Ancient Equations Offer New Look at Number Groups

He claimed that only a truly wise person could solve the problem of herding cattle. The equation that he came up with involved the difference between two terms, which can be written as x 2 and dy 2. In this case, d is a positive or negative counting number, and Archimedes was looking for solutions where both x and y are also numbers.

The Pell equations have fascinated mathematicians for thousands of years.

The Indian mathematician and mathematician Bhskara II provided a way to find solutions to equations after the invention of the computer. Pierre de Fermat, who was unaware of that work, discovered in the mid-1600s that the smallest possible solutions for x and y could be massive. When he sent a series of challenge problems to his competitors, he included the equation x 2 - 61y 2 - 1, which has the smallest solutions with nine or 10 digits. The riddles asked for solutions to the equation x 2 - 4,729,494y 2 Peter Koymans is a mathematician at the University of Michigan. It is a troll by the author.

The solutions to the equations can make a difference. Say you want to approximate a number as a ratio of numbers. It turns out that it's possible to approximate the Pell equation by using $latex sqrt2$.

The solutions tell you something about the number systems called rings. In a number system, mathematicians might use $latex sqrt2$ to match the numbers. Calculating the properties of rings is something mathematicians want to do. They can use the equation to do that.

Mark Schusterman, a mathematician at Harvard University, said that a lot of famous mathematicians studied the equation because of how easy it is. Fermat was one of the mathematicians. The equation was named after him.

Koymans and Carlo Pagano have proof of a decades-old question about how often a certain form of the equation has a certain number of solutions. They imported ideas from another field and gained a better understanding of a key object of study in that field. Andrew was a mathematician at the University of Montreal. They did a great job.

Broken Arithmetic

In the early 1990s, Peter Stevenhagen was inspired by some of the connections he saw between the Pell equations and group theory to make a hypothesis about how often these equations have solutions. He didn't think it would be proved in his lifetime. The available techniques didn't seem strong enough.

He depends on the features of the rings. There is a ring of numbers where the number $latex sqrt -5$ has been added to the number. The number 6 can also be written as 1 + $latex -5$. In this ring, unique prime factorization breaks down because of it. A class group is an object associated to that ring.

One way that mathematicians try to gain deeper insights into a number system is by studying its class group. It is nearly impossible to pin down general rules for how class groups behave.

Henri Cohen and Hendrik Lenstra wrote a lot of questions about what the rules should look like. The Cohen-Lenstra heuristics can tell you a lot about class groups.

One problem was present. Many computations seem to support the Cohen-Lenstra heuristics, but they are not proof. Alex Bartel is a mathematician at the University of Glasgow.

The typical behavior of a class group is closely related to the behavior of the equations. Understanding one problem helps make sense of the other, which has been a test problem for progress on the Cohen-Lenstra heuristics.

x 2 dy 2 is set to equal 1 instead of 1 in the new work. The original Pell equation has an infinite number of solutions for any d, but not all of them can be used to solve an equation. You will never find a solution even if you look far along the number line.

I have a cannon that I can use to shoot at this problem and I hope that I can make progress.

There are a lot of values of d for which the negative Pell equation can't be solved, based on known rules about how certain numbers relate to each other.

It is not always possible to find solutions when you avoid those values of d. What proportion actually works in that small set of values?

Stevenhagen came up with a formula that answered that question. He predicted that 42% of the values that might work would give rise to negative Pell equations.

Koymans and Pagano exploited the link between the negative Pell equation and the Cohen-Lenstra heuristics on class groups in order to prove Stevenhagen wrong.

A Better Cannon

When a paper came out that made some of the first progress on the problem in years, Koymans and Pagano were undergraduates.

The mathematicians tienne Fouvry and Jrgen Klners showed that the proportion of values of d was within a certain range. They got a handle on the behavior of some of the class groups. Stevenhagen had a much more precise estimate of 42%. Novel methods were still needed to understand the structure of those elements. Further progress was not possible.

The paper that changed everything was written by Koymans and Pagano in graduate school. Koymans recognized that it was an impressive result when he saw it. It was nice to have a cannon that I can use to shoot at the problem. Koymans and Pagano were interested in the problem due to the fact that Stevenhagen and Lenstra were professors at the time.

The paper was written by a graduate student at Harvard. The work was hailed as a breakthrough by many people. The ideas were great. It's called revolutionary.

Smith tried to understand the properties of solutions to equations. He was able to work out a specific part of Cohen-Lenstra. The piece of the class group that Koymans and Pagano needed to understand in their work on Stevenhagen's conjecture was the first major step in cementing those broader conjectures as mathematicalfact. The elements that Fouvry and Klners had studied were included in this piece.

Koymans and Pagano weren't able to use Smith's methods immediately. Smith would probably have done that. Smith was able to prove that class groups associated with the right number rings get adjoined to the integers, but he didn't consider all the numbers. Koymans and Pagano only considered a small portion of the values of d. They needed to assess the average behavior of a small group of people.

Smith could throw those class groups away if he wanted to. The average behavior that he was studying was not contributed to by them.

The methods broke down when Koymans and Pagano tried to apply his techniques to just the class groups they cared about. Changes need to be made to get them to work. The discrepancy that might exist between two different class groups would be a major part of their proof of Stevenhagen's theory.

It opens up a new chapter in a branch of number theory that's been around for a long time.

Koymans and Pagano were combing through Smith's paper in an attempt to find out where things started to go wrong. Smith was still refining his preprint at the time and it was difficult to complete. The new version of his paper was posted on the internet.

Koymans and Pagano were able to learn the proof together. They spent a few hours at a blackboard after lunch helping each other work through the relevant ideas. He text the other if he made progress on his own. Sometimes they would work long into the night. Koymans said that it was enjoyable despite the challenges.

They were able to identify where they needed to try a new approach. They were able to make small improvements. They figured out how to get a handle on some additional elements in the class group, which made them betterTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkiaTrademarkia Significant parts of the class group's structure are still missing.

One major problem they had to tackle was making sure that they were analyzing average behavior for class groups as the values of d got larger and larger. The proper degree of randomness was established by Koymans and Pagano. That gave them control over the difference between the two classes.

They were able to complete the proof of Stevenhagen's theory earlier this year. It is amazing that they were able to solve it. We had a lot of these issues previously.

Smith said that what they did was surprising. Koymans and Pagano were able to push further and further in a direction that I barely understand now.

The Sharpest Tool

Smith's proof of one part of the Cohen-Lenstra heuristics was seen as a way to open doors to a number of other problems. Koymans and Pagano list about a dozen theories they hope to use. There are many that have nothing to do with the negative Pell equation.

A lot of objects have structures that are not similar to the ones shown in the picture. There are many of the same obstacles that Koymans and Pagano had to face. The new work on the negative Pell equation has helped remove some of the obstacles. Alexander Smith has told us how to build saws and hammers, but now we have to make them as sharp as possible and as hard- hitting as possible. The paper goes a lot in that direction.

All of this work has made it easier for mathematicians to understand class groups. For the time being, the rest of the Cohen-Lenstra theories are out of reach. Smith said that Koymans and Pagano's paper indicates that the techniques we have for attacking problems in Cohen-Lenstra are getting better.

The man was also optimistic. He wrote in an email that it was amazing. It opens up a new chapter in a branch of number theory that's been around for a long time.

How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything