I have now worked through the rest of the first chapter of 'Elements of Number Theory' and some further topics were introduced, namely, Diophantine Equations, Pythagorean Triples, The Diophantus chord method and Gaussian integers.
Pythagorean triples are natural numbers (x,y,z) which are solutions of the Pythagorean equation
$$x^{2}+y^{2}=z^{2}$$
A Babylonian clay tablet called Plimpton 322 (this is its museum catalogue number) shows that such numbers were known about 3,800 years ago - a whole 1,300 years before Pythagoras! As presented in Stillwell's book, there are 15 pairs of real numbers which can be interpreted as values of y and z since z2-y2 is a perfect square. Further investigation of these numbers (exercises 1.8.2 and 1.8.3 of this book) shows that six of these triples can be constructed from other smaller triples. If (a1,b1,c1) and (a2,b2,c2) are Pythagorean triples, then so too is (a1a2-b1b2, a1b2+b1a2,c1c2). This also means that a triple (a,b,c) can also generate triple (a2-b2, 2ab, c2). Clearly, if we are looking for triples of this type, then the component z must not be prime.
For example, for the triple in Plimpton 322 that is (4800,4601,6649), we have 6649=61x109 (both 61 and 109 are prime), so we can have c1=61 and c2=109. There are two triples with these z values (60,11,61) and (91,60,109) and indeed these two triples do generate (4800,4601,6649) as you can check. Another example is the triple (240,161,289) and this can be generated from the single triple (15, 8,17) since 172=289. Note that these two examples from Plimpton 322 are what are termed primitive triples, since their x, y and z terms do not have a common prime divisor.
It all goes to show that the Babylonians knew a thing or two about maths if they were aware of these complicated relationships.
Sounds like your having fun again must admit I'm slightly jealous
ReplyDeleteAll the best Chris
Yes, I am having fun with this book. It is nice just to be able to amble along with it and look at ideas in as much detail as I feel like I want to. I decided to work on one proof (not given in the book) for several days, just because I thought I could probably do it. M208 has certainly given me the necessary background now to tackle things like this.
DeleteNo need to be jealous. What are you up to? Are you just working on your music studies at the moment or have you started a new maths course? We could collaborate on something again if you fancy?