I wanted to present a proof of Lagrange’s four square theorem that I had seen a few years ago that I really like. I think there’s also some approaches using analytic number theory and algebraic number theory, but this one uses convex geometry (!) First, let me state the theorem (my convention here is that denotes the nonnegative integers):
Theorem (Lagrange). Every nonnegative integer can be written as a sum of four squares, i.e., the function given by
is surjective.
In order to make this (reasonably) self-contained, let’s give some definitions we’ll use.
A lattice is a discrete subgroup of
which spans
in the sense of vector spaces. Basically, a lattice will be some subgroup of
which is isomorphic to
. If
is a basis for
, define
to be the determinant of
. Define the fundamental parallelepiped of
to be the set
.
Now we just need some convex geometry. The main tool will be Minkowski’s theorem. The proof is short, so I’ll include it.
Lemma (Blichfeldt). Let be a lattice and
be a measurable set. If
, then there exist distinct
such that
.
Proof. Let be the fundamental parallelepiped of
. Then
(disjoint union), and hence
. Define
. Then
.
Since each , there must exist distinct
such that
. Take
and set
and
.
Lemma (Minkowski). Let be a lattice and
be a centrally symmetric (i.e.,
implies
) convex set such that
. Then
contains a nonzero element of
.
Proof. Set , so
. Then there exist distinct
such that
. Since
, we have
.
Now we can write down a proof of Lagrange’s four square theorem.
Proof. Pick . We break the proof up into three steps.
Step 1: Reduce to the case that is prime. The sum of four squares
is the square of the norm of a quaternion
. Since norm is multiplicative, the product of two sums of four squares is itself a sum of four squares. This can be checked directly, but it’s not really that interesting.
Step 2: Find such that
. If
, take
,
. Otherwise, assume
is odd. Define
. Choose
with
. Then
, and
since
, which implies that
, and hence
. So
has
elements.
Similarly, define . Pick
such that
. Then as before,
, so
also has
elements. Hence
cannot be empty by the pigeonhole principle, so we can find
and
such that
.
Step 3: Construct a suitable lattice and centrally symmetric convex body such that a lattice point in
will correspond to an expression of
as a sum of four squares. Define
. Being a subgroup of
, it is clear that
is discrete. Also, the set
surjects onto
under the projection, so
has finite index in
, and hence has full rank and
. Define
. Since
,
we can apply Minkowski’s theorem to find such that
. Now
implies
, and hence
is a multiple of
. From
, this multiple must be 1.
And there you have it!
-Steven
Minkowski’s theorem is surprisingly useful for even elementary number theory…
Do you know any other proof of the four-square theorem? The Minkowski theory proof is the only one I know, but there has to be one that uses machinery available in Lagrange’s time.
By: Alon Levy on February 16, 2009
at 1:30 AM
Sorry for the late response. I found this proof on the wikipedia article on Lagrange’s four square theorem:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/4SQUARES.HTM
Apparently it is algorithmic.
By: Steven Sam on February 24, 2009
at 7:35 AM
Hardy & Wright (Introduction to the theory of numbers) give several proofs, but one uses the quaternionic integers throughout, in a manner analogous to the proof of Fermat’s two square theorem using Gaussian integers. This is apparently due to Hurwitz, so quaternionic integers are sometimes called Hurwitz integers.
They also give a proof using elliptic functions that gives the number of representations.
By: Robert on March 2, 2009
at 2:54 AM
The product of two sums of four squares isn’t necessarily a sum of four squares.
It is when for example, w^2+x^2+y^2+z^2=e^2
(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2)(w^2+x^2+y^2+z^2)=
(a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2)e^2.
By: Allan on June 4, 2009
at 6:13 AM
Allan:
The product of two sums of four squares _is_ necessarily a sum of four squares. It’s a bit messy, but you can see it here:
Euler’s four-square identity
By: Steven Sam on June 4, 2009
at 6:30 AM
Thanks, didn’t know this before.
By: Allan on June 17, 2009
at 3:41 PM