Problem 3
The contradiction rules out any minimal counterexample beyond the settled triangle case, so induction closes the gap up to the original polygon.
The contradiction of the previous step shows no minimal counterexample with vertices beyond the triangle case can exist: either a diagonal itself has dividing its squared length (in which case induct on the two smaller cyclic sub-polygons it creates, each with strictly fewer vertices, both already known to satisfy the divisibility, and for the whole polygon is the sum of for the two pieces), or no such diagonal exists and the valuation argument of the previous step gives a contradiction. By strong induction starting from the triangle base case (Step 1), every convex cyclic lattice polygon with all squared side lengths divisible by has . Since (odd) is a product of such prime powers and the corresponding divisibility of by each prime power combines (as is a single fixed integer) into divisibility by their product , we conclude .