In which we find a connection between continued fractions and Pell‘s equation.
- Theorem 63: Let be a natural number. If and are integers with , then . So in some sense continued fractions give the best rational approximations. We proved this by writing and for some integers and and arguing from there.
- Corollary 64: If is an integer and is a natural number with , then is a convergent for . We picked such that , used Theorem 63 to show that , and noted that is an integer.
- Definition of Pell’s equation .
- Corollary 65: Let be a natural number that is not a square. If and are positive integers satisfying , then is a convergent for . This was straightforward with the help of Corollary 64; we showed that .
- Definition of a quadratic irrational.
- Definition of an eventually periodic continued fraction.
- Theorem 66 (Lagrange): A real number is a quadratic irrational if and only if its continued fraction is eventually periodic. We omitted the proof (but saw a sketch of the ideas).
- Theorem 67: Let be a natural number that is not a square. Then the continued fraction of is of the form . We omitted the proof.
- Proposition 68: Let be a natural number that is not a square. There are integers and such that . We looked at the end of a period in the continued fraction for , and made the most of the fact that (Lemma 59).
Understanding today’s lecture
It would be good to explore the continued fractions of for some explicit values of ; there’s a question on Examples Sheet 3 to encourage you to do this.
You could try to find (integer) solutions to the equation . We’ll discuss this example in the next lecture.
Davenport (The Higher Arithmetic), Baker (A concise introduction to the theory of numbers) and Hardy and Wright (An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers) all cover this material on continued fractions and Pell’s equation (including the proofs that we omitted).
There’s also some nice material related to this on NRICH, based on Conway’s tangles. There’s an article by Mike Pearson, which starts by mentioning two NRICH problems; I encourage you to try those problems before reading Mike’s article.
The MacTutor biography of Pell (link above) gives more information about ‘his’ equation. MacTutor summarises his biography by “John Pell was an English mathematician best known for Pell’s equation which in fact he had little to do with”. Brilliant.
Preparation for Lecture 21
Next time we’ll move on to thinking about primality testing. That is, given a large number we wish to check (rapidly!) whether it is prime. In this course so far we’ve seen a few results of the form “If is prime, then …”, for example Fermat’s Little Theorem and Euler’s criterion. It would be helpful to go back to those two results in particular, to think about whether the result could hold if is not prime. Does either result give us a useful primality test?