A positive integer is called a congruent number if it is the area of a rightangled triangle, all of whose sides have rational length. The problem of determining which positive integers are congruent is buried in antiquity (see Chapter 9 of Dickson [6]), with it long being known that the numbers 5, 6, and 7 are congruent. Fermat proved that 1 is not a congruent number, and similar arguments show that also 2 and 3 are not congruent numbers. No algorithm has ever been proven for infallibly deciding whether a given integer n ≥ 1 is congruent. The reason for this is that it can easily be seen that an integer n ≥ 1 is congruent if and only if there exists a point (x, y), with x and y rational numbers and y = 0, on the elliptic curve ny2 = x3− x. Moreover, assuming n to be square free, a classical calculation of root numbers shows that the complex L-function of this curve has zero of odd order at the center of its critical strip precisely when n lies in one of the residue classes of 5, 6, or 7 modulo 8. Thus, in particular, the unproven conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer predicts that every positive integer lying in the residue classes of 5, 6, and 7 modulo 8 should be a congruent number. The aim of this paper is to prove the following partial results in this direction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ye Tian (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: