An exponential Diophantine equation related to powers

of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers

By Florian LUCA
,
and Roger OYONO

(Communicated by Shigefumi MORI, M.J.A., April 12, 2011)

Abstract: Here, we show that there is no integer : ! 3 such that the sum of :th powers of
two consecutive Fibonacci numbers is a Fibonacci number.
Key words: Fibonacci numbers; Applications of linear forms in logarithms.
1. Introduction. Let 1
i

i!1
be the
Fibonacci sequence given by 1
1
1. 1
2
1 and
1
i2
1
i1
1
i
for all i ! 1. It is well-known
that 1
2
i
1
2
i1
1
2i1
. Hence, 1
:
i
1
:
i1
is a
Fibonacci number for all i ! 1 when : 2 f1. 2g. In
the paper [4], the following result was proved:
Theorem A. If : ! 1 is an integer such that
1
:
i
1
:
i1
is a Fibonacci number for all suciently
large i, then : 2 f1. 2g.
Note that this doesnt say much about the
Diophantine equation
1
:
i
1
:
i1
1
i
1
in integers i ! 1, i ! 1, : ! 3. It merely says that
if : ! 3 is xed, then there are innitely many
positive integers i for which 1
:
i
1
:
i1
is not a
Fibonacci number. Thus, the main result from [4]
cannot answer to the question of whether the
Diophantine equation (1) has nitely or innitely
many integer solutions i. i, even for xed : ! 3.
Let us briey describe the proof of this result
from [4]. Put c : 1

5
p
2, u : 1

5
p
2.
Then it is known that
1
i

c
i
u
i

5
p holds for all i ! 1. 2
Hence, for xed : we have that
1
:
i

c
i
u
i

5
p

:

c
i:
5
:2
O
:
c
i:2

.
The constant implied by the above O depends on :.
Applying the above estimate with i and i 1 and
adding them up we get
1
:
i
1
:
i1

c
i:
c
i1:
5
:2
O
:
c
i:2

c
i:
1 c
:

5
:2
O
:
c
i:2
.
Comparing the above estimate with 1
i
given by (2)
we get right away that
c
i:i
1 c
:

5
:12
1 O
:
c
i:2i
c
2i
.
and the righthand side above is of smaller order of
magnitude than c
i:i
for large i and i. Hence, the
left hand side must be zero for large i, so we must have
i i: t, where t is some xed integer such that
1 c
:
5
:12
c
t
. 3
From here, the authors of [4] proceed to prove that the
above equation (3) has no integer solutions :. t with
: ! 3 by using linear forms in logarithms and calcu-
lations. We note in passing that there is no need for
linear forms in logarithms in order to solve (3). Indeed,
conjugating it and multiplying the two relations we get
1 c
:
1 u
:
1
:1
5
:1
cu
t
1
:1t
5
:1
.
The lefthand side is positive and smaller than
21 c
:
< 21 2
:
. Hence, we get
21 2
:
5
:1
.
which has no solution for any : ! 3 anyway.
Our main result is the following.
Theorem 1. Equation (1) has no solutions
i. i. : with i ! 2 and : ! 3.
2. The proof of Theorem 1.
2.1. The plan of attack. Our method is
roughly as follows. We use linear forms in loga-
doi: 10.3792/pjaa.87.45
#2011 The Japan Academy
2000 Mathematics Subject Classication. Primary 11B39,
11J86.

Instituto de Matema ticas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma

de Me xico, C.P. 58089, Morelia, Michoaca n, Me xico.

The John Knopfmacher Centre for Applicable Analysis

and Number Theory, University of the Witwatersrand, P. O.
Wits 2050, South Africa.

quipe GAATI, Universite de la Polyne sie Francaise, BP

6570, 98702 Faaa, Tahiti, French Polynesia.
No. 4] Proc. Japan Acad., 87, Ser. A (2011) 45
rithms together with the observation that 1
:
i
is
smaller by an exponential factor in : than 1
:
i1
to
deduce some inequality for : versus i and i. When
i is small, say i 150, we use continued fractions
to lower the bounds and then brute force to cover
the range of the potential solutions. When i 150,
our bound on : versus i and i says that 1
:
i
can
be suciently well approximated by c
i:
5
:2
and
similarly 1
:
i1
can be suciently well approximat-
ed by c
i1:
5
:2
. A further application of the
linear forms in logarithms together with some
computations nish the job.
Now lets get to work.
2.2. An inequality for s in terms of mand n.
Observe that when i 1 we have 1
:
i
1
:
i1

