Find all integer solutions m,n such that ${3^m}-{7^n}=2$.











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
3












I came across this problem on artofproblemsolving.com. So far its been days and there has been no answer to this question:




Find all integer solutions m,n such that: $${3^m}-{7^n}=2$$




I tried using modular arithmetic and Fermat's little theorem on this with no yield. Any and all help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Since we know there is a solution $(m,n)=(2,1)$, modular arithmetic will not help you at all.
    – user10354138
    yesterday















up vote
8
down vote

favorite
3












I came across this problem on artofproblemsolving.com. So far its been days and there has been no answer to this question:




Find all integer solutions m,n such that: $${3^m}-{7^n}=2$$




I tried using modular arithmetic and Fermat's little theorem on this with no yield. Any and all help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Since we know there is a solution $(m,n)=(2,1)$, modular arithmetic will not help you at all.
    – user10354138
    yesterday













up vote
8
down vote

favorite
3









up vote
8
down vote

favorite
3






3





I came across this problem on artofproblemsolving.com. So far its been days and there has been no answer to this question:




Find all integer solutions m,n such that: $${3^m}-{7^n}=2$$




I tried using modular arithmetic and Fermat's little theorem on this with no yield. Any and all help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question













I came across this problem on artofproblemsolving.com. So far its been days and there has been no answer to this question:




Find all integer solutions m,n such that: $${3^m}-{7^n}=2$$




I tried using modular arithmetic and Fermat's little theorem on this with no yield. Any and all help is appreciated.







elementary-number-theory contest-math






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked yesterday









ujwal kumar

716




716












  • Since we know there is a solution $(m,n)=(2,1)$, modular arithmetic will not help you at all.
    – user10354138
    yesterday


















  • Since we know there is a solution $(m,n)=(2,1)$, modular arithmetic will not help you at all.
    – user10354138
    yesterday
















Since we know there is a solution $(m,n)=(2,1)$, modular arithmetic will not help you at all.
– user10354138
yesterday




Since we know there is a solution $(m,n)=(2,1)$, modular arithmetic will not help you at all.
– user10354138
yesterday










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










If $n=0$ then $m=1$. If $ngeq 1$ then $mgeq 2$ and $3^m-2equiv 0 pmod{7}$ iff $m=6k+2$.
Moreover $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ iff $n=6j+1$. Therefore it remains to solve
$$3^{6k+2}-7^{6j+1}=2$$
that is
$$9(3^{6k}-1)=7(7^{6j}-1)$$
We claim that $k=j=0$ is the only solution and therefore the given equation ${3^m}-{7^n}=2$ has just two solutions $(m,n)$: $(1,0)$ and $(2,1)$.



Assume that $k,jgeq 1$. Note that the prime $43$ divides $(7^6-1)$ and therefore it divides also the right-hand side. It follows that $7$ divides $k$. Then $7^2$ is a factor of $3^{42}-1$ which is a factor of the left-hand side. But then we have a contradiction: $7^2$ divides $7(7^{6j}-1)$ with $jgeq 1$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • You mean 48 divides RHS?
    – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
    yesterday










  • But also the prime $43$ divides $7^6-1$ which is a factor of $(7^{6j}−1)$.
    – Robert Z
    yesterday










  • You're right. Thanks for explanation.
    – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
    yesterday










  • Can you explain why $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ (iff n= 6j + 1) ?
    – ujwal kumar
    yesterday












  • @ujwalkumar Consider the congruence modulo 9 and modulo 4.
    – Robert Z
    yesterday


















up vote
1
down vote













Maybe this will help.



If $n>0$, then $3^m equiv 2 pmod{7}$ so we know $m$ is even, say $m=2k$. Then the equation can be written



$$(8+1)^k - (8-1)^n = 2.$$



But that's all I got.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    There are two easy and obvious solutions:



    $$ 3^1-7^0 = 2 $$
    $$ 3^2-7^1 = 2 $$



    But for more complex solutions the problem is more complicated, and has to do with the logarithmic relationship between 3 and 7:



    $$ log_3 (7) = frac {ln(7)}{ln(3)} = 1,77124374916142226006792830708...$$



    That constant expressed as a continuous fraction is:



    $$ log_3 (7) = [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4, 22, 32, 3, 1, 6, 5, 1, 1, 2, 10, ...] $$



    The first number [1] gives the integer 1, the first two numbers [1; 1] give the integer 2, and which are the first two solutions.



