We can first consider the fact that the roles of a and b are symetric. Moreover, if a or b is equal to 0, the affirmation is trivial and the same result stands if a=b. Therefore, let’s assume that a and b are non-zero positive integers. Then let’s use proof by contradiction: suppose that (a0,b0) is a solution such that ∃c∈Nsuch that c is not a perfect square andc=a0b0+1a02+b02 and where a0+b0 is minimal. WLOG, we can choose a0≥b0 ( because the roles of a0 and b0 are symetric and a0=b0) : Thus, a02−a0.c2.b0+(b02−c)=0 This is a second-degree polynomial equation in a0 that has 2 solutions : a0 and a. By Vieta formula :
{a0+a=c.b0a0a=b02−cLet’s show that a<a0 and that a∈Z+:
First, a=c.b0−a0⇒a∈Z
Then, (a0+a).a=a2+b02−c=a.b0.c.
However, c<(a02+b02) because if not, by definition of c, then a0.b0≤0 which is false. So, a=b0.cb02+a02−c>0.
Furthermore, since a0=0 and c is not a perfect square, c=b02⇒a=a0b02−c=0.
Moreover, by hypothesis and definition,a0≥b0 and (a0,b0,c)∈(N∗)3⇒b02−a02≤0<c⇒b02−c<a02⇒a.a0<a02⇒a<a0 because a0∈N∗
Finally, a∈Z+∗ and a<a0. As a consequence, (a,b0) is another solution to the equation, but a<a0, so (a0+b0) is not minimal : this is absurd. In conclusion, c is always a perfect square if c is an integer.