Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

Who knows a formula on which it is possible to find everything Pythagorean numbers?

For example I want to learn all three with number 12:

**"The conditions imposed on functions, become a source of difficulties which will manage to be avoided only by means of new researches about the principles of integral calculus"**

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,311

hi 21122012

I would write 12^2 like this:

So you could choose factors P and Q so that PQ = 144 and find a and b.

eg

hint: a-b and a+b need the same parity ( both odd or both even )

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

I didn't understand a thing!

Give so. I ask a question: how many you will be able to write on the formula of three for 24?

...

how many?

**"The conditions imposed on functions, become a source of difficulties which will manage to be avoided only by means of new researches about the principles of integral calculus"**

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,311

and

are the same.

Find all the factors of 24^2 that have the same parity (two odd factors or two even factors) and solve

Then a^2 and b^2 will be the other two ? in the Pythagorean triple.

so

then

eg.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

For example:

- is ONE;

- is TWO;

- is THREE;

...

You understand?

HOW MANY?

*Last edited by 21122012 (2012-12-15 13:15:54)*

**"The conditions imposed on functions, become a source of difficulties which will manage to be avoided only by means of new researches about the principles of integral calculus"**

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

There are 7 of them.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,400

I remember seeing a proof that all Pythagorean triplets are of the form

a-b, 2*sqrt(a*b), a+b

for natural a and b.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

You used a formula or the computer program?

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

Computer program. But it is easy to generate 3 of them from a formula. The rest I am still working on.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

anonimnystefy wrote:

I remember seeing a proof that all Pythagorean triplets are of the form

a-b, 2*sqrt(a*b), a+b

for natural a and b.

No!

Yes?

You look here. Here important intermediate question: As the formula

mean if an indicator

of a general view will look: n? !

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

Do you already have an answer to the problem?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**21122012****Member**- Registered: 2012-11-16
- Posts: 278

bobbym wrote:

Do you already have an answer to the problem?

I don't want to answer at once. And that will turn out as in other topic. All will be silent or it is simple to speak: "I don't agree" but won't reason and prove disagreement. I want to arrive now more cunning. That you gradually reached before that I want to tell.

Then you won't be able to tell that you aren't right!

** Thomas Ioannes Stiltes.** ...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,657

This thread does not belong in help me. Help me is for people who need help. Usually they need it right away. If you already have the answer and are posing a puzzle then you should post in puzzles and games or exercises.

I have moved it.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**noelevans****Member**- Registered: 2012-07-20
- Posts: 236

(a²+b², a²-b², 2ab) with positive integers a and b with a>b are all Pythagorean triples.

If (x,y,z) is a Pythagorean triple then so is (kx,ky,kz) for integers k>1. And if I recall

correctly all Pythagorean triples can be obtained from these formulas.

Most folks have trouble coming up with more than 2 or 3 Pythagorean triples. I have

taught students to come up with many more by simply:

1) Think of a positive integer >1.

2) Double it. That's the 1st of the triple.

3) Square the number obtained in step 1)

4) Add one to that square. That's the 2nd of the triple.

5) Subtract one from that square. That's the 3rd of the triple.

Of course that's just the triple above with b set equal to 1 and a>1.

Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional).

LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,400

That will not get you Pythagorean triples, noelevans.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**phrontister****Real Member**- From: The Land of Tomorrow
- Registered: 2009-07-12
- Posts: 3,844

Hi stefy,

noelevans' method seems to work fine.

Using his method, here are some examples:-

1) 6; 2) 6*2=12; 3&4) 6²+1= 37; 5) 6²-1= 35: **12² + 35² = 37²**

1) 12; 2) 12*2=24; 3&4) 12²+1=145; 5) 12²-1=143: **24²+143²=145²**

1) 17; 2) 17*2=34; 3&4) 17²+1=290; 5) 17²-1=288: **34²+288²=290²**

1) 25; 2) 25*2=50; 3&4) 25²+1=626; 5) 25²-1=624: **50²+624²=626²**

1) 29; 2) 29*2=58; 3&4) 29²+1=842; 5) 29²-1=840: **58²+840²=842²**

The bold-font result is in the order I normally write the equation.

*Last edited by phrontister (2012-12-16 18:23:07)*

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,400

This is exactly the reason why I shouldn't post late at night! My brain doesn't work!

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**noelevans****Member**- Registered: 2012-07-20
- Posts: 236

Join the club! Mine doesn't work well late at night either.

Writing "pretty" math (two dimensional) is easier to read and grasp than LaTex (one dimensional).

LaTex is like painting on many strips of paper and then stacking them to see what picture they make.

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,311

hi noelevans and Stefy,

I'm the opposite. I don't reckon to be fully awake until 10am, and my brain is positively buzzing at 11pm.

21122012 wrote:

I don't want to answer at once. And that will turn out as in other topic. All will be silent or it is simple to speak: "I don't agree" but won't reason and prove disagreement. I want to arrive now more cunning. That you gradually reached before that I want to tell.

I'm guessing that to do what you want, you have found a formula for prime numbers. :?

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

Pages: **1**