16

The Erdős-Straus Conjecture (ESC), states that for every natural number $n \geq 2$, there exists a set of natural numbers $a, b, c$ , such that the following equation is satisfied:

$$\frac{4}{n}=\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c}\tag{1}$$

The basic approach to solving this problem outlined by Mordell [Ref1] is described below

By defining $t$ and $m$ as positive integers greater than zero and $q$ a positive integer greater than one we can observe that

a) There is always a solution for even $n$, since if $n=2^qt$ we have the trivial solution $$\frac{4}{4t}=\frac{1}{t}$$

In the remaining case $n=2(2t+1)$, a solution in the form of two Egyptian fractions can always be found e.g. $$\frac{4}{2(2t+1)}=\frac{2}{2t+1}=\frac{1}{t+1}+\frac{1}{(t+1)(2t+1)}$$

b) If $(1)$ is a solution for some particular prime $n$ then all composite numbers $mn$ divisible by $n$ are also solutions, thus

$$\frac{4}{mn}=\frac{1}{ma}+\frac{1}{mb}+\frac{1}{mc}$$

will also be a solution. This means that we can simplify the analysis to the cases where $n$ is a prime greater than 2.

Using Mordell's approach we have just shown that we only need to consider the cases where $n$ is prime and where $n \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \;\;[meaning \;\;n=2t+1]$

The argument continues...

Mordell goes on to show in turn that the search can be reduced further to the cases when $$n \equiv 1 \pmod{4} \;\;[meaning \;numbers \;\;n=4t+1]$$ $$n \equiv 1 \pmod{8} \;\;[meaning \;numbers \;\;n=8t+1]$$ $$n \equiv 1 \pmod{3} \;\;[meaning \;numbers \;\;n=3t+1]$$ $$n \equiv 1,2,4 \pmod{7} \;\;[meaning \;numbers \;\;n=7t+1,n=7t+2 \;or\;n=7t+4 ]$$ $$n \equiv 1,4 \pmod{5} \;\;[meaning \;numbers \;\; n=5t+1 \;or\;n=5t+4]$$

Assembling these results together, Mordell showed that the conjecture can be proved in this context except for the cases when $$n \equiv 1,11^2,13^2,17^2,19^2,23^2 \pmod{840}$$

Mordell stated that since the first prime meeting this condition is 1009, this is proof that the conjecture holds for $n<1009$.

This basic approach can be pursued further. Other workers have shown that the conjecture holds for much higher values of $n$ using similar methods as can be seen on the above Wikipedia page.

Note that other intermediate results can be constructed from the above congruence's, e.g. $n \equiv 1 \pmod{24}$.

The question is:

Are there any other elementary approaches to solving this problem than the one outlined by Mordell (and described above)?

[Ref1] Louis J. Mordell (1969) Diophantine Equations, Academic Press, London, pp. 287-290.

Jori
  • 1,818
  • 2
    I can't exactly point out a summary. But you can check Terence Tao's link which does have some new resources. Do post this on MO. – Torsten Hĕrculĕ Cärlemän Jul 23 '13 at 13:15
  • It would be nice to mention what the conjecture is about, or at least give a link to Wikipedia. – Martin Sleziak Jul 23 '13 at 13:33
  • I'm sorry, I though it was well known. – Jori Jul 23 '13 at 13:39
  • 1
    Mordell's book "Diophantine Equations" has a section on this. – Mike Bennett Jul 23 '13 at 20:55
  • Off topic: does anyone know how to remove that large space between the number and $mod$? – Jori Jul 24 '13 at 20:08
  • @Jori: That is a perennial problem! There is also \pmod, but that has its own problems $-$ see this link for instance. Another solution is to use roman type: \mathrm{mod} – TonyK Jun 12 '14 at 12:17
  • I use \hspace: $4\hspace{-0.25em}\pmod{3}$. – Kieren MacMillan Sep 17 '14 at 13:53
  • 1
    If you don't want to use p \equiv 3 \pmod{4} ($p \equiv 3 \pmod{4}$), which I'd prefer, you can use \bmod, p = 3 \bmod 4 -> $p = 3 \bmod 4$. – Daniel Fischer Nov 14 '14 at 15:54
  • @Jori: What is the textbook you are referring to in this question? You say "But I know ESC has also been proven for:" can you please state the reference for the methods used or state the proof? Since duplicate questions are frowned upon can you tell me if you are still actively interested in this problem, if you are not I will edit your question to tidy it up and to remove unreferenced claims. – James Arathoon Aug 09 '17 at 10:06