    The first 3 numbers [1; 1,3] give the number 7/4. But, although it approaches the problem, it is not a solution:



    $$ 3^7 - 7^4 = 2187 - 2401 = -214 $$



    The first $7$ numbers, before $22$, $ [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4] $, give a good approximation but not enough to be a solution:



    $$ 3^{271} - 7^{153} = 1,994619355... cdot 10^{129} - 1,995262876... cdot 10^{129} neq 2$$



    I believe that there are no other solutions, apart from the first two, since the difference grows very quickly in the best cases.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      For $n=0$ we get the atypical solution $3-1=2$.



      Assume now $n>0$. Then $7^n$ is divisible by $7$, and this imposes a condition on $3^m$ to be $2$ mod seven, so $m$ is of the shape $2+6m'$.



      This further imposes a condition on $7^n$ modulo $9$, so $n=1+3n'$. We get now the following equation:
      $$
      9cdot 3^{6m'} - 7cdot 7^{3n'}= 2 .
      $$

      There is an obvious solution, $9-7=2$. (For $m'=n'=0$.)



      Now we can enumerate some ideas to attack the question, which is not a trivial one, as the following references show it.



      IDEAS:




      • So any solution induces a rational point on the curve $9x^6-7y^3=2$. This curve has genus $>1$, so there are finitely many points on it, a result of Faltings. (It implies also that on each Fermat curve there are only finitely many points, this was the motor behind this development in the arithmetic algebraic geometry.) This can be made also explicit, applying the theory.


      • Any solution defines also a point $(x,y)$ satisfying the equation $$x^2-7y^2=2 .$$ Moreover, $x$ is a power of $3$, and $y$ a power of $7$. This is a generalized Pell type equation, so we are performing arithmetics in the quadratic number field $Bbb Q(sqrt 7)$, which has class number one, thus unique decomposition in prime factors. Each solution induces an element $x+ysqrt 7$ of norm two, so one which can then be written as a product of a special solution, here $3-sqrt 7$, and an integer unit. The group of units in the ring $Bbb Z[sqrt 7]$, the (algebraic) integers ring of the field, is generated by $8-3sqrt 7$. So we can write for a suitable power $k$: $$xpm ysqrt 7 = (3-sqrt 7)(8-3sqrt 7)^k .$$ The $pm$ signs are always the same. This gives a combinatorial formula for $x$, and an other one for $y$. One can try now to show that either one formula, or the other one does not provide a power of $3$, resp $7$. But this is not a simple task. Just an idea.



      • One other idea is to observe that for $m,n>0$ a solution of the given equation induces an integer point on the elliptic curve $E$ with equation $$E :qquad y^2 = x^3+2cdot 7^2 .$$ (From the special solution $3^2=7^1+2$ we multiply with $7^2$ getting $21^2=7^3+2cdot 7^2$. So there is a rational point, even integral point $P= (7,21)$ on $E$. Using the theory of elliptic curves, and the "standard algorithms", we can conclude that the point $P$ is the only integral point. Here is a dialog with sage, that "computes" the integral points.



        sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
        sage: E.integral_points()
        [(7 : 21 : 1)]

        sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
        sage: E
        Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 98 over Rational Field

        sage: E.rank()
        1

        sage: E.gens()
        [(7 : 21 : 1)]

        sage: E.integral_points()
        [(7 : 21 : 1)]


        This is already a complete solution from my perspective.




      • A final word on the equations involving powers of fixed bases, generalizing the given equation. I found on the net for instance the reference Michael E. Bennett, On some exponential equations of S. S. Pillai .



        (See also Michael Waldschmidt, Perfect powers: Pillai's work and their developments.)



        Pillai considered around 1930 equations of the shape $a^x-b^y=c$, with "fixed" integral bases $a,b$ and a constant $c$ on the R.H.S. and natural solutions $x,y>0$ are searched. One aspect studied in this world is for which values of the "constant data" $a,b,c$ there are more then two solutions. Please look in the references, and in the article for the list and the methods to attack such a question. At any rate, the tuple $(3,7,2)$ is not in the list, so there are strictly less than two solutions. And we have already one.



        These last references show that problems as in the OP are not an "easy task", at least when considering them in a bundle, not as isolated problems








      share|cite|improve this answer





















        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995163%2ffind-all-integer-solutions-m-n-such-that-3m-7n-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest
































        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        6
        down vote



        accepted










        If $n=0$ then $m=1$. If $ngeq 1$ then $mgeq 2$ and $3^m-2equiv 0 pmod{7}$ iff $m=6k+2$.
        Moreover $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ iff $n=6j+1$. Therefore it remains to solve
        $$3^{6k+2}-7^{6j+1}=2$$
        that is
        $$9(3^{6k}-1)=7(7^{6j}-1)$$
        We claim that $k=j=0$ is the only solution and therefore the given equation ${3^m}-{7^n}=2$ has just two solutions $(m,n)$: $(1,0)$ and $(2,1)$.



