Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research uncovers necessary conditions for rational distance points in the unit square, suggesting further implications for the problem.
For the unit square with vertices $A=(0,0)$, $B=(1,0)$, $C=(0,1)$, $D=(1,1)$, let S denote the set of points (x, y) ∈ Q² ∩ (0, 1)² at simultaneously rational distance from all four vertices. Whether S is empty is open (Guy, Unsolved Problems in Number Theory, Problem D19, attributed to Pillai). We prove the following unconditional necessary conditions on any (x, y) ∈ S: writing the associated Pell parameters as λ = a/b and $t = c/d$ in lowest terms, the lowest-terms numerators a and c have opposite parities; t ∉ \λ - 2,\ -λ,\ -(λ - 2)/(λ - 1),\ -λ/(λ - 1)\; at least one of $x - y$ or $x + y - 1$ has lowest-terms denominator divisible by $12$. We further reformulate the residual obstruction as a $4$-tuple of rational Pythagorean slopes αᵢ ∈ S =\α ∈ Q>0 : 1 + α² ∈ Q× 2\ satisfying α₁ α₂ = α₃α₄ = α₁ + α₃ - 1, equivalently four rational X-coordinates on the negative Pell conic X² + 1 = 2 Y² stable under an explicit chord involution τ with τ² = id. The fixed locus of τ is excluded by Fermat's right-triangle theorem; the residual non-fixed locus is naturally encoded, for each fixed X₀, by an intersection of three quadrics in P⁴, generically of arithmetic genus five. This recovers the entry of Love's Table~1 (J.\ Number Theory 269, 2025) marked Unknown. We do not claim S =. All polynomial identities used in the proofs are machine-verified by accompanying SymPy scripts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
驷 袁 (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: