Is the following conjecture correct?

**Conjecture**. The divisibility condition $(\alpha+\beta)^2 \mid (2\beta^3+6\alpha\beta^2-1)$ has no solutions in positive integers $1 \le \beta < \alpha < 2\beta$.

This question is related to finding integer points on a Mordell curve. A computer search outside the range indicated turned up the expected single solution $(a,b)=(4,1)$ [corresponding to the single integer point on the original Mordell curve], as well as an unexpected solution $(\alpha,\beta)=(11364,46061)$, which I can't explain. Any insights would be appreciated.

I believe a method of solution — particularly by descent — to this special case would be immediately applicable to a large class of elliptic curves.

FWIW, I've developed a partial proof which I include below. The Vieta jump implies that, for any solution $(a,b)$, there is a rational solution $(b,\tfrac{6b^2}{k}-2b-a)$ with the same $k$; in the case of the one known solution $(a,b)=(4,1)$, we do have $k=1$ in the original equation $$ (5b-a+1)(a+b)^2 = 2(2b^3+6ab^2-1), $$ which makes the second Vieta root degenerate at $(1,0)$.

**Proof** (incomplete). The divisibility hypothesis implies
\begin{equation}
k(\alpha+\beta)^2 = 2\beta^3+6\alpha\beta^2-1, \tag{1}
\end{equation}
for an integer $k \ge 1$. Rearranging (1) and replacing $\alpha$ with the variable $\xi$ yields
\begin{equation*}
k\xi^2 + 2\beta(k-3\beta)\xi + (k\beta^2-2\beta^3+1) = 0.% \label{EQ: solve this}
\end{equation*}
One root of this equation is $\xi_1 = \alpha$. By Vieta's formulas, the other root may be written as
\begin{align}
\xi_2 &= \frac{2\beta(3\beta-k)}{k} - \alpha = \frac{\beta^2(k-2\beta)+1}{k \alpha}. \tag{2}
\end{align}

First, assume $\xi_2$ is an integer. Since $\alpha$ is an integer, the first relation in (2) implies that the fraction must also be an integer. Hence $k \mid 6\beta^2$. But (1) implies both that $k$ is odd, and that $\gcd(k,\beta)=1$. Hence $k \mid 3$, so $k = 1$ or $3$. If $k = 3$, then the second relation in (2) implies that $\xi_2$ is positive when $\beta = 1$, and negative when $\beta > 1$. On the other hand, the first relation with $k=3$ gives $\xi_2 = 2\beta(\beta-1) - \alpha$. When $\beta = 1$, this implies $0 < \xi_2 = 2\beta(\beta-1) - \alpha = -\alpha$, contradicting $\alpha > 0$. When $\beta > 1$, we have $0 > \xi_2 = 2\beta(\beta-1) - \alpha$. Hence $\alpha > 2\beta(\beta-1)$, contradicting $\alpha < 2\beta$.
**END OF PARTIAL PROOF**

Note that the unexpected solution $(\alpha,\beta)=(11364,46061)$ implies \begin{equation*} k = \frac{2\beta^3+6\alpha\beta^2-1}{(\alpha+\beta)^2} = \frac{340107729770625}{3297630625} = 3 \cdot 31 \cdot 1109, \end{equation*} and then we have \begin{equation*} \frac{2\beta(3\beta-k)}{k} - \alpha = \frac{\beta^2(k-2\beta)+1}{k \alpha} = \frac{685486248}{34379} \end{equation*} not an integer.

or$\alpha > 2(\beta+1)$. I'd also be happy to have a counterexample found. – Kieren MacMillan Aug 23 '14 at 18:36general methodto attack this class of divisibility problems. – Kieren MacMillan Aug 23 '14 at 18:39