Verifying Geometric Series Formula: \sum\limits_{k = 0}^N {r^k }

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the verification of the geometric series formula, specifically the expression \(\sum\limits_{k = 0}^N {r^k } = \frac{{1 - r^{N + 1} }}{{1 - r}}\). Participants are exploring related concepts in series, particularly the definition of partial sums and the implications of differentiating power series.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster seeks verification of the geometric series formula and expresses uncertainty about conventions regarding the nth partial sum of a series. They also inquire about the necessity of index shifts when differentiating power series.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided affirmations and clarifications regarding the geometric series and the differentiation of power series. The conversation includes exploration of conventions and technicalities related to series summation and differentiation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are discussing conventions for summation indices and the implications of differentiating series within their interval of convergence. There is an acknowledgment of potential confusion arising from different starting points in summation.

Benny
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
This has been bothering me for a while. I've seen many different versions of this and I'd just like to get the following cleared up. Is the following true?

[tex] \sum\limits_{k = 0}^N {r^k } = \frac{{1 - r^{N + 1} }}{{1 - r}}[/tex]

There are other related things I am slightly worried about but I can't remember what they are at the moment so I might post them later. In the mean time, any verification of the above formula that I have quoted would be good thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is correct :smile:
 
Ok thanks TD. I have another question and I realize that it usually depends on the convention adopted by the particular lecturer but other input shouldn't hurt. When we refer the the nth partial sum of a series. Do we take n >= 1? I mean with a series like [tex]\sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty {a_n }[/tex] it makes sense to take n>=1 but it seems to get awkward when the summation is started at zero instead.

Anyway suppose that when we refer to the nth partial sum of a series we take n>=1 and that the Nth partial sum of the series I stated above is [tex]s_N = 1 + \frac{1}{{5^N }}[/tex]. Then is the Nth partial sum of the series [tex]\sum\limits_{n = 2}^\infty {a_n }[/tex] (I have replaced 1 by 2 as the starting index) [tex]s_N = \left( {1 + \frac{1}{{5^N }}} \right) + a_{N + 1}[/tex]. I just want to make sure of these things, I always screw up on relatively easy questions due to little technicalities.

Just one more question. If I recall correctly then: [tex]f\left( x \right) = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {c_n \left( {x - a} \right)^n } \to f'\left( x \right) = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^\infty {c_n n\left( {x - a} \right)^{n - 1} }[/tex]

So in differentiating the series above, an index shift was required. Ok but what about the following series?
[tex] f\left( x \right) = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {\frac{{\left( { - 1} \right)^n x^{2n + 1} }}{{\left( {2n + 1} \right)!}}} \to f'\left( x \right) = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^\infty {\frac{{\left( { - 1} \right)^n x^{2n} }}{{\left( {2n} \right)!}}} [/tex]

I find that only the first series that I quoted requires an index shift when I differentiate whereas other ones that I've encountered do not. Is there a reason for this?(I am aware of the first term in the first series being a constant and hence disappearing upon differentiation) Is it usually true that if you have a series for a function and you differentiate it inside the interval of convergence then no index shifts are required? Any help would be great.
 
Last edited:
An index change is never necessary; always optional. When differentiating power series, it is customary to change the index from 0 to 1 because the oth term is 0 anyway.
 
Thanks quasar, I see what you mean.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K