See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337209192

No Perfect Euler Brick

Preprint · November 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12108.85128

CITATIONS READS
0 4,998

1 author:

James Lundeen
Sir Isaac Newton Enterprises LLC
39 PUBLICATIONS 69 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Lundeen on 13 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 No Perfect Euler Brick

James Lundeen

A long-open mathematical question posed in 1719 is conclusively resolved here. No

perfect Euler brick exists. An Euler brick is one with three integer edge values and
three integer face diagonal face values. Three mutually orthogonal right triangles
are present. A fabled Perfect Euler brick would also have an integer internal (space)
diagonal value. The smallest Euler brick was discovered by Paul Halcke [1662-
1731] in 1719. Vast computer resources have been expended in the search for a
perfect Euler brick – none has been found and until now, no one has rigorously
proven the non-existence of such a perfect Euler brick. This author discovered a
marvelous demonstration based on close study of the four simultaneous
Diophantine equations describing the primitive Euler brick that the internal
diagonal will always be an irrational number when the values of the edges and face
diagonals are all integers and simultaneously solve four specific Diophantine
equations. The proof relies on another proof that the summation of two odd perfect
squares cannot equal a third perfect square. A parity analysis of the more complex
equation for computing the internal diagonal based on the face diagonal values
reveals the conclusive proof that no Perfect Euler brick exists.

INTRODUCTION
Euler Bricks – Body, Edge and Face
Paul Halcke described a brick problem in 1719 which became known as the Euler
Brick. The Body cuboid is commonly referred to as the Euler cuboid in honor of
Leonhard Euler, who discussed this type of cuboid. [1]. Body, edge and face cuboids
are known. An almost-perfect cuboid has 6 out of the 7 lengths as rational. Such
cuboids can be sorted into three types, called Body, Edge, and Face cuboids. In the
case of the Body cuboid, the body (space) diagonal d is irrational. For the Edge
cuboid, one of the edges a, b, c is irrational. The Face cuboid has just one of the face
diagonals e, f, g irrational. Other bricks are also known which have integer edge
values and integer valued space diagonals – Pythagorean Quadruple Boxes and
parallelepipeds. The doctoral thesis of Ronald van Luijk [6] provides a very
extensive literature search and rich background of the work of many talented
persons on this mathematical issue of whether a Perfect Euler brick exists.
Interested readers are encouraged to read this 73 page dissertation.
Pythagorean Quadruple Boxes
A Pythagorean quadruple box is a tuple of integers A, B, C and D, such that the
sum of the squares of A, B, and C equal the square of D. Eq.1. These sets are
solutions of a Diophantine equation and often only positive integer values are
considered.[2,3,4]. Examples of such primitive sets include: {1,2,2,3}, {2,3,6,7},
{4,4,7,9}, and {1,4,8,9}. An infinite number of Pythagorean quadruples exist but the
number of primitive ones may be finite.
𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐵𝐵 2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 = 𝐷𝐷2 (1)
Clearly, from such examples it is clear that all elements of the sets (i.e., edges and
space diagonal) can be positive integer values. This is distinctly different than Euler
Bricks for which only 6 of 7 components (i.e., edges, space diagonal, face diagonals)
can have integer values simultaneously. The key to understanding this stark
difference lies in the equations describing such various bricks. A Pythagorean
quadruple is called primitive if the greatest common divisor (GCD) of its entries is
1. Every Pythagorean quadruple is an integer multiple of a primitive quadruple. [3]
Parallelepipeds
A parallelepiped is described by Sawyer and Reiter [4]. A parallelepiped has fewer
rectangular faces than an Euler Brick and not all edges are mutually orthogonal. As
would be predicted, Reiter found that perfect parallelepipeds do exist where all
components are integer values. [4]. As will be developed here, the most stringent
simultaneous constraints are for the Euler Brick, less so with the parallelepiped
and even less so with the Pythagorean quadruple. It is suggested to interested
readers to see a series of papers by Reiter, et. al. for details of parallelepipeds and
brute force computer searches for perfect parallelepipeds.
Distinctions Between EB Bricks and PQ Boxes
While at first blush an Euler Brick (“EB”) and a Pythagorean Quadruple Box (“PQ”)
appear to be the same or similar concepts, their mathematical constraints differ
significantly. As will be demonstrated below, it is the differences in such constraints
that PQ sets of integers can be found with integer edges and a corresponding
integer space diagonal, while an EB with integer values for all three edge values
and all three face diagonal values (i.e., a body cuboid) will never have an integer-
valued space diagonal. Moreover, it will be demonstrated that six of the seven
components (three edges, three face diagonals, one space diagonal) can have integer
values simultaneously with the remaining component confined to an irrational-
valued number. Hence, the possible existence of three types of EBs – body, edge,
and face. A body EB has an irrational value for the space diagonal. An edge EB has
an irrational value for one of the three edges of the brick. A face EB has an
irrational value for one face diagonal. An EB must satisfy Eq. 1 above, as well as
Eq. 2 through Eq. 5. A PQ box must satisfy Eq. 1.

��𝐴𝐴2 +𝐵𝐵2 �+�𝐴𝐴2 +𝐶𝐶 2 �+�𝐵𝐵2 +𝐶𝐶 2 ��

� 2
� = 𝐷𝐷2 (2)

2
𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐵𝐵 2 = 𝐸𝐸 2 (3)
𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 = 𝐹𝐹 2 (4)
𝐵𝐵 2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 = 𝐺𝐺 2 (5)

Parallelepipeds and PQ boxes are not constrained by Eq. 2-5. This is important and
is critical to the possible existence of all integer values in a PQ set while an EB set
may at most have six of its seven components in integer values. While Eqs. 1, 2
yield the same numerical value, only EB’s must be constrained by the presence of
three mutually orthogonal right triangles each with integer sides. Eqs. 3, 4, 5 only
apply to EB as well and describe the face diagonal values. Parallelepipeds have
constraining equations which are less constraining than Euler Bricks.[4].
By definition, a primitive EB has 3 integer edges, one of which is odd-valued and 3
integer face diagonal values, two of which are odd-valued. The three square values
of the three face diagonals of a primitive EB are comprised of two odd perfect square
numbers and one even perfect square number. [5].
A short series of proofs regarding salient properties of right triangles, the
Pythagorean Theorem and the sums of square numbers follows which reveals the
conclusive answer that no perfect Euler brick exists.

Proof #1:
A Primitive Right Triangle With Integer Edges Has One Odd-valued Leg
A right triangle, a Pythagorean triple, has one 90 degree angle opposite to the
hypotenuse and two legs which are oriented at 90 degrees to one another. In a
primitive right triangle, one of the legs has an odd integer value, the other leg an
even integer value and the hypotenuse an odd integer value. If both legs were even
numbers then the greatest common divisor would be greater than 1 which violates
the definition of a primitive Pythagorean triple. Suppose that a, b, c is a set of
integers and that the sum of the squares of a and b equal the square of c. For the
sake of argument, suppose that both a and b are odd.
So, 𝑎𝑎 = 2𝑚𝑚 + 1, 𝑏𝑏 = 2𝑛𝑛 + 1
𝑎𝑎2 = 4𝑚𝑚2 + 4𝑚𝑚 + 1 (6)
𝑏𝑏 2 = 4𝑛𝑛2 + 4𝑛𝑛 + 1 (7)
𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑏𝑏 2 = 4(𝑚𝑚2 + 𝑛𝑛2 ) + 4(𝑚𝑚 + 𝑛𝑛) + 2 (8)
𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑏𝑏 2 = 2[2(𝑚𝑚2 + 𝑛𝑛2 ) + 2(𝑚𝑚 + 𝑛𝑛) + 1] (9)

3
𝑎𝑎2 + 𝑏𝑏 2 = 2 ∗ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (10)
The quantity (2 ∗ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛) cannot be a perfect square. Therefore, the sum of two
odd integers cannot be a perfect square and a primitive Pythagorean triple has
exactly 1 odd-valued leg. A multiple of a primitive Pythagorean triple may have two
even-valued legs and an even-valued hypotenuse. An example is the set {6,8,10}
which is a multiple of the primitive Pythagorean triple {3,4,5}. Another example of a
primitive triple is the set {11,60,61} and a multiple {44,240,244}. Leonhard Euler
published on the topic of numbers which are the sum of two squares.[7].

