For any mathbros out there, what are some interesting properties of Pythagorean triples? I'm looking for some unique results for a proof I'm working on. Also, number theory thread.
>>7934767
if you take a triangle that has sides the lengths of the numbers in any given pythagorean triple, then that triangle is a right triangle.
Did I blow your mind yet.
>>7934767
stop posting homework threads
I was looking for results more along the line of primative Pythagorean triples...
There may be some comments in the project Euler thread for problem 75 that are of interest to you.
C=(a^2+b^2)^1/2
If you take the length of the hypotenuse times it by itself it will be equal the sums of both legs times themselves
>>7934767
"for a proof I'm working on" actually means "for a proof I need to do for a grade" and we all know it.
The unit circle can be perfectly drawn in a triangle with the side lengths of the smallest Pythagorean triple.
>>7935290
Top kek
>>7934970
It's amazing how much her looks have degraded in the last few years.
>>7934767
1) I am not OP.
2) I find it rather telling that OP's thing has been so quickly shat on by others, when (so far) his thing has been phrased as a nice and perfectly good general question, and not a specific homework-whine. When people want others to do their homework for them, they get right to the point and don't dance around the issue. They also tend to mangle terminology when they do so.
3) >>7935290 I am very sorry for you that the idea of doing math for one's self, for pleasure, seems alien and impossible to you.
4) It is nice that OP's picture contains Euclid's formula, since this suggests some actual understanding of the subject that he wants to talk about.
5) OP, here is an interesting property of "Almost-Isosceles" primitive Pythagorean triangles, whose legs differe by one (3,4,5), (20,21,29), etc. They are in a one-to-one correspondence with the /square triangular numbers/. For more on this, search Nyblom in connection with these keywords, and also consult the below.
6) OP, consider reading Sierpinski's /Pythagorean Triangles/. You can get it for like 10bux if you want a hard copy, as I did. It is all at once an extremely simple work, a nice little piece of mathematics, and also does not hold your hand about how the proofs work, which forces you to actually think and fill in the gaps in what Sierpinski says. So it is not quite so simple as I originally said, since Sierpinski uses a properly mathematical, albeit elementary, exposition.
Since number theory thread...
How do we get number bigger than Aleph Naught?
Do we just do Aleph Naught +1 x amount of times? Are there bigger numbers than that?