6 Answers6

3

For the equation: $$\frac{4}{q}=\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{y}+\frac{1}{z}$$

The solution can be written using the factorization, as follows.

$$p^2-s^2=(p-s)(p+s)=2qL$$

Then the solutions have the form:

$$x=\frac{p(p-s)}{4L-q}$$

$$y=\frac{p(p+s)}{4L-q}$$

$$z=L$$

I usually choose the number $L$ such that the difference: $(4L-q)$ was equal to: $1,2,3,4$ Although your desire you can choose other.

You can write a little differently. If unfold like this:

$$p^2-s^2=(p-s)(p+s)=qL$$

The solutions have the form:

$$x=\frac{2p(p-s)}{4L-q}$$

$$y=\frac{2p(p+s)}{4L-q}$$

$$z=L$$

individ
  • 4,405
  • Nice formulae! If you can prove that $4L-q$ can always be chosen such that $x$ and $y$ are integral, you should write this up and publish it. A rather amazing extension would be to show how many distinct integer triples $(x,y,L)$ can be obtained for a given $q$ using your formulas, especially if you can also prove that number is maximal for fixed $q$. – Kieren MacMillan Sep 16 '14 at 12:38
  • Using this approach can you find the complete subset of positive integers for q, for which this algebraic formula does not work e.g. $q=193$. If you can't then this approach has little value as the starting point for solving this problem. – James Arathoon Aug 09 '17 at 10:18
  • The problem with this is that it is not easily verifyable. You did not rule out non-prime numbers. If only primes are investigated, then it is easy to see that $q = 2$ is a special case, and ruling it out you cannot have $(4L - q) = 2$. You can also not say something like "You can write a little differently": at the first factorisation you have $2qL$, which means if q is an odd prime, then depending on the parity of L you may have one more factor of 2. As the parity of $(p - s)$ and $(p + s)$ is the same, the LHS has zero or $2^{\alpha}$ factors of 2. – Dávid Laczkó Nov 19 '20 at 17:25
  • Therefore if L is odd, then you must use $qL$ on the RHS to have zero factor of 2, otherwise you have only one but that is invalid. So you must use it, it is not a matter of desire. The same for the value of $(4L - q)$, how could one use any number of desire that is not 1 and still be able to divide both numerators? – Dávid Laczkó Nov 19 '20 at 17:25
  • @JamesArathoon Could you share how did you arrive at $q = 193$? And how did you verify that no $(p, s, L)$ exist for it? Is it modular arithmetic? I could not arrive to such a conclusion with plain algebra to arrive to a contradiction of divisibility. – Dávid Laczkó Nov 19 '20 at 17:31
  • When set $q$ the number of possible integer solutions is finite. Therefore, it is not possible to write parameterization of solutions for the given fraction parameters. This formula makes it possible to find solutions. And there is nothing complicated there. Going through all the possible ones - very quickly we come to the aspiration - $p$ to $L$. I don't like this solution myself, but it turns out this way. – individ Nov 19 '20 at 18:06
  • @DávidLaczkó: $193$ is just the first prime $p$ where $$p \equiv 1,5^2,11^2 \pmod{168},$$ ($168=24 \times 7$), the first few primes following that are $337$, $457$, $673$ and $1009$. For an amateur like me it is where the difficulty of the problem really starts to become apparent. – James Arathoon Nov 21 '20 at 13:41
  • @JamesArathoon 193 is a good catch, anyhow I try to attack it, I can not produce a working triplet of $(p, s, L)$. individ, do you have a triplet for 193 with these formulas? – Dávid Laczkó Nov 23 '20 at 16:37
  • @DávidLaczkó: Incidentally Mordell's residue class, $n \equiv 1,4 \pmod{5}$, contains primes ending in $1$ or $9$ only. – James Arathoon Nov 23 '20 at 17:21
  • @JamesArathoon Mordell's equation covers $193 \equiv 5 \pmod{8}$, so my question only relates to this particular answer's formulas. – Dávid Laczkó Nov 23 '20 at 17:29
  • @DávidLaczkó The calculations above show the number. You can pick up more yourself. – individ Nov 24 '20 at 07:29
  • But as I mentioned above, I could not find a single working triplet of $(p,s,L)$, so do you have one? – Dávid Laczkó Nov 24 '20 at 09:23
  • @DávidLaczkó I was there alone at the top of the written response. Don't you see him? There was a solution. If you need more... we need to sort out other options. I'm too lazy to look for others. – individ Nov 24 '20 at 14:05
  • 1
    There are only 6 possible triplets in the case of $4/193$ according to http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fractions/egyptian.html#fxdlenCalc The solution you gave for $4/193$ was using a significantly different formula (without factorisation of a difference of two squares) in another answer. – James Arathoon Nov 24 '20 at 17:05
  • How can they use this formula if I have deduced it? They don't know about it. Some use well-known calculation methods... I have my own. – individ Nov 24 '20 at 17:39
  • If you refer to your other answer, I have already put there a comment about that. I am interested in this answer's decomposition for $(p, s, L)$. Or is it not possible with these? – Dávid Laczkó Nov 24 '20 at 17:57
  • I don't want to discuss questions related to arithmetic. I'm tired of this conversation. There is a formula. There is a calculation method. Finding numbers as the difference of squares is not difficult. Everything is explained there. Show how to find numbers, or what? The formula is given in General form. Many people don't like these formulas. All questions to nature. She created them that way. If you don't like it, I can't help you. – individ Nov 24 '20 at 18:08
  • It's not that I'm not liking it, sorry. Finding numbers as the difference of sqares is not difficult, you are right, but not any $(p, s, L)$ will make $x$ and $y$ integers, that is how nature works. So the divisibility is the open question, as with many other approaches attacking the conjecture. – Dávid Laczkó Nov 24 '20 at 18:41
  • There is a check of all possible numbers. And the specifics are that you don't need to check indefinitely. On one side is a square, and on the other side is a linear function. And the possible options quickly run out. We're talking about something else here. We don't need to search for all solutions for a given number. It is enough to find at least one solution to prove that there are always solutions. And when decomposing by the difference of the square, there are always numbers that are divisible by 3... there will always be one. And that's enough. – individ Nov 24 '20 at 18:48
  • 1
    Does either of these methods solve for $4/17$ or $4/73$? If so, which of the two methods, and what value of $L$? I have tried both methods, with no success. – Rosie F Aug 18 '23 at 11:37
1