        Assume that $k,jgeq 1$. Note that the prime $43$ divides $(7^6-1)$ and therefore it divides also the right-hand side. It follows that $7$ divides $k$. Then $7^2$ is a factor of $3^{42}-1$ which is a factor of the left-hand side. But then we have a contradiction: $7^2$ divides $7(7^{6j}-1)$ with $jgeq 1$.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • You mean 48 divides RHS?
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • But also the prime $43$ divides $7^6-1$ which is a factor of $(7^{6j}−1)$.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday










        • You're right. Thanks for explanation.
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • Can you explain why $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ (iff n= 6j + 1) ?
          – ujwal kumar
          yesterday












        • @ujwalkumar Consider the congruence modulo 9 and modulo 4.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday















        up vote
        6
        down vote



        accepted










        If $n=0$ then $m=1$. If $ngeq 1$ then $mgeq 2$ and $3^m-2equiv 0 pmod{7}$ iff $m=6k+2$.
        Moreover $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ iff $n=6j+1$. Therefore it remains to solve
        $$3^{6k+2}-7^{6j+1}=2$$
        that is
        $$9(3^{6k}-1)=7(7^{6j}-1)$$
        We claim that $k=j=0$ is the only solution and therefore the given equation ${3^m}-{7^n}=2$ has just two solutions $(m,n)$: $(1,0)$ and $(2,1)$.



        Assume that $k,jgeq 1$. Note that the prime $43$ divides $(7^6-1)$ and therefore it divides also the right-hand side. It follows that $7$ divides $k$. Then $7^2$ is a factor of $3^{42}-1$ which is a factor of the left-hand side. But then we have a contradiction: $7^2$ divides $7(7^{6j}-1)$ with $jgeq 1$.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • You mean 48 divides RHS?
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • But also the prime $43$ divides $7^6-1$ which is a factor of $(7^{6j}−1)$.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday










        • You're right. Thanks for explanation.
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • Can you explain why $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ (iff n= 6j + 1) ?
          – ujwal kumar
          yesterday












        • @ujwalkumar Consider the congruence modulo 9 and modulo 4.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday













        up vote
        6
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        6
        down vote



        accepted






        If $n=0$ then $m=1$. If $ngeq 1$ then $mgeq 2$ and $3^m-2equiv 0 pmod{7}$ iff $m=6k+2$.
        Moreover $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ iff $n=6j+1$. Therefore it remains to solve
        $$3^{6k+2}-7^{6j+1}=2$$
        that is
        $$9(3^{6k}-1)=7(7^{6j}-1)$$
        We claim that $k=j=0$ is the only solution and therefore the given equation ${3^m}-{7^n}=2$ has just two solutions $(m,n)$: $(1,0)$ and $(2,1)$.



        Assume that $k,jgeq 1$. Note that the prime $43$ divides $(7^6-1)$ and therefore it divides also the right-hand side. It follows that $7$ divides $k$. Then $7^2$ is a factor of $3^{42}-1$ which is a factor of the left-hand side. But then we have a contradiction: $7^2$ divides $7(7^{6j}-1)$ with $jgeq 1$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        If $n=0$ then $m=1$. If $ngeq 1$ then $mgeq 2$ and $3^m-2equiv 0 pmod{7}$ iff $m=6k+2$.
        Moreover $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ iff $n=6j+1$. Therefore it remains to solve
        $$3^{6k+2}-7^{6j+1}=2$$
        that is
        $$9(3^{6k}-1)=7(7^{6j}-1)$$
        We claim that $k=j=0$ is the only solution and therefore the given equation ${3^m}-{7^n}=2$ has just two solutions $(m,n)$: $(1,0)$ and $(2,1)$.



