3 edited tags
2 retagged

Hello,

I want to start by apologising for what is probably a weak attempt at a question on a site like this, but I'm having trouble understand a concept that doesn't seem to be properly explained elsewhere - perhaps someone can put it in layman's terms.

I've been trying to understand the idea on Wikipedia that discusses Pythagorean Triple - namely the section entitled Parent/child relationships. It talks about a Swedish man called Berggren who devised a set of equations that would allow you to determine the children of this parental triple. Each parent created 3, which in turn created 3 and so on.

When I started running the code, I couldn't pick up a certain triple - (200, 375, 425)

Basically, I wondered if someone could provide a little clarification. Is it either that...

1. My code is wrong, it's definitely possible to get to that triple from a starting point of (3,4,5).
2. I haven't understood what Berggren used these equations for, and I need to back and read it properly.

Any clarification would be superb,

Thanks

P.S - Could someone also tag this appropriately? I have no idea which subject it comes under.

1

# Assistance with understanding parent/child relationships in Pythagorean Triples

Hello,

I want to start by apologising for what is probably a weak attempt at a question on a site like this, but I'm having trouble understand a concept that doesn't seem to be properly explained elsewhere - perhaps someone can put it in layman's terms.

I've been trying to understand the idea on Wikipedia that discusses Pythagorean Triple- namely the section entitled Parent/child relationships. It talks about a Swedish man called Berggren who devised a set of equations that would allow you to determine the children of this parental triple. Each parent created 3, which in turn created 3 and so on.

When I started running the code, I couldn't pick up a certain triple - (200, 375, 425)

Basically, I wondered if someone could provide a little clarification. Is it either that...

1. My code is wrong, it's definitely possible to get to that triple from a starting point of (3,4,5).
2. I haven't understood what Berggren used these equations for, and I need to back and read it properly.

Any clarification would be superb,

Thanks

P.S - Could someone also tag this appropriately? I have no idea which subject it comes under.