On the Diophantine equation $\sum_{j=1}^kjF_j^p=F_n^q$
G\"okhan Soydan, L\'aszl\'o N\'emeth, L\'aszl\'o Szalay

TL;DR
This paper investigates a Fibonacci-based Diophantine equation involving sums of Fibonacci powers, providing complete solutions for certain exponents and conjecturing only trivial solutions exist beyond specific known cases.
Contribution
The paper offers a complete solution for the equation when exponents are 1 or 2, and conjectures that only trivial solutions exist for other cases based on computational evidence.
Findings
Complete solutions for exponents 1 and 2.
Conjecture that only trivial solutions exist beyond specific known cases.
Computational search supports the conjecture for p,q,k ≤ 100.
Abstract
Let denote the term of the Fibonacci sequence. In this paper, we investigate the Diophantine equation in the positive integers and , where and are given positive integers. A complete solution is given if the exponents are included in the set . Based on the specific cases we could solve, and a computer search with we conjecture that beside the trivial solutions only , , and satisfy the title equation.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
On the Diophantine equation
Gökhan Soydan111Department of Mathematics, Uludağ University, Görükle Kampüs, 16059 Bursa, Turkey. [email protected], László Németh222University of Sopron, Institute of Mathematics, H-9400, Sopron, Bajcsy-Zs. utca 4., Hungary. [email protected], László Szalay333University of Sopron, Institute of Mathematics, H-9400, Sopron, Bajcsy-Zs. utca 4., Hungary; J. Selye University, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, 94501, Komárno, Bratislavska cesta 3322, Slovakia. [email protected]
Abstract
Let denote the term of the Fibonacci sequence. In this paper, we investigate the Diophantine equation in the positive integers and , where and are given positive integers. A complete solution is given if the exponents are included in the set . Based on the specific cases we could solve, and a computer search with we conjecture that beside the trivial solutions only , , and satisfy the title equation.
*Key Words: Fibonacci sequence, Diophantine equation.
AMS Classification: 11B39, 11D45.*
1 Introduction
As usual, let and denote the sequences of Fibonacci and Lucas numbers, respectively, given by the initial values , and by the recurrence relations
[TABLE]
respectively. Putting and for the two roots of the common characteristic equation of the two sequences, the formulae
[TABLE]
hold for all . These numbers are well-known for possessing amazing and wonderful properties (consult, for instance, [13] and [5] together with their very rich annotated bibliography for history and additional references). Observing
[TABLE]
the question arises naturally: is there any rule for ? We study this question more generally, according to the title equation.
Diophantine equations among the terms of Fibonacci numbers have a very extensive literature. Here we quote a few results that partially motivated us.
By the defining equality (1) of the Fibonacci numbers and the identity (Lemma 1.8), we see that () is a Fibonacci number for . For larger Marques and Togbé [8] proved in 2010 that if is a Fibonacci number for all sufficiently large then or . Next year Luca and Oyono [7] completed the solution of the question by showing that apart from there is no solution to the equation .
Let be integers with and . Suppose that there exists such that and , for all . Chaves, Marques and Togbé [4], showed that if either is even or is not a positive power of , then the sum
[TABLE]
does not belong to the Fibonacci sequence for all sufficiently large .
A balancing problem having similar flavor has been considered by Behera et al. [3]. They studied the equation
[TABLE]
and solved it for the cases , and for by showing the non-existence of any solution. Further the authors conjectured that only the quadruple of positive integers satisfies (2). The conjecture was completely justified by Alvarado et al. [1]. Note that if we obtain the problem of sequence balancing numbers handled by Panda [9].
Recalling the formulae and , it is obvious that the problems
[TABLE]
are rather simple. Indeed, the equations above lead to the lightsome ones
[TABLE]
However the equation might be taken an interest if .
The last motivation of our examination was the Diophantine equation
[TABLE]
to determine the values of for which it has finitely or infinitely many positive integer solutions (see Wulczyn [14], and for details, see also [2]). For variations of the equation (3), we refer the reader to [12].
In this paper, we investigate the Diophantine equation
[TABLE]
in the positive integers and , where and are fixed positive integers. We consider
[TABLE]
as trivial solutions to (4). We have the following conjecture based upon the specific cases we could solve, and a computer search with .
Conjecture 1**.**
The non-trivial solutions to (4) are only
[TABLE]
This work handles the particular cases (hence the first two solutions above will be obtained), the precise results proved are described as follow.
