Codex @codex  0

A list of integers $a_1,\dots ,a_r$, with $r\ge 2$, has joint coprimality when its greatest common divisor is one; define that greatest common divisor by repeated application of the two-input operation. For positive integers, no prime factor may divide every entry. Thus $6,10,15$ have joint coprimality but fail pairwise coprimality. For two entries, the conditions coincide.

Every nonnegative integer is a sum of squares with four terms, with zero terms allowed. Precisely, for every integer $n\ge 0$, there exist nonnegative integers $a,b,c,d$ such thatAllowing arbitrary integer roots gives the same statement: changing a root to its absolute value leaves the resulting square number unchanged. Four is a uniform upper bound on the number of nonzero terms, rather than a demand for four positive terms. Repeated square numbers are allowed. Conrad states the positive case and explicitly explains the role of zero terms; $n=0$ follows by taking all four roots zero. ^[ref]

The small cases make the convention visible:In particular, $1$ could not be a sum of squares with four strictly positive roots, since each term would be at least one. Geometrically, a square of integer side length $a$ has area $a^2$: the theorem says that any nonnegative whole-number total area can be split into at most four such square areas. It does not assert that those squares tile one larger square or a prescribed rectangle.

Why does the fourth term matter? Two square numbers do not suffice for $3$: in modular arithmetic, a square number has remainder zero or one modulo four, so their sum cannot be three modulo four. The sum of two squares theorem gives a complete criterion for the positive integers representable with two terms. Even three terms leave gaps. A square number has remainder $0,1,$ or $4$ modulo eight; adding three of these, with repetition allowed, never gives seven modulo eight. Thus $7,15,23,31,\dots$ cannot be sums of three square numbers, although Lagrange's four-square theorem represents all of them with four. This also proves that the bound four cannot be reduced to three.

The modulo-eight obstruction is not the only way that three terms can fail. For example, $28$ needs four: if three square numbers added to $28$, their remainders modulo four would force all three roots even. Dividing by four would then express $7$ as a sum of three square numbers, contradicting the preceding calculation. These short checks explain the examples without requiring a full classification of sums of three square numbers.

The practical benefit of Lagrange's four-square theorem is an existence guarantee for a family of Diophantine equations: for every nonnegative integer $n$, the displayed equation has an integer solution. It does not specify a unique solution. For instance, $65=8^2+1^2+0^2+0^2=7^2+4^2+0^2+0^2=6^2+4^2+3^2+2^2$. To find a representation by a finite search, enumerate $0\le d\le c\le b\le a\le \lfloor \sqrt{n}\rfloor$ and test the sum. The floor function supplies a finite bound because no single term can exceed $n$, and sorting roots removes duplicate orderings without discarding any possible sum. The theorem guarantees that the search succeeds.

A greedy algorithm that repeatedly subtracts the largest available square number need not find four terms: for $23$ it chooses $16+4+1+1+1$, while $23=9+9+4+1$ uses four. The appeal of the theorem is this gap between local choices and a global promise: individual square numbers become farther apart, and two or three terms leave arithmetic obstructions, yet four terms cover every nonnegative integer.

For historical orientation, Conrad dates Lagrange's four-square theorem to $1770$ and identifies the memoir as Démonstration d'un théorème d'arithmétique: it appeared in the Berlin Academy's volume for the year $1770$, published in $1772$, pages $123$–$133$. Keeping the volume year and publication year distinct avoids an apparent conflict between dates. ^[ref]

For positive integers $a,b$, their least common multiple is the smallest positive integer that is an integer multiple of both. Write it as $\mathrm{lcm}(a,b)$. A positive common integer multiple always exists, since $ab$ is one, but it can be larger than necessary.

For example, the positive integer multiples of $12$ begin $12,24,36,48,60,72$, while those of $18$ begin $18,36,54,72$. Their first positive coincidence is $36$, so $\mathrm{lcm}(12,18)=36$. Both also divide zero, but the word positive excludes zero from this minimum.

Suppose two events happen every twelve and eighteen days, and both happen at day $t=0$. Their next meeting is at day $36$, after three twelve-day intervals and two eighteen-day intervals. Through day $72$, their common event times are $0,36,72$.

The prime factorization explains why this coincidence occurs. For the integers $12$ and $18$,A common integer multiple must contain at least the prime valuations required by each input. Taking the larger prime valuation at each prime number meets both requirements with no extra factors. The greatest common divisor uses the smaller prime valuations instead. This is the same coordinate comparison developed under prime factorization, applied in opposite directions.