When $N$ is pair, then the solution is $$\frac1N + \frac{1}{N/2} + \frac1N = \frac4N.$$

When $N$ is a multiple of $3$, then the solution is $$\frac1{4N} + \frac1{N/3} + \frac1{4N/3} = \frac4N.$$

Shaun
  • 47,747
Koussay
  • 11
1

"Are there any other elementary approaches to solving this problem..." - this question is not asked properly, as this problem is not solved, only partially, as to my best knowledge (I mean I see this question is old, but it seems to also be true now). So if the question is about how to find residue classes other than Mordell's, but still not covering all primes thus not proving the conjecture, then I can show that the following $n$'s are all possible to be expanded into 3 terms $\forall p, x \in \mathbb{Z}^+$:
$n = (4p - 1)x - 1$
$n = (4p - 1)x - p$
The smallest prime number that is not covered by Mordell's residue classes is $4201$ that can be produced with the former, and is $1009$ with the latter.
You can see the identity here, in Part IV. - II. (little after the middle).


Update:
I attributed the above identities to myself, but Mordell would possibly kick me in the butt: he got all the residue classes from the condition $na + b + c = 4abcd$.
If I let $a = b = 1$, then $n = (4d - 1)c - 1$, and
if I let $a = d = 1$, then $n = (4c - 1)b - c$, so the above can be produced from his condition, they are just not part of the usual residue class analyses, I guess because they are hard to handle.

0

This is a description of an approach to the problem I have not been able to get to work, but nevertheless may be of interest to others.

If one wants to study the Erdős–Straus conjecture there there are many examples of formulas giving Egyptian Fraction Triple Solutions given a fraction $\frac{4}{n}$ in the mathematical literature and on this site for example.

These formulas come with various numbers of free parameters and often have divisibility conditions/constraints associated with them that does not always guarantee correct solutions; especially in the case of the residue classes targeted by Mordell and of most interest in regard to the Erdős–Straus conjecture, that I have listed in the revised question above, for example $n \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$.