        Assume that $k,jgeq 1$. Note that the prime $43$ divides $(7^6-1)$ and therefore it divides also the right-hand side. It follows that $7$ divides $k$. Then $7^2$ is a factor of $3^{42}-1$ which is a factor of the left-hand side. But then we have a contradiction: $7^2$ divides $7(7^{6j}-1)$ with $jgeq 1$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered yesterday









        Robert Z

        89.1k1056128




        89.1k1056128












        • You mean 48 divides RHS?
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • But also the prime $43$ divides $7^6-1$ which is a factor of $(7^{6j}−1)$.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday










        • You're right. Thanks for explanation.
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • Can you explain why $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ (iff n= 6j + 1) ?
          – ujwal kumar
          yesterday












        • @ujwalkumar Consider the congruence modulo 9 and modulo 4.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday


















        • You mean 48 divides RHS?
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • But also the prime $43$ divides $7^6-1$ which is a factor of $(7^{6j}−1)$.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday










        • You're right. Thanks for explanation.
          – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
          yesterday










        • Can you explain why $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ (iff n= 6j + 1) ?
          – ujwal kumar
          yesterday












        • @ujwalkumar Consider the congruence modulo 9 and modulo 4.
          – Robert Z
          yesterday
















        You mean 48 divides RHS?
        – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
        yesterday




        You mean 48 divides RHS?
        – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
        yesterday












        But also the prime $43$ divides $7^6-1$ which is a factor of $(7^{6j}−1)$.
        – Robert Z
        yesterday




        But also the prime $43$ divides $7^6-1$ which is a factor of $(7^{6j}−1)$.
        – Robert Z
        yesterday












        You're right. Thanks for explanation.
        – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
        yesterday




        You're right. Thanks for explanation.
        – GNUSupporter 8964民主女神 地下教會
        yesterday












        Can you explain why $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ (iff n= 6j + 1) ?
        – ujwal kumar
        yesterday






        Can you explain why $7^n+2equiv 9equiv 9^{3k+1}pmod{36}$ (iff n= 6j + 1) ?
        – ujwal kumar
        yesterday














        @ujwalkumar Consider the congruence modulo 9 and modulo 4.
        – Robert Z
        yesterday




        @ujwalkumar Consider the congruence modulo 9 and modulo 4.
        – Robert Z
        yesterday










        up vote
        1
        down vote













        Maybe this will help.



        If $n>0$, then $3^m equiv 2 pmod{7}$ so we know $m$ is even, say $m=2k$. Then the equation can be written



        $$(8+1)^k - (8-1)^n = 2.$$



        But that's all I got.






        share|cite|improve this answer

























          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Maybe this will help.



          If $n>0$, then $3^m equiv 2 pmod{7}$ so we know $m$ is even, say $m=2k$. Then the equation can be written



          $$(8+1)^k - (8-1)^n = 2.$$



          But that's all I got.






          share|cite|improve this answer























            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Maybe this will help.



            If $n>0$, then $3^m equiv 2 pmod{7}$ so we know $m$ is even, say $m=2k$. Then the equation can be written



            $$(8+1)^k - (8-1)^n = 2.$$



            But that's all I got.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Maybe this will help.



            If $n>0$, then $3^m equiv 2 pmod{7}$ so we know $m$ is even, say $m=2k$. Then the equation can be written



            $$(8+1)^k - (8-1)^n = 2.$$



            But that's all I got.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            B. Goddard

            17.7k21338




            17.7k21338






















                up vote
                1
                down vote













                There are two easy and obvious solutions:



                $$ 3^1-7^0 = 2 $$
                $$ 3^2-7^1 = 2 $$



                But for more complex solutions the problem is more complicated, and has to do with the logarithmic relationship between 3 and 7:



                $$ log_3 (7) = frac {ln(7)}{ln(3)} = 1,77124374916142226006792830708...$$



                That constant expressed as a continuous fraction is:



                $$ log_3 (7) = [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4, 22, 32, 3, 1, 6, 5, 1, 1, 2, 10, ...] $$



                The first number [1] gives the integer 1, the first two numbers [1; 1] give the integer 2, and which are the first two solutions.



                The first 3 numbers [1; 1,3] give the number 7/4. But, although it approaches the problem, it is not a solution:



                $$ 3^7 - 7^4 = 2187 - 2401 = -214 $$



                The first $7$ numbers, before $22$, $ [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4] $, give a good approximation but not enough to be a solution:



                $$ 3^{271} - 7^{153} = 1,994619355... cdot 10^{129} - 1,995262876... cdot 10^{129} neq 2$$



                I believe that there are no other solutions, apart from the first two, since the difference grows very quickly in the best cases.






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  There are two easy and obvious solutions:



                  $$ 3^1-7^0 = 2 $$
                  $$ 3^2-7^1 = 2 $$



                  But for more complex solutions the problem is more complicated, and has to do with the logarithmic relationship between 3 and 7:



                  $$ log_3 (7) = frac {ln(7)}{ln(3)} = 1,77124374916142226006792830708...$$



                  That constant expressed as a continuous fraction is:



                  $$ log_3 (7) = [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4, 22, 32, 3, 1, 6, 5, 1, 1, 2, 10, ...] $$



                  The first number [1] gives the integer 1, the first two numbers [1; 1] give the integer 2, and which are the first two solutions.



