I have been exploring this particular prime 13238717 which is sum of two squares and has Pythagorean triple.
I found this interesting property and so far I havenā€™t found any texts about what I wrote below.

This is just my conjecture, I have no formal proof and I have only tested few small primes.
I havenā€™t found any counter examples yet, but I have checked only few dozen primes and couple composites by hand.

I modified ChatGPT script which lists numbers that have both forms P^2=a^2+b^2 and P=c^2+d^2 and it appears to generate the exact same sequence as: A004431
5 10 13 17 20 25 26 29 34 37 40 41 45 50...

Numbers P seem to always have both following forms Hypotenuse numbers (Pythagorean triples) A009003: P^2=a^2+b^2
Numbers that are the sum of 2 squares A001481: P=c^2+d^2

Wolfram notes, ā€œ-- one side of every Pythagorean triple is divisible by 3, another by 4, and another by 5.ā€
I noticed if P is prime and have both forms: one of the Pythagorean sides (a or b) whichever is divisible by 4 has the exact factors that construct both of the square sum components ā€˜cā€™ and ā€˜dā€™, with the exception of extra factor ā€˜2ā€™.

Hereā€™s the conjecture put out more formally based solely on my observations:
Pythagorean sides: a,b and square sum componentsc,d are natural numbers and n#, m# are prime factors.

a^2 + b^2 = P^2 (pyth. triple)  
c^2 + d^2 = P (sum of two squares) 

(a or b) mod 4 = 0
(a or b) factors are = 2* (n1*n2*n3...) * (m1*m2*m3...)
c = n1*n2*n3...
d = m1*m2*m3...
(a or b) = 2*(c*d)

Hereā€™s couple examples:
primes 2 and 5 are trivial exceptions as 1 isnā€™t a prime factor.

1^2+2^2=5  
1^2+1^2=2

Prime: 13 (first non-trivial prime case)

5^2 + 12^2 = 13^2 (pyth. triple) 
2^2 + 3^2 = 13 (sum of two squares)  

12 factors are 2 2 3
12 mod 4 = 0
c=2
d=3
12 = 2* (2*3)

Prime: 821

429^2 + 700^2 = 821^2 (pyth. triple)  
14^2 + 25^2 = 821 (sum of two squares)  
  
700 mod 4 = 0
700 factors are 2 (5 5) (2 7)
c = 5*5 = 25
d = 2*7 = 14
700 = 2* (25*14)

prime: 13238717

1315508^2 + 13173195^2 = 13238717^2 (pyth. triple)
181^2 + 3634^2 = 13238717 (sum of two squares)  
  
1315508 mod 4 = 0
1315508 factors are 2 (2 23 79) (181)
c=181
d=2*23*79=3634
1315508 = 2* (181*3634)

Some composites have multiple ways to write sum of two squares, which each have different (a or b) counterpart, but not necessarily divisible by 4. composite: 260

(four valid pythagorean side pairs)  
132^2+224^2 = 64^2+252^2 = 100^2+240^2 = 156^2+208^2 = 260^2 
(two valid square sums)
8^2+14^2 = 2^2+16^2 = 260

8^2+14^2:
224 mod 4 = 0
224 factors 2 (2 2 2) (2 7)
c= 2*2*2 = 8
d= 2*7 = 14
224/(8*14) = 2
  
2^2+16^2:
64 mod 4 = 0
64 factors 2 (2) (2 2 2 2)
c = 2
d = 2^4 = 16
64 = 2* (2*16)

composite: 58

40^2+42^2=58^2 (pyth. triple)  
3^2+7^2=58  (sum of two squares) 

42 mod 4 = 2 
Not 0 mod 4 congruent, unlike primes. 
Might be result of both c, d being odd.
42 factors 2 3 7
c=3
d=7
58 = 2* (3*7)

Generally it seems that thereā€™s always at least one Pythagorean component where (a or b) = c*d*2, but I havenā€™t quite figured why this is the case.

