For any primitive pythagorean triple $(a,b,c)$ either $a$ or $b$ must be a multiple of $3$

2.5k Views Asked by At

I'm reading "Friendly Introduction to Number Theory". Now I'm working on Primitive Pythagorean Triples Exercises 2.1 (a) on P18.

We showed that in any primitive Pythagorean triple $(a, b, c)$, either $a$ or $b$ is even. Use the same sort of argument to show that either $a$ or $b$ must be a multiple of 3.

(1) $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$ with a odd, b even, a,b,c having no common factors

(2) $a^2 = c^2 - b^2 = (c-b)(c+b)$

(3) $c + b = s^2$ and $c - b = t^2$

(4) $c = \frac{(s^2 + t^2)}{2}$ and $b = \frac{(s^2 - t^2)}{2}$

(5) $a = \sqrt{(c-b)(c+b)} = st$

(6) $a = st$, $b = \frac{(s^2 - t^2)}{2}$, $c = \frac{(s^2 + t^2)}{2}$

https://www.math.brown.edu/~jhs/frintch1ch6.pdf

I have no idea how I start doing this. Can you give me a hint? I think I need to show that both the following (1) and (2) are satisfied.

$X \neq 0$

(1) $a\equiv 0\pmod 3$ and $b\equiv X\pmod 3$

(2) $b\equiv 0\pmod 3$ and $a\equiv X\pmod 3$

3

There are 3 best solutions below

8
On BEST ANSWER

The numbers $a$ and $b$ cannot both be multiples of $3$, because then $c$ would be a multiple of $3$ and the triple would not be primitive.

And if none of them is a multiple of $3$, then both of them are of the form $3k\pm1$, for some integer $k$, from which it follows that both squares $a^2$ and $b^2$ are of the form $3k+1$. But then $c^2(=a^2+b^2)$ is of the form $3k+2$. You should be able to show that this is impossible.

0
On

Using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triple or https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookX/propX29.html

$a=2mn,b=m^2-n^2$ where $m,n$ are coprime integers and not both are odd

$ab=2mn(m^2-n^2)=2(m^3-m)n-2m(n^3-n)$

Now use The product of $n$ consecutive integers is divisible by $n$ factorial as $m^3-m=(m-1)m(m+1)$

0
On

In mod 3, $0^2=0$, $1^2=1$ and $2^2=(-1)^2=1$. Thus, if neither $a$ nor $b$ are 0 mod 3, then $a^2+b^2$ is 2 mod 3, but no number squares to 2 mod 3.

The "principal" condition doesn't really play a part in the proof.

There are also proofs that at least one number must be divisible by 4, and that at least one number must be divisible by 5.