Sorry, I Was Wrong In My First and Third entries. Bye.

Hello. This is my last blog entry. I have bad news.

This is the blog entry where I make up my own question and try to answer it. My question is:

If you have a set of integer side lengths for a triangle, how can you figure out if it is a right triangle without actually creating the triangle?

This is what I did to try to answer my question. I made a step of procedures that you can follow to find out if a set of triangle integer side lengths:

DO THIS BEFORE THE REST OF THE PROCESS:

Take the set of side lengths and find their greatest common factor. Divide by the common factor.

Criteria:

Check for these conditions in your set of side lengths.

• The third number in the number must be the second number plus one in order for this set to be a Pythagorean triple.
• Take the middle number. If it is not divisible by 4, then it can’t be a Pythagorean triple. If it is divisible by 4, divide it by 4. Subtract 1. Subtract 2. Subtract 3. Subtract 4. Subtract 5. Keep doing this until you reach zero. If you can’t reach zero this way, then it can’t be a Pythagorean triple.
• Count up how many numbers you subtracted in order to get zero from the second number. This must be the first number in order for it to be a Pythagorean triple.

If any of these conditions are not met, then it is not a Pythagorean triple.

Sound good so far? Well, I was looking at my classmates' blogs today in class, and I found some sets of side lengths listed as Pythagorean triples on a blog called brianna² by a²+brianna²=c². I tested them on Triangles with Specified Side Lengths. They were real Pythagorean triples, and they disproved everything I said in entries 1 and 2.

I couldn't find a pattern in this new data.

Here are the new triples:

8	15	17
12	35	37
16	63	65
20	21	29
28	45	53
33	56	65
36	77	85
39	80	89
48	55	73
65	72	97

I graphed this data. Everything is color coded. There was no pattern.



Even though the graphs are blurry, you can see that they contain no pattern.

So, don't listen to the content of my first and third blog entry unless you don't need to find the triples listed here.

I have thought of what I can do next. I can put the other triples into the graph that I know, but I don't think that that will make much of a difference. I don't think there will be a pattern even if I do that. So, if I were to go on with my investigation, the thing I would do next would be kind of starting my investigation over, only with triples that are relatively prime.

Good-bye.
--anonymous PKOW!ian.

P.S. Thank you to Ms. Sheppard-Brick and Sammy for commenting on my blog.