Theorem 1**.**
If
[TABLE]
then , among them only the last one is non-trivial solution.
Theorem 2**.**
The Diophantine equation
[TABLE]
possesses only the trivial solutions .
Theorem 3**.**
If
[TABLE]
then , among them only the last one is non-trivial solution.
Theorem 4**.**
The Diophantine equation
[TABLE]
possesses only the trivial solutions .
2 Lemmata
In this section, we present the lemmata that are needed in the proofs of the theorems. The first lemma is a collection of a few well-known results, we state them without proof, and in the proof of the theorems sometimes we do not refer to them.
Lemma 1**.**
Let and be arbitrary integers.
. 2. 2.
, where if is even, and otherwise. 3. 3.
For we have , further (extension of the sequences for negative subscripts). 4. 4.
. 5. 5.
* or or .* 6. 6.
* if and only if .* 7. 7.
* (d’ Ocagne’s identity).* 8. 8.
. 9. 9.
. 10. 10.
.
Lemma 2**.**
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Proof.
See, for instance, [6] and [10]. ∎
Lemma 3**.**
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Proof.
See Lemma 3 in [11]. ∎
Lemma 4**.**
If is even, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since , and , it is sufficient to show that
[TABLE]
But
[TABLE]
follows from the definition of the Fibonacci numbers, d’ Ocagne’s identity (Lemma 1.7), and the parity of . ∎
Lemma 5**.**
If is odd, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Similarly to the proof of the previous lemma, the statement is equivalent to
[TABLE]
And it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 6**.**
Let be a positive integer, and for put
[TABLE]
where is the logarithm in base . Then for all integers , the two inequalities
[TABLE]
hold.
Proof.
This is a part of Lemma 5 in [6]. ∎
In order to make the application of Lemma 6 more convenient, we shall suppose that . Then we have
Corollary 5**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
and equality holds if and only if , and , respectively.
Now, we are ready to justify the theorems.
3 Proofs
Proof of Theorem 1.
Verifying the cases by hand we found the solutions listed in Theorem 1. Put , and suppose that . Consequently, and . If equation (5) holds, then , and then by Lemma 1.1 we conclude
[TABLE]
In the sequel, we study the sequence modulo if is fixed. Note that we indicate a suitable value congruent to modulo , not always the smallest non-negative remainders. The period can be deduced from the range
[TABLE]
of length if is even, since then, by Lemma 1.7 we have and then
[TABLE]
In case of odd we have , therefore the length of the period is coming from
[TABLE]
Based on the length of the period we distinguish two cases.
Case I: is even. Either or modulo holds for some . Hence
[TABLE]
We will show that none of them is congruent to 0 modulo . In the first branch
[TABLE]
further if , then
[TABLE]
Thus , hence (9) does not hold. Assume now, that . Then, together with the definition of the Fibonacci sequence we have
[TABLE]
But contradicts to (9).
Choosing the second branch of (10), suppose that is congruent to 0 modulo . Then
[TABLE]
Subsequently, by Lemma 4, it leads to
[TABLE]
Since , () it follows that , a contradiction.
Case II: is odd. Now , and either or holds for some . Hence
[TABLE]
First, obviously, if , then
[TABLE]
so dividing by , the result is not an integer. If , then the treatment of the “” case coincides the treatment when was even. The “” case leads to , a contradiction.
Assume now that . Thus . Multiplying both sides by , by Lemma 5 it gives
[TABLE]
First let , which leads immediately a contradiction via . If , then follows, a contradiction again. The proof of Theorem 1 is complete.
Proof of Theorem 2.
For the range we checked (6) by hand. From now we assume . Based on Lemma 1.2, we must distinguish two cases.
Case I: is even. Consider the equation
[TABLE]
Trivially, . Put .
If , then by Lemma 1.6. Consequently,
[TABLE]
is integer. But and are coprime, hence , and it results , a contradiction.
Examine the possibility . Put . Now leads to
[TABLE]
This is an equality of integers, which together with and (see Lemma 1.5) shows that is integer. Thus , a contradiction.
Finally, we have . Since , then from the equation
[TABLE]
we conclude
[TABLE]
Subsequently, and . Thus , and then holds since . Applying Corollary 5, we obtain
[TABLE]
which implies .
Case II: is odd. In this part, we follow the idea of the previous case. Recall that . Now
[TABLE]
where or depending on the parity of (see Lemma 3). Clearly, or 4. Thus or 3, respectively.
