Lagrange's four square_theorem states that every positive integer $N$ can be written as a sum of four squares of integers. At present, let's focus only on positive integer summands; that is, $N=a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2$ with $a_i\in\mathbb{N}$.

If now mix-up sums and products, something rather curious happens: the greatest common divisor (gcd) becomes low-primed. I wish to know why.

CLAIM. If $n\geq26$ is an integer, then $$\text{GCD}\,\left\{a_1a_2a_3a_4\,: \, 4n+1=a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2 \,\,\, \text{and $a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$}\right\}=2^b3^c$$ for some $b+c>0$.

For example, \begin{align} 4(26)+1&=7^2+6^2+4^2+2^2=8^2+4^2+4^2+3^2 \\ &=8^2+6^2+2^2+1^2=9^2+4^2+2^2+2^2. \end{align} Therefore, the GCD equals $2^43^1$.

UPDATED (later November 29, 2016).

I now have a more specific claim for the specific powers of $2$ and $3$, showing that even these numbers are low-powered.

CONJECTURE. Denote $a=a(n)$ and $b=b(n)$ the exponents $2^b3^c$ from above. Then, $$b(n)=\begin{cases} 4 \qquad \text{if $n$ is even} \\ 3 \qquad \text{if $n$ is odd}; \end{cases}$$ $$c(n)=\begin{cases} 0 \qquad \text{if $n=3k$} \\ 2 \qquad \text{if $n=3k+1$} \\ 1 \qquad \text{if $n=3k+2$}. \end{cases}$$

"It's easy for number theory to be hard." - anonymous.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ In other words, given a prime $p>3$ we want to find four squares non-divisible by $p$ which sum up to $4n+1$. This is possible at least modulo $p$ by standard reasons like Cauchy-Davenport. We may try to count the number of representations of $n$ as $n=x^2+y^2+z^2+p^2t^2$ (how to do it?) and prove that it is strictly less than the number of representations as a sum of four squares. Alternatively, we may try to modify the inductive proof of Lagrange theorem carefully avoiding divisibility by $p$. $\endgroup$ – Fedor Petrov Nov 29 '16 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ Uhmm... interesting. $\endgroup$ – T. Amdeberhan Nov 29 '16 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Amdeberhan Do you know of any example for $n \geq 26$ where none of $a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4$ is divisible by 3? $\endgroup$ – Farewell Nov 29 '16 at 13:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Surely this disappears with large n? Take any m which has two representations as sums of two squares, and for M a sufficiently large multiple of 4 also a sum of two squares that M+m has two representations with large gcd? Or are you taking gcd over all decompositions? Gerhard "Is Squaring Up Both Decomposition" Paseman, 2016.11.29. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Nov 29 '16 at 16:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ GCD over all decompositions. $\endgroup$ – T. Amdeberhan Nov 29 '16 at 16:40

The claim is certainly true for $n$ sufficiently large, and "sufficiently large" could be specified explicitly with more care.

We follow the suggestion of Fedor Petrov, and rely on the results of Brüdern & Fouvry (J. reine angew. Math. 454 (1994), 59-96) and of Heath-Brown & Tolev (J. reine angew. Math. 558 (2003), 159-224). These yield, for any prime $p\geq 5$, that if we count the representations $$4n+1=a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2$$ smoothly (with positive integers $a_i$), then the proportion of representations such that $p\mid a_1$ is at most $1/(p-1)+o(1)$ as $n\to\infty$, where $o(1)$ is uniform in $p$ (note that we can restrict to $p\ll n^{1/2}$). See especially Theorem 3 and Lemmata 6-7 in Brüdern & Fouvry, and the displays (340), (346), (349), (352) in Heath-Brown & Tolev. It follows that for $p\geq 7$ the proportion of representations such that $p\mid a_1a_2a_3a_4$ is at most $2/3+o(1)$, hence for $n$ sufficiently large (independent of $p$) there is a representation such that $p\nmid a_1a_2a_3a_4$. For $p=5$ we need to be more careful, because $4/(p-1)$ equals $1$ in this case, and subtract the (positive) proportion of representations such that two of the $a_i$'s are divisible by $p$. This is also covered by the mentioned works as they discuss general divisibility constraints $d_i\mid a_i$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Does this work for numbers $4n+3$ instead of $4n+1$? $\endgroup$ – Fedor Petrov Nov 29 '16 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov: I think this works for arbitrary numbers $N$ (instead of $N=4n+1$) as long as the odd part of $N$ exceeds $N^c$ for some fixed $c>3/4$. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Nov 29 '16 at 21:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If it works for large enough odd numbers, it works for all numbers with large enough odd part by some obvious reasons (multiplying by 2 works as $2(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2)=(a+b)^2+(a-b)^2+(c+d)^2+(c-d)^2$, and the greatest odd common divisor of $a+b,a-b,c+d,c-d$ is the same as for $a,b,c,d$). $\endgroup$ – Fedor Petrov Nov 29 '16 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov: I think you are right. I focused on the actual proportions in my post, and it is for the $o(1)$ terms that we need a sufficiently large odd part of $N$. But in the end, as you say, the $2$-part of $N$ is irrelevant for the odd gcd of the products $a_1a_2a_3a_4$. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Nov 29 '16 at 23:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @T.Amdeberhan: Specifying an explicit lower bound for $n$ seems doable, but it will involve considerable amount of work. The main task is to calculate explicitly the implied constants in (349) and (352) of Heath-Brown & Tolev, and for that (I think) one needs to study a big portion of the paper in detail. If you are that much interested in this problem, use it as motivation to study Heath-Brown & Tolev. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Nov 30 '16 at 16:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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