Talk:Sum of two squares theorem

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Bold textIs this article not a stub? Jedieaston (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a better article Fermat's theorem on sums of two squares. What is the point of having two articles on the same topic?—회기-로 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page you mention doesn't address the same thing: Here, n isn't prime.--2A01:E35:2E4B:8E70:7001:B302:E99E:4E20 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general case follows easily from the prime case. I can‘t imagine this wasn‘t known to Fermat. If this is confirmed by sources, then the article on Fermat‘s Theorem should cover both results.—회기-로 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ambiguous

formulation "contains no prime congruent to {\displaystyle 3}3 modulo {\displaystyle 4}4 raised to an odd power" is ambiguous on at least 2 issues ( like, where would be the parenthesis using an algebraic expression ). Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E4B:8E70:7001:B302:E99E:4E20 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it sounds ambiguous, although the examples section clarifies it. The "raised to an odd power" applies to the prime number. I'll try to re-write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:4380:2410:B4FD:5F35:7946:367A (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi two-square theorem

I added a section on Jacobi's two-square theorem since I don't think it needs its own article. Wqwt (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wqwt: That seems reasonable to me. Thanks. JBW (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]