First Solution. For the sake of contradiction, assume that ab+cd is prime. Note that
ab+cd=(a+d)c+(b−c)a=m⋅gcd(a+d,b−c)
for some positive integer m. Writing g=gcd(a+d,b−c), we have
m=ga+d⋅c+gb−c⋅a≥c+a>1.
Therefore, because ab+cd is prime, g=1.
Substituting ac+bd=(a+d)b−(b−c)a for the left-hand side of the given condition, we obtain
(a+d)b−(b−c)a=(a+d)(b+d−a+c)+(b−c)(b+d−a+c),
or
(a+d)(a−c−d)=(b−c)(b+c+d).
Hence, there exists a positive integer k such that
a−c−d=k(b−c),
b+c+d=k(a+d).
Adding these equations, we obtain a+b=k(a+b−c+d) and thus k(c−d)=(k−1)(a+b). Recall that a>b>c>d>0. If k=1, then c=d, a contradiction. If k≥2, then
2≥k−1k=c−da+b>c2b>2,
a contradiction.
Therefore, our original assumption was wrong, and ab+cd is not prime.
Second Solution. (By Yonggao Chen, China) We give a proof by contradiction. Assume that p=ab+cd is prime. Then ab≡−cd(modp). By (1),
b2(b2+bd+d2)=b2(a2−ac+c2)=(ab)2−ab(bc)+b2c2.
It follows that
b2(b2+bd+d2)≡(ab)2−ab(bc)+b2c2≡(cd)2+cd(bc)+b2c2≡c2(b2+bd+d2)(modp),
implying that p∣(b2−c2)(b2+bd+d2). Observe that 0<b2−c2<b2<ab<p. Thus, p and b2−c2 must be relatively prime, so
p∣(b2+bd+d2).(2)
Because
0<b2+bd+d2<ab+ab+cd=2ab+cd<2p,
we must have b2+bd+d2=p=ab+cd or, equivalently,
b(b+d−a)=d(c−d).
Because ab+cd is prime, b must be relatively prime to d, so b∣c−d. This is impossible, because 0<c−d<b.
Third Solution. (By Zhiqiang Zhang, China) Let x=a−c, y=a+c, u=b−d, and v=b+d. By the given condition, we have
y2−x2+v2−u2=4(ac+bd)=4[(b+d)+(a−c)][(b+d)−(a−c)]=4(v+x)(v−x)=4(v2−x2),
or
y2−u2=3(v2−x2).(3)
Let s=a+b+c+d, x1=s−2d, x2=s−2c, x3=s−2b, and x4=s−2a. Then x1=y+u, x2=v+x, x3=y−u, x4=v−x. Because a>b>c>d, x1>x2>x3>x4. Now (3) reads
x1x3=3x2x4.(4)
Because
xu+vy=(a−c)(b−d)+(a+c)(b+d)=2(ab+cd)
and
x1x2+x3x4=(y+u)(v+x)+(y−u)(v−x)=2(xu+yv),
we have
ab+cd=41(x1x2+x3x4).(5)
Let g=gcd(x1,x4). It is clear that s≡xi(mod2) for i=1,2,3,4. We consider the following cases.
(i) s≡1(mod2). First suppose that g=1. Then by (4), there exists some positive integer k such that x3=kx4 and, consequently, kx1=3x2. Because x3>x4, k>1; because x1>x2, k<3. Therefore, k=2. But then x3 is even, contradicting the assumption that each xi is odd.
It follows that g>1, and that g divides x1x2+x3x4=4(ab+cd).
Because x1 and x4 are odd, g is odd as well, implying that g∣(ab+cd). Also observe that x1x2+x3x4≥3x1+2x4≥3g+2g=5g, so that g<ab+cd. Therefore, ab+cd is divisible by a number strictly between 1 and ab+cd, implying that it is composite.
(ii) s≡xi≡0(mod2). Let xi′=xi/2 for i=1,2,3,4, and let g′=gcd(x1′,x2′). Then g=2g′≥2 and x1′>x2′>x3′>x4′. Note also that (4) and (5) become
x1′x3′=3x2′x4′andab+cd=x1′x2′+x3x4′,(4′)
respectively.
If g′>1, then g′∣(ab+cd). Since ab+cd>x2′≥g′, ab+cd must be composite.
If g′=1, then by (4'), x3′=kx4′ and kx1′=3x2′ for some positive integer k. Then again by x3′>x4′ and x1′>x2′, k=2. Hence 2 divides both x2′ and x3′ implying that ab+cd is even (by (4')). Since ab+cd>a>2, ab+cd is composite.
From the above arguments, we conclude that ab+cd is not prime.
Fourth Solution. (By Andrei Vorobiev, Russia) Let x=b+d+a−c. It is clear that x>1. We have c≡a+b+d(modx) and d≡c−a−b(modx). These congruences, combined with the given condition, yield
0≡ac+bd≡a(a+b+d)+bd≡(a+b)(a+d)(modx)
and
0≡ac+bd≡ac+b(c−a−b)≡(a+b)(c−b)(modx).
