| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 6 Jul 2008 23:14:35 IST
|
|
|
Find the no. of ordered pairs (x,y) such that x^2+3y & y^2+3x botha are perfect squares.
|
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 6 Jul 2008 23:16:13 IST
|
|
|
edit
|
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically. ~~~Albert Einstein (1879-1955)~~~~
To divide a cube into two other cubes, a fourth power or in general any power whatever into two powers of the same denomination above the second is impossible, and I have assuredly found an admirable proof of this, but the margin is too narrow to contain it.~~~Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665)~~~
     |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 7 Jul 2008 10:04:36 IST
|
|
|
Why are these days no one replying my queries??????????????????????????????????????
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 7 Jul 2008 12:47:22 IST
|
|
|
i think there r infinitely many.we want no of (x,y) let us take a special case where we get the no of pairs of the form (x,x) which satisfy the condition.in other words we put x=y. now both the exp. become same ie x^2+3x now this should be a perfect square so let us say x^2+3x=4 u will have 1 and -4 as sol. now u put =9 u will get some real sol.u can do the same thing with higher perfect squares. so there r infinite sol. of the form (x,x) itself.
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 7 Jul 2008 13:46:40 IST
|
|
|
I think he means that all numbers involved are integers. If x= y, you can prove that the only solutions is x = y =1.
You can even prove that x and y have got to be relatively prime.
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 7 Jul 2008 15:19:24 IST
|
|
|
take that back: i am not sure anymore that x and y have to be relatively prime
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 7 Jul 2008 18:29:44 IST
|
|
|
This is a nice problem. Only this is not the typical JEE kind. Not, that I discourage you guys from trying out such problems, but you are much better off doing Calculus and Coord Geometry than these.
I am solving for x and y both positive integers here.
Ok, we are given that both are perfect squares.
Now, with x2 of course being a square, adding 3y makes it a perfect square. That means 3y must be of the form where m is a positive integer as is a perfect square. Similarly we have the relation 
Thus, we have the simulataneous equations


Eliminating y we get 
m and n are positive. Since x>0, we must have 9>mn
Hence, the possibilities are
1. m = n =1
2. m=2, n=1
3.m=1, n=2
For these we get the ordered pairs (1,11), (16,11) and (11,16) as the only solutions among positive integers.
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 42 points
(with 8 
in 9 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 7 Jul 2008 18:30:26 IST
|
|
|
Correction: the first ordered pair is (1,1) and not (1,11)
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 9 Jul 2008 19:46:16 IST
|
|
|
again a wrong one !!
see , u wrote
" Now, with x2 of course being a square, adding 3y makes it a perfect square. That means 3y must be of the form where m is a positive integer ....."
consider x=3, m=5
so y=16 /3 makes it !!
now we have 2mx + m^2 = 2*5*3 +25 = 55 which is not 3y ( i.e. 16 )
So ur whole argument breaksdown !!!
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 9 Jul 2008 19:51:05 IST
|
|
|
You are proving yourself to be a priceless idiot.
Quite obviously, the difference of two squares need not always be divisible by 3. So not every m qualifies.
Honestly, abhished, I think you are way out of your depth here, so dont even attempt to poke holes.
The problem is done and the thread closed. Find some other pastime
Good Luck!
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 9 Jul 2008 19:56:58 IST
|
|
|
Plz atleast try to read the problem before u start copy-pasting from another book .
The problem asks to find all ordered pairs (x,y) , who has told u that they are going to be integers( unless ur careless assumption ) ?There are other holes in the proof also !!
.
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 9 Jul 2008 20:03:47 IST
|
|
|
there you go making accusations. For your info I spent the good part of the day trying various approaches of solving the problem and then arrived at this solution. In the past whenever I have filched a solution, I have named my source. A recent example: http://www.goiit.com/posts/list/algebra-sir-please-reply-me-70919.htm#350600 (Notice the courtesy I.A. Maron)
All ordered pairs? there are infinite with x = 0, y = 3n where n is odd. and with m<0, n<0 there are so many solutions, so obvious
That is why I chose positive integers where it comes out neatly.
Now stop wasting everyone's time
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 5 points
(with 1 
in 1 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 9 Jul 2008 20:28:14 IST
|
|
|
x=0 , y= 3^n are still integral solutions (it is not quite general as there are vaious n's that don't satisfy it n= 2 for example)
But that is not my point !!
Ok, for the sake of argument let us solve it for integral x,y s . But how on earth do u assume that they are ( 3y) going to be ONLY of the form 2mx +m^2 .? ( assuming m positive )
It is certainly a sufficient condition but not a necessary one !!
I think u have certain intelligence to get my point .
So ur method can't gurantee that u have found all the integral solns.
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 9 Jul 2008 20:32:50 IST
|
|
|
Finally , I am still a larner and my education is not complete . But I think that u have firm conviction that u have completed all ur mathematics lessons and have nothing to learn anymor |