                  The first 3 numbers [1; 1,3] give the number 7/4. But, although it approaches the problem, it is not a solution:



                  $$ 3^7 - 7^4 = 2187 - 2401 = -214 $$



                  The first $7$ numbers, before $22$, $ [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4] $, give a good approximation but not enough to be a solution:



                  $$ 3^{271} - 7^{153} = 1,994619355... cdot 10^{129} - 1,995262876... cdot 10^{129} neq 2$$



                  I believe that there are no other solutions, apart from the first two, since the difference grows very quickly in the best cases.






                  share|cite|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    There are two easy and obvious solutions:



                    $$ 3^1-7^0 = 2 $$
                    $$ 3^2-7^1 = 2 $$



                    But for more complex solutions the problem is more complicated, and has to do with the logarithmic relationship between 3 and 7:



                    $$ log_3 (7) = frac {ln(7)}{ln(3)} = 1,77124374916142226006792830708...$$



                    That constant expressed as a continuous fraction is:



                    $$ log_3 (7) = [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4, 22, 32, 3, 1, 6, 5, 1, 1, 2, 10, ...] $$



                    The first number [1] gives the integer 1, the first two numbers [1; 1] give the integer 2, and which are the first two solutions.



                    The first 3 numbers [1; 1,3] give the number 7/4. But, although it approaches the problem, it is not a solution:



                    $$ 3^7 - 7^4 = 2187 - 2401 = -214 $$



                    The first $7$ numbers, before $22$, $ [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4] $, give a good approximation but not enough to be a solution:



                    $$ 3^{271} - 7^{153} = 1,994619355... cdot 10^{129} - 1,995262876... cdot 10^{129} neq 2$$



                    I believe that there are no other solutions, apart from the first two, since the difference grows very quickly in the best cases.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    There are two easy and obvious solutions:



                    $$ 3^1-7^0 = 2 $$
                    $$ 3^2-7^1 = 2 $$



                    But for more complex solutions the problem is more complicated, and has to do with the logarithmic relationship between 3 and 7:



                    $$ log_3 (7) = frac {ln(7)}{ln(3)} = 1,77124374916142226006792830708...$$



                    That constant expressed as a continuous fraction is:



                    $$ log_3 (7) = [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4, 22, 32, 3, 1, 6, 5, 1, 1, 2, 10, ...] $$



                    The first number [1] gives the integer 1, the first two numbers [1; 1] give the integer 2, and which are the first two solutions.



                    The first 3 numbers [1; 1,3] give the number 7/4. But, although it approaches the problem, it is not a solution:



                    $$ 3^7 - 7^4 = 2187 - 2401 = -214 $$



                    The first $7$ numbers, before $22$, $ [1; 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 4] $, give a good approximation but not enough to be a solution:



                    $$ 3^{271} - 7^{153} = 1,994619355... cdot 10^{129} - 1,995262876... cdot 10^{129} neq 2$$



                    I believe that there are no other solutions, apart from the first two, since the difference grows very quickly in the best cases.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered yesterday









                    Angel Moreno

                    33415




                    33415






















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        For $n=0$ we get the atypical solution $3-1=2$.



                        Assume now $n>0$. Then $7^n$ is divisible by $7$, and this imposes a condition on $3^m$ to be $2$ mod seven, so $m$ is of the shape $2+6m'$.



                        This further imposes a condition on $7^n$ modulo $9$, so $n=1+3n'$. We get now the following equation:
                        $$
                        9cdot 3^{6m'} - 7cdot 7^{3n'}= 2 .
                        $$

                        There is an obvious solution, $9-7=2$. (For $m'=n'=0$.)



                        Now we can enumerate some ideas to attack the question, which is not a trivial one, as the following references show it.



                        IDEAS:




                        • So any solution induces a rational point on the curve $9x^6-7y^3=2$. This curve has genus $>1$, so there are finitely many points on it, a result of Faltings. (It implies also that on each Fermat curve there are only finitely many points, this was the motor behind this development in the arithmetic algebraic geometry.) This can be made also explicit, applying the theory.


