Let be two integers and suppose that is a positive integer for which the set is finite. Prove that .
Solution
To prove that is the only possible value for which the set is finite, we will consider the cases where and show that in these cases, there are infinitely many integers that cannot be expressed in the form .
1. **Assume **:
- We want to show that there are infinitely many integers not of the form .
- If , then we can take all integers that are . Thus, we assume .
2. **Case 1: **:
- Take any prime such that . By Dirichlet's Theorem on arithmetic progressions, there are infinitely many such primes.
- The function assumes only different values modulo :
- is one value.
- For , consider as a group endomorphism on . The kernel consists of all such that . Since is cyclic and , there are such values.
- By the First Isomorphism Theorem, the image of has size . Including , there are values for .
- Therefore, assumes at most distinct values modulo . If , then (since ):
- Hence, there is an entire equivalence class modulo which is not of the form .
3. **Case 2: **:
- The previous argument does not work, and we need a different approach.
- If and have the same sign, the numbers have the same sign too, and we can choose all the numbers of the opposite sign.
- Assume without loss of generality that .
- If , the case is simple. For example, if and , then the values are never assumed. If , then only is assumed.
- Subcase 1: and are both squares. All the values of the set are differences of squares, and they are never equal to .
- Subcase 2: and are not both squares.
- Let be a prime such that . If , then does not divide or . If divides , it also divides , and hence divides the RHS while it does not divide the LHS.
- If , then is a square modulo , which is equivalent to being a square modulo .
- If we can find infinitely many primes such that , we are done. This means is never equal to these primes.
- This is equivalent to , where is the square-free part of (and since and they are not both squares). Since and is identically for all primes (except for finitely many) only for , we are done.
4. Proof of the claim:
- Decomposing into distinct primes: , and using properties of the Legendre symbol (multiplicative!) and quadratic reciprocity, shows that is equivalent to:
- By the Chinese Remainder Theorem, the LHS is if and only if is equivalent to certain values modulo (since the Legendre symbol is periodic: has period ), and the RHS is if and only if is equivalent to certain values modulo . Hence, there is no identity in the above equation, and we can choose primes with specific values modulo that will violate the equality.
- We use Dirichlet's Theorem, but it can be avoided (see the chapter about Quadratic Reciprocity in Ireland and Rosen).
Since we have shown that for , there are infinitely many integers not of the form , it follows that the only possible value for is .