Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!.POSTED.chiark.greenend.org.uk!not-for-mail
From: gtaylor@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Gareth Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.puzzles
Subject: Re: Pythagorean Primitives
Date: 26 Jun 2025 21:08:31 +0100 (BST)
Organization: SGO
Message-ID: <tDz*VO2fA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <103352u$l35p$2@dont-email.me> <i26b5k1oh8djlmo0ckvvrhj6p9efi2tv52@4ax.com> <btsl5kp9mankh5s5894sbjk4rif5cun28b@4ax.com> <sm7r5k1qn6jir93tn8jl4nlo75j5uqiufq@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: chiark.greenend.org.uk; posting-host="chiark.greenend.org.uk:93.93.131.173";
	logging-data="26069"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@chiark.greenend.org.uk"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: gtaylor@chiark.greenend.org.uk ([93.93.131.173])

In article <sm7r5k1qn6jir93tn8jl4nlo75j5uqiufq@4ax.com>,
Charlie Roberts  <croberts@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, the goose may have finally been cooked (for me, at least).
>
> "The number of "primitive" triples for any side of a Pythagorean
> triple is 2^(n-1), where n is the number of unique prime factors of
> that side length. There may be more imprimitives than this but not
> primitives."
>
> but no proof (or pointers to a proof) is given. 

Hello.  Yesterday, I posted some maths waffle in a reply elsewhere in 
this thread.  I mention it partly in case you missed it, but partly in 
case it hasn't shown up at all.  (I haven't posted to a newsgroup for 
ages and might have got it wrong!)

Gareth