Prime producing quadratic polynomials associated with real quadratic fields of class-number one (Q6155561)

This article presents a collection of results of the following kind: Suppose \(d\ne 1\) is a squarefree integer, \(K = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})\), and \(f(x)\) an irreducible quadratic polynomial defining \(K\). Assume that all values \(\vert f(n)\vert \) are 1 or prime numbers, where \(n\) runs through a finite interval of specified length, and assume another condition involving the solvability of certain Pell equation. (Pretty often the second condition is void.) Then \(K\) has class number one.\par As one would guess, this subject has a venerable history, going back to Gauss. \textit{G. Rabinowitsch} [J. Reine Angew. Math. 142, 153--164 (1913; JFM 44.0243.03)] presented results of this type, and there is of course a link to the class-number-one problem for imaginary quadratic fields. The present article is only concerned with real quadratic fields. The theorems proved allow to extend earlier results, for example due to \textit{D. Byeon} and \textit{H. M. Stark} [J. Number Theory 94, No. 1, 177--180 (2002; Zbl 0997.11024)], and to \textit{R. A. Mollin} and \textit{H. C. Williams} [Number theory and applications, Proc. NATO ASI, Banff/Can. 1988, NATO ASI Ser., Ser. C 265, 481--496 (1989; Zbl 0714.11067)]. For instance, \(d=133\) was apparently not covered.\par Of course, for any individual \(d\) it is nowadays extremely easy to check the class number numerically, but this is perhaps not the real point; in a way the correct question is not whether the class number is one but why.\par The article under review is neatly written. The methods are very classical and elementary, essentially building on the Minkowski bound for prime representatives of elements of the class group, and they will probably never produce infinite families of class number one examples. Also, the paper is rather close, both in spirit and in detail, to the author's paper [Int. J. Number Theory 15, No. 9, 1857--1862 (2019; Zbl 1436.11129)]. A final remark: At the beginning of sections 3 and 4, the author quotes Theorem 6 and 7 respectively from that paper. From the context it would appear that the reference should be to Lemma 1 of the same paper instead, in both instances.