Sums of two squares
Named by 16 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Two squares, and a lattice
Whether a prime is the sum of two squares is decided entirely by its remainder on division by four. A fact about circles is settled by a fact about remainders, and neither statement contains any hint of the other.
The two supplements, and where the eight comes from
The main law relates two odd primes to each other and says nothing about −1 or about 2. Those two are settled separately, by their own counts, and the answers arrive modulo four and modulo eight — which is a clue about where the whole subject is really taking place.
Which primes a form takes
A prime is the sum of two squares exactly when it is 1 modulo 4. Change the form slightly, to x² + 27y², and no congruence on p decides it at all — which is where the elementary subject ends and its successor begins.
The identity that multiplies sums of squares
A sum of two squares times a sum of two squares is a sum of two squares, and the same is true of four and of eight. It is true of three of nothing: 3 and 5 are each a sum of three squares, 15 is not, and one small pair of numbers rules the case out forever.
Solutions that come in multiples of p
Count the solutions of x² + y² + z² = 0 in the field with five elements and there are 25; with seven, there are 49. Whenever a system of equations has more unknowns than its total degree, its number of solutions is a multiple of the characteristic — which forces a solution besides zero, and the reason is a sum over the field that vanishes because its non-zero elements form one cycle.
The two squares actually produced
Three proofs say a prime one more than a multiple of four is a sum of two squares, and not one of them hands over the squares. Running the Euclidean algorithm half-way does — and where to stop is the whole of the correctness argument.
Almost no number is one
Sums of two squares look common — a sixth of all numbers up to a million are one. The fraction is falling to nothing, at a rate so slow that no computation will ever make it obvious, and the constant in front of it has been computed to fifty places and identified with nothing.
Three triangular numbers, and no fewer
On 10 July 1796 Gauss wrote in his diary: ΕΥΡΗΚΑ — num = Δ + Δ + Δ. Every whole number is a sum of three triangular numbers. Two are not enough, and not by a little: the numbers that are sums of two thin out to a share of nought. Both facts are statements about squares in disguise, and one picture translates them.
The wait for the next sum of two squares
Sums of two squares thin out to a share of nought, and yet the gaps between them stay short. Take the largest square below any number; what is left over is small, and a small number is always close to a square. Two squarings in a row say the next sum of two squares is never more than about 2√2 times the fourth root of n away — a bound proved in 1947 that nobody has improved, sitting far above every gap anyone has found.
A fraction on the circle forces a whole point
If a number is a sum of two squares of fractions, it is a sum of two squares of whole numbers. Draw the circle, mark the rational point, join it to the nearest lattice point and follow the line to where it meets the circle again: the new point is rational too, with a smaller denominator. Repeat, and the denominators fall until they reach one. The argument needs no primes at all — only the fact that every point of the plane is within distance one of the lattice.
The orders a plane cannot have
Every counting condition allows a projective plane of order six, and there is none. The proof that rules it out looks at one matrix identity — each point on seven lines, each two points on one — and turns it, by way of Lagrange's four squares, into the statement that six would have to be a sum of two squares. Run on the planes that do exist, the same argument hands back their orders as sums of two squares; run on six, it asks for something no arithmetic can supply.
How many pairs can be one apart
Place n points in the plane and count the pairs exactly one unit apart. A square grid with its spacing as the unit gives two pairs per point; the same grid with the unit chosen as a length it realises in many directions — the square root of 5, of 25, of 65, of 325 — gives three, five, eight. Counting points on circles caps the total at a constant times n to the four-thirds. Between that cap and the grids the truth has not moved since 1984, and at every size anyone can draw, the two look alike.
Which way a prime's two squares point
A prime one more than a multiple of four is a sum of two squares in exactly one way, and the two squares make a point on a circle. Draw that point for every such prime and ask which way it faces. It faces every way equally — the angles spread evenly over the sector, which Hecke proved by giving each angle a remainder and copying Dirichlet. Measured over seventy-four thousand primes, they are even more evenly spread than random angles would be.
![Primes in five thousand thin sectors. 581517 primes in (2e7, 4e7] in 4967 sectors; mean 117.08, variance ratio 0.874, 2 empty.](/f/primes-in-five-thousand-thin-sectors-90657fc7.svg)
Sectors that shrink with the primes
Hecke proved that the angles of the primes a² + b² are evenly spread, so every fixed sector eventually gets its share. Let the sector shrink as the primes grow, to width X^(−α), and the question is open beyond small α. Measured on the 581,517 such primes between twenty and forty million, wide shrinking sectors fluctuate far less than chance and thin ones as much as chance — and the thin sectors that go empty are not scattered: they gather beside the directions of small rational slope, most of all slopes like 1/3 and 1/1 whose two terms are both odd.
The quartics whose roots stay paired
A quartic can have five different Galois groups, and in a box of nearly fourteen million quartics they do not come in order of size. The eight-element group D₄ outnumbers the twelve-element A₄ thirty-five to one. Every even quartic has a smaller group than S₄, and moving one step off that plane restores the full group almost everywhere.
A walk on Gaussian primes stopped by a moat
Start at 1 + i and step from Gaussian prime to Gaussian prime, never more than 2 at a time: the walk reaches 720 primes and stops at 17 + 42i, surrounded by a moat. Allow steps of √10 and it reaches a quarter of a million primes before stopping at distance 1,024; steps of 4 carry it to 4,313. Whether some fixed step lets a walker reach infinity is a question Basil Gordon asked in 1962, and it is open.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
PrimesGaussian integersLatticeModular arithmeticNormQuadratic formCounting two waysDensityDescentExhaustive searchUnique factorisationAsymptotic