                        • Any solution defines also a point $(x,y)$ satisfying the equation $$x^2-7y^2=2 .$$ Moreover, $x$ is a power of $3$, and $y$ a power of $7$. This is a generalized Pell type equation, so we are performing arithmetics in the quadratic number field $Bbb Q(sqrt 7)$, which has class number one, thus unique decomposition in prime factors. Each solution induces an element $x+ysqrt 7$ of norm two, so one which can then be written as a product of a special solution, here $3-sqrt 7$, and an integer unit. The group of units in the ring $Bbb Z[sqrt 7]$, the (algebraic) integers ring of the field, is generated by $8-3sqrt 7$. So we can write for a suitable power $k$: $$xpm ysqrt 7 = (3-sqrt 7)(8-3sqrt 7)^k .$$ The $pm$ signs are always the same. This gives a combinatorial formula for $x$, and an other one for $y$. One can try now to show that either one formula, or the other one does not provide a power of $3$, resp $7$. But this is not a simple task. Just an idea.



                        • One other idea is to observe that for $m,n>0$ a solution of the given equation induces an integer point on the elliptic curve $E$ with equation $$E :qquad y^2 = x^3+2cdot 7^2 .$$ (From the special solution $3^2=7^1+2$ we multiply with $7^2$ getting $21^2=7^3+2cdot 7^2$. So there is a rational point, even integral point $P= (7,21)$ on $E$. Using the theory of elliptic curves, and the "standard algorithms", we can conclude that the point $P$ is the only integral point. Here is a dialog with sage, that "computes" the integral points.



                          sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                          sage: E.integral_points()
                          [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                          sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                          sage: E
                          Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 98 over Rational Field

                          sage: E.rank()
                          1

                          sage: E.gens()
                          [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                          sage: E.integral_points()
                          [(7 : 21 : 1)]


                          This is already a complete solution from my perspective.




                        • A final word on the equations involving powers of fixed bases, generalizing the given equation. I found on the net for instance the reference Michael E. Bennett, On some exponential equations of S. S. Pillai .



                          (See also Michael Waldschmidt, Perfect powers: Pillai's work and their developments.)



                          Pillai considered around 1930 equations of the shape $a^x-b^y=c$, with "fixed" integral bases $a,b$ and a constant $c$ on the R.H.S. and natural solutions $x,y>0$ are searched. One aspect studied in this world is for which values of the "constant data" $a,b,c$ there are more then two solutions. Please look in the references, and in the article for the list and the methods to attack such a question. At any rate, the tuple $(3,7,2)$ is not in the list, so there are strictly less than two solutions. And we have already one.



                          These last references show that problems as in the OP are not an "easy task", at least when considering them in a bundle, not as isolated problems








                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          For $n=0$ we get the atypical solution $3-1=2$.



                          Assume now $n>0$. Then $7^n$ is divisible by $7$, and this imposes a condition on $3^m$ to be $2$ mod seven, so $m$ is of the shape $2+6m'$.



                          This further imposes a condition on $7^n$ modulo $9$, so $n=1+3n'$. We get now the following equation:
                          $$
                          9cdot 3^{6m'} - 7cdot 7^{3n'}= 2 .
                          $$

                          There is an obvious solution, $9-7=2$. (For $m'=n'=0$.)



                          Now we can enumerate some ideas to attack the question, which is not a trivial one, as the following references show it.



                          IDEAS:




                          • So any solution induces a rational point on the curve $9x^6-7y^3=2$. This curve has genus $>1$, so there are finitely many points on it, a result of Faltings. (It implies also that on each Fermat curve there are only finitely many points, this was the motor behind this development in the arithmetic algebraic geometry.) This can be made also explicit, applying the theory.


                          • Any solution defines also a point $(x,y)$ satisfying the equation $$x^2-7y^2=2 .$$ Moreover, $x$ is a power of $3$, and $y$ a power of $7$. This is a generalized Pell type equation, so we are performing arithmetics in the quadratic number field $Bbb Q(sqrt 7)$, which has class number one, thus unique decomposition in prime factors. Each solution induces an element $x+ysqrt 7$ of norm two, so one which can then be written as a product of a special solution, here $3-sqrt 7$, and an integer unit. The group of units in the ring $Bbb Z[sqrt 7]$, the (algebraic) integers ring of the field, is generated by $8-3sqrt 7$. So we can write for a suitable power $k$: $$xpm ysqrt 7 = (3-sqrt 7)(8-3sqrt 7)^k .$$ The $pm$ signs are always the same. This gives a combinatorial formula for $x$, and an other one for $y$. One can try now to show that either one formula, or the other one does not provide a power of $3$, resp $7$. But this is not a simple task. Just an idea.



                          • One other idea is to observe that for $m,n>0$ a solution of the given equation induces an integer point on the elliptic curve $E$ with equation $$E :qquad y^2 = x^3+2cdot 7^2 .$$ (From the special solution $3^2=7^1+2$ we multiply with $7^2$ getting $21^2=7^3+2cdot 7^2$. So there is a rational point, even integral point $P= (7,21)$ on $E$. Using the theory of elliptic curves, and the "standard algorithms", we can conclude that the point $P$ is the only integral point. Here is a dialog with sage, that "computes" the integral points.



