1

Let $a,b,c \in \mathbb{Z}, a,b \ne 0, d = (a,b)$. Then the equation $ax+by = c$ has an integer solution $x,y$ iff $d \mid c$. In that case there are infinitely many solutions.

Need to derive general solution using the parametric form.

The first issue concerns with "a" step in the proof, which is ubiquitously applied to derive the parametric form. This step is common in books, and MSE alike even though the answers at MSE are innovative sort of, as here.

I am repeating verbatim the contents of LeVeque's book titled: Fundamentals of Number Theory, pg. 39 and pg. 40, to show the context of the two issues.


By exploiting the connection we have established between the GCD of two integers and linear combinations of them, it is easy to analyze the linear Diophantine equation in two unknowns $x$ and $y$,

(6) $ax + by = c, \text{ s.t. } a,b,c,x,y \in \mathbb{Z}$

First suppose that $(a,b) = 1$. Then we know that for suitable $x,y \in \mathbb {Z}, ax + by = 1$, so $cx, cy$ give a solution of (6). If $x, y$ and $x_0, y_0$ are any two distinct solutions of (6), then

$a(x - x_0) + b(y - y_0) = c-c =0 \text{ <--------------Issue 1 }$.

Since $(a,b) =1$, the equation $\frac{a}{b} = -\frac{y-y_0}{x - x_0}$ shows that for some $t \in \mathbb {Z}$

(7) $y - y_0 = -at, \text{ } x - x_0 = bt$.

Contrariwise, if $x_0, y_0$ satisfy (6) and $t$ is an integer (including $0$), then the $x,y$ determined by (7) also satisfy (6). Hence, (7) provides a general solution of (6), in this case. As a passing remark to readers who have studied linear systems of algebraic or differential equations, we remark that a general solution of (6) has thus been given as the sum of a particular solution of the in-homogeneous equation and a general solution of the homogeneous equation, $ax + by = 0$.

Now suppose that in (6), $(a,b) = d$. If $d \nmid c$, there are obviously no solutions. If $d \mid c$, has exactly the same set of solutions as the simplified equation $\frac{a}{d}x + \frac{b}{d}y = \frac{c}{d}$, and since $(\frac{a}{d}, \frac{b}{d}) = 1$, we already know these. Hence we have the following theorem.

Theorem 2.9 A necessary and sufficient condition that the equation (6) have a solution $x,y$ is that $d \mid c$, where $d = (a,b)$. If there is one solution - say $x_0, y_0$ - there are infinitely many; they are exactly the numbers

(8) $x = x_0 + \frac{b}{d}t, y = y_0 -\frac{a}{d}t, t \in \mathbb {Z} \text{ <--------------Issue 2 }$


Issue 1 : Why the value of $c$ is assumed to be the same. For me, (6) can have unique solutions based on the values of $c$ that are a multiple of $d$. Hence $c$ is a particular value of the linear combination, that should not be repeated from one unique solution to another for given $a,b$.

Issue 2: I hope that the reason for (8) having change of sign in $x$ and $y$ terms is because of the needed cancellation of the terms containing $t$.

The same idea can be expressed as : There are infinitely many solutions given by the pairs :

(i) $x = x_0 \pm \dfrac{bt}{d}, y = y_0 \mp \dfrac{at}{d}$,

where $x_0, y_0$ is any particular solution, and $t$ is parameter.

I expect some reference(s) or enough detail for the latter issue.

jiten
  • 4,524

1 Answers1

2

For issue 1: When we assume that $x_1, y_1$ is a solution a solution to $a x + b y = c$, we know that $a x_1+ b y_1 = c$.

For issue 2: modify the original equation by dividing both sides by $d$, then apply the reasoning that led to the equations in (7), finally isolating $x$ and $y$

  • You mean that in issue 1, there are non-unique values of $x,y$ for the same set of values of $a,b,c$ in EEA. – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 07:34
  • Yes. And the arguments that you posted show how to find them. An easy example would be when a=1, b=1, c=0. Then all pairs with y= -x will be solutions. – abstractnonsense Dec 12 '17 at 07:56
  • I am going to read in detail about non-unique values for $x,y$ being returned by EEA. May be I am ignorant, but I have an additional issue in (7) as to how the parameter $t$ is calculated. It seems confusing, and have found no proper search terms for googling yet, as even "linear diophantine equation with two unknowns parametric form" does not help. – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 08:00
  • 1
    What you're seeking sounds like it's in the text that you posted. One suggestion would be to work through the above proof with concrete values for a, b and c. Perhaps a=2, b=3, c=2. I suspect that might help clear things up for you. – abstractnonsense Dec 12 '17 at 08:03
  • If you don't mind, can you please elaborate for the stated values given by you. In fact, $a=2, b=3, c=2$ has in the case of issue (i), only one possible value for $x=1,y=0$. No other value, i.e. $x_0, y_0$ is possible. Regarding its (set of values for $a,b,c$) applicability for issue (ii), I feel that it should first work for issue (i). – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 08:35
  • 1
    x=-2,y=2; x=-2+3,y=2-2;...;x=-2+3t,y=2-2t, etc. – abstractnonsense Dec 12 '17 at 08:45
  • I have taken reverse signs for $x,y$, and it yields correct answer too: although I am completely confused over how you algebraically (i.e., by EEA) found with these prime values of $a=2,b=3$, the particular solution of $x=-2, y=2$; means of $x=-1, y=1$, which when multiplied by $c=2$ yields the stated value of the P.S. for $x,y$. Anyway, my reverse signs lead to: $x = -2 -3 = -5, y = 2+2=4; a.(-5) + b.(4) => 2(-5) + 3.(4) => 2$. Similarly, for $t=2$, $x = -2 -2.3 = -8, y = 2+2.2=6; a.(-8) + b.(6) => 2(-8) + 3.(6) => 2$. – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 08:59
  • Regarding my earlier comment, I am really sorry to ask for how the P.S. of $x=-1.2, y = 1.2$ was obtained. It is obvious that $1 = 3-2$ is the reverse form, in terms of $\gcd =1$. So. the coefficient $x=-1, y =1$. I would request you to shed some light on issue (ii). – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 09:10
  • Do you wish me to read the text again, and interpret for issue (ii). I feel the small hitch, if removed by you would save a lot of time spent in how to locate the correct way of thinking. – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 09:20
  • 1
    In general by "reversing" Euclid's algorithm. See for example https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2559609/296521 – abstractnonsense Dec 12 '17 at 09:20
  • But, one thing is certain the equal values of $c$ were used, as they occur due to the parametric form of the solution. Hence, sort of circular reasoning. Is there any proof approach, that does not use the equality of $c$? I feel it is a very pertinent and good question. – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 09:41
  • Also, how the value of the parameter $t$ is decided is completely unclear, as repeated below: $a(x - x_0) + b(y - y_0) = c-c =0 $.

    Since $(a,b) =1$, the equation $\frac{a}{b} = -\frac{y-y_0}{x - x_0}$ shows that for some $t \in \mathbb {Z}$

    (7) $y - y_0 = -at, \text{ } x - x_0 = bt$.
    The value for $t$ being derived as a fraction is completely unclear. Seems that the value of $t$ changes from $a$ to $b$.

    – jiten Dec 12 '17 at 09:54