How to prove that Fibonacci number pairs are the only solution to this equation?
$begingroup$
I need to find all the solutions to the equation
$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$
However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$
Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:
If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions
and
$x leq y < 2x$
I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!
diophantine-equations fibonacci-numbers
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I need to find all the solutions to the equation
$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$
However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$
Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:
If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions
and
$x leq y < 2x$
I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!
diophantine-equations fibonacci-numbers
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58
$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15
$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I need to find all the solutions to the equation
$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$
However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$
Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:
If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions
and
$x leq y < 2x$
I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!
diophantine-equations fibonacci-numbers
$endgroup$
I need to find all the solutions to the equation
$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$
However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$
Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:
If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions
and
$x leq y < 2x$
I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!
diophantine-equations fibonacci-numbers
diophantine-equations fibonacci-numbers
asked Dec 29 '18 at 11:51
saisanjeevsaisanjeev
1,081312
1,081312
1
$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58
$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15
$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58
$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15
$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
1
1
$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58
$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58
$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15
$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15
$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.
The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
$$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
$$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
$$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).
The matrix is
$$
A =
left(
begin{array}{rr}
1&1\
1&2
end{array}
right)
$$
Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
$$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
$$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$
If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
$$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3055765%2fhow-to-prove-that-fibonacci-number-pairs-are-the-only-solution-to-this-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.
The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
$$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
$$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
$$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).
The matrix is
$$
A =
left(
begin{array}{rr}
1&1\
1&2
end{array}
right)
$$
Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
$$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
$$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$
If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
$$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.
The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
$$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
$$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
$$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).
The matrix is
$$
A =
left(
begin{array}{rr}
1&1\
1&2
end{array}
right)
$$
Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
$$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
$$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$
If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
$$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.
The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
$$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
$$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
$$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).
The matrix is
$$
A =
left(
begin{array}{rr}
1&1\
1&2
end{array}
right)
$$
Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
$$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
$$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$
If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
$$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$
$endgroup$
I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.
The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
$$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
$$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
$$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).
The matrix is
$$
A =
left(
begin{array}{rr}
1&1\
1&2
end{array}
right)
$$
Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
$$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
$$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$
If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
$$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$
edited Dec 29 '18 at 21:48
answered Dec 29 '18 at 18:40
Will JagyWill Jagy
104k5103202
104k5103202
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3055765%2fhow-to-prove-that-fibonacci-number-pairs-are-the-only-solution-to-this-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58
$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15
$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21