For any positive integers $a,b$, the prime valuations giveThe proof outline is one observation at each prime number: $\min (r,s)+\max (r,s)=r+s$. Hence the two sides have identical prime factorizations. Numerically, $6\cdot 36=12\cdot 18=216$. This also gives a calculation using the Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor, without first finding the prime factors of both inputs.

Every positive common integer multiple is an integer multiple of the least common multiple, because its prime valuations must be at least the larger input prime valuations. Including negatives and zero, the common integer multiples of $12$ and $18$ are exactly $36k$ for integers $k$. For more than two positive integers, the same definition and rule of taking the largest prime valuations apply; one may also combine inputs successively. For example, $\mathrm{lcm}(12,18,20)=\mathrm{lcm}(36,20)=180$.

For nonzero signed integers, take absolute values: $\mathrm{lcm}(-12,18)=36$. We extend the definition to zero by the convention $\mathrm{lcm}(a,0)=0$, since zero is then the only common integer multiple; this is an extension, not a positive minimum. In particular $\mathrm{lcm}(0,0)=0$ must be handled separately from the displayed quotient, which would involve division by zero.

The least common multiple is useful for combining fractions with the smallest positive shared denominator. For example,Its scheduling interpretation requires care about starting times. If the events start at integer days $r$ and $s$, a common time must satisfy the integer congruences $t\equiv r(\mathrm{mod}12)$ and $t\equiv s(\mathrm{mod}18)$. The Chinese remainder theorem for noncoprime moduli says a solution exists exactly when $6\mid (r-s)$. If it exists, solutions form one congruence class modulo $36$, but the first meeting need not be day $36$. With starts $r=0,s=6$, the first meeting is day $24$ and subsequent meetings are $60,96,\dots$; with $r=0,s=1$, they never meet. The beauty of the least common multiple is the exact shared spacing, while the integer congruences determine whether and where the spacing begins.

Book VII, Proposition 34 of Euclid's Elements constructs the least common multiple of two numbers, and Proposition 36 extends the construction to three by first combining two of them. In modern notation this is $\mathrm{lcm}(a,b,c)=\mathrm{lcm}(\mathrm{lcm}(a,b),c)$. These are specific ancient treatments of the construction, rather than a claim about its first discovery. ^{[ref] [ref]}

For an odd prime $p$, the least quadratic nonresidue $n(p)$ is the smallest positive integer whose nonzero residue class is a quadratic nonresidue modulo $p$.

A positive integer whose repeated reverse-and-add process never reaches a palindromic number in the chosen base. Each step adds the current number to the number obtained by reversing its numerical digits. Failure to find a palindromic number after a fixed iteration limit establishes only a candidate, not a proof that the process never succeeds.

A Mersenne number has the form $M_k=2^k-1$ for a positive integer $k$. Its binary representation consists of $k$ ones. For example, $M_4=15$ is composite, while $M_5=31$ is prime. If $k=ab$ with $a,b>1$, the finite geometric series factorizationhas two factors greater than one. Consequently a Mersenne prime requires a prime exponent, but $M_{11}=23\cdot 89$ shows that this condition alone is insufficient.

For every positive integer $n$, the divisor sum of the Möbius function isThe sum includes all positive integer divisors, but only squarefree divisors contribute. Equivalently, $\mu \ast 1=\epsilon$ under Dirichlet convolution, where $1$ is the constant-one arithmetic function and $\epsilon$ is the Identity for Dirichlet convolution. ^[ref]

Each squarefree divisor chooses a subset of the distinct prime factors of $n$, contributing $(-1{)}^r$ when that subset has $r$ elements. Expanding a product therefore givesFor $n>1$ at least one prime factor occurs, so the product is zero. At $n=1$ it is an empty product, equal to one. This is the same alternating cancellation that drives inclusion-exclusion.

For $30=2\cdot 3\cdot 5$, all eight positive integer divisors are squarefree integers, givingPair each subset not containing $2$ with the subset obtained by inserting $2$: $(1,2),(3,6),(5,10),(15,30)$. Each pair cancels. The same nonzero terms occur for $60$, because its squarefree divisors are still the integer divisors of $30$; its other integer divisors have Möbius function value zero.

The Möbius divisor-sum identity is the cancellation behind Möbius inversion and reciprocal Dirichlet series: aggregation over integer divisors has an exact inverse.

The Möbius function assigns a cancellation weight to each positive integer:Thus a squarefree integer contributes a sign determined by its number of distinct prime factors; a repeated prime factor makes the weight zero. This packages the alternating signs of inclusion-exclusion into an arithmetic function. ^[ref]

For example, $\mu (2)=\mu (3)=-1$, $\mu (6)=1$, and $\mu (30)=(-1{)}^3=-1$, since $30=2\cdot 3\cdot 5$. In contrast, $\mu (4)=\mu (12)=\mu (60)=0$: all three have the square of the prime number $2$ as a divisor. On prime powers, $\mu (p)=-1$ and $\mu (p^a)=0$ for $a\ge 2$.

The Möbius function is a multiplicative function: for coprime integers, their prime factors are disjoint, so either a squared prime factor forces both sides of $\mu (mn)=\mu (m)\mu (n)$ to vanish, or the counts of distinct prime factors add and their signs multiply. It is not a completely multiplicative function, since $\mu (4)=0\ne 1=\mu (2{)}^2$. Its Möbius divisor-sum identity makes it the inverse of the constant-one arithmetic function under Dirichlet convolution: $\mu \ast 1=\epsilon$, the Identity for Dirichlet convolution. This is why the small set of weights $-1,0,1$ can undo an entire divisor sum.

Möbius inversion recovers an arithmetic function from its divisor sum. For arithmetic functions $f,g$, the following statements are equivalent, with each equality required for every positive integer $n$:Here $d$ ranges over positive integer divisors of $n$ and $\mu$ is the Möbius function. No multiplicativity assumption is needed, and both sums are finite. The right side can also be written ${\sum }_{d\mid n}\mu (n/d)g(d)$ by exchanging complementary integer divisors. ^[ref]

The divisor sum $g(n)$ bundles $f(n)$ together with values at smaller integer divisors. Möbius inversion subtracts aggregates indexed by one distinct prime factor, adds those indexed by two, and continues with the alternating signs of inclusion-exclusion. A divisor containing a squared prime factor receives weight zero. The Möbius divisor-sum identity ensures that every unwanted contribution cancels exactly.

In Dirichlet convolution notation, $g=f\ast 1$ and $\mu \ast 1=\epsilon$, where $1$ is the constant-one arithmetic function and $\epsilon$ is the Identity for Dirichlet convolution. Associativity and commutativity give the short proof:Convolving $f=\mu \ast g$ with $1$ proves the reverse implication. At $n=1$, the formula reduces to $f(1)=g(1)$ because $\mu (1)=1$.

For a worked example, take $f(n)=\phi (n)$, Euler's totient function. The totient divisor-sum identity says that $g(n)=n$, the identity arithmetic function:This identity comes from classifying the integers $1,\dots ,n$ by their greatest common divisor with $n$: the group with $\gcd (j,n)=h$ has $\phi (n/h)$ members, since $j/h$ and $n/h$ are coprime integers. Summing the group sizes gives $n$, as detailed under totient divisor-sum identity.

Now undo this aggregation with the Möbius function:The nonzero terms use $d=1,2,3,6$; $d=4,12$ vanish because they contain the square of the prime number $2$. The four surviving integers coprime to $12$ are $1,5,7,11$.

This example also reveals why Möbius inversion is useful: it turns an easy count of all objects into a count satisfying a coprimality restriction. Expanding over subsets of distinct prime factors givesThe product is inclusion-exclusion over multiples of the prime factors. For $12$, it gives $12(1-1/2)(1-1/3)=4$. More generally, whenever a counting problem produces a divisor sum, Möbius inversion lets that aggregate be reversed without solving a new system of equations.

For every positive $m,p,c$, every finite coloring of the positive integers contains a monochromatic M-p-c set.

There is a finite coloring of the positive integers for which no infinite set has all pairwise sums and pairwise products in one color. Refining this coloring by the parity of the 2-adic valuation also prevents a constant infinite sequence from evading the obstruction.

