5

How to solve the Diophantine equation $x^2 + 2 = y^3$ with $x,y>0$ ? ($x,y$ are integers.)

Bart Michels
  • 26,355
mick
  • 15,946
  • 1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordell_curve and http://tnt.math.se.tmu.ac.jp/simath/MORDELL/ – Will Jagy Aug 21 '13 at 23:36
  • x=5,y=3 is one solution that can be found through trial and error. – JB King Aug 21 '13 at 23:39
  • 1
    There is a standard proof that there are only the obvious solutions. I can write it down if you cannot find it. I may have sketched the proof for MSE in the past, but searching is too complicated. The proof uses the factorization $(x+\sqrt{-2})(x-\sqrt{-2})$, and the fact that the integers of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-2})$ have unique factorization. One could undoubtedly rewrite the proof so as not to mention $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-2})$. – André Nicolas Aug 21 '13 at 23:51
  • @AndréNicolas plz show without the ring extension. – mick Aug 22 '13 at 00:47
  • 1
    It would take me a long time to write out, and would be artificial. The right way is to use unique factorization to show that $x+\sqrt{-2}$ and its conjugate are cubes. After that, there is some calculation, but it is not long. – André Nicolas Aug 22 '13 at 00:51
  • Didnt fermat do it differently ?? Descent ? mod ? – mick Aug 22 '13 at 00:54
  • This is something you can find in most books on diophantine equations or even more general number theory. – Pedro Jan 24 '15 at 00:50
  • Full elementary $\Bbb Z[\sqrt{-2}]$ solution is in this pdf (page $7$). – user236182 Nov 07 '15 at 20:08
  • http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/652143/finding-integer-cubes-that-are-2-greater-than-a-square-x3-y2-2?lq=1 – user26857 Dec 30 '15 at 09:59
  • i vote to reopen , here is why : A duplicate can never be the oldest version of the question !! – mick Jul 25 '21 at 19:11

4 Answers4

14

Although I prefer an answer without ring theory here is a solution by using the extension $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}]$.

All variables in this proof are integers.

$x^2+2=y^3$ factors as $(x+\sqrt{-2})(x-\sqrt{-2})=y^3$.

Since

  1. $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}]$ is a UFD.

  2. the LHS factors into $2$ conjugates which implies that the LHS must have $2n$ primefactors. (A conjugate factors analogue to its Original in a UFD , this is easy to show when using the norm)

  3. the RHS must have $3m$ prime factors and the smallest common multiple of $2$ and $3$ is $6$.

We can conclude that :

  1. both LHS and RHS has $6A$ prime factors.

  2. Since we have two conjugates on the LHS we can conclude that $(x+\sqrt{-2})$ is a cube in $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}]$.

Hence we get the equation $(x+\sqrt{-2})=(a+b\sqrt{-2})^3$

We proceed by expanding the cube :

$x+\sqrt{-2} = a^3 - 6 a b^2 + (3 a^2 b-2 b^3)\sqrt{-2}$

To solve this equation, we equate the parts without $\sqrt{-2}$ on both sides and the parts with $\sqrt{-2}$ on both sides. We get $a^3 - 6 a b^2 = x$ and $3 a^2 b-2 b^3 = 1$.

Let's examine the second equation, which can be factored out: $b (3 a^2 - 2 b^2) = 1$, meaning $b$ is a divisor of $1$ in the ring $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}]$. The divisors of $1$ in this ring are units (elements that have a multiplicative inverse), and in $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}]$, the units are $1$ and $-1$. Therefore, $b$ must be either $1$ or $-1$.

Let $b=1$ then we get $3a^2 - 2 = 1$ hence $a=1$.

It follows $x=a^3 - 6a b^2 =-5$.

If we took $b=-1$ or factored $x-\sqrt{-2}$ we get the same or a negative solution for $x$ hence $x=5$ is the only positive solution.

We thus get $5^2 + 2 = 3^3$

Q.E.D.

mick

hbghlyj
  • 2,115
mick
  • 15,946
  • 1
    A couple of minor details: (1) You conclude that $a=1$, when $a=-1$ is also possible. (2) You have $x=5$, when for this choice of $a$ and $b$ it should be $x=-5$. – Théophile Jan 19 '15 at 04:40
  • 2
    $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{-2})$ is a field, so it makes no sense to talk about primes. – Pedro Jan 24 '15 at 01:04
  • 1
    For number fields, most number theorists I know don't mind saying "Prime of $K$" rather than "prime ideal of $O_K$" – Dylan Yott Jan 24 '15 at 01:47
  • 1
    @DylanYott Sure, yet the post says $\Bbb Q(\sqrt{-2})$ is a UFD. This is true, but irrelevant. – Pedro Jan 24 '15 at 02:11
  • 1
    @PedroTamaroff, I see, yeah calling the field a UFD is bizarre. – Dylan Yott Jan 24 '15 at 05:44
  • I am bizarre. In my mind it ( the proof) is more logical and intuitive while thinking about the UFD property. See also the comment to the other answer. – mick Jan 31 '20 at 16:33
  • In particular we clearly have 6A factors in my proof assuming and knowing UFD. What if we factor one part differently ? If that makes the proof longer or more complicated or you are temporarily confused that supports why I wrote UFD. – mick Jan 31 '20 at 16:37
  • Also I solved it while writing before being clear how to do the details. So I started with what I knew and then puzzled it into a proof. – mick Jan 31 '20 at 16:38
6

I would like to supplement Mick's answer by adding in some explanation to part 2 of his answer. Here is why we can conclude that $x+\sqrt{-2}$ is a cube in $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}]$:

If we have the prime factorization

$$x+\sqrt{-2} = \alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots \alpha_{3A}$$ then we also have the prime factorization $$x-\sqrt{-2} = \bar{\alpha_1} \bar{\alpha_2}\cdots \bar{\alpha_{3A}}$$ Suppose also that we have the prime factorization: $$y=\beta_1 \beta_2 \cdots \beta_{2A}$$ Then the equation $(x+\sqrt{-2})(x-\sqrt{-2})=y^3$ becomes:

$$\alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots \alpha_{3A} \bar{\alpha_1} \bar{\alpha_2}\cdots \bar{\alpha_{3A}} = \beta_1^3 \beta_2^3 \cdots \beta_{2A}^3$$ Suppose WLOG that $\alpha_1=\beta_1$, so $\alpha_1 | (x+\sqrt{-2})$. Then $\alpha_1 \not |(x-\sqrt{-2})$, since that would imply $\alpha_1 |[(x+\sqrt{-2})-(x-\sqrt{-2})]$, i.e. $\alpha_1 | \; 2\sqrt{-2}$. But since $\alpha_1$ is prime, this forces $\alpha_1=\pm\sqrt{-2}$, which is impossible, since $\pm\sqrt{-2}$ does not divide $x+\sqrt{-2}$.(We are here assuming $x \neq 0$). Therefore all of $\beta_1^3$ must divide $x+\sqrt{-2}$ (and similarly all of $\bar{\beta_1}^3$ must divide $x-\sqrt{-2}$). The only way this can happen then, is if, say $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 =\alpha_3 = \beta_1$.

Continuing this grouping, we conclude that we can collect the prime factors of $x+\sqrt{-2}$ into groups of three, so it must be a cube number.

AfterMath
  • 852
  • I think you assumed UFD. Some have argued above that UFD was not necessary. I will need to think about this. – mick Jan 31 '20 at 16:17
  • Anyways I did use UFD , some claim it was unnecessary but things like what you discussed and my answer feels more logical in a UFD. In fact so logical I did not bother to explain what you did. But thank you anyway. – mick Jan 31 '20 at 16:31
  • 1
    Yeah you're right, your proof depends on the fact that it is a UFD, since otherwise we couldn't have concluded that $3m = 2n$ (I believe). I just wanted to show why we can eliminate the possibility of $x+\sqrt{-2}$ and $x-\sqrt{-2}$ having a common factor : P – AfterMath Jan 31 '20 at 17:59
3

Lemma. Let $a$ and $b$ be coprime integers, and let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers such that $a^2+2b^2=mn$. Then there are coprime integers $r$ and $s$ such that $m=r^2+2s^2$ divides $br-as$. Furthermore, for any such choice of $r$ and $s$, there are coprime integers $t$ and $u$ such that $a=rt-2su$, $b=ru+st$, and $n=t^2+2u^2$ divides $bt-au$.

Proof. Assume the theorem is false, and let $m$ be a minimal counterexample. Evidently $m > 1$ since the theorem is trivially true for $m=1$.

Note that $b$ is coprime to $m$. Let $A$ be an integer such that $Ab \equiv a\!\pmod{m}$, chosen so that $\tfrac{-m}{2} < A \le \tfrac{m}{2}$. Then $A^2+2 = lm$ for some positive integer $l < m$. Clearly $l$ cannot be a smaller counterexample than $m$, and so there exist coprime integers $r$ and $s$ such that $m=r^2+2s^2$ divides $br-as$.

Let $t = \tfrac{ar+2bs}{m}$ and $u=\tfrac{br-as}{m}$. Direct calculation confirms the equations for $a$, $b$, and $n$. From $n=t^2+2u^2$, we deduce that $t$ is an integer because $u$ is an integer, and $t$ and $u$ are coprime because $\gcd(t,u)$ divides both $a$ and $b$. Finally, note that $n$ divides $bt-au=sn$.

