Suppose the opposite. Let
m2+a∈[m2−2m,m2+2m] i m4+1≡m2+a.
Since
(m4+1,m2+a)=(−am2+1,m2+a)=(a2+1,m2+a), then a2+1≡m2+a,a2+1=(m2+a)r.
Let a∈[−2m+3,0], then m2+am4+1≤m2−2m+3m4+1<m2+2m+1, so m4+1 has a divisor that is no less than m2 and fulfills the assumption, therefore instead of m2+a we can examine a divisor m2+b, where b≥0.
If a=−2m+2, then 4m2−8m+5≡m2−2m+2, so 3≡m2−2m+2, which is impossible in case of m>1.
If a=−2m+1, then 4m2−4m+2≡(m−1)2−m−1, thus 2≡m−1, m∈{2,3}. In case of m=2 and m=3: m4+1=17 and m4+1=2⋅41 - none of these numbers fulfills the condition.
If a=−2m, then 1≡m is a contradiction.
Thus, if number m4+1 has a divisor m2+a, where a∈[−2m,2m], then the number m4+1 has a divisor m2+b, where b∈[0,2m]. It is also clear that b=0. In such case, 4m2+1≥b2+1=(m2+b)r≥m2r, so r≤3.
Case r=3: b2+1=3(m2+b) - it is impossible, because b2+1 is not divisible by 3.
Case r=2: b2+1=2(m2+b), (b−1)2=2m2 - impossible.
Case r=1: b2−b+1=m2, but b2>b2−b+1=m2>(b−1)2, so this case is also impossible. Thus, we have the contradiction with the supposition, so the statement is proved.