Proof #2 – Corollary To Proof #1:

The Sum Of Two Odd Perfect Squares Is Not A Perfect Square
It follows directly from Proof #1 that the sum of two odd perfect squares is a number
which is twice an odd number and therefore cannot be a perfect square.

Proof #3:
A Primitive Body EB Has One Odd-valued Edge And Two Odd-valued Face
Diagonals
A primitive body EB by definition has three integer-valued edges and three integer-
valued face diagonals. The face edges are common (shared) between two orthogonal
triangles for each of the three common edges. The face diagonals are not in common
with each other or with any edge.
Let edge A be an odd integer value, then the face with dimensions A and B has an
even-valued edge B by Proof #1. Furthermore, the face with dimensions A and C has
an even-valued edge C by Proof #1. Additionally, the face diagonal E of the face with
dimensions A and B must be an odd integer value by Proof #1 and Eq. 3. Similarly,
the face diagonal F of the face with dimensions A and C must be an odd integer
value by Proof #1 and Eq. 4. Lastly, the face diagonal G, Eq. 5, of the face with
dimensions B and C must be an even integer value as the sum of two even square
numbers must be an even number.
According to the literature on the requirements of Euler Bricks and Perfect Euler
Bricks (if they exist), “One edge, two face diagonals and the body diagonal must be
odd, ...” [5]
Proof #4:
A Space Diagonal Of A Primitive Body EB Is Related To The Sum Of Two Odd
Perfect Squares With An Even Perfect Square And Is An Irrational Number
Suppose that one has a set of integers {A,B,C,E,F,G} found via a computer search or
via some parameterization scheme that describe an Euler Brick (“EB”) and that it
4
simultaneously satisfies Eqs. 1-5. The subset {E,F,G} represents the face diagonal
values. At this point, one has a total of six (6) integer valued components of the EB,
3 edge values oriented orthogonally in pairs in 3-D space and 3 face diagonal values.
All space diagonal values for body EB found to date with computer searches or other
methodologies have an irrational value for the space (i.e., internal) diagonal
component. An edge EB has one (1) irrational edge and an integer value space
diagonal. A face EB has one (1) irrational face diagonal and an integer value space
diagonal. A perfect EB has not been found despite vast computer searches by many
investigators. Apparently, the constraints of Eqs. 1-5 on the values of {A,B,C,E,F,G}
result in the space diagonal of a body EB being an irrational number, not an integer
value.
Thus the question to resolve in this proof is whether or not it can be demonstrated
algebraically that the 3-D orthogonal relationship of {A,B,C} constrains D to be
irrational when {A,B,C} are integer values which satisfy Eqs. 1-5.
The following parity analysis will demonstrate first generally and second with
examples that D is irrational when {A,B,C} is a set of natural numbers satisfying
Eqs. 1-5.
Parity forms, Eqs. 11-14:
An even number is of the form: 2𝑚𝑚 (11)
An odd number is of the form: 2𝑛𝑛 + 1 (12)
An even perfect square is of the form: (2𝑚𝑚)2 = 4𝑚𝑚2 (13)
An odd perfect square is of the form: (2𝑛𝑛 + 1)2 = 4𝑛𝑛2 + 4𝑛𝑛 + 1 (14)

Any odd number can be written as 2𝑛𝑛 + 1. Thus its square can be written as
4𝑛𝑛2 + 4𝑛𝑛 + 1 and is 1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 4. A square even number can be written as 2𝑚𝑚. Thus
its square can be written as 4𝑚𝑚2 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 0 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 4. Thus the sum of two odd perfect
squares is 2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 4 and cannot be a perfect square — neither an odd nor an even
perfect square. Eqs. 15-20. Proofs ##1-3.
As a reminder, and without loss of generality, by definition, E and F are odd integer
values and G is an even integer value. H squared, an integer, is the sum of squares
of the face diagonal values which is twice the sum of squares of the edge values:

𝐸𝐸 2 = (2𝑛𝑛 + 1)2 = 4𝑛𝑛2 + 4𝑛𝑛 + 1 (15)

𝐹𝐹 2 = (2𝑚𝑚 + 1)2 = 4𝑚𝑚2 + 4𝑚𝑚 + 1 (16)
𝐺𝐺 2 = (2𝑝𝑝)2 = 4𝑝𝑝2 (17)
𝐻𝐻 2 = 𝐸𝐸 2 + 𝐹𝐹 2 + 𝐺𝐺 2 = (𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐵𝐵 2 ) + (𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 ) + (𝐵𝐵 2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 ) = 2(𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐵𝐵 2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 ) (18)
5
𝐻𝐻 2 = 4(𝑛𝑛2 + 𝑚𝑚2 + 𝑝𝑝2 ) + 4(𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚) + 2 = 2 ∗ 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (19)
𝐻𝐻 2 = 2[2(𝑛𝑛2 + 𝑚𝑚2 + 𝑝𝑝2 ) + 2(𝑚𝑚 + 𝑛𝑛) + 1] (20)

The argument at this juncture is that Eq. 20 demonstrates that the square of
irrational H equals twice the sum of the squares of the three edge values as well as
it equals the sum of the squares of the face diagonal values which are all perfect
squares numbers (two odd perfect square integers and one even perfect square
integer value). Thus,

𝐻𝐻 2 = 2 ∗ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 2𝐷𝐷2 (21)

Then,

1
𝐷𝐷 = 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ��2� 𝐻𝐻 2 � (22)

Finally,

𝐷𝐷 = 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (23)

Review of examples of known sets of EB values {A,B,C} will be examined to

determine the validity of Eqs. 15-23 in this context.

The smallest EB found in 1719 by Paul Halcke is{𝐴𝐴, 𝐵𝐵, 𝐶𝐶} = {44,117,240} with
corresponding integer face diagonal values {𝐸𝐸. 𝐹𝐹, 𝐺𝐺} = (125,244,267}. From Eq. 1 the
space diagonal value is the square root of 73225.

Beginning with these edge and face diagonal values one can compute {𝑛𝑛, 𝑚𝑚, 𝑝𝑝} from
Eqs. 15-17. Therefore,

{𝑛𝑛, 𝑚𝑚, 𝑝𝑝} = {62,122,133} (24)

From

6
{𝑛𝑛, 𝑚𝑚, 𝑝𝑝} = {62,122,133} (25)

Inserting the integer values into Eq. 20:

𝐻𝐻 2 = 2[2(36417) + 2(195) + 1] (26)

𝐻𝐻 2 = 2(73225) (27)

𝐷𝐷2 = 73225 (28)

𝐷𝐷 = 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(73225) = 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (29)

The results of computing D from Eqs. 1 and 29 are exactly equal. Now for a second
example.

{𝐴𝐴, 𝐵𝐵, 𝐶𝐶} = {85,132,720} 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ {𝐸𝐸, 𝐹𝐹, 𝐺𝐺} = {157,725,732} (30)

{𝑛𝑛, 𝑚𝑚, 𝑝𝑝} = (78,362,366} (31)

The value of D from Eq. 1 for {𝐴𝐴, 𝐵𝐵, 𝐶𝐶} = {85,132,720} is the square root of 543049.
The value of D from Eq. 22 for this same set is the square root of 543049. These are
identical values.