2 1
3
for all : ! 1, which is why we imposed that
i ! 2.
When i 2, we get that 1
i
1 1
:
3
1 2
:
which has no integer solutions i. : with : ! 3
(see [2] for a list of all solutions to the Diophantine
equation 1
i
1 r
:
in positive integers i. :. r
with : ! 2).
From now on, we assume that i ! 3. Since
: ! 3, we get that 1
i
! 1
3
3
1
3
4
, so that i ! 10.
Using formula (2), we rewrite equation (1) as
c
i

5
p 1
:
i1
1
:
i

u
i

5
p . 4
The righthand side above is a number in the
interval 1
:
i
1. 1
:
i
1. In particular, it is posi-
tive. Dividing both sides of equation (4) by 1
:
i1
,
we get
c
i
5
12
1
:
i1
1

< 2
1
i
1
i1

:
<
2
1.5
:
. 5
where we used the fact that 1
i
1
i1
23 for all
i ! 2. This last inequality is equivalent to the
inequality 21
i1
! 31
i
. Replacing the number
1
i1
by 1
i
1
i1
, the last inequality above is
seen to be equivalent to 21
i1
! 1
i
1
i1

1
i2
, which is equivalent to 1
i1
! 1
i2
, which
is true for all i ! 2.
We shall use several times a result of Matveev
(see [5] or Theorem 9.4 in [1]), which asserts that
if c
1
. c
2
. . . . . c
/
are positive real algebraic numbers
in an algebraic number eld K of degree 1, /
1
.
/
2
. . . . . /
/
are rational integers, and
: c
/
1
1
c
/
2
2
c
/
/
/
1
is not zero, then
jj exp C
/.1
1 log 1
1

/

6
where
C
/;1
: 1.4 30
/3
/
4.5
1
2
1 log 1.
1 ! maxfj/
1
j. j/
2
j. . . . . j/
/
jg.
and

i
! maxf1/c
i
. j log c
i
j. 0.16g. i 1. 2. . . . . /.
Here, for an algebraic number i we write /i for its
logarithmic height whose formula is
/i :
1
d
log o
0

d
i1
log maxfji
i
j. 1g


.
with d being the degree of i over Q and
1A : o
0

d
i1
A i
i
2 ZA
being the minimal primitive polynomial over the
integers having positive leading coecient and i as
a root.
In a rst application of Matveevs theorem, we
take / : 3, c
1
: c, c
2
:

5
p
, c
3
: 1
i1
. We also
take /
1
: i, /
2
: 1, /
3
: :. We thus take

1
: c
i
5
12
1
:
i1
1. 7
The absolute value of
1
appears in the lefthand
side of inequality (5). To see that
1
6 0, observe
that imposing that
1
0 yields c
i

5
p
1
:
i1
,
so c
2i
2 Z, which is false for positive i. Thus,

1
6 0.
The algebraic number eld containing
c
1
. c
2
. c
3
is K : Q

5
p
which is quadratic, so
we can take the degree 1 : 2. Since the height of
c
1
satises /c
1
log c2 0.240606 . . . , it
follows that we can take
1
: 0.5 2/c
1
. Since
the height of c
2
satises /c
2
log 52
0.804719 . . . , it follows that we can take
2
:
1.61. Since the inequality 1

< c
1
holds for all
integers ! 1, it follows that /c
3
log 1
i1
<
ilog c, therefore we can take
3
: 2ilog c.
Finally, observe that
c
i1
1
i
1
:
i
1
:
i1
! 1
:
i1
c
i1

:
.
c
i2
< 1
i
1
:
i
1
:
i1
< 1
i
1
i1

:
1
:
i2
< c
i1:
.
In particular, i ! i 1: ! 2:, so we can take
1 : i. It is also the case that
1 i i 1: 1 < i 2:.
46 F. LUCA and R. OYONO [Vol. 87(A),
Applying inequality (6) to get a lower bound for
j
1
j and comparing this with inequality (5), we get
exp C
3.2
1 log i 0.5 1.61 2ilog c