Hence, x∣(a+b)(a+d) and x∣(a+b)(c−b).
Because a+b>(a+b)−(c−d)=x and 2x=2[a+(b−c)+d]>2a>a+b, a+b is not divisible by x. Thus, there is a prime p that divides each of x, (a+d), and (c−b). To finish, we only need to prove that p is a proper divisor of ab+cd. In fact, ab+cd>a+d≥p and
p∣(a+d)b+(c−b)d=ab+cd,
as desired.
Fifth Solution. Let ABCD be the quadrilateral with AB=a,BC=d,CD=b,AD=c,∠BAD=60∘, and ∠BCD=120∘. Such a quadrilateral exists in view of (1) and the Law of Cosines; the common value in (1) is BD2. Let ∠ABC=α, so that ∠CDA=180∘−α. Applying the Law of Cosines to triangles ABC and ACD gives
a2+d2−2adcosα=AC2=b2+c2+2bccosα.
Hence, 2cosα=(a2+d2−b2−c2)/(ad+bc), and
AC2=a2+d2−adad+bca2+d2−b2−c2=ad+bc(ab+cd)(ac+bd).
Because ABCD is cyclic, the Ptolemy's Theorem yields
(AC⋅BD)2=(AB⋅CD+AD⋅BD)2=(ab+cd)2
It follows that
(ac+bd)(a2−ac+c2)=(ab+cd)(ad+bc).(6)
(Note that straightforward algebra can also be used to obtain (6) from (1).) Observe that
ab+cd>ac+bd>ad+bc.(7)
The first inequality follows from (a−d)(b−c)>0, and the second from (a−b)(c−d)>0.
Now assume that ab+cd is prime. It then follows from (7) that ab+cd and ac+bd are relatively prime. Hence, from (6), it must be true that ac+bd divides ad+bc. However, this is impossible by (7). Thus, ab+cd must not be prime.
Sixth Solution. (By Reid Barton and Gabriel Carroll) Let ω=e32πi. Then
ω3=1and1+ω+ω2=0.(8)
We are going to use two fundamental facts about the ring Z[ω]:
* Fact 1. Z[ω] is a unique factorization domain (UFD);
* Fact 2. the units in Z[ω] are ±1,±ω,±ω2.
Factoring (1) in Z[ω] gives
(c+ωa)(c+ω2a)=(b−ωd)(b−ω2d).(9)
Lemma 1. If a>b>c>d are positive integers satisfying (9), and ab+cd is prime, then c+ωa and b−ωd are not relatively prime.
Proof. Assume for the sake of contradiction that c+ωa and b−ωd are relatively prime. Since complex conjugation is an automorphism of Z[ω] sending ω to ω2, c+ω2a and b−ω2d must also be relatively prime. From the two facts, we conclude that c+ωa=u(b−ω2d) for some unit u∈{±1,±ω,±ω2}.
If u=±1, then c+ωa=±(b−ω2d)=±(b+d)±ωd (by the second part of (8)), contradicting a=±d.
If u=±ω, then c+ωa=±ω(b−ω2d)=∓d±ωb (by the first part of (8), contradicting both a=±b and c=∓d).
If u=±ω2, then c+ωa=±ω2(b−ω2d)=±(ω2b−ωd)=∓b∓(b+d)ω (by (8)), contradicting c=∓b.
In all cases, we reach a contradiction, so c+ωa and b−ωd are not relatively prime. ■
Lemma 2. If a>b>c>d are positive integers satisfying (1) and ab+cd is prime, then ad=cb+cd.
Proof. Since a,b,c,d satisfy (1), they also satisfy (9), so by Lemma 1, there exists some prime p=q+rω∈Z[ω] such that p∣c+ωa and p∣b−ωd. Then p=q+rω2∣b−ω2d, so pp∣(c+ωa)(b−ω2d). Note that
N(p)=pp=q2−qr+r2
and that
(c+ωa)(b−ω2d)=bc+ωab−ω2dc−ω3ad=(−ad+bc+dc)+(ab+cd)ω.
Therefore, N(p)∣[(−ad+bc+dc)+(ab+cd)ω]. Since N(p)∈Z, we must have N(p)∣(−ad+bc+dc) and N(p)∣ab+cd. Since ab+cd is prime, N(p)=ab+cd, and so ab+cd∣(−ad+bc+cd). But
ab+cd−(−ad+bc+dc)=(ab−bc)+ad>0
and
ab+cd+(−ad+bc+dc)>ab−ad>0,
so ∣−ad+bc+cd∣<ab+cd. Hence, we must have −ad+bc+cd=0, that is, ad=cb+cd.
Now suppose that a>b>c>d>0 are integers satisfying (1). Then
(a−c)2+(a−c)c+c2=a2−2ac+c2+ac−c2+c2=a2−ac+c2=b2+bd+d2.
Since c>d>0, we must have a−c<b implying (a−c)d<bd<bc, or ad<cb+cd. By Lemma 2, ab+cd cannot be prime, and we are done.