I have been exploring this particular prime 13238717 which is sum of two squares and has Pythagorean triple.
I found this interesting property and so far I havenāt found any texts about what I wrote below.
This is just my conjecture, I have no formal proof and I have only tested few small primes.
I havenāt found any counter examples yet, but I have checked only few dozen primes and couple composites by hand.
I modified ChatGPT script which lists numbers that have both forms P^2=a^2+b^2
and P=c^2+d^2
and it appears to generate the exact same sequence as: A004431
5 10 13 17 20 25 26 29 34 37 40 41 45 50...
Numbers P seem to always have both following forms
Hypotenuse numbers (Pythagorean triples) A009003: P^2=a^2+b^2
Numbers that are the sum of 2 squares A001481: P=c^2+d^2
Wolfram notes, ā-- one side of every Pythagorean triple is divisible by 3, another by 4, and another by 5.ā
I noticed if P is prime and have both forms: one of the Pythagorean sides (a or b)
whichever is divisible by 4 has the exact factors that construct both of the square sum components ācā and ādā, with the exception of extra factor ā2ā.
Hereās the conjecture put out more formally based solely on my observations:
Pythagorean sides: a,b
and square sum componentsc,d
are natural numbers and n
are prime factors.
a^2 + b^2 = P^2 (pyth. triple)
c^2 + d^2 = P (sum of two squares)
(a or b) mod 4 = 0
(a or b) factors are = 2* (n1*n2*n3...) * (m1*m2*m3...)
c = n1*n2*n3...
d = m1*m2*m3...
(a or b) = 2*(c*d)
Hereās couple examples:
primes 2 and 5 are trivial exceptions as 1 isnāt a prime factor.
1^2+2^2=5
1^2+1^2=2
Prime: 13 (first non-trivial prime case)
5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2 (pyth. triple)
2^2 + 3^2 = 13 (sum of two squares)
12 factors are 2 2 3
12 mod 4 = 0
c=2
d=3
12 = 2* (2*3)
Prime: 821
429^2 + 700^2 = 821^2 (pyth. triple)
14^2 + 25^2 = 821 (sum of two squares)
700 mod 4 = 0
700 factors are 2 (5 5) (2 7)
c = 5*5 = 25
d = 2*7 = 14
700 = 2* (25*14)
prime: 13238717
1315508^2 + 13173195^2 = 13238717^2 (pyth. triple)
181^2 + 3634^2 = 13238717 (sum of two squares)
1315508 mod 4 = 0
1315508 factors are 2 (2 23 79) (181)
c=181
d=2*23*79=3634
1315508 = 2* (181*3634)
Some composites have multiple ways to write sum of two squares, which each have different (a or b)
counterpart, but not necessarily divisible by 4.
composite: 260
(four valid pythagorean side pairs)
132^2+224^2 = 64^2+252^2 = 100^2+240^2 = 156^2+208^2 = 260^2
(two valid square sums)
8^2+14^2 = 2^2+16^2 = 260
8^2+14^2:
224 mod 4 = 0
224 factors 2 (2 2 2) (2 7)
c= 2*2*2 = 8
d= 2*7 = 14
224/(8*14) = 2
2^2+16^2:
64 mod 4 = 0
64 factors 2 (2) (2 2 2 2)
c = 2
d = 2^4 = 16
64 = 2* (2*16)
composite: 58
40^2+42^2=58^2 (pyth. triple)
3^2+7^2=58 (sum of two squares)
42 mod 4 = 2
Not 0 mod 4 congruent, unlike primes.
Might be result of both c, d being odd.
42 factors 2 3 7
c=3
d=7
58 = 2* (3*7)
Generally it seems that thereās always at least one Pythagorean component where (a or b) = c*d*2
, but I havenāt quite figured why this is the case.
I reckon it has something to do with the fact that mod 4 congruence of 4k+1 doesnāt change when you square it: (4k+1)^2 = 8k*(2k+1)+1
Additionally the fact that when sum of two squares is prime or odd, exactly one of the components is always odd, which may explain why (a or b)
isnāt always divisible by 4 with composites.
ChatGPT wrote a counterexample finder I checked up to 100 000.
To my knowledge there isnāt straight up equation that would spit out a Pythagorean triple or sum of square solutions for any integer.
There might be some other way to prove or disprove that a or b = c*d*2
when P is prime, but so far I couldnāt think of any.
It might be something obvious that I am missing, or itās simply all about congruence rules of additions and multiplications.
Again, this is just what Iāve found from my few tests and I donāt have any formal proof. I couldnāt find any papers or posts specifically about this. This is nothing too important, but I found it interesting enough to share.
I just write bad python code out of interest in number theory without an university degree.
Thanks for the solution goes to: @0v0
Hereās summary how I understood this:
BrahmaguptaāFibonacci identity
P=cĀ²+dĀ²
Squaring 'P' results in:
PĀ²=(cĀ²-dĀ²)Ā² + (2cd)Ā²
These 'PĀ²' sum components are equivalent to the Pythagorean legs 'a' and 'b':
a=cĀ²-dĀ²
b=2*c*d
Hence, '(a or b)' always contains the factors '2' and all factors of 'c' and 'd'.
Additionally, the 2*c*d
divisibility by 4 is result of P being odd.
2*c*d
being divisible by 4 is true for any odd number as one of the sum of square components ācā or ādā must be even.
c=2*k
b = 2*c*d = 4*k*d
This is a special case of the BrahmaguptaāFibonacci identity.
According to the identity,
(c^2 + d^2)^2 = (c^2 - d^2)^2 + (2cd)^2
which are the expressions you found fora
andb
(modulo sign)Thank you for the answer! I have to take deeper look into that.
Itās rather interesting how seemingly two different sum components share factors. Itās like finding pi from seemingly unrelated series.The insight is that
c^2 + d^2
factors as(c + id)(c - id)
in the Gaussian integers, and shuffling factors in its square and multiplying gives both sides of the identity.I think I got the idea, I just now updated the original post and added a footnote how I understood the BrahmaguptaāFibonacci identity.
I have only surface knowledge about imaginary numbers, but I have noticed sum of two squares being also referred as Gaussian integers.
Thereās definitely a lot of material to read about relating both Gaussian integers and Pythagorean triples, that I can gain intuition how all of these relations work out. I much appreciate the help!
After some thinking I came up with this.
Conjecture:NĀ² = aĀ²+bĀ² N = cĀ²+dĀ² a = 2*c*d b = dĀ²-cĀ² integers a,b,c,d>0 For any integer N that can be expressed as both NĀ²=aĀ²+bĀ² and N=cĀ²+dĀ², the relationship a=2*c*d holds.
Is it enough proof just to show that the above equations are true when substituting them to NĀ² and N equations?
Ifa = 2*c*d
then one leg of the Pythagorean triple definitely contains c and d factors and ā2ā. This might be related to Pythagorean triple parametrization.I fixed the flawed ChatGPT counterexample finder script and now it gives this list of all numbers including composites which donāt follow these rules, such as 58. Hereās sub-sequence of A004431 numbers that donāt follow the rules:
Numbers which neither Pythagorean side is divisible by 4
Composites: [10, 26, 34, 50, 58, 74, 82, 90, 106, 122, 130, 146, 170, 178...]
This is identical to Sums of two distinct odd squares A339977 which makes sense as if c,d>1 and odd, they must be 3 or bigger hence their factors are missing the extra ā2ā, unlike primes where one of c or d is always even.
Even composites appear to followa=2*c*d
relation. The prime pythagorean side divisibility by 4 appears to be just a side effect.