<
2
1.5
:
.
where
C
3.2
1.4 30
6
3
4.5
2
2
1 log 2 < 10
12
.
Hence, we get
: <
log 2
log 1.5
10
12
0.5 1.61 2 log c
log 1.5
1
i1 log i
< 2 10
12
i1 log i < 3 10
12
ilog i.
where we also used the fact that log i ! log 10 2.
Together with the fact that i < i 2:, we get
that
: < 3 10
12
ilogi 2:. 8
2.3. The case of small m. We next treat the
cases when i 2 3. 150. In this case,
: < 3 10
12
ilogi 2: 4.5 10
14
log152:.
giving : < 1.92 10
16
. Thus,
i < i 2: 152: < 3 10
18
.
We next take another look at
1
given by
expression (7). Put

1
: ilog c log

5
p
: log 1
i1
.
Thus,
1
c

1
1.
Observe that
1
is positive since
1
is positive
because the righthand side of equation (4) is
positive. Thus,
0 <
1
< c

1
1
1
<
2
1.5
:
.
so
0 < i
log c
log 1
i1

:
log

5
p
log 1
i1

<
2
1.5
:
log1
i1

<
2
1.5
:
<
2
1.5
1
152

i
. 9
We now apply the following result due to
Dujella and Peth} oo [3].
Lemma 2. Let ` be a positive integer, let
jc be a convergent of the continued fraction of the
irrational such that c 6`, and let j be some real
number. Let : kjck `kck. If 0, then there
is no solution to the inequality
0 < i : j < 1
i
in positive integers i and : with
logc
log 1
i `.
For us, inequality (9) is
0 < i : j < 1
i
.
where
:
log c
log 1
i1
. j:
log

5
p
log 1
i1
.
: 2. 1: 1.0026 < 1.5
1
152
.
We take ` : 3 10
18
. For each of our numbers i,
we take c : c
99
to be the denominator of the 99th
convergent to . Note that c depends on i. The
minimal value of c for i 2 3. 150 exceeds the
number 10
45
6`. Thus, we may apply Lemma 2
for each such c, and j. The maximal value of
`kck computed is smaller than 10
28
, whereas
the minimal value of kcjk is 1.1 10
17
. Thus,
we can take : kcjk `kck 10
17
. Also, the
maximal value of c is < 2 10
62
. Hence, by
Lemma 2, all solutions i. : of inequality (9)
have
i <
logc
log 1
<
log2 2 10
62
10
17

log1.0026
< 71000.
Next, since i 1: i, we have
: ii 1 < 71000i 1.
A computer search with Mathematica revealed
in less than one hour that there are no solu-
tions to the equation (1) in the range i 2
3. 150, i 2 10. 71000 and : 2 3. 71000i 1.
This completes the analysis in the case i 2
3. 150.
2.4. An upper bound on s in terms of m.
From now on, we assume that i ! 151. Recall that,
by (8), we have
: < 3 10
12
ilogi 2:. 10
Next we give an upper bound on : depending only
on i. If
: i 2. 11
then we are through. Otherwise, that is if i
2 < :, we then have
No. 4] Sums of powers of two Fibonacci numbers 47
: < 3 10
12
ilog:
2
6 10
12
ilog :.
which can be rewritten as
:
log :
< 6 10
12
i. 12
Since the function r 7! r log r is increasing for all
r c, it is easy to check that the inequality
r
log r
< yields r < 2log .
whenever ! 3. Indeed, for if not, then we would
have that r 2log c, therefore
r
log r

2log
log2log
.
where the last inequality follows because 2 log <
holds for all ! 3. This is a contradiction.
Taking : 6 10
12
i in the above argument, we
get that inequality (12) implies that
: < 26 10
12
i log6 10
12
i
12 10
12
ilog6 10
12
log i
< 12 10
12
i30 log i
< 12 10
12
i 7 log i
< 10
14
ilog i. 13
In the above inequalities, we used the fact that
log i ! log 151 5. From (11) and (13), we con-
clude that the inequality
: < 10
14
ilog i 14
holds for all i ! 151.
2.5. An absolute upper bound on s. Let us
look at the element
r :
:
c
2i
.
From the above inequality (14), it follows that
r <
10
14
ilog i
c
2i
<
1
c
i
. 15
where the last inequality holds for all i ! 80. In
particular, r < c
151
< 10
31
. We now write
1
:
i

c
i:
5
:2

1
1
i
c
2i

:
.
1
:
i1

c
i1:
5
:2

1
1
i1
c
2i1

:
.
If i is odd, then
1 < 1
1
i
c
2i

:
1
1
c
2i

:
< e
r
< 1 2r
because r < 10
31
is very small, while if i is even,
then
1 1
1
i
c
2i