Hence $m$ is not a counterexample, contradicting the original assumption. $\blacksquare$

Corollary. Let $a$ and $b$ be coprime integers with $m$ an integer such that $m^3=a^2+2b^2$. Then there are coprime integers $r$ and $s$ such that $a=r(r^2-6s^2)$ and $b=s(3r^2-2s^2)$.

Proof. Evidently $m$ is odd since $a^2+2b^2$ is at most singly even. And $a$ and $m$ must be coprime. Using the theorem, we have $m=r^2+2s^2$ and $m^2=t^2+2u^2$. Then $m$ divides $a(ur-ts)=t(br-as)-r(bt-au)$, and therefore $m \mid (ur-ts)$. The lemma can then be reapplied with $a$ and $b$ replaced by $t$ and $u$. Repeating the process, we eventually obtain integers $p$ and $q$ such that $p^2+2q^2=1$. The only solution is $q=0$ and $p=\pm1$. Ascending the path back to $a$ and $b$ (reversing signs along the way, if necessary) yields $a=r(r^2-6s^2)$ and $b=s(3r^2-2s^2)$, as claimed. $\blacksquare$

Theorem. The Diophantine equation $X^3 = Y^2+2$ has only one integer solution, namely $(x,y) = (3, \pm 5)$.

Proof. Evidently $y$ and $2$ are coprime. By the corollary, we must have $b=1=s(3r^2-2s^2)$ for integers $r$ and $s$. The only solutions are $(r,s)=(\pm 1,1)$. Hence $a=y=r(r^2-6s^2)=\pm 5$, so $(x,y)=(3,\pm 5)$. $\blacksquare$

Kieren MacMillan
  • 7,889
  • 2
  • 28
  • 70
2

A completely elementary proof can be found on page 561 of the Nov 2012 edition of The Mathematical Gazette, where a descent mechanism first used by Stan Dolan in the March 2012 edition is adapted (as per his challenge to the “interested reader”) to solve Fermat’s two “elliptic curve” theorems. The method uses math which was clearly available in Fermat’s time, and in particular to Fermat himself.

I personally believe this finally puts to rest any questions of whether Fermat could have had a proof of these two claims.

Kieren MacMillan
  • 7,889
  • 2
  • 28
  • 70
  • Maybe I missed it, but is that a free source ? Was that the problem from the OP ? And was it different from my method ? – mick Mar 09 '21 at 03:33
  • Your method refers to a UFD, which means the proof wouldn’t have been available to in Fermat’s time. The method in the linked paper uses only elementary descent. – Kieren MacMillan Mar 10 '21 at 01:29
  • As for the source: JSTOR lets you preview 100 articles a month for free. – Kieren MacMillan Mar 10 '21 at 01:29
  • why not add the answer here if it is so easy available ? Will be appreciated and upvoted. – mick Mar 13 '21 at 23:59
  • @KierenMacMillian ? – mick Mar 14 '21 at 22:02
  • @mick: Too busy right now to collate the proof (from the two different papers) and add another answer. Interested readers will easily find the proof via the links I’ve provided. – Kieren MacMillan Mar 15 '21 at 13:45
  • A proof is not suppose to be a puzzle of two papers. That sounds more like a " the proof is left to the reader " or " a proof is possible " without giving it. – mick Mar 21 '21 at 16:50
  • 3
  • Sorry not trying to be mean haha – mick Mar 21 '21 at 21:41
  • Are you still too busy ? @KierenMacMillan – mick Mar 26 '21 at 20:41
  • @mick: Yep. I have a job and currently supervise my two kids’ virtual schooling during the pandemic. I’m probably too busy for a while. – Kieren MacMillan Mar 26 '21 at 21:59
  • good luck with the job and the kids – mick Mar 26 '21 at 22:58
  • @mick Use Scihub to get the articles for free. – MathGod Apr 29 '21 at 14:16
  • Im not sure if I can use Scihub in my country to find them. QUOTE wiki : Following the lawsuit by Elsevier in March 2019 in France, Elsevier, Springer, John Wiley, and Cambridge University Press filed a complaint against Proximus, VOO, Brutélé and Telenet... – mick May 23 '21 at 22:37
  • ..to block access to Sci-Hub and LibGen. The publishers claimed to represent more than half of the scientific publishing sector, and indicated that over 90% of the contents on the sites infringed copyright laws; they won the lawsuit.[41] Since then, the two sites are blocked by those ISPs; visitors are redirected to a stop page by Belgian Federal Police instead, citing illegality of the site's content under Belgian legislation.

    The European Commission included Sci-Hub in its "Piracy Watch List". @MathGod

    – mick May 23 '21 at 22:38
  • @KierenMacMillan still too busy ? – mick May 23 '21 at 22:38
  • @mick: Answer added. Note the use of descent (“minimal counterexample”) to prove the [critical] Lemma. – Kieren MacMillan Jul 05 '21 at 13:24