Back in 2008 I noticed I could connect x

^{2}- Dy

^{2}= 1, commonly called Pell's Equation by mathematicians, with Pythagorean Triples.

If x

^{2}- Dy

^{2}= 1, and x = 1 mod D, or x = -1 mod D:

(D-1)j

^{2}+ (j+1)

^{2}= (x+y)

^{2}, where j = ((x+Dy)-1)/D

or

(D-1)j

^{2}+ (j-1)

^{2}= (x+y)

^{2}, where j = ((x+Dy)+1)/D

which, of course, gives a Pythagorean triple whenever D-1 is a square.

So I decided recently to try and find what else I could with the result, and one stands out to me for its simplicity, where I use the first relation.

I discovered I needed two new integer variables n and m, where j = 2nm, and substituting gives me:

(D-1)(2nm)

^{2}+ (2nm+1)

^{2}= (x+y)

^{2}, where 2nm = ((x+Dy)-1)/D

And with some analysis I found that:

(n-m)

^{2}- Dm

^{2}= 1

So I had Pell's Equation back again!

But also I noticed that I could solve for the residue of m mod D-1, where that split by whether or not D-1 was even, where for the odd D-1:

m = (n

^{2}- 1)(2n)

^{-1}mod (D-1)

While for the even D-1:

m = ((n

^{2}- 1)/2)n

^{-1}mod (D-1)

And I realized that I could have had those results just from considering

(n-m)

^{2}- Dm

^{2}= 1

without ever needing the connection to Pythagorean Triples, or the requirement that x = 1 or -1 mod D.

Though I still think it's a cool connection.

You can actually generalize to (n-mk)

^{2}- Dm

^{2}= 1, to get:

2mk = (n

^{2}- 1)n

^{-1}mod (D-k

^{2})

Here I don't bother splitting up cases as n has to be coprime to D-k

^{2}because it's coprime to n

^{2}- 1, while if 2k has factors in common with D-1 and n

^{2}- 1, you'd just divide those off.

So intriguingly you can use x = n-mk, and y = m, to get residues modulo D-k

^{2}for some solution to Pell's Equation, but the equations don't seem to indicate a way to be sure it's the smallest non-trivial, where trivial one is y=0.

And you already have x

^{2}= 1 mod D, so you can then get x

^{2}mod D(D-k

^{2}), when D and D-k

^{2}are coprime, easily enough using the Chinese remainder theorem, or my little congruence result.

But I don't see what good that does you. So for now it's just a curiosity. And that's all I can think of so far, but may edit to put in more to this post later if I think of anything else rather than keep putting up need posts on the same subject.

Oh, looks like you can generalize beyond Pell's Equation to

(n-mk)

^{2}- Dm

^{2}= F, to get:

2mk = (n

^{2}- F)n

^{-1}mod (D-k

^{2})

That looks kind of interesting. Hmmm...just put that out a little bit ago, but thinking about it now I don't see any indication it cares about signs, so:

m(2k) = (n

^{2}- F)n

^{-1}mod (k

^{2}- D)

is the same thing actually, but then it seems a little more obvious that k can be very much larger than D, which is sort of weird?

Can also write as:

m(2k) = (n - Fn

^{-1}) mod (k

^{2}- D)

Seems like could be a general route to finding m explicitly, by just using k large enough?

But isn't that too easy? Will toss it up but will think more on it.

I think the problem is in picking n, and I think I've had this result before and eventually didn't think much of it, so will leave it here so that I don't keep re-discovering it over and over again.

James Harris

## No comments:

Post a Comment