:
exp log 1
1
c
2i

:

e
2r
1 2r.
again because r < 10
31
is very small. The same
inequalities are true if we replace i by i 1. Thus,
we have that
max 1
:
i

c
i:
5
:2

. 1
:
i1

c
i1:
5
:2

<
2rc
i1:
5
:2
. 16
We now return to our equation (1) and rewrite it as
c
i
u
i
5
12
1
i
1
:
i
1
:
i1

c
i:
5
:2

c
i1:
5
:2
1
:
i

c
i:
5
:2

1
:
i1

c
i1:
5
:2

.
or
c
i
5
12

c
i:
5
:2
1 c
:

u
i
5
12
1
:
i

c
i:
5
:2

1
:
i1

c
i1:
5
:2

<
1
c
i
1
:
i

c
i:
5
:2

1
:
i1

c
i1:
5
:2

<
1
c
i
2r
c
i:
1 c
:

5
:2

.
Thus, dividing both sides by c
i1:
5
:2
, we
conclude that
c
ii1:
5
:12

1 c
:
j 17
<
5
:2
c
ii1:
2r1 c
:
<
1
2c
i

5r
2
<
3
c
i
.
where we used the fact that
5
:2
c
i1:

5
p
c
152

:
<
1
2
. i ! i 1: i.
and c
:
! c
3
4, as well as inequality (15). Hence,
we conclude that
c
ii1:
5
:12
1

<
1
c
:

3
c
i

4
c

. 18
48 F. LUCA and R. OYONO [Vol. 87(A),
where we put : minfi. :g. We now set

2
: c
ii1:
5
:12
1. 19
and observe that
2
6 0. Indeed, for if
2
0, then
c
2i1:i
5
:1
2 Z, which is possible only when
i 1: i. But if this were so, then we would get
0
2
5
:12
1, which leads to the conclusion
that : 1, which is not possible. Hence,
2
6 0. Next,
let us notice that since : ! 3 and i ! 151, we have that
j
2
j
1
c
3

1
c
151
<
1
2
. 20
so that c
ii1:
5
:12
2 12. 2. In particular,
i 1: i <
1
log c
: 1 log 5
2
log 2

< :
log 5
2 log c

< 1.7:;
i 1: i
1
log c
: 1 log 5
2
log 2

1.6: 4. 21
It follows from (21) that i 1: i 1.6: 4 0
because : ! 3. We lower bound the lefthand side of
inequality (18) using again Matveevs theorem. We take
/ : 2. c
1
: c. c
2
:

5
p
. We also take the exponents
/
1
: i i 1: and /
2
: : 1. As in the previous
application of Matveevs result, we can take 1 : 2.

1
: 0.5.
2
: 1.61. Also, we can take 1 : 1.7:
maxfj/
1
j. j/
2
jg by inequality (21). We thus get that
expC
2.2
1 log1.7: 0.5 1.61 <
4
c

.
where
C
2.2
1.4 30
5
2
4.5
2
2
1 log 2 < 5.3 10
9
.
This leads to
<
log 4
log c
5.3 10
9
0.5 1.61 log c
1
1 log1.7:
< 9 10
9
1.6 log : < 9 2.6 10
9
log :
< 3 10
10
log :.
Here, we used the fact that 1 log1.7 < 1.6.
If :, we then get that : < 3 10
10
log :, so
: < 10
12
.
If i, then using also (14), we get that
i < 3 10
10
log : < 3 10
10
log 10
14
ilog i

.
The last inequality above leads to i < 2 10
12
, so,
by (14) once again, we get that
: < 10
14
2 10
12
log2 10
12
< 6 10
27
.
So, at any rate, we have that
: < 6 10
27
. 22
2.6. A better upper bound on s. Next, we
take
2
: : 1 log

