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1330482/integer-solutions-to-the-equation-a-12-cdots-a-n2-a-1-cdots-a-n/1330511#1330511 I also have a pdf of Hurwitz (1907), which is extremely well done. – Will Jagy Jul 30 '15 at 20:49
  • @WillJagy: Thanks. This question looks more or less exactly like mine (except being asked $\approx5$ months later). Am I missing anything? – barak manos Jul 30 '15 at 20:58
  • Barak, You are missing that it has a superb answer published 100 years ago. Also I pasted in the page with Hurwitz' table of $n \leq 10.$ Where did you get your question, anyway? – Will Jagy Jul 30 '15 at 21:02
  • @WillJagy: I was originally looking for numbers that were the sum of the squares of their prime factors, and have posted a similar question prior to this one. The only ones that I found were $16$ and $27$, which I assumed would be easy to prove, though realized it wasn't... So after thinking about it for a while, I established the method described above, and was hoping to get some help solving the missing parts (marked red). – barak manos Jul 30 '15 at 21:07

1 Answers1

3

In this answer we will present a method to solve the equations below over the set of integers for $n>2$ : $$(E_n)\,\,\, \ \ \ \ \ x_1^2+x_2^2+\cdots+x_n^2=x_1x_2\cdots x_n \\ x_1\leq x_2\leq \cdots \leq x_n$$

First, as it was mentioned above, given $(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ of $E_n$ we can construct another solution by replacing an element $x_i$ by $ \prod_{j=1,j\neq i}^{n} x_j-x_i$. In order to use this observation properly we define : $$ P(X)=X^2-x_1x_2\cdots x_{n-1}X+x_1^2+x_2^2+\cdots+x_{n-1}^2$$

we have clearly $P(x_n)=0$, if the other root of this $P$ is $t$, then $(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_{n-1},t)$ is a solution of $E_n$.

The idea of this proof is to look for minimal solutions: the solutions for which $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i$ is minimal. notice that : $$P(x_{n-1})<0 \Rightarrow t<x_n$$

So if $(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ is a minimal solution , then $0\leq P(x_{n-1})$ and this inequality will reduce dramatically the number of solutions in fact we will prove that almost all $x_i$ are equal to $1$.

  1. Case $n=3:$

$$P(x_2) \geq 0 \Rightarrow x_2^2(3-x_1)+x_1^2-x_2^2 \geq 0 $$

and because $x_1\leq x_2$ and $x_2^2+x_3^2\geq 2x_2x_3$ we conclude that $x_1=3$ , and $$ (2x_2-3x_3)^2-5x_3^2=-36 \ \ \ \ \ (P_1)$$ This is a Pell_Fermat equation which have an infinity of solutions (see here).

The set of solution of $E_3$ is constituted by the values taken by one of the sequences defined by :

  1. $\{a_0,b_0,c_0\}=\{3,x,y\}$ such that $(x,y)$ is a solution to $P_1$
  2. $(a_{n+1},b_{n+1},c_{n+1})\in \{ (a_n,b_n,a_nb_n-c_n),(a_n,c_na_n-b_n,c_n),(b_nc_n-a_n,b_n,c_n)\}$.

    1. Case $n>=4$ assume that $ 2^k \leq n \leq 2^{k+1}$ ($k=[log_2(n)]$) :

$$P(x_{n-1}) \geq 0 \Rightarrow x_{n-1}^2(n-\prod_{i=1}^{n-2}x_i)+\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}x_i^2-(n-2)x_{n-1}^2 \geq 0 $$ and because $x_i$ is ordered $\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}x_i^2-(n-2)x_{n-2}^2 \leq 0 $ so obviously $$\prod_{i=1}^{n-2}x_i \leq n $$

This result is very powerful, it proves that for any minimal solution, the first $n-2$ integers are bounded, and we can notice that at least the $n-k$ first elements of the sequence $(x_i)$ are equal to $1$ (we can prove more than that :only (n+1)/5 elements are $\geq 2$ ). so to construct solutions to $E_n$ we take all tuples $(x_1,x_2,\cdots, x_{n-1})$ such that : $$\prod_{i=1}^{n-2}x_i \leq n $$ and we verify if $P(x_{n-1}) \geq 0 $ and finally we solve the associated Pell Fermat equation: $$\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}x_i^2+ A^2+B^2=(\prod_{i=1}^{n-2}x_i)AB$$ where $A=x_n$ and $B=x_{n-1}$ we generate all solutions using the transformations $x_i\rightarrow \prod_{j=1,j\neq i}^{n} x_j-x_i$ as showed in the case $n=3$.

Finally, some remarks:

  • for $n=4$ the only associated Pell Fermat equation here.

  • for $n=5$ the only associated Pell Fermat equation here.

  • for $n\geq 21$ we will have more than one equation.

This method can be used to prove that the equation $$x_1^2+x_2^2+\cdots+x_n^2=\alpha x_1x_2\cdots x_n $$ has no integer solutions (Edit : when $\alpha>n$).

Elaqqad
  • 13,725
  • your last line is incorrect, with the $n$ coefficient as in Hurwitz, there is always the solution $(1,1,1,1,\ldots,1).$ I have a pdf of Hurwitz (1907) if you would like to read it. It is really very well done, I gave only a small portion of it. My email address is now in my profile – Will Jagy Jul 30 '15 at 20:47
  • Yes you're right, I corrected it, that was one of my first answers in MSE, Today I have found a related question in MSE which assumes that all the variables are primes that's why I was looking in this questions, For that pdf of Hurwitz I would like to read it and I appreciate that. Thank you. – Elaqqad Jul 30 '15 at 21:12
  • I am going out shopping for now. if you email me, I can send you the pdf as reply mail when I get back – Will Jagy Jul 30 '15 at 21:16