Put and . Obviously, divides . Hence or 2 or 4, and then or 3. Thus . The terms of both the left and right sides of
[TABLE]
are integers, and
[TABLE]
Combining them, follows, and then . The remaining part of the proof consists of three cases.
Suppose first that , i.e. . Observe, that and are even, and . Thus , which does not exceed . Then
[TABLE]
Simplifying by we conclude
[TABLE]
and we arrived at a contradiction since . Note that the same machinery works when , i.e. .
If none of the two conditions above holds, we can assume and . Indeed, is odd, so the largest non-trivial divisor of is at most . The application of Corollary 5 gives
[TABLE]
and then .
The proof of the theorem is complete.
Proof of Theorem 3. The proof partially follows the proof of Theorem 1. The small cases of (7) can be verified by hand. Suppose . Similarly to (9), we have
[TABLE]
Now we study the sequence modulo , and we again indicate the most suitable values by modulo , not always the smallest non-negative remainders. Lemma 1.10, together with Lemma 1.3 implies
[TABLE]
where . Hence the period having length can be given by
[TABLE]
Let us distinguish two cases according to the parity of .
Case I: is even. Put . Again by Lemma 1.10, together with and admits . It reduces the possibilities to .
If , then
[TABLE]
hold since .
Suppose now that . Repeating the previous idea we find . Consequently, might be fulfilled. Thus . Recalling we equivalently obtain
[TABLE]
Both sides have decomposition described in Lemma 3 and Lemma 2, respectively, providing
[TABLE]
if is odd or even, respectively. Firstly, , and then holds only for small values. Secondly, contradicts to .
Case II: is odd. Now we have . Indeed, Lemma 1.8 admits
[TABLE]
and then Lemma 3 justifies the statement. It makes possible to split the proof into a few parts.
If , then . Thus is the only one chance to fulfill (11). Then apply Lemma 6 with for to reach a contradiction.
If , then
[TABLE]
holds since .
Finally, if , then
[TABLE]
where . Thus we need to check the equation , since . When holds then . Lastly, leads to , and then to . Obviously, it gives . Thus , a contradiction.
Proof of Theorem 4. The statement for (8) is obviously true if . So we may assume . Let . The formula of the summation, together with Corollary 5 implies
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
subsequently
[TABLE]
that is . Putting together the two estimates it gives
[TABLE]
Case I: is even. Clearly, holds. By Lemma 1.8, we conclude
[TABLE]
and equivalently
[TABLE]
Thus admits . The periodicity of modulo guarantees, together with the bounds on that
[TABLE]
holds for some . Consequently, , a contradiction.
Case II: is odd. Again holds. Lemma 2 and Lemma 1.8 imply
[TABLE]
where according to the modular property of . It leads to
[TABLE]
Thus .
By (12) it is obvious that
[TABLE]
which exclude . Thus since is odd, subsequently . On the other hand
[TABLE]
which implies .
Thus, , together with the previous arguments entails , but it leads to a contradiction since , and the application of Corollary 5 on returns with .
Acknowledgments. This paper was partially written when the third author visited the Department of Mathematics of Uludağ University in Bursa. He would like to thank the Turkish colleagues of the department for the kind hospitality. The first author was supported by the Research Fund of Uludağ University under project numbers: 2015/23, 2016/9.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. D. Alvarado, A. Dujella, F. Luca, On a conjecture regarding balancing with powers of Fibonacci numbers , Integers, 12 (2012), 1127–1158.
- 2[2] T. Andreescu and D. Andrica, Quadratic Diophantine equations , Springer-New York, (2015), 124–126.
- 3[3] A. Behera, K. Liptai, G. K. Panda, L. Szalay, Balancing with Fibonacci powers , Fibonacci Q., 49 (2011), 28–33.
- 4[4] A. P. Chaves, D. Marques, A. Togbé, On the sum of powers of terms of a linear recurrence sequence , Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. New Series, 43 (2012), 397–406.
- 5[5] T. Koshy, Fibonacci and Lucas Numbers with Applications , John Wiley and Sons., 2011.
- 6[6] F. Luca and L. Szalay, Fibonacci Diophantine triples , Glas. Mat. Ser. III, 43 (63) (2008), 253–264.
- 7[7] F. Luca and R. Oyono, An exponential Diophantine equation related to powers of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers , Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A, 87 (2011), 45–50.
- 8[8] D. Marques and A. Togbé, On the sum of powers of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers , Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A, 86 (2010), 174–176.
