- Infinite descent
-
In mathematics, a proof by infinite descent is a particular kind of proof by contradiction which relies on the fact that the natural numbers are well ordered. One typical application is to show that a given equation has no solutions. Assuming a solution exists, one shows that another exists, that is in some sense 'smaller'. Then one must show, usually with greater ease, that the infinite descent implied by having a whole sequence of solutions that are ever smaller, by our chosen measure, is an impossibility. This is a contradiction, so no such initial solution can exist.
This illustrative description can be restated in terms of a minimal counterexample, giving a more common type of formulation of an induction proof. We suppose a 'smallest' solution and then derive a smaller one — thereby getting a contradiction.
The method was developed by and much used for Diophantine equations by Fermat.[1] Two typical examples are showing the non-solvability of the Diophantine equation r2 + s4 = t4 and proving that any prime p such that p ≡ 1 (mod. 4) can be expressed as a sum of two squares. In some cases, to a modern eye, what he was using was (in effect) the doubling mapping on an elliptic curve. More precisely, his method of infinite descent was an exploitation in particular of the possibility of halving rational points on an elliptic curve E by inversion of the doubling formulae. The context is of a hypothetical rational point on E with large co-ordinates. Doubling a point on E roughly doubles the length of the numbers required to write it (as number of digits): so that a 'halved' point is quite clearly smaller. In this way Fermat was able to show the non-existence of solutions in many cases of Diophantine equations of classical interest (for example, the problem of four perfect squares in arithmetic progression).
Contents
Number theory
In the number theory of the twentieth century, the infinite descent method was taken up again, and pushed to a point where it connected with the main thrust of algebraic number theory and the study of L-functions. The structural result of Mordell, that the rational points on an elliptic curve E form a finitely-generated abelian group, used an infinite descent argument based on E/2E in Fermat's style.
To extend this to the case of an abelian variety A, André Weil had to make more explicit the way of quantifying the size of a solution, by means of a height function - a concept that became foundational. To show that A(Q)/2A(Q) is finite, which is certainly a necessary condition for the finite generation of the group A(Q) of rational points of A, one must do calculations in what later was recognised as Galois cohomology. In this way, abstractly-defined cohomology groups in the theory become identified with descents in the tradition of Fermat. The Mordell-Weil theorem was at the start of what later became a very extensive theory.
Application examples
Irrationality of √2
Suppose that √2 were rational. Then it could be written as
,
for two natural numbers, p and q. Then,
- 2 = p2 / q2,
- 2q2 = p2, so
- 2 | p.
We can now write p = 2r, thus
- 2q2 = (2r)2 = 4r2,
- q2 = 2r2, so
- 2 | q.
Therefore, for both p and q, smaller natural numbers (which would work equally well to form the rational) can be found by dividing them in half. The same must hold for those smaller numbers, ad infinitum. However, this is impossible in the set of natural numbers. Since √2 is a real number, which can be either rational or irrational, the only option left is for √2 to be irrational.
Irrationality of √k if it is not an integer
For positive integer k, suppose that √k is not an integer, but is rational. Then express it in lowest possible terms (i.e., as a fully reduced fraction) as m⁄n for natural numbers m and n, and let q be the largest integer no greater than √k. Then
and therefore √k can be expressed in lower terms, which is a contradiction.[2]
Non-solvability of r2 + s4 = t4
The non-solvability of r2 + s4 = t4 in integers is sufficient to show the non-solvability of q4 + s4 = t4 in integers, which is a special case of Fermat's Last Theorem. It can be proven by proving that a Pythagorean triangle cannot have two sides each of which is each either a square or twice a square.[3]
Suppose there exists such a Pythagorean triangle. Then it can be scaled down to give a primitive (i.e., with no common factors) Pythagorean triangle with the same property. Primitive Pythagorean triangles' sides can be written as x = 2ab, y = a2 − b2, z = a2 + b2, with a and b relatively prime and with a+b odd and hence y and z both odd. But neither y nor z, being odd, can be twice a square; if they are both square, the right triangle with legs
and b2 and hypotenuse a2 also would have integer sides including a square leg and a square hypotenuse, and would have a smaller hypotenuse. If y is a square and x is a square or twice a square, then each of a and b is a square or twice a square and the integer right triangle with legs b and
and hypotenuse a would have two sides each of which is a square or twice a square, with a smaller hypotenuse than the original triangle. And if z is a square and x is a square or twice a square, again each of a and b is a square or twice a square and the integer right triangle with legs a and b and hypotenuse
also would have two sides each of which is a square or twice a square, and a smaller hypotenuse. In any of these cases, one Pythagorean triangle with two sides each of which is a square or twice a square has led to a smaller one, which in turn would lead to a smaller one, etc.; since such a sequence cannot go on infinitely, the original premise that such a triangle exists must be wrong. This implies that r2 + s4 = t4 cannot have a solution, since if it did then r, s2, and t2 would be the sides of such a Pythagorean triangle.
For other proofs of this by infinite descent, see[4] and [5].
Non-solvability of a2 + b2 = 3(s2 + t2)
Infinite descent can be used to show that there are no integer solutions to
,
other than a = b = s = t = 0.
Suppose there is a nontrivial integer solution of the equation. Then there is a nontrivial nonnegative integer solution obtained by replacing each of a,b,s,t by its absolute value. So it suffices to show that there are no nontrivial nonnegative integer solutions.
Suppose that a1,b1,s1,t1 is a nonnegative solution. We have
This is only true if both a1 and b1 are divisible by 3. Let
- 3a2 = a1 and 3b2 = b1.
Thus we have
and
,
which yields a new nontrivial nonnegative integer solution s1, t1, a2, b2. Under a suitable notion of size of the solutions, e.g. the sum of the four integers, this new solution is smaller than the original one. This process can be repeated infinitely, producing an infinite decreasing sequence of positive solution sizes. This is a contradiction, because no such sequence exists. This shows that there are no nonzero solutions for this Diophantine equation.
See also
- Proof by contradiction
- Vieta jumping
References
- ^ Weil, André (1984), Number Theory: An approach through history from Hammurapi to Legendre, Birkhäuser, pp. 75–79, ISBN 0-8176-3141-0
- ^ Sagher, Yoram (February 1988), "What Pythagoras could have done", American Mathematical Monthly 95: 117
- ^ Dolan, Stan, "Fermat's method of descente infinie", Mathematical Gazette 95, July 2011, 269-271.
- ^ Grant, Mike, and Perella, Malcolm, "Descending to the irrational", Mathematical Gazette 83, July 1999, pp.263-267.
- ^ Barbara, Roy, "Fermat's last theorem in the case n = 4", Mathematical Gazette 91, July 2007, 260-262.
Other reading
Categories:- Proofs
- Mathematical terminology
- Diophantine equations
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.