Friday, March 24, 2017

Week 7

So last week (or the week before that) we learned how to multiply one number by another number


But in all seriousness, we learned that if we have a number of the form $2M^2-1$ where $M$ is an integer, then $2\left(M+K\right)^2-1$ describes it's multiples as long as $K \equiv 0$ or $-2M \bmod 2M^2-1$. By adding $K=Q\left(2M^2-1\right)$ or $K=Q\left(2M^2-1\right)-2M$ we are effectively multiplying the number by $\left(2MQ+1\right)^2-2Q^2$ or $\left(2MQ-1\right)^2-2Q^2$ (Sorry if I changed the name of certain variables).

Let us remind ourselves of the reason we are finding the multiples of $2M^2-1$. We were able to find arrow relations between Plato triples using

$$Plato \rightarrow Plato\\\boxed{\frac{m_{from}}{m_{to}}=\frac{2J^2-1}{2L^2-1}\\i_{from}=L-1\\i_{to}=J}$$

We wanted to know if we could change our values of $J$ and $L$ such that $M_{from}$ and $M_{to}$ don't change. For example, when $J=L$, you can add any number to both

$$\frac{1}{1}=\frac{2\left(1\right)^2-1}{2\left(1\right)^2-1}=\frac{2\left(2\right)^2-1}{2\left(2\right)^2-1}\cdots$$

This is the reason why every Plato triple has a right arrow going to the next term in the Stifel sequence. By finding more of these, we might be able to fully describe the arrow relations between two multiples

So we need to multiply two numbers by the same $\left(2MQ+1\right)^2-2Q^2$ or $\left(2MQ-1\right)^2-2Q^2$

If we say $\left(2MQ+1\right)^2-2Q^2=7$, then we are also saying that $Q\left(2QM^2-Q+2M\right)=3$. Since $Q$ and $M$ are integers we see that the only solution is $Q=1, M=1$. (We started with $7$ because multiplying by $1$ doesn't make sense and the numbers between can never divide a number of the form $2M^2-1$)

If we say $\left(2MQ-1\right)^2-2Q^2=7$, then we are also saying that $Q\left(2QM^2-Q-2M\right)=3$. Since $Q$ and $M$ are integers we see that the only solutions are $Q=1, M=2$ and $Q=3, M=1$

If we interpret these solutions, we see that the only numbers we can multiply by $7$ and $1$ and $7$. (One of those solutions was basically a duplicate) We can see that $2\left(1\right)^2-1=1\rightarrow 7=2\left(2\right)^2-1$ and that $2\left(2\right)^2-1=7\rightarrow 49=2\left(5\right)^2-1$

I will continue exploring this with numbers higher than $7$, but here is a cool pattern I found related to $2M^2-1$. Firstly, here is a list of $2M^2-1$ up to $M=30$

1
7
17
31
49
71
97
127
161
199
241
287
337
391
449
511
577
647
721
799
881
967
1057
1151
1249
1351
1457
1567
1681
1799

We start at $1$ and move forward $\sqrt{1}$ to $7$. $7^2=49$, the next perfect square after $1$.

If we take $49$ and move forward $\sqrt{49}$ to $287$, we might notice that $287=7*41$. And it just so happens that $41^2=1681$ is the next perfect square.

I haven't looked at why this is, but I suspect it is a side effect of $2M^2-1=N^2$ being a Pellian equation.


Another interesting pattern occurs when we consider number we can multiply $2M^2-1$ by

If we consider $M=2$, the first 10 numbers we can multiply by are

7.0
23.0
41.0
73.0
103.0
151.0
193.0
257.0
311.0
391.0

If we consider $M=3$, the first 10 numbers we can multiply by are

23.0
47.0
113.0
161.0
271.0
343.0
497.0
593.0
791.0
911.0

You may have noticed that 23 is second in $M=2$ and first in $M=3$. This pattern actually continues, so hopefully I will be able to exploit it and discover more patterns

This week's calculator will be up shortly


r:

s:


17 comments:

  1. Even when your project started, most of this was over my head, but each time I read your blog, I'm reminded of this fact. You mentioned this pattern you've discovered where numbers appear to reappear in M = x and M = x + 1. Do you think you'd take any steps to prove why this occurs (so you can generalize it in a more abstract form)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Nicole! I actually looked into this. One of the things we wanted was
      $\left(2MQ+1\right)^2-2Q^2=\left(2M'Q'-1\right)^2-2Q'^2$
      If $Q=Q'=1$, this becomes
      $M+1=M'$ which explains our pattern.
      Unfortunately there are solutions to this equation where $Q=Q'=1$ doesn't hold, so it won't be that easy to find repeats

      Delete
    2. Thank you so much for taking the time to do this!

      Delete
  2. Hi Vijay! Once again, a little bit of this went over my head, but I think I understand most of it. The work you have done toward this project is very impressive. Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jackson! Sorry I was a little bit all over the place this week. Next week will definitely flow more smoothly.

      Delete
  3. Hi Vijay! I'm glad you've gotten back at your research this week. Can't wait for next week and more calculators. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Carla! I'm also really excited. I'm finally getting into the flow of things, so I hopefully will get somewhere.

      Delete
  4. Hi Vijay,

    Amazing article! I really enjoyed the cartoons and vivid descrption! Great Job!

    Sincerely, Bhavik Rajaboina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Bhavik! That is exactly what I was hoping to hear. If I can educate my readers in an entertaining way, my job is done.

      Delete
  5. Hi Vijay! While this stuff is really complex, you did a good job explaining it so I understand now. The work you have done on this project is very impressive as always. I'm looking forward to next week's blog. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jack! It's good to know that you understand what I'm explaining. Hopefully, I'll have something very impressive to share at the end.

      Delete
  6. Hi Vijay! I had to go back and read week five's post to understand a lot of the things in this post, but I was still able to understand a lot of it because of your good description. As always, it seems like you are really making good progress on your project! How much closer are you to solving (or proving it cannot be solved) the magic square of squares? I look forward to next week's post and calculator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Gokul! I'll try to avoid things like this for future posts. As far as progress goes, it's hard to tell; if one component of a 3x3 magic square of squares doesn't work and I examine it, the whole thing would be solved in an instant. Otherwise, it could take a long time to find components of a 3x3 magic square of square and make them work together.

      Delete
  7. Hi Vijay! Love your description, I think I understood most of the material in this post. How much closer are you to solving this problem, and how specifically does this week's post contribute twards the end goal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Abhinav! The last few posts have been dedicated to studying different families of triples because of their interesting properties in the context of my problem. Hopefully, I'll be able to use these properties to find parts of the 3x3 magic square of squares. For progress I would say that I could find part of the magic square that doesn't work and instantly end it (unlikely) or I could slowly build the magic square of squares piece by piece.

      Delete
  8. Hey Vijay! Loved your explanation of the Plato triples! What has been your favorite part of researching magic squares so far?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Nathan! It's so hard to choose what my favorite part is! I really liked learning about Pellian equations ($X^2-2Y^2=\pm 1$ where $X$ and $Y$ are integers). "Diophantine Equations" always sounded scary, but this experience showed me how awesome they are. Another part I really liked was creating all these different cool calculators.

      Delete