Pythagorean Triangles with Repeated Digits-Repeated Bases

If such a triangle existed, we would have b=4,k\geq 2, and 2 \leq d \leq 3. According to (1),

\left.\left.\begin{array}{lll}{\rm either} & d_{k,4} = \delta (m^2-n^2), & d^k = \delta(2mn) \\ {\rm or} & d^k = \delta (m^2-n^2), & d_{k,4} = \delta (2mn) \end{array}\right\} \begin{array}{l}(2a) \\ (2b)\end{array} \right\} (2)

We distinguish between cases, according to whether d=2 or d=3.

Case 1: d=2

Since m and n have different parities, it follows that mn \equiv 0({\rm mod\,}2) and thus \delta \cdot (2mn) \equiv 0 ({\rm mod\,}4). Also,

which shows that possibility (2b) is ruled out. Thus, we consider (2a) with d=2:

\dfrac{2(4^k-1)}{3} = \delta (m^2-n^2),\ \ 2^k= \delta(2mn) (2c)

The second equation (2c) implies, by virtue of m > n,(m,n)=1, and m+n \equiv 1({\rm mod\,} 2), that

\left.\begin{array}{l} m=2^u,\ n=1,\ \delta = 2^v;\ {\rm for\ some}\\ {\rm integers} \ \ u \ {\rm and}\ v\ {\rm such \ that\ } v \geq 0, u \geq 1 \\ {\rm and\ with}\ u+v+1=k \end{array}\right\} (2d)

By the first equation in (2c) and (2d) we obtain,

2 \cdot (4^k-1) = 3\cdot 2^v(2^{2u}-1) (2e)

which easily implies v=1 (consider the power of 2 on both sides). Thus, from k=u+v+1 \Rightarrow k=u+2; and by (2e),

which is impossible modulo 2 since 2u-1 \geq 1 (by (2d)).

Case 2: d=3

We have d_{k,4} = 3_{k,4} = \dfrac{3(4^k-1)}{3} = 4^k-1. Obviously, since 4^k-1 is odd, it cannot equal \delta(2mn). Thus again, as in the previous case, this leads us to (2a) in (2);

an impossibility again since 3^k is odd, while \delta(2mn) is even. The proof is complete. \Box

Let T_1(k,4,d) be such a triangle; it’s hypotenuse length being d_{k,4}. We must have

\begin{array}{l} {\rm either} \\ {\rm or}\end{array}\left. \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} d^k = \delta(m^2-n^2), & d_{k,4} = \delta (m^2+n^2)) \\ d^k = \delta(2mn), & d_{k,4} = \delta (m^2+n^2) \end{array} \right\} \begin{array}{l} (3a) \\ (3b)\end{array} \right\} (3)

Since b=4, we must have d=2 or 3. We distinguish between two cases.

Case 1: d=3

Obviously, possibility (3b) cannot hold true since 3^k \not\equiv 0 ({\rm mod\,} 2). Thus, we need only consider (3a). Since d_{k,4} = 3_{k,4} = \dfrac{3(4^k-1)}{3} = 4^k -1; equations (3a) imply

\left. \begin{array}{ll} & \delta (m^2-n^2) = \delta (m-n) (m+n) = 3^k \\ {\rm and} & \delta (m^2+n^2) = 4^k-1 \end{array}\right\} (3c)

Since (m,n)=1 and m,n have different parities, we conclude that (m-n,m+n) = 1 and also 1 \leq m-n < m+n. This, then combined with the first equation in (3c), implies

From (?) we obtain m = \dfrac{3^w+1}{2} and n = \dfrac{3^w-1}{2} and thus, the second equation in (3c) gives

By virtue of the fact that 4^3=64; 4^3-1 \equiv 0 ({\rm mod\,} 9), the following three statements can be easily verified.

If k \equiv 0({\rm mod\,} 3) \Rightarrow 4^k-1 \equiv 0 ({\rm mod\,} 9)

If k \equiv 1({\rm mod\,} 3) \Rightarrow 4^k-1 \equiv 3({\rm mod\,} 9)

If k \equiv 2({\rm mod\,} 3) \Rightarrow 4^k-1 \equiv 6({\rm mod\,} 9)

This then shows, by (?), that if v \geq 2, k must be a multiple of 3.

Accordingly, we distinguish between two subcases: v \geq 2 being one subcase, while v < 2 (i.e., v = 0 or 1) the other.

