I Conflicting Conventions for Bernoulli Numbers?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differing conventions for Bernoulli numbers as outlined in the Wikipedia article. It highlights that the two conventions differ only at m=1, with the implication that for m>1, the expressions are equivalent despite additional terms in one expression. Participants clarify that the cancellation of terms is indeed valid due to the properties of binomial coefficients following Pascal's triangle. This understanding reassures that the perceived complexity is not a misinterpretation. The conversation concludes with confirmation of the mathematical principles involved.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
TL;DR Summary
In the Wiki article on Bernoulli numbers, it gives two expressions that, if I understand correctly, are supposed to be equal except at one point. But I am not sure I understand it correctly
In the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_number on Bernoulli’s numbers, it explains that there are two conventions which differ only at m=1. Then it says…

Bernoulli1.PNG


Under “explicit definitions”, it gives, for m>1

Bernoulli2.PNG


So, it seems pretty straightforward that they are saying that (except for m=1) these two expressions are equal, but that all the extra terms in the second expression (+) not included in the first one (-) would cancel out seems so incredible that I think I might be misinterpreting something. Am I?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The expansion of ##(v+1)^m## follows Pascal's triangle, hence binomial coefficients, so yes, the terms can cancel out.
 
Thanks, DrClaude
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top