5
p
i 1: i log c. Ob-
serve that
2
c

2
1, where
2
is given by (19).
Since j
2
j < 12 (see inequality (20)), we have that
c
j
2
j
< 2. Hence,
j
2
j c
j
2
j
jc

2
1j < 2j
2
j <
2
c
:

6
c
i
.
This leads to
log

5
p
log c

i 1: i
: 1

<
1
: 1 log c
2
c
:

6
c
i

. 23
Note rst that c
i
! c
151
3 10
31
10
3
: by esti-
mate (22).
Assume next that : 100. Then c
:
1000:.
Hence, we get that
1
: 1 log c
2
c
:

6
c
i

<
8
:: 11000 log c
<
1
60: 1
2
. 24
Estimates (23) and (24) lead to
log

5
p
log c

i 1: i
: 1

<
1
60: 1
2
. 25
By a criterion of Legendre, inequality (25) implies
that the rational number i 1: i: 1 is a
convergent to : log

5
p
log c. Let o
0
. o
1
. o
2
.
o
3
. o
4
. . . . 1. 1. 2. 19. 2. 9. . . . be the continued
fraction of , and let j
/
c
/
be its /th convergent.
Assume that i 1: i: 1 j
t
c
t
for some
t. Then : 1 dc
t
for some positive integer d, which
in fact is the greatest common divisor of i 1:
i and : 1. We have the inequality c
54
1.4
10
28
: 1. Thus, t 2 f0. . . . . 53g. Furthermore,
o
/
29 for all / 0. 1. . . . . 53. From the known
properties of continued fractions, we have that

i 1: i
: 1

j
t
c
t

1
o
t
2c
2
t
!
d
2
31: 1
2
!
1
31: 1
2
.
which contradicts inequality (25). Hence, : 100.
No. 4] Sums of powers of two Fibonacci numbers 49
2.7. The nal step. To nish, we go back to
inequality (17) and rewrite it as
c
ii1:
5
:12
1 c
:

1
1

<
3
c
i
1 c
:

<
3
c
i
.
Recall that : 2 3. 100 and
1.6: 4 < i 1: i < 1.7:.
Put t : i 1: i. We computed all the num-
bers jc
t
5
:12
1 c
:

1
1j for all : 2 3. 100
and all t 2 b1.6: 4c. b1.7:c. None of them ended
up being zero, since if it were we would get the
Diophantine equation c
:
1 5
:12
c
:t
, which
has no integer solution :. t with : ! 3 by the
arguments from the beginning. The smallest of
these numbers is 310
3
. Thus, 310
3
< 3c
i
, or
c
i
< 10
3
, so i < 15, which is false.
The theorem is therefore proved.
Acknowledgements. This work started
during a visit of Florian Luca at the University
of French Polynesia in Tahiti in November of
2010. Florian Luca thanks the Mathematics De-
partment for their hospitality. During the prepara-
tion of this paper, Florian Luca was also supported
in part by Grants SEP-CONACyT 79685 and
PAPIIT 100508.
References
[ 1 ] Y. Bugeaud, M. Mignotte and S. Siksek, Classical
and modular approaches to exponential Diop-
hantine equations. I. Fibonacci and Lucas
perfect powers, Ann. of Math. (2) 163 (2006),
no. 3, 9691018.
[ 2 ] Y. Bugeaud, F. Luca, M. Mignotte and S. Siksek,
Fibonacci numbers at most one away from a
perfect power, Elem. Math. 63 (2008), no. 2,
6575.
[ 3 ] A. Dujella and A. Peth} oo, A generalization of a
theorem of Baker and Davenport, Quart. J.
Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 49 (1998), no. 195, 291
306.
[ 4 ] D. Marques and A. Togbe , On the sum of powers
of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, Proc.
Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 86 (2010), 174
176.
[ 5 ] E. M. Matveev, An explicit lower bound for a
homogeneous linear form in logarithms of
algebraic numbers. II, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk
Ser. Mat. 64 (2000), no. 6, 125180; translation
in Izv. Math. 64 (2000), no. 6, 12171269.
50 F. LUCA and R. OYONO [Vol. 87(A),