Subcase 1a: v \geq 2

In this subcase, we must have k \equiv 0({\rm mod\,} 3) (see above). Since k \geq 2, if we consider (5) modulo (8), we see that on account of

3^{2w} \equiv 9^w\equiv 1({\rm mod\,} 8); we have

(Clearly, if v were even, 3^v would be congruent to 1({\rm mod\,} 4). Thus, v must be an odd integer. The next observation shows that w must also be odd. To see why, observe that if w were even; then 2w\equiv 0({\rm mod\,}4) \Rightarrow 3^{2w} \equiv 1({\rm mod\,}16), since 3^4 \equiv 1({\rm mod\,} 16). But then, if we consider (5) modulo 16 we see that

which is impossible because 2 \cdot 3^v \equiv 6({\rm mod\,} 16), in view of v \equiv 1({\rm mod\,} 2). Indeed, to make this a bit more clear, put v = 4t + 1 or alternatively v = 4t +3 for some integer t. If v = 4t+1 \Rightarrow 2 \cdot 3^v = 2 \cdot 3^{4t+1} \equiv 2 \cdot 3^{4t} \cdot 3({\rm mod\,} 16) so that 2 \cdot 3^v \equiv 2 \cdot 1 \cdot 3 \equiv 6({\rm mod\,}16). If, on the other hand, v=4t+3, we have 2\cdot 3^v = 2 \cdot 3^{4t+3} \equiv 2 \cdot 3^{4t} \cdot 3^3 \equiv 2\cdot 1\cdot 11 \equiv 22 \equiv 6({\rm mod\,}16). Therefore, both v and w must be odd; and so, by k = v + w in (4), it follows that k must be even. Thus, since k \equiv 0({\rm mod\,}2) and k \equiv 0({\rm mod\,} 3) (see beginning of this subcase), it follows that k \equiv 0 ({\rm mod\,} 6). Next, we apply Fermat’s Little Theorem for the prime p=7: 4^k -1 \equiv ({\rm mod\,}7) and thus, by (?) we see that

which is impossible by virtue of the fact that w is odd. Indeed, w \equiv 1,3, or 5({\rm mod\,}6) \Rightarrow 2w \equiv 2,0, or 4({\rm mod\,} 6)4 and so

This concludes the proof of Subcase 1a. \Box

First observe that since 2 \leq d \leq b-1,\ 2\leq d \leq 3-1 \Rightarrow d=2; and so, d^k =2^k and d_{k,3} = 2_{k,3} = \dfrac{2(3^k-1)}{2} = 3^k-1. If such a triangle exists, one leg will have length 2^k, the other 3^k-1. Thus, there are two possibilities.

Case 1: Assume possibility (8a) to hold.

From the second equation in (8a), it follows that both positive integers \delta and m^2-n^2 are powers of 2. However, m^2-n^2 = (m-n)(m+n) \geq 3, on account of m > n \geq 1. In fact, m^2-n^2 \geq (n+1)^2 - n^2 = 2n+1 \geq 3. Since m,n have different parities, m^2-n^2 is an odd integer greater than or equal to 3. Thus, it cannot equal to a power of 2, which renders the second equation in (8a) contradictory.

Case 2: Assume possibility (8b)

The second equation implies that each of the positive integers \delta, m, n, must be a power of 2; and since m > n \geq 1 and m+n\equiv 1({\rm mod\,}2), it follows that

Combining (?) with the first equation in (8b) yields,

Consider equation (?) modulo 3. We have,

while

We have a contradiction. The proof is complete. \Box

Again, as in the previous proof of Theorem 3, observe that in view of 2 \leq d \leq b-1, we have d=2. If a triangle T_2(k,3,2) exists, it would be a Pythagorean triangle with the hypotenuse having length d_{k,3} = \left(\dfrac{3^k-1}{2}\right) \cdot 2 = 3^k-1, and with one of the two legs having length 2^k. Which means that,

The first possibility (11a) is ruled out at once by the first equation in (11a), since m^2-n^2 is an odd integer and m^2 - n^2 \geq 3; we already saw this in the proof of Theorem 3.

Next, let us consider (11b), the other possibility. As in the previous proof, in view of m > n \geq 1, we easily infer from the first equation that

Recall that always k \geq 2. From (?) and the second equation in (11b), we obtain

Consider (?) modulo 3. Since 2^{2v} +1 = 4^v +1 \equiv 1+1 \equiv 2({\rm mod\,}3), (?) implies -1 \equiv 2^{p+1} ({\rm mod\,}3) \Leftrightarrow 2 \equiv 2^{p+1} ({\rm mod\,} 3) \Leftrightarrow (since (2,3)=1) 1 \equiv 2^p({\rm mod\,}3) \Leftrightarrow p\equiv 0 ({\rm mod\,}2). p must be an even integer. Moreover, since the left-hand side of (?) is an even integer, while 2^{2v}+1 is odd; 2^p must be even; which means p\geq 1. But p is even, so we must have p \geq 2.

Since p \geq 2, the right-hand side of (?) must be a multiple of 4;

3^{p+v+1} - 1 \equiv 0({\rm mod\,}4) (13a)

However, if \ell is a positive integer, then 3^{\ell} -1 \equiv 0({\rm mod\,}4) if \ell is even; while 3^{\ell}-1 \equiv 2({\rm mod\,} 4) if \ell is odd, as it can be easily verified. Thus, (13a) implies that the exponent p+v+1 must be an even integer; and in view of p \equiv 0({\rm mod\,}2), we see that v must be odd:

p\equiv 0({\rm mod\,}2),\ \ v \equiv 1({\rm mod\,}2) (13b)

Accordingly by (13b), p \equiv 0,2, or 4({\rm mod\,} 6), while v \equiv 1,3, or 5({\rm mod\,} 6)

We will use this, by considering equation (13) modulo 7. To facilitate this end, observe that, if r is a positive integer and r \equiv i({\rm mod\,} 6), with 0\leq i \leq 5, then 2^r \equiv 2^i ({\rm mod\,}7) and 3^r \equiv 3^i ({\rm mod\,}7). This observation leads to the following table:

\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline &&&\\ {\rm Value\ of} \ p & {\rm Value \ of}\ v & {\rm Value\ of}\ 2^p\cdot(2^{2v}+1)& {\rm Value\ of}\ 3^{p+v+1}-1\\ {\rm modulo}\ 6 & {\rm mod\,}\ 6 & {\rm mod\,}\ 7 & {\rm mod\,} \ 7 \\ \hline &&&\\ 0 & 1 & 5 & 1 \\ \hline &&&\\ 0 & 3 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline &&&\\ 0 & 5 & 3 & 0\\ \hline &&& \\ 2 & 1 & 6 & 3 \\ \hline &&&\\ 2 & 3 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline &&& \\ 2 & 5 & 5 & 1 \\ \hline &&&\\ 4 & 1 & 3 & 0 \\ \hline &&&\\ 4 & 3 & 4 & 1 \\ \hline &&&\\ 4 & 5 & 6 & 3 \\ \hline \end{array}

The results on the last two columns (columns 3 and 4) clearly render (13) impossible modulo 7; a contradiction. The proof is complete. \Box

We give a simple proof, without making use of parametric formulas (1). If a triangle T_2(2,b,d) exists, with 2 \leq d \leq 4, then it must have one leg length equal to d_{2,b}= d(b+1), while the other leg length is equal to d^2. Thus, \left[d(b+1)\right]^2 + (d^2)^2 = m^2, for some positive integer m; and so,

In the last equation, d^2 is a divisor of m^2, so d must be a divisor of m. Put m = d\cdot c, for some positive integer c, in order to obtain

Next, we use the conditions 2 \leq d \leq 4 and 2 \leq d \leq b-1. If d =2, (?) \Rightarrow (since c+b+1 > c-(b-1)) c+b+1 = 4 and c-(b+1)=1 which, in turn, gives c=\dfrac{5}{2}, a contradiction since c is an integer. If d=3, (?) \Rightarrow c+b+1=9 and c-(b+1)=1, which gives b=3, contradicting d \leq b-1.

If d=4, we have either c+b+1=8 and c-(b+1)=2 or c+b+1=16 and c-(b+1)=1. In the first case we obtain b=2, a contradiction since b \geq 5. In the second case, c = \dfrac{17}{2} a contradiction once more. The proof is complete. \Box

We have d = 2v+1, for some integer v \geq 1. Set u = v+1, so that d=u^2 -v^2. By Family S_1, if we take b = u^2 + v^2 -1 = \dfrac{d^2-1}{2} then d \leq b-1 and (d_{2,b})^2 - (d^2)^2 = square \Box

We have d = 2v, for some integer v \geq 3. Let u =1, so that v-u \geq 2. Then, if we take b=v^2 = \dfrac{d^2}{4}, by Family S_2, we have d \leq b-1 and (d_{2,b})^2 - (d^2)^2 = square. \Box

We have d = 2q+1, for some positive integer q \geq 2.

Let \ell = 1, so that \ell^2 \leq 2q^2 -2. Also, note that if we take r=q+\ell,\ r = q+1, then d=r^2-q^2 = (q+1)^2 - q^2. Therefore, by Family F_1, if we set b=2(q+1)q-1 = 2rq-1 = \dfrac{d^2-3}{2}. It follows that d \leq b-1 and (d_{2,b})^2+ (d^2)^2 = square. \Box

We have d = 2r, for some integer r \geq 3. Let q=1, so that d=2rq; and \ell = r-q = r-1 \geq 2. Then \ell^2 \geq 2q^2 + 2 = 4. From Family F_2, it is now clear that if we set b = r^2-2 = \dfrac{d^2-8}{4}, then d \leq b-1 and (d_{2,b})^2 + (d^2)^2 = square. \Box