← Latest papers
🔢 mathematics

On the Diophantine Inequality x22a3b<3max{a,b}\lvert x^{2} - 2^{a}\cdot 3^{b}\rvert < 3\max\{a,b\}

This paper determines and explicitly lists all 57 nonnegative integer solutions to the Diophantine inequality x22a3b<3max{a,b}|x^2 - 2^a \cdot 3^b| < 3\max\{a,b\} by transforming the problem into a rational approximation of 2\sqrt{2}, 3\sqrt{3}, or 6\sqrt{6}, applying Worley's theorem and pp-adic linear forms in logarithms to establish an upper bound, and finally reducing this bound using the LLL algorithm.

Original authors: Banu İrez Aydın, Herbert Batte, İlker İnam, Florian Luca, Zeynep Demirkol Özkaya

Published 2026-06-18
📖 4 min read🧠 Deep dive

Original authors: Banu İrez Aydın, Herbert Batte, İlker İnam, Florian Luca, Zeynep Demirkol Özkaya

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

Imagine you are trying to build a perfect square out of Lego bricks. In this mathematical story, the "bricks" are numbers made only by multiplying 2s and 3s together (like 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, etc.). Mathematicians call these "3-smooth" numbers.

The central question of this paper is: How close can a perfect square get to one of these "2-and-3" numbers without actually being equal to it?

Think of it like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, or vice versa. Sometimes they fit perfectly (like 4=224 = 2^2), but the authors are interested in the "near misses"—cases where the square is almost the same size as the 2-and-3 number, but just slightly off.

The Rule of the Game

The authors set up a specific rule for what counts as a "near miss." They say the difference between the square (x2x^2) and the 2-and-3 number (2a3b2^a \cdot 3^b) must be:

  1. At least 1 (so it's not a perfect match).
  2. Less than a specific limit that grows slowly based on the size of the exponents aa and bb.

It's like saying, "If you are trying to match a giant tower of 3s and 2s, your square peg can be off by a little bit, but not too much. The bigger the tower, the more wiggle room you get, but only a tiny bit more."

The Big Discovery

The team of mathematicians (Banu ˙Irez Aydın, Herbert Batte, ˙Ilker ˙Inam, Florian Luca, and Zeynep Demirkol ¨Ozkaya) wanted to know: How many of these "near misses" exist?

They found the answer: Exactly 57.

They didn't just guess; they found every single one and listed them in a table in the paper. If you want to know the specific numbers, the paper provides a complete list of the 57 solutions.

How They Solved It (The Detective Work)

Solving this wasn't as simple as just checking every number one by one, because the numbers get astronomically large very quickly. Instead, they used a multi-step detective strategy:

  1. The "Small Case" Sweep:
    First, they used a computer (SageMath) to check all possibilities where the numbers weren't too huge (up to a certain limit). This found 57 solutions immediately. But they had to prove there weren't any more hiding in the "giant number" territory.

  2. The "Approximation" Trick:
    For the giant numbers, they realized that if a square is very close to a 2-and-3 number, it means the square root of that number is being approximated very closely by a fraction. This is like trying to guess the value of 2\sqrt{2} or 3\sqrt{3} using simple fractions.
    They used a famous mathematical tool called Worley's Theorem (which is like a map for finding the best fraction guesses) to narrow down the search.

  3. The "p-adic" Magnifying Glass:
    They then used a powerful technique involving "p-adic valuations" (a way of measuring how many times a number can be divided by 2 or 3). This is like using a high-powered magnifying glass to see the hidden structure of the numbers. They applied a theorem by Bugeaud and Laurent to show that if a solution existed with huge numbers, the "gap" between the square and the 2-and-3 number would have to be impossibly small.

  4. The "LLL" Shrink Ray:
    The math initially suggested that solutions could exist with numbers as large as 70 million. That's too big to check by hand or even with a standard computer.
    So, they used an algorithm called LLL (named after its inventors). Think of LLL as a "shrink ray" for mathematical bounds. It took that massive "70 million" limit and compressed it down to a manageable size (under 2,200).

The Conclusion

Once they shrank the limit down, they realized that any "giant" solution they were worried about actually fell into the range they had already checked with their computer in step 1.

The Result: There are no giant, hidden solutions. The 57 solutions they found on the computer are the only ones that exist in the entire universe of numbers.

Summary

In short, the paper proves that while perfect squares and numbers made of 2s and 3s can get very close to each other, they only do so in 57 specific instances. The authors used a mix of computer power, ancient fraction theory, and modern "shrink ray" algorithms to prove that the list is complete and no other solutions exist.

Drowning in papers in your field?

Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.

Try Digest →