How to prove that Fibonacci number pairs are the only solution to this equation?












0












$begingroup$


I need to find all the solutions to the equation




$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$




However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$



Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:




If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions




and




$x leq y < 2x$




I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:58










  • $begingroup$
    Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
    $endgroup$
    – saisanjeev
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:15












  • $begingroup$
    $(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:21


















0












$begingroup$


I need to find all the solutions to the equation




$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$




However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$



Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:




If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions




and




$x leq y < 2x$




I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:58










  • $begingroup$
    Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
    $endgroup$
    – saisanjeev
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:15












  • $begingroup$
    $(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
















0












0








0


0



$begingroup$


I need to find all the solutions to the equation




$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$




However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$



Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:




If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions




and




$x leq y < 2x$




I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I need to find all the solutions to the equation




$$x^2 + xy - y^2 = 1$$




However, I am not interested in using Pell's equation the way it has been suggested in a similar question here: Find all positive inegers solution for $x^2-xy-y^2=1$



Rather, my book gives a few observations and I exploit them to find the solutions. The following were the observations the book gave:




If $x$ and $y$ are solutions then $(x+y,x+2y)$ and $(2x-y,-x+y)$ are also solutions




and




$x leq y < 2x$




I am interested in finding only positive integer solutions. After playing around a little with the two points, first point in particular, I ended up with solutions of the form $(F_{2n-1},F_{2n})$. However I am unable to prove that these are the only positive integer solutions possible for the given equation. I feel that the proof will run quite similar to that of Pell's equation and will make use of the second point but I am unable to prove it. Any help please!!







diophantine-equations fibonacci-numbers






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 29 '18 at 11:51









saisanjeevsaisanjeev

987212




987212








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:58










  • $begingroup$
    Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
    $endgroup$
    – saisanjeev
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:15












  • $begingroup$
    $(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:21
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 11:58










  • $begingroup$
    Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
    $endgroup$
    – saisanjeev
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:15












  • $begingroup$
    $(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    Dec 29 '18 at 12:21










1




1




$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58




$begingroup$
See the comments in math.stackexchange.com/q/1514098/589
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 11:58












$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15






$begingroup$
Any idea how to go about using backward recursion as mentioned in the comment
$endgroup$
– saisanjeev
Dec 29 '18 at 12:15














$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21






$begingroup$
$(x,y) to (2x-y,-x+y)$ is a backward move
$endgroup$
– lhf
Dec 29 '18 at 12:21












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.



The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
$$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
$$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
$$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).



The matrix is
$$
A =
left(
begin{array}{rr}
1&1\
1&2
end{array}
right)
$$

Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
$$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
$$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$



If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
$$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
$$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$



enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3055765%2fhow-to-prove-that-fibonacci-number-pairs-are-the-only-solution-to-this-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.



    The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
    $$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
    leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
    $$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
    As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
    $$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
    This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).



    The matrix is
    $$
    A =
    left(
    begin{array}{rr}
    1&1\
    1&2
    end{array}
    right)
    $$

    Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
    $$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
    $$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$



    If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
    $$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
    $$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
    $$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
    $$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$



    enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.



      The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
      $$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
      leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
      $$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
      As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
      $$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
      This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).



      The matrix is
      $$
      A =
      left(
      begin{array}{rr}
      1&1\
      1&2
      end{array}
      right)
      $$

      Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
      $$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
      $$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$



      If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
      $$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
      $$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
      $$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
      $$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$



      enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.



        The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
        $$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
        leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
        $$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
        As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
        $$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
        This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).



        The matrix is
        $$
        A =
        left(
        begin{array}{rr}
        1&1\
        1&2
        end{array}
        right)
        $$

        Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
        $$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
        $$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$



        If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
        $$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
        $$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
        $$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
        $$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$



        enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        I can recommend Weissman for the Conway topograph. Domain topograph page 233, automorphisms page 240, range topograph page 244, the river is periodic page 286. I'm not seeing an explicit statement that the "automorphism" generator can be seen if we draw the "domain" and "range" topographs together, as I do. Implicit, certainly. Note: I had not noticed that Weissman writes the "domain" vectors as rows. I have always drawn them as columns. So, my automorphism matrix is two columns side by side.



        The attitude of Hurwitz (1907) is what they are trying to get across. A solution $(x,y)$ with $x,y > 0$ and $x^2 + xy - y^2 =1$ will be called "fundamental" if the backwards move
        $$ (x,y) mapsto (2x-y, -x+y) $$
        leads to one or both elements negative or zero: either
        $$ 2x-y leq 0 ; ; mbox{OR} ; ; -x+y leq 0 $$
        As this diagram shows, we never get $y geq 2 x$ on the hyperbola part within the first quadrant. We do get $y leq x,$ namely the solution $(1,1)$ is moved "backwards" to $(1,0)$ The simple result is that all positive solutions are found by beginning with $(1,1)$ and repeatedly moving forwards to
        $$ (x,y) mapsto (x+y, x+2y) $$
        This mapping is the generator of the (oriented) automorphism group of the quadratic form. The generator can be seen in my diagrams of the Conway Topograph method (columns in green in the later diagram).



        The matrix is
        $$
        A =
        left(
        begin{array}{rr}
        1&1\
        1&2
        end{array}
        right)
        $$

        Cayley-Hamilton tells us, from $A^2 - 3A + I + 0$ or $A^2 = 3 A - I; , ;$ that
        $$ x_{n+2} = 3 x_{n+1} - x_n, $$
        $$ y_{n+2} = 3 y_{n+1} - y_n. $$



        If you don't know Cayley-Hamilton, just solve:
        $$ x_{n+2} = x_{n+1} + y_{n+1} = (x_n+y_n) + (x_n + 2 y_n) ; , ; $$
        $$ x_{n+2} = 2 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
        $$ 3 x_{n+1} = 3 x_n + 3 y_n ; , ; $$
        $$ x_{n+2} - 3 x_{n+1} = - x_n ; . ; $$



        enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 29 '18 at 21:48

























        answered Dec 29 '18 at 18:40









        Will JagyWill Jagy

        103k5102200




        103k5102200






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3055765%2fhow-to-prove-that-fibonacci-number-pairs-are-the-only-solution-to-this-equation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bressuire

            Cabo Verde

            Gyllenstierna