By exposition it has been demonstrated that Eq. 20 may properly be described as an

irrational value H which equals twice the value of a non-square odd number. Thus,
this non-square odd number is represented by:

2(𝑛𝑛2 + 𝑚𝑚2 + 𝑝𝑝2 ) + 2(𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚) + 1 (32)

Thus, Eq. 32 is not of the form of an odd perfect square as it would have to be if the
space diagonal was a natural number at the same time that the set {A,B,C,E,F,G}
are all natural numbers. (32) is not 1 modulo 4. Comparison of Eq. 32 with Eq. 14
reveals that Eq. 14 demonstrates the format of an odd perfect square number while

7
Eq. 32 demonstrates the format of a non-perfect square odd number associated with
Eqs. 1-5 of the Euler Brick.
Thus, for {A,B,C,E,F,G} all natural numbers, for a primitive body Euler brick
(cuboid) and satisfying Eqs. 1-5, D will be an irrational number—the square root of
the sum of squares of: the three integer edge values or the square root of half the
sum of squares of the integer face diagonal values. Thus, there is no perfect Euler
brick. ■

Edge And Face Euler Bricks

It has been demonstrated here that the space diagonal D of any primitive body EB
is irrational. Suppose instead that an edge or a face diagonal value is irrational. It
is possible to have an integer value for the space diagonal in such a situation. Six of
the seven components may have integer values simultaneously. The seventh
component is an irrational number which is the square root of an odd number. This
irrational number must be consistent with the integer values of the remaining six
components and satisfy Eqs. 1-5 simultaneously. By definitions of edge and face
Euler Bricks a perfect Euler Brick is excluded from consideration. Edge and face
Euler Bricks are important to understand the nature of the body Euler brick—that
only six of the seven components can be integers simultaneously. Edge and face
Euler bricks have one irrational component (a square root of an odd number).
Edge
By definition of a primitive edge Euler brick is one with 2 even integer edges, 1
irrational edge which is the square root of a non-square odd integer, 2 odd integer
face diagonals, 1 even face diagonal and an odd integer space diagonal. [5].
Suppose that edge A is the irrational edge. The space diagonal can be computed
from the sum of squares of the one edge value and its corresponding orthogonal face
diagonal value. Thus,
𝐷𝐷2 = 𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐺𝐺 2 = 𝐴𝐴2 + (𝐵𝐵 2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 ) (33)
𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐺𝐺 2 = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (34)
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = (2𝑛𝑛 + 1) (35)
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 4𝑚𝑚2 (36)
𝐷𝐷2 = (2𝑛𝑛 + 1) + 4𝑚𝑚2 = 4𝑚𝑚2 + 2𝑛𝑛 + 1 (37)
Compare Eqs. (14) and (37). 𝐷𝐷2 is in the form of an odd perfect square for a value of
2𝑛𝑛 = 4𝑚𝑚. Thus, it is clear from Eq. (37) that 𝐷𝐷2 can be an odd perfect square and 𝐷𝐷
an odd integer value when 𝐴𝐴 is the square root of an odd number which
simultaneously solves Eqs. 2-5. So, an integer-valued space diagonal is plausible, as

8
has been found on deep computer searches, within a set of values consistent with
the definition of an edge Euler Brick. [8,9].
Face
In a manner analogous to edge Euler Bricks, primitive face Euler Bricks have 3
integer edges (1 odd and 2 even), 3 face diagonals (1 odd perfect square, one
irrational (square root of an odd integer) and 1 an even perfect square) and an odd
integer space diagonal. Id.
Suppose that the face diagonal 𝐺𝐺 is the irrational face diagonal (and the square root
of a non-square odd number). The space diagonal can be computed from the sum of
squares of 𝐺𝐺 and its corresponding orthogonal edge, 𝐴𝐴. Thus,
𝐷𝐷2 = 𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐺𝐺 2 = 𝐴𝐴2 + (𝐵𝐵 2 + 𝐶𝐶 2 ) (38)
𝐴𝐴2 + 𝐺𝐺 2 = 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (39)
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 4𝑚𝑚2 (40)
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = (2𝑛𝑛 + 1) (41)
𝐷𝐷2 = 4𝑚𝑚2 + (2𝑛𝑛 + 1) = 4𝑚𝑚2 + 2𝑛𝑛 + 1 (42)
Compare Eqs. (14), (37) and (42). 𝐷𝐷2 is in the form of an odd perfect square for a
value of 2𝑛𝑛 = 4𝑚𝑚. Therefore, an integer-valued space diagonal is plausible, as has
been found on deep computer searches, within a set of values consistent with the
definition of a face Euler Brick. [8,9].

