Homepage Solution manuals Ivan Niven An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers Exercise 5.4.14* (Equations $x^4 + 4y^4 = z^2$ and $a^4 + b^2 = c^4$)

Exercise 5.4.14* (Equations $x^4 + 4y^4 = z^2$ and $a^4 + b^2 = c^4$)

Construct a descent argument that relates the two equations x 4 + 4 y 4 = z 2 , a 4 + b 2 = c 4 . Deduce that neither of these equations has a solution in positive integers.

Answers

Proof.

(a)
Assume for the sake of contradiction that the equation x 4 + 4 y 4 = z 2 (1)

has a solution ( x , y , z ) in positive integers, so that ( x 2 ) 2 + ( 2 y 2 ) 2 = z 2 . Then there is a solution ( x , y , z ) where z is minimal, given by

z = min { ζ x , y , ( x 2 ) 2 + ( 2 y 2 ) 2 = ζ 2 } .

The equation (1) shows that x and z are both even or both odd. If x and z are both even, then x = 2 x , z = 2 z for some integers x , z . Then 16 x 2 + 4 y 4 = 4 z 2 , thus 4 x 2 + y 4 = z 2 , so ( y , x , z ) is a solution of (1) in positive integers, with z < z . This contradicts the minimality of z , thus x and z are odd.

If some prime number p divides x and z , then p 2 , and p z 2 x 4 = 4 y 4 , thus p y . Then p 4 x 4 + 4 y 4 = z 2 , therefore p 2 z . This shows that ( x p , y p , z p 2 ) is a solution of the same equation, satisfying z p 2 < z , and this contradicts the minimality of z . Therefore x z = 1 , so ( x 2 , 2 y 2 , z ) is a primitive Pythagorean triple, with 2 y 2 even. By Theorem 5.5, there are integers r , s of opposite parity such that r s = 1 , r > s > 0 and

{ x 2 = r 2 s 2 , y 2 = rs , z = r 2 + s 2 (2)

Since y 2 = rs , where r , s are relatively prime (and r > 0 , s > 0 ), then r = c 2 , s = a 2 for some positive integer a , c (Lemma 5.4), so

{ x 2 = c 4 a 4 , y 2 = a 2 c 2 , z = c 4 + a 4 (3)

Put b = x . Then

a 4 + b 2 = c 4 , (4)

where c a = 1 , a and c have opposite parity, and c c 4 < z , so c < z .

Then ( a 2 , b , c 2 ) is a primitive Pythagorean triple with b odd (since b 2 = c 4 a 4 is odd). The same Theorem 5.5 shows that there are integers u , v of opposite parity such that u v = 1 , u > v > 0 and

{ b = u 2 v 2 , a 2 = 2 uv , c 2 = u 2 + v 2 (5)

Since a 2 = 2 uv , u v = 1 , u > v > 0 , by Problem 5, u = 2 l 2 , v = m 2 or u = m 2 , v = 2 l 2 for suitable positive integers l , m . In both cases, the last equation of (4) gives

c 2 = m 4 + 4 l 4 , (6)

thus ( x , y , z ) = ( m , l , c ) is a solution of (1) in positive integers. But z = c < z , and this contradicts the minimality of z . This contradiction shows that x 4 + 4 y 4 = z 2 has no solution in positive integers.

(b)
It remains to show that a 4 + b 2 = c 4 has no solution in positive integers. If this equation has a solution, there is a solution ( a , b , c ) ( ) 3 where c is minimal.

We prove a c = 1 . Indeed if a prime p divides a and c , then p c 4 a 4 = b 2 , thus p b . Then ( a p , b p 2 , c p ) is a solution of (4) with c p < c . This contradicts the minimality of c . This contradiction shows that a c = 1 . Therefore ( a 2 , b , c 2 ) is a primitive Pythagorean triple. By Theorem 5.5, there are integers u , v of opposite parity such that u v = 1 , u > v > 0 and

( 7 . a ) { b = u 2 v 2 , a 2 = 2 uv , c 2 = u 2 + v 2 ,  or  ( 7 . b ) { a 2 = u 2 v 2 , b = 2 uv , c 2 = u 2 + v 2 (7)
  • If (7.a) is true, we obtain as previously integers m , l such that u = 2 l 2 , v = m 2 or u = m 2 , v = 2 l 2 , so c 2 = m 4 + 4 l 4 (see (6)), and this is impossible by the first part of the proof.
  • If (7.b) is true, note that a , c , u , v satisfy the system

    a 2 = u 2 v 2 , c 2 = u 2 + v 2 . ( ) (8)

From (8) we obtain

c 2 + a 2 = 2 u 2 , c 2 a 2 = 2 v 2 , (9)

where c and a are odd and relatively prime, and c > a . Therefore there is some positive integer α such that

c = a + 2 α .

By the first equation of (9), this gives

( a + 2 α ) 2 + a 2 = 2 u 2 , 2 a 2 + 4 + 4 α 2 = 2 u 2 , a 2 + 2 + 2 α 2 = u 2 ,

thus

( a + α ) 2 + α 2 = u 2 . (10)

Note that a c = 1 and c 2 + a 2 = 2 u 2 imply a u = 1 . From a 2 + 2 + 2 α 2 = u 2 and a u = 1 , we see that α u = 1 . This shows that ( a + α , α , u ) is a primitive Pythagorean triple. By Theorem 5.5, there are positive integers r , s of opposite parity such that r s = 1 and

( 11 . a ) { a + α = 2 rs , α = r 2 s 2 , u = r 2 + s 2 ,  or  ( 11 . b ) { a + α = r 2 s 2 , α = 2 rs , u = r 2 + s 2 . (11) 

In either cases we have

c 2 a 2 = ( c a ) ( c + a ) = 2 α 2 ( a + α ) = 8 rs ( r 2 s 2 ) .

Then the second equation of (9) gives, after division by 2 ,

v 2 = 4 rs ( r 2 s 2 ) . (12)

Since r , s are of opposite parity, r 2 s 2 is odd, and ( 4 rs ) ( r 2 s 2 ) = 1 . By Lemma 5.4, r , s and r 2 s 2 are perfect squares, say

r = u 2 , s = v 2 , r 2 s 2 = w 2 . (13)

Then

s 4 + w 2 = u 4 . (14)

This shows that ( s , w , u ) is a solution of our equation a 4 + b 2 = c 4 . Moreover c > a > 0 , thus 2 c 2 > c 2 + a 2 = 2 u 2 , where u > 0 , so c > u . This contradicts the minimality of c . This contradiction proves that a 4 + b 2 = c 4 has no solution in positive integers.

(*) Carmichael, in “Diophantine Analysis”, shows that this system has no positive integers solutions : I use some of his arguments in the context of our descent proof.

User profile picture
2025-04-25 08:02
Comments