I reckon it has something to do with the fact that mod 4 congruence of 4k+1 doesnā€™t change when you square it: (4k+1)^2 = 8k*(2k+1)+1
Additionally the fact that when sum of two squares is prime or odd, exactly one of the components is always odd, which may explain why (a or b) isnā€™t always divisible by 4 with composites.

ChatGPT wrote a counterexample finder I checked up to 100 000.

To my knowledge there isnā€™t straight up equation that would spit out a Pythagorean triple or sum of square solutions for any integer.
There might be some other way to prove or disprove that a or b = c*d*2 when P is prime, but so far I couldnā€™t think of any.
It might be something obvious that I am missing, or itā€™s simply all about congruence rules of additions and multiplications.

Again, this is just what Iā€™ve found from my few tests and I donā€™t have any formal proof. I couldnā€™t find any papers or posts specifically about this. This is nothing too important, but I found it interesting enough to share.
I just write bad python code out of interest in number theory without an university degree.


Thanks for the solution goes to: @0v0
Hereā€™s summary how I understood this:
Brahmaguptaā€“Fibonacci identity

P=cĀ²+dĀ²
Squaring 'P' results in:
PĀ²=(cĀ²-dĀ²)Ā² + (2cd)Ā²

These 'PĀ²' sum components are equivalent to the Pythagorean legs 'a' and 'b':
a=cĀ²-dĀ²
b=2*c*d

Hence, '(a or b)' always contains the factors '2' and all factors of 'c' and 'd'. 

Additionally, the 2*c*d divisibility by 4 is result of P being odd.
2*c*d being divisible by 4 is true for any odd number as one of the sum of square components ā€˜cā€™ or ā€˜dā€™ must be even.

c=2*k
b = 2*c*d = 4*k*d
    • Kaelygon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      1 month ago

      Thank you for the answer! I have to take deeper look into that.
      Itā€™s rather interesting how seemingly two different sum components share factors. Itā€™s like finding pi from seemingly unrelated series.

      • 0v0@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        Ā·
        1 month ago

        The insight is that c^2 + d^2 factors as (c + id)(c - id) in the Gaussian integers, and shuffling factors in its square and multiplying gives both sides of the identity.

        • Kaelygon@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          1 month ago

          I think I got the idea, I just now updated the original post and added a footnote how I understood the Brahmaguptaā€“Fibonacci identity.
          I have only surface knowledge about imaginary numbers, but I have noticed sum of two squares being also referred as Gaussian integers.
          Thereā€™s definitely a lot of material to read about relating both Gaussian integers and Pythagorean triples, that I can gain intuition how all of these relations work out. I much appreciate the help!

  • Kaelygon@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    After some thinking I came up with this.
    Conjecture:

    NĀ² = aĀ²+bĀ²
    N  = cĀ²+dĀ²
    
    a = 2*c*d
    b = dĀ²-cĀ²
    
    integers a,b,c,d>0
    
    For any integer N that can be expressed as both NĀ²=aĀ²+bĀ² and N=cĀ²+dĀ², the relationship a=2*c*d holds.  
    

    Is it enough proof just to show that the above equations are true when substituting them to NĀ² and N equations?
    If a = 2*c*d then one leg of the Pythagorean triple definitely contains c and d factors and ā€˜2ā€™. This might be related to Pythagorean triple parametrization.

    I fixed the flawed ChatGPT counterexample finder script and now it gives this list of all numbers including composites which donā€™t follow these rules, such as 58. Hereā€™s sub-sequence of A004431 numbers that donā€™t follow the rules:

    Numbers which neither Pythagorean side is divisible by 4
    Composites: [10, 26, 34, 50, 58, 74, 82, 90, 106, 122, 130, 146, 170, 178...]
    This is identical to Sums of two distinct odd squares A339977 which makes sense as if c,d>1 and odd, they must be 3 or bigger hence their factors are missing the extra ā€˜2ā€™, unlike primes where one of c or d is always even.
    Even composites appear to follow a=2*c*d relation. The prime pythagorean side divisibility by 4 appears to be just a side effect.