Browse · MathNet
PrintIreland_2017
Ireland 2017 number theory
Problem
For which prime numbers do there exist positive rational numbers and a positive integer such that
Solution
If and , the number is an integer that is divisible by 3, hence for all such primes the required solutions exist.
We now show that solutions can only exist if .
Suppose with positive integers that satisfy , is a solution. The given equation is then equivalent to
Case (i) Because , any prime factor of must divide . Hence, is not among these prime factors and such a prime factor must divide . This contradicts . Hence, . Similarly, using obtain .
Equation (1) shows that divides . Because , Euclid's Lemma implies that . Similarly, divides and, using we obtain . This shows that .
As we can now cancel in (1) and obtain If we obtain that , hence at least one of the four numbers must be divisible by 3. But because , there is a second of these numbers divisible by 3. But then the sum of the squares of the remaining two numbers must also be divisible by 3, which is only possible if these two numbers are divisible by 3 themselves. But this contradicts .
If we immediately obtain that is divisible by 3 and so and are divisible by 3, contrary to our assumption .
Case (ii) If we can write with some positive integer and we have , as . Equation (1) is then equivalent to and we have . So, we are again in the situation of Case (i), now with replacing and replacing . Therefore, we need to have .
Case (iii) If and , we can write and with positive integers . Equation (1) is then equivalent to with . Moreover, because and as well as and , we also have . Hence, we are again in the situation of Case (i) and conclude that we need to have in this case as well.
The final result is that such numbers exist for all primes that satisfy and for no other prime number.
We now show that solutions can only exist if .
Suppose with positive integers that satisfy , is a solution. The given equation is then equivalent to
Case (i) Because , any prime factor of must divide . Hence, is not among these prime factors and such a prime factor must divide . This contradicts . Hence, . Similarly, using obtain .
Equation (1) shows that divides . Because , Euclid's Lemma implies that . Similarly, divides and, using we obtain . This shows that .
As we can now cancel in (1) and obtain If we obtain that , hence at least one of the four numbers must be divisible by 3. But because , there is a second of these numbers divisible by 3. But then the sum of the squares of the remaining two numbers must also be divisible by 3, which is only possible if these two numbers are divisible by 3 themselves. But this contradicts .
If we immediately obtain that is divisible by 3 and so and are divisible by 3, contrary to our assumption .
Case (ii) If we can write with some positive integer and we have , as . Equation (1) is then equivalent to and we have . So, we are again in the situation of Case (i), now with replacing and replacing . Therefore, we need to have .
Case (iii) If and , we can write and with positive integers . Equation (1) is then equivalent to with . Moreover, because and as well as and , we also have . Hence, we are again in the situation of Case (i) and conclude that we need to have in this case as well.
The final result is that such numbers exist for all primes that satisfy and for no other prime number.
Final answer
All primes p with p ≡ 2 (mod 3), and no others.
Techniques
Greatest common divisors (gcd)Techniques: modulo, size analysis, order analysis, inequalitiesFractions