However I devised a formula (in 2016/17 when I became interested in Egyptian fractions), with 3 integer parameters, with no nasty divisibility conditions that lead to false solutions (non-triples), and that works with a selected residue class $n \equiv 1 \pmod{8}$ or $n \equiv 1 \pmod{24}$ for example.

$$\frac{4}{8 t+1}=\frac{1}{2 t+r}+\frac{1}{m (8 t+1) (2 r+a)}+\frac{1}{m (8 t+1) (2 r-a-1)} \tag{1}$$

Positive numbers, $8t+1$, in the desired residue class can be generated using a linked formula such as

$$8t+1=16mr^2 -4r(2m+1) -4m(a^2+a) +1 \tag{2}$$

(combinations of the 3 positive integer parameter values are not allowed when they give a negative number result).

As pointed out by Dávid Laczkó, $r$ is always even so if $r=2s$ (2) becomes

$$8t+1=64ms^2 -8s(2m+1) -4m(a^2+a) +1 \tag{3}$$

An allowed combination of the three parameters will always result in a number in the desired residue class, as well as an associated Egyptian Fraction Triple Solution.

If it could be proved that formula (2) has full coverage of the applicable residue class(es) to the problem, then this might provide an alternative way of proving the Erdős–Straus conjecture, given the direct one-to-one mapping between formulas (1) and (2) (given identical input parameter values).

Since the numbers $n$ are not neatly ordered along a 1-D number line, but ordered in a much more difficult fashion across a portion of a 3-D number space, it is difficult (for me) to find a mathematical proof that, at the very least, all the prime numbers in the selected residue class are there in the set of numbers generated by (2).

(Sorry if I'm not using the correct mathematical terminology to describe this, in the last paragraph above).

  • Is $(1)$ an identity or a heuristic formula that happens to work? I could not do the transformations to get an identity, neither some online algebraic expression simplifiers. What I could verify is that for parity reasons, $r$ must always be even. – Dávid Laczkó Nov 25 '20 at 13:48
  • Its a data driven heuristic formula that seems to work. I studied the form of triples for 4/p primes with small numbers of solutions and looked for a form of solution that occurred regularly and that I could make sense of. Yes your right $r$ is always even. (2) is a quadratic in $r$, so $r$ can be calculated in terms of $m$, $a$ and $t$. – James Arathoon Nov 25 '20 at 14:15
0

As a note, when $p$ is a prime of the form $p=4a^2+2a-1$, the conjecture holds. More generally, if $p$ is of the form $p=4a^2+4ak-2a-k$ where $a$ is a positive integer $k$ is another integer satisfying $-a<k$, then the statement holds.

QTDA
  • 63
  • 1
    Given 11 users' answers, aim your talent to newer, or unanswered questions. (a little overlap of hours, days, or weeks is fine). The question has already been answered, eight years ago. Not a bad idea for practice, but given your handle on formatting, and your argument and fine answer, I encourage you to answer more recent questions. Good luck! – amWhy May 10 '22 at 18:26
0

This is not an answer, but a comment on the calculation of finding solutions.

Still, it's worth considering the general case. $$\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{y}+\frac{1}{z}=\frac{q}{t}$$

I gave a lot of formulas, but all of them somehow boiled down to the need to factor $t=ab$. And the solution somehow boils down to this form.

$$\frac{1}{kps}+\frac{1}{ap}+\frac{1}{bs}=\frac{q}{t}$$

The task actually boils down to finding a single number.

$$p=\frac{kbs+t}{k(qs-a)}$$

And getting solutions is going through all the possible options. Going through all the options does not require a lot of calculations. I'll show you an example of the question I was asked.

The meaning of the search is in another record. Separate the whole part and consider the case when the remainder is whole.

$$p=\frac{kbs+t}{k(qs-a)}=C+\frac{k(b-Cq)s+t+kaC}{k(qs-a)}$$

I'll give you an example. $\frac{q}{t}=\frac{4}{73}$

Let. $a=1$ $;$ $b=73$

$$p=\frac{73sk+73}{k(4s-1)}$$

Let. $k=73$

$$p=\frac{73s+1}{4s-1}=18+\frac{s+19}{4s-1}$$

In this case, it is enough to check the numbers. $s=1,2,3,4,5,6,7$

There is no point in checking further. Because the remainder becomes less than 1, and we only need integers.

And the solution will be numbers.

$s=2 ; p=21$ $...$ $x=73*2*21 ; y=21 ; z=73*2$

$s=3 ; p=20$ $...$ $x=73*20*3 ; y=20 ; z=73*3$

individ
  • 4,405