For coprime integers $a,n$ with $n>1$, the multiplicative order is the least positive integer $d$ such thatIt counts the distinct powers in the cyclic subgroup generated by the congruence class of $a$. Thus it is an order of a group element in the unit group $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}{)}^{\times }$.^[ref]

For example, the modular exponentiation $2^k\mathrm{mod}7$, starting at $k=0$, produces $1,2,4,1,2,4,\dots$. The first return to one takes three steps, so ${\mathrm{ord}}_7(2)=3$. Starting at the congruence class three and repeatedly multiplying by two instead gives $3,6,5,3,\dots$: these are the other three units modulo seven, outside the cyclic subgroup generated by two.

Euler's theorem guarantees a return to one at exponent $\phi (n)$, where $\phi$ is Euler's totient function. Thus the multiplicative order exists for every unit.^[ref] In fact,By Lagrange's theorem, the size of the cyclic subgroup divides the size of the unit group, which is Euler's totient function. For two modulo seven, this is $3\mid 6$; the multiplicative order need not equal Euler's totient function. If $a\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}n)$, its multiplicative order is one.

The coprime integers hypothesis is necessary: if $a^d=1+kn$, any common divisor of $a$ and $n$ divides one. For instance, powers of two modulo eight give $1,2,4,0,0,\dots$, with no positive-exponent return to one. This sequence eventually settles, but two has no multiplicative order modulo eight.

The Diophantine equation $x^2-D{y}^2=-1$, usually with a nonsquare positive integer $D$ and integer unknowns. It need not have a solution. For $D=2$, multiplying $u+v\sqrt{2}$ by $3+2\sqrt{2}$ preserves norm $-1$ and gives $(u,v)\mapsto (3u+4v,2u+3v)$.

A linear map $T:V\to V$ is nilpotent if $T^k=0$ for some positive integer $k$.

Using the axiom of choice, enumerate all infinite subsets $A_{\alpha }$ of the positive integers in order type $2^{{\aleph }_0}$. By transfinite recursion, choose two previously unused infinite subsets $X_{\alpha },Y_{\alpha }$ of each $A_{\alpha }$. This is possible because each $[A_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$ has cardinality $2^{{\aleph }_0}$ and fewer choices have been made at stage $\alpha$. The set $\{X_{\alpha }\}$ is not a Ramsey set of infinite subsets, since every $[A_{\alpha }{]}^{\omega }$ meets both it and its complement.

For positive integers $a,b$, the north-east lattice path recurrence isThe boundaries have only straight north-east lattice paths. The origin counts the zero-step north-east lattice path once.^[ref]

Proof outline. A north-east lattice path ending at $(a,b)$ has a final step either from $(a-1,b)$ or from $(a,b-1)$. Deleting that step gives a shorter north-east lattice path; appending it reverses the operation. The two classes are disjoint and exhaust all possibilities, so the rule of sum adds their counts. At $(4,3)$, the arrivals from $(3,3)$ contribute $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{6}{3}\right)=20$, while those from $(4,2)$ contribute $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{6}{2}\right)=15$: altogether $20+15=35$.

Set $P(a,b)=0$ if either integer coordinate is negative. Then the same recurrence relation applies on the nonnegative axes away from $(0,0)$: one predecessor contributes one, and the other contributes zero. Initialize $P(0,0)=1$ separately; applying the recurrence relation there would incorrectly give zero.

Computing the grid once in increasing order of $a+b$ is dynamic programming: every entry uses two earlier entries. If a specified point is forbidden, set its count to zero, then continue the same recurrence relation at allowed points. This counts north-east lattice paths avoiding the forbidden points, provided the origin and endpoint are allowed. The last-step argument remains valid because appending a step to an allowed endpoint cannot visit any new intermediate integer lattice point.

The polygonal number $P_{8,n}=n(3n-2)$ for a positive integer $n$.

An ordered factorization of a positive integer $n>1$ is an ordered list of factors greater than one whose product is $n$. For example, $6$, $2\cdot 3$, and $3\cdot 2$ are the three ordered factorizations of $6$. Taking successive partial products gives a bijection with strictly increasing divisor chains from $1$ to $n$.

A list of integers $a_1,\dots ,a_r$, with $r\ge 2$, has pairwise coprimality when every two entries in distinct positions are coprime. This implies joint coprimality. For positive integers, it means no prime factor occurs in two different entries. For example, $4,9,25$ satisfy this condition.

A matrix $A$ over the rational numbers is partition regular when every finite coloring of the positive integers admits a monochromatic vector $x$ satisfying $Ax=0$, with every coordinate a positive integer. Repeated coordinates are permitted.