Understanding Gregory's Formula: A Mathematical Challenge

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gunni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving Gregory's formula, which relates to the series representation of π. Participants explore various mathematical approaches, including summation, integration, and series expansions, while expressing their challenges and insights related to the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a series representation of π and seeks guidance on whether their approach to proving Gregory's formula is valid.
  • Another participant suggests modifying the sum to convert it into a power series, though this is met with skepticism regarding the ratios of the terms.
  • A participant proposes considering the problem as a function and integrating it, expressing difficulty with the complexity of the integration and the emergence of imaginary numbers.
  • Discussion of Taylor and McLaurin series arises, with a participant providing the series expansion for arctan(x) as a potential connection to the problem.
  • A later reply introduces a Fourier expansion related to the function f(x) = x, suggesting a method to derive π through substitution.
  • Another participant reflects on their learning journey, mentioning their exposure to concepts like the Taylor series and Fourier functions, which they had not encountered before.
  • One participant offers a method to derive the power series for arctan(x) through integration of its derivative, indicating a systematic approach to the problem.
  • There is a light debate on the simplicity of the Fourier expansion compared to the arctan approach, with differing opinions on which method is more straightforward.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various methods and approaches to the problem, but no consensus is reached on a single solution or method. Multiple competing views remain regarding the best way to prove Gregory's formula.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention limitations in their mathematical background, such as recent completion of calculus courses and upcoming study of imaginary numbers, which may affect their understanding and approach to the problem.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students studying calculus, series expansions, and Fourier analysis, as well as those looking to deepen their understanding of mathematical proofs related to π.

Gunni
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I was talking to a friend of mine that's studying math at the university here and he gave me this problem to solve: Prove Gregory's formula. I'm going nuts. I've broken it down into a single sum like this:

[tex]\frac{\pi}{4} = 1-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7} ... = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{(1+2n)(-1)^n}[/tex]

Now, from there I've tried integrating it with the upper limits at infinity and lower at 0, tried connecting it to a circle with a radius of 1/2 and pretty much everything I can think of. I'm not really asking for a complete proof of the formula as I'd like to try to do it myself, just a little help. Am I doing the totally wrong thing or would this approach work out if I did something different?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you make a modification to the sum to turn it into a power series?
 
I don't think so, the ratios between the numbers are never constant, I only know how to calculate infinite power series of the form:

[tex]S_n = \frac{a_1}{1-k}[/tex]
k is the ratio between [tex]a_n[/tex] and [tex]a_{n-1}[/tex]
Where the series only converges if -1 < k < 1.

I'm beginning to think that the solution might be to think of it as a function and calculate the integral from zero to infinity. I've been trying that and I can't get around integrating the function, it's slightly more complex than what I've been doing so far (I just finished the course on how to integrate). I think that might be it since pi is related to the area of a circle, so it might work if I calculate the area of the function. Something like this:

[tex]\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(1+2n)(-1)^n} dn[/tex]

I hit a brick wall in relation to that earlier when I tried to calculate a smoother graph than the one I'd done before, with my function I get an imaginary number whenever n isn't a whole number.

Right now might be a good time to mention that I start learning about imaginary numbers next semester and that I just finished the starter courses on calculus. This is a problem I got from a friend, it's from the final exam on mathematical analysis at the University of Iceland, I'm doing my final year in the equivalent of high school here.
 
Do you know about Taylor / McLaurin series?
 
arctan(x)=x-x3/3+x5/5-x7/7+...

Fill in the details.
 
On the interval [tex](-\pi,\pi][/tex] the function

[tex]f(x)=x[/tex]

has the Fourier-expansion

[tex]x=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \left(-\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{(-1)^ni}{n}e^{-inx}+\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{(-1)^ni}{n}e^{inx}\right)[/tex]

[tex]=2\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k}\sin(kx)[/tex]

Just substitute [tex]x=\pi/2[/tex] to find

[tex]\pi=4\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{(-1)^{k}}{2k+1}=4\left(1-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{7}+\ldots\right)[/tex]
 
Originally posted by mathman
arctan(x)=x-x3/3+x5/5-x7/7+...

Fill in the details.
I caved in last night and just asked him how it's done. The proof he had was based around making another function, integrating that, inserting t so that it looked somewhat like the equation I have above and inserting x=1 to attain arcan(1) = pi/4. Something I would never have thought of since I'd never seen Leibinz's arctan formula, the Taylor / McLaurin series or Fourier functions before. Oh, well, that's something to do during the christmas vacation, then.

Anyway, thanks everybody.
 
Last edited:
To get the power series for arctan(x), use the derivative 1/(1+x2). Expand the latter into a power series (binomial) and get
1/(1+x2)=1-x2+x4-x6...
Term by term integration gives you the desired result (using arctan(0)=0 for the constant of integration).
 
I feel think that the Fourier-expansion that I showed earlier is much simpler than the arctan argument. :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K