Elegant Proof of some summations

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vsage
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding elegant proofs for summation formulas, particularly for sums of squares, cubes, and higher powers from 1 to n. Participants explore various methods of proof, including induction and geometric interpretations, while expressing preferences for elegance in mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire for an elegant proof of the summation formula for squares, indicating dissatisfaction with existing proofs.
  • Another participant mentions proof by induction as a common method, questioning its elegance.
  • A different participant shares a personal discovery of a proof involving geometric reasoning for the sum of cubes.
  • One participant presents a method involving the difference of cubes to derive the sum of squares, suggesting that it leads to the desired result.
  • Another participant notes that the sum of the first n r'th powers is a polynomial of degree r+1, but finds this approach lacking elegance.
  • A participant discusses a recursive method for finding summation formulas, linking it to the degree of the polynomial and integration concepts.
  • One participant reflects on the difficulty of extending proofs beyond small values of n without algebraic methods.
  • A participant mentions a connection between summation formulas and integrals, hinting at a logical basis for this relationship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on what constitutes an elegant proof, with no consensus on a preferred method. Multiple approaches and models are discussed, indicating a variety of perspectives on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific methods and personal experiences with proofs, but there is a lack of clarity on the assumptions and definitions involved in their arguments. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the elegance and effectiveness of various proof techniques.

vsage
"Elegant" Proof of some summations

Ever since I was in the 8th grade sigma notation has been one of my favorite things to study and, more specifically, the things you can sum together. The proof was summing the numbers 1 to n is very simple and everyone knows the story about Gauss and that particular summation but I haven't seen a proof I like for sums of squares, cubics and quartics 1 to n (or any beyond that). I came up with the equations when I was a lot younger but I had no concept of a proof and I'm really stumped so, to get the ball rolling, can anyone point me to an "elegant" proof of the summation formula for squares 1^2 to n^2 or at least put me on the right wavelength of thought? The book I have gives a really dumb one that I don't like at all.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
There's always a proof by Induction, though I'm not sure many people would be willing to call that elegant.
 
Gokul43201 said:
There's always a proof by Induction, though I'm not sure many people would be willing to call that elegant.

What's not elegant about toppling dominoes? :-p
 
vsage, I was in Grade 8 when I 'discovered' a proof that 13 + 23 + 33 ... + n3 = (1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n)2.

My proof involved drawing and was not, in anyway, algebraic. Maybe you would like to give this proof a try. :smile:
 
Last edited:
vsage,

Your sum is over, say, j from 1 to n of [itex]j^2[/itex]. Observe that
[tex]\left( j+1 \right)^3 - j^3 = 3j^2 + 3 j + 1[/tex]
Now sum over j on both sides. When you sum the left side only [itex]\left(n+1\right)^3 -1[/itex] remains (everything else cancels!). The first term on the right is 3 times the desired sum and the remaining sums on the right side are elementary. You can easily obtain the desired result from there.
 
In general the sum of the first n r'th powers is a polynomial in n of degree r+1, and can in theory be found, but it isn't very elegant at all.
 
Tide's argument generalizes to a recursive way to find all such formulas.

Matt's remark that the formulas have degree r+1 also gives a way to find them by writing down a general equation of thsatd egree and trying r+2 cases, then solving for the coefficients.

It is at least easy to prove by inductiion that the formula not only has degree r+1 but satrts out n^(r+1)/(r+1), which is all you need to integrate all powers of x, by taking limits of riemann sums.
 
recon said:
Maybe you would like to give this proof a try. :smile:
You really constructed the square whose edge's length is the sum, from all the smaller cubes, is that what you are talking about ? :smile:
 
still i find it a little difficult to see how you got much past n=3 or 4 without using some algebra.
 
  • #10
The recursive method was the way listed in the book. Probably should have mentioned that. I also noticed way back when that the formula of the sum of j^(p+1) from 1 to n was the integral of j^p from 1 to n but differing by something to the effect of p! / (p-2)! (not exactly). Is there a simple way to give a logical basis for this?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K