MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Pardon my ignorance of this topic.

Q1. In which dimensions $d$ is it the case that, for every natural number $n$, there exists a sphere having exactly $n$ lattice points on it $(d{-}1)$-dimensional surface?

Schinzel's Theorem establishes this in $\mathbb{R}^2$, and Kulikowski's Theorem establishes this in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Is it known in higher dimensions?

Q2. Why is it that the smallest integral radius of a circle (in $\mathbb{R}^2$) centered at $(0,0)$ that has $n$ lattice points on its circumference, is always a multiple of $5$? Or rather: Is there a simple, intuitive explanation for the multiple-of-$5$?

OEIS A046122: $1, 5, 25, 125, 65, 3125, 15625, 325, \ldots$. A046122 link

And this likely follows from answers to the previous two questions:

Q3. Does the multiple-of-$5$ phenomenon occur in higher dimensions as well?

I realize these questions may be answered in the literature I have not encountered, so pointers are welcomed—Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
For question 2, the number of lattice points on the circle relates to the number of prime factors congruent to 1 modulo 4, and 5 is the smallest such prime. – Gerry Myerson Aug 25 '13 at 23:23
For question 3, the corresponding sequence is tabulated at and starts $1,2,5,9,14,26,41,74,89,101,146,194,269\dots$. You are welcome to look for patterns. – Gerry Myerson Aug 25 '13 at 23:29
Honsberger (Mathematical Gems, Chapter 11) gives a proof of Kulikowski's Theorem, and then writes, "This proof generalizes immediately to a space of any number of dimensions." Details can be found at – Gerry Myerson Aug 25 '13 at 23:35
Thanks, Gerry & Lev: All three questions are answered! – Joseph O'Rourke Aug 25 '13 at 23:41
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Collecting my comments into an answer:

It appears that Kulikowski's paper proved the result for all dimensions. I haven't seen the Kulikowski paper, but a short proof is given at this site.

Question 2 is well-answered by Lev Borisov elsewhere on this page.

For question 3, the sequence is tabulated at the OEIS and a glance at the first few terms
($1,2,5,9,14,26,41,74,89,101,146,194,269\dots$) does not suggest any divisibility properties (although once you get past $14$ there seem to be a lot of prime factors congruent to 1 modulo 4).

share|cite|improve this answer
Great, Gerry! Here is an observation concerning the 3D sequence: Up to the 47th term listed in OEIS, $8126$, every term factors into primes each to the 1st power, e.g., $11^1 \cdot 31^1 = 341$; $2^1 \cdot 397^1 = 794$; $2^1 \cdot 19^1 \cdot 43^1 = 1634$; etc. – Joseph O'Rourke Aug 25 '13 at 23:53
341 is a famous number, the smallest pseudoprime (but I expect that's a coincidence). – Gerry Myerson Aug 25 '13 at 23:58

It is not really my area, but the answer to part 2 is that you are looking for the smallest $N$ such that there are exactly $8n-4$ ways of writing it in the form $a^2+b^2$.

If such $N$ is even but is not $2$ mod $8$ then both $a$ and $b$ need to be even and $N/4$ will give the same number of solutions as $N$. If $N=2$ mod $8$ then any solution would be a pair of odd $(a,b)$ and $(a+b)/2,(a-b)/2$ would provide the same number of solutions for $N/2$. The minimality of $N$ thus assures that it is odd.

Similarly, if $N$ has a prime factor $p$ which is $3$ mod $4$ then $N/p^2$ will have the same number of solutions as $N$.

Thus, $N$ has only prime factors which are $1$ mod $4$. The number of solutions depends only on the powers of such primes, so the minimum $N$ would be achieved when the prime with the highest power is the smallest prime of $1$ mod $4$ type, namely $p=5$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.