Finding the Sum of Series: 1^2+2^2+3^2+4^2+5^2...

  • Thread starter Thread starter shintashi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series Sum
Click For Summary
The sum of the squares of the first n integers is calculated using the formula (1/6)[n(n+1)(2n+1)], which has historical roots dating back to Archimedes. Examples demonstrate that for n=1, the sum is 1; for n=2, it is 5; and for n=3, it totals 14, confirming the formula's accuracy. The discussion also touches on the cubic nature of the polynomial derived from these sums, determined through Lagrange interpolation. A potential error in a referenced book's formula, which incorrectly states n+2 instead of n+1, is highlighted as a source of confusion. Understanding the geometric interpretation of the sum of squares can further clarify the concept.
shintashi
Messages
117
Reaction score
1
I was reading book on numbers and it had an equation for

1^2+2^2+3^2+4^2+5^2...

but I worked out the equation several times with different integers and they didn't appear to work at all. Does anyone know the equation for finding the total sum if the base sum (such as 5 above) is known?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
huh? the sum of the squares of the integers from 1 to n is well known (say to archimedes) to be (1/6)[n(n+1)(2n+1)].

e.g. if n=1 we get 1,

if n = 2 we get (1/6)(2+3+5] = 5 = 1^2 + 2^2.

if n = 3 we get (1`/6)[3(4)(7)] = 14 = 1^2 + 2^2+ 3^2.

if n=4, we get 30 = (1/6)[4(5)9].
...

im not sure i understood your base sum remark, but since this is a cubic formula it is determined by the lagrange interpolation method, by the above results for n=1,2,3,4.

i.e. there is only one cubic polynomial that comes out 1,5,14,30, when we plug in 1,2,3,4.

namely 1[(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)/(1-2)(1-3)(1-4)] + 5[(x-1)(x-3)(x-4)/(2-1)(2-3)(2-4)] + ... you get it...
 
Last edited:
As mathwonk already said, the sum of the squares of the integers from 1 to n is \frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}.

Thats all you want to know, if you want to get confused, read forward :

When n is infinity, the sum is actually zero :D Look up the Riemann zeta function if your interested.
 
Hi shintashi,

write down here what formula is given in your book, maybe
the formula in the book is wrong.

As you indicated in your title "square pyramid", you can indeed
derive the formula for the sum of the square numbers from 1 to n
by considering the problem in a geometric view.

1 + 4 + 9 can be interpreted as a pyramid made up of
square layers:
9-layer at the bottom
4-layer in the middle
1-layer at the top

Have a look at here: http://www.sciface.com/education/data/web/SummeDerQuadrate_images/plt1.png

Look at the section Sum of the first n squares of Natural Numbers S[Q] http://www.mav.vic.edu.au/PSTC/cc/pyramids.htm .

Look at the bottom of the website http://did.mat.uni-bayreuth.de/geonet/beispiele/kugel3/scheib6.html.

As an exercise try to figure out the formula by using the the pyramid picture.
Hint: Start by asking yourself how many times the 1-layer fits into the pyramid.
If you substract the 1-layer from all the other layers, what is left?

You will need Gauss's formula:

\sum_{k=1}^{n} k = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thank you much ^^

mathwonk said:
huh? the sum of the squares of the integers from 1 to n is well known (say to archimedes) to be (1/6)[n(n+1)(2n+1)].

e.g. if n=1 we get 1,

if n = 2 we get (1/6)(2+3+5] = 5 = 1^2 + 2^2.

if n = 3 we get (1`/6)[3(4)(7)] = 14 = 1^2 + 2^2+ 3^2.

if n=4, we get 30 = (1/6)[4(5)9].
...

im not sure i understood your base sum remark, but since this is a cubic formula it is determined by the lagrange interpolation method, by the above results for n=1,2,3,4.

i.e. there is only one cubic polynomial that comes out 1,5,14,30, when we plug in 1,2,3,4.

namely 1[(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)/(1-2)(1-3)(1-4)] + 5[(x-1)(x-3)(x-4)/(2-1)(2-3)(2-4)] + ... you get it...

(1/6)[7(7+1)(14+1)] =

7x8x15 = 140.

(1/6)[n(n+1)(2n+1)].

the book said:
1/6n(n+2)(2n+1)

as you can clearly see, the equation (page 127 of kingdom of infinite number) is flawed, perhaps a typo, but changing n+1 to n+2 screwed up all the results I got from it and was obviously wrong.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
34K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K