NeverSayNever's blog

Jacobi's Two Square Theorem
By NeverSayNever, 10 years ago, In English

Jacobi's Two Square Theorem: The number of representations of a positive integer as the sum of two squares is equal to four times the difference of the numbers of divisors congruent to 1 and 3 modulo 4.

I find this on Google , but not able to find any proof . I have brute force it and find that this is correct. Can anyone tell me any proof or whether any test case on which this theorem fails. Really needed please help.

  • Vote: I like it
  • +6
  • Vote: I do not like it

»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Google gives me this on the first page of the results.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Thank you so much

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      10 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -8 Vote: I do not like it

      You could google it yourself.

      But I still don't see all the four ways of representing 1 as a sum of two squares.

      Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

      . How else?
      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        10 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        02 + ( - 1)2 = ( - 1)2 + 02 = 1

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          10 years ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          Oh, the statement is so ambiguous. Two important facts are omitted: negative numbers' squares are allowed and negative divisors are forbidden. It's a shame :).

          → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        10 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        for this theorem , We consider both order as well as sign.

        → Reply
  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    I would be thankful if you explain what is going on in this paper.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      10 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I'd be glad to do it, but my knowledge of formal power series approaches to zero.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        10 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

        So why you write it as an answer for the question?

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          10 years ago, # ^ |
          ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -7 Vote: I do not like it

          Why not to do that? I googled for "Jacobi's Two Square Theorem" and found this article on the first page of the search result.

          I find this on Google , but not able to find any proof .

          If the author couldn't understand the proof, he must say that he didn't understand the proof, but not what I've just cited.

          BTW, such mathematics-heavy questions should be asked on specialized forums, not here.

          → Reply
»
10 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +14 Vote: I do not like it

There is much more easier proof; let p be a prime in form 4k + 1. Then exists a number x such that

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

. For example,

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

satisfies this condition because of Wilson Theorem.

Lets consider numbers of type a + bx, where are a, b integers in range

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

. Obviously there are more than p such numbers, so, by Pigeonhole principle, we can get four numbers

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

such that

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

, so,

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

, then,

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

, so,

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

.

a, b, c, d are in range

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

, so

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

obviously is between 0 and 2p. It's divisible on p, so, it is exactly equal to p. Theorem is proved.
→ Reply
  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

    It is not theorem topicstarter is talking about.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      10 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Oh, I so blind:(

      But, 5 users found it interesting and even put the pluses, so it wasn't very harmful:)

      → Reply