Summary
An extraordinary amount of work has been performed on the issue of a possible
perfect Euler brick (finding an example or disproving its existence) since 1719.
While Paul Halcke initiated the problem, Leonhard Euler took up the mantle and
pursued it in earnest. Many thoughtful, knowledgeable and skilled mathematicians
have studied parameterization beginning with Euler in the 18th century. This
author studied the works of numerous others on the related topics of right triangles,
Pythagorean quadruples, parameterizations of Euler Bricks and fabled perfect
Euler Bricks, parallelepipeds, etc. In the quest for a conclusive proof of the non-
existence of a perfect Euler brick the fog lifted and the collective works of all of
these other mathematicians coalesced. The key analysis is a parity analysis of the
entire Euler brick construction. First of all, one should study primitive and not
multiples of primitive bricks or related structures; multiples obfuscate the parity
analysis of such bricks and their related equations. Secondly, while a Pythagorean
quadruple must obey or satisfy (1), an Euler Brick must obey or satisfy (1-5). Sets of
integers such as {1,2,2,3} which satisfy (1) generally will not satisfy (2-5)
simultaneously and do not qualify as examples of perfect Euler bricks despite the

9
presence of a complete set of 4 integer values. The existence of three types of Euler
bricks (i.e., body, edge and face) are all explained in this proof. The existence of a
perfect parallelepiped is explained as well. A perfect parallelepiped has at most one
odd square face diagonal value. The least restrictive equation (1) is all that applies
to a Pythagorean quadruple. The most restrictive equations (2-5) must all be
satisfied simultaneously for a primitive Euler brick or a multiple of a primitive
brick. Parallelepipeds fall in between these two extremes; they generally have only
one odd perfect square face diagonal so an integer valued space diagonal component
is possible for parallelepipeds, while not possible for body Euler bricks. Edge and
face Euler bricks really have a common thread, an irrational edge or face diagonal
reduces the number of odd perfect square face diagonals from two to one and thus
permits the presence of an integer valued space diagonal for such Euler bricks.
No perfect Euler brick exists.

Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the contributions all of who have gone before me in pursuit of this
answer. I have had valuable feedback from Ronald van Luijk. Randall Rathbun
generously supplied computer-generated sets of edge and face cuboid values.

References
[1] Euler, Leonhard, Vollst¨andige Anleitung zur Algebra, Kayserliche Akademie
der Wissenschaften, St. Petersburg, 1771.
[2] R. Spira, The diophantine equation x2 + y2 + z2 = m2, Amer. Math. Monthly Vol.
69 (1962), No. 5, 360–365.

[3] R.D. Carmichael, Diophantine Analysis, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1915.
[4] J.F. Sawyer, C.A. Reiter, Perfect parallelepipeds exist, Math. Comp. 80 (2011),
1037-1040.
[5] M. Kraitchik, On certain Rational Cuboids, Scripta Mathematica, volume 11
(1945).
[6] Ronald van Luijk, Doctoral Thesis title: On perfect cuboids (advisors: F. Beukers
and B. Moonen), Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Utrecht, June 2000.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahU
KEwj7xLn4uZDkAhXjYt8KHY84CFwQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
w.math.leidenuniv.nl%2F~rvl%2Fps%2Fcuboids.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2knKzvWB9Aok
KjJmM9z_Ev.
[7] Euler, Leonhard, On numbers which are the sum of two squares, Originally
published as De numeris, qui sunt aggregata duorum quadratorum, Novi
10
 Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 4 (1758), pp. 3-40. E228 in the
Enestrom index. Translated from the Latin by Paul R. Bialek, Department of
Mathematics, Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois, email:
pbialek@tiu.edu.
[8] Randall L. Rathbun [personal communication].
[9] Ronald van Luijk [personal communication].

grosvenorje@pv-nrt.com

11

View publication stats