                            sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                            sage: E.integral_points()
                            [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                            sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                            sage: E
                            Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 98 over Rational Field

                            sage: E.rank()
                            1

                            sage: E.gens()
                            [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                            sage: E.integral_points()
                            [(7 : 21 : 1)]


                            This is already a complete solution from my perspective.




                          • A final word on the equations involving powers of fixed bases, generalizing the given equation. I found on the net for instance the reference Michael E. Bennett, On some exponential equations of S. S. Pillai .



                            (See also Michael Waldschmidt, Perfect powers: Pillai's work and their developments.)



                            Pillai considered around 1930 equations of the shape $a^x-b^y=c$, with "fixed" integral bases $a,b$ and a constant $c$ on the R.H.S. and natural solutions $x,y>0$ are searched. One aspect studied in this world is for which values of the "constant data" $a,b,c$ there are more then two solutions. Please look in the references, and in the article for the list and the methods to attack such a question. At any rate, the tuple $(3,7,2)$ is not in the list, so there are strictly less than two solutions. And we have already one.



                            These last references show that problems as in the OP are not an "easy task", at least when considering them in a bundle, not as isolated problems








                          share|cite|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            For $n=0$ we get the atypical solution $3-1=2$.



                            Assume now $n>0$. Then $7^n$ is divisible by $7$, and this imposes a condition on $3^m$ to be $2$ mod seven, so $m$ is of the shape $2+6m'$.



                            This further imposes a condition on $7^n$ modulo $9$, so $n=1+3n'$. We get now the following equation:
                            $$
                            9cdot 3^{6m'} - 7cdot 7^{3n'}= 2 .
                            $$

                            There is an obvious solution, $9-7=2$. (For $m'=n'=0$.)



                            Now we can enumerate some ideas to attack the question, which is not a trivial one, as the following references show it.



                            IDEAS:




                            • So any solution induces a rational point on the curve $9x^6-7y^3=2$. This curve has genus $>1$, so there are finitely many points on it, a result of Faltings. (It implies also that on each Fermat curve there are only finitely many points, this was the motor behind this development in the arithmetic algebraic geometry.) This can be made also explicit, applying the theory.


                            • Any solution defines also a point $(x,y)$ satisfying the equation $$x^2-7y^2=2 .$$ Moreover, $x$ is a power of $3$, and $y$ a power of $7$. This is a generalized Pell type equation, so we are performing arithmetics in the quadratic number field $Bbb Q(sqrt 7)$, which has class number one, thus unique decomposition in prime factors. Each solution induces an element $x+ysqrt 7$ of norm two, so one which can then be written as a product of a special solution, here $3-sqrt 7$, and an integer unit. The group of units in the ring $Bbb Z[sqrt 7]$, the (algebraic) integers ring of the field, is generated by $8-3sqrt 7$. So we can write for a suitable power $k$: $$xpm ysqrt 7 = (3-sqrt 7)(8-3sqrt 7)^k .$$ The $pm$ signs are always the same. This gives a combinatorial formula for $x$, and an other one for $y$. One can try now to show that either one formula, or the other one does not provide a power of $3$, resp $7$. But this is not a simple task. Just an idea.



                            • One other idea is to observe that for $m,n>0$ a solution of the given equation induces an integer point on the elliptic curve $E$ with equation $$E :qquad y^2 = x^3+2cdot 7^2 .$$ (From the special solution $3^2=7^1+2$ we multiply with $7^2$ getting $21^2=7^3+2cdot 7^2$. So there is a rational point, even integral point $P= (7,21)$ on $E$. Using the theory of elliptic curves, and the "standard algorithms", we can conclude that the point $P$ is the only integral point. Here is a dialog with sage, that "computes" the integral points.



                              sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                              sage: E.integral_points()
                              [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                              sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                              sage: E
                              Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 98 over Rational Field

                              sage: E.rank()
                              1

                              sage: E.gens()
                              [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                              sage: E.integral_points()
                              [(7 : 21 : 1)]


                              This is already a complete solution from my perspective.




                            • A final word on the equations involving powers of fixed bases, generalizing the given equation. I found on the net for instance the reference Michael E. Bennett, On some exponential equations of S. S. Pillai .



                              (See also Michael Waldschmidt, Perfect powers: Pillai's work and their developments.)



