Class number one problem for the real quadratic fields \(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m^2+2r})\) (Q2222864): Difference between revisions

In this paper the authors claim to prove the result that if $p > 2$ and $d = a^2m^2 + 4ap$ with $a > 1$ and $m \geq 1$ square-free (with the unstated assumption that $a$ and $m$ are both odd), then the Diophantine equations $x^2 - dy^2 = 4p$ and $x^2 - dy^2 = -4p$ have no solutions in integers, and consequently the class number of the quadratic field $Q(\sqrt{d})$ is greater than $1$. The authors use mostly elementary number theory and some algebraic number theory to try to prove their result. However, there are some minor issues and one major issue that casts doubt on the correctness of their result, and this reviewer has been in correspondence with one of the authors who has acknowledged all of the reviewer's concerns and corrections, as described below. The major issue is that in the proof of Theorem 1.1 on page 35, the authors claim that the quantities $((am^2 + 2p)x - mdy)/2p$ and $(mx - (am^2 + 2p)y)/2p$ are rational integers, using the fact that $x^2 - a^2m^2y^2 = x^2 - dy^2 + 4apy^2$ (note the exponent of $y$ in the first expression is given by the authors as 1 but should obviously be $2$). However, the equality implies that $2p$ divides $(x + amy)(x - amy)$. To show that both above quantities are rational integers, the authors would need to show that $2p$ divides $x - amy$. Since $a$ and $m$ are assumed to be odd (this was an assumed unstated assumption in Theorem 1.1), we know that $x$ and $y$ are both even and thus $2$ divides $x + amy$ and $2$ divides $x - amy$. It follows that $2p$ divides $x + amy$ or $2p$ divides $x - amy$, but the authors do not show how we can specify that $2p$ divides $x - amy$. Some additional minor issues aside from what I have mentioned above, is a clarification of the statement in the Introduction on page 33: ``Under the generalized Riemann hypothesis there exists at most one more such field with class number one,'' which actually means there is ``exactly one more field with class number one.'' And in addition to the inclusion that $a$ and $m$ are odd in Theorem 1.1 and the correction in the exponent of $y$ that I mentioned above, I will also mention that in the proof of Theorem 1.1 on page 34 in the equality for $\alpha\cdot\beta$ there should be a $y$ multiplied by $(am2 + 2p)$. The author whom I have been in correspondence with has conveyed to me that they will try to fix the major issue in their proof of Theorem 1.1, and I had recommended to him that they submit a corrigendum to the journal that published their paper.