                              Pillai considered around 1930 equations of the shape $a^x-b^y=c$, with "fixed" integral bases $a,b$ and a constant $c$ on the R.H.S. and natural solutions $x,y>0$ are searched. One aspect studied in this world is for which values of the "constant data" $a,b,c$ there are more then two solutions. Please look in the references, and in the article for the list and the methods to attack such a question. At any rate, the tuple $(3,7,2)$ is not in the list, so there are strictly less than two solutions. And we have already one.



                              These last references show that problems as in the OP are not an "easy task", at least when considering them in a bundle, not as isolated problems








                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            For $n=0$ we get the atypical solution $3-1=2$.



                            Assume now $n>0$. Then $7^n$ is divisible by $7$, and this imposes a condition on $3^m$ to be $2$ mod seven, so $m$ is of the shape $2+6m'$.



                            This further imposes a condition on $7^n$ modulo $9$, so $n=1+3n'$. We get now the following equation:
                            $$
                            9cdot 3^{6m'} - 7cdot 7^{3n'}= 2 .
                            $$

                            There is an obvious solution, $9-7=2$. (For $m'=n'=0$.)



                            Now we can enumerate some ideas to attack the question, which is not a trivial one, as the following references show it.



                            IDEAS:




                            • So any solution induces a rational point on the curve $9x^6-7y^3=2$. This curve has genus $>1$, so there are finitely many points on it, a result of Faltings. (It implies also that on each Fermat curve there are only finitely many points, this was the motor behind this development in the arithmetic algebraic geometry.) This can be made also explicit, applying the theory.


                            • Any solution defines also a point $(x,y)$ satisfying the equation $$x^2-7y^2=2 .$$ Moreover, $x$ is a power of $3$, and $y$ a power of $7$. This is a generalized Pell type equation, so we are performing arithmetics in the quadratic number field $Bbb Q(sqrt 7)$, which has class number one, thus unique decomposition in prime factors. Each solution induces an element $x+ysqrt 7$ of norm two, so one which can then be written as a product of a special solution, here $3-sqrt 7$, and an integer unit. The group of units in the ring $Bbb Z[sqrt 7]$, the (algebraic) integers ring of the field, is generated by $8-3sqrt 7$. So we can write for a suitable power $k$: $$xpm ysqrt 7 = (3-sqrt 7)(8-3sqrt 7)^k .$$ The $pm$ signs are always the same. This gives a combinatorial formula for $x$, and an other one for $y$. One can try now to show that either one formula, or the other one does not provide a power of $3$, resp $7$. But this is not a simple task. Just an idea.



                            • One other idea is to observe that for $m,n>0$ a solution of the given equation induces an integer point on the elliptic curve $E$ with equation $$E :qquad y^2 = x^3+2cdot 7^2 .$$ (From the special solution $3^2=7^1+2$ we multiply with $7^2$ getting $21^2=7^3+2cdot 7^2$. So there is a rational point, even integral point $P= (7,21)$ on $E$. Using the theory of elliptic curves, and the "standard algorithms", we can conclude that the point $P$ is the only integral point. Here is a dialog with sage, that "computes" the integral points.



                              sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                              sage: E.integral_points()
                              [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                              sage: E = EllipticCurve( QQ, [0, 2*49] )
                              sage: E
                              Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 98 over Rational Field

                              sage: E.rank()
                              1

                              sage: E.gens()
                              [(7 : 21 : 1)]

                              sage: E.integral_points()
                              [(7 : 21 : 1)]


                              This is already a complete solution from my perspective.




                            • A final word on the equations involving powers of fixed bases, generalizing the given equation. I found on the net for instance the reference Michael E. Bennett, On some exponential equations of S. S. Pillai .



                              (See also Michael Waldschmidt, Perfect powers: Pillai's work and their developments.)



                              Pillai considered around 1930 equations of the shape $a^x-b^y=c$, with "fixed" integral bases $a,b$ and a constant $c$ on the R.H.S. and natural solutions $x,y>0$ are searched. One aspect studied in this world is for which values of the "constant data" $a,b,c$ there are more then two solutions. Please look in the references, and in the article for the list and the methods to attack such a question. At any rate, the tuple $(3,7,2)$ is not in the list, so there are strictly less than two solutions. And we have already one.



                              These last references show that problems as in the OP are not an "easy task", at least when considering them in a bundle, not as isolated problems









                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 20 hours ago









                            dan_fulea

                            5,7601312




                            5,7601312






























                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded



















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995163%2ffind-all-integer-solutions-m-n-such-that-3m-7n-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest




















































































                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                                ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

                                Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?