Does the series k a^k have a name?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zeroseven
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The series \(\sum^{∞}_{k=0} k a^{k}\) does not have a specific name, unlike the geometric series \(\sum^{∞}_{k=0} a^{k}\). The discussion highlights that the formula for this series can be derived by differentiating the geometric series formula, which is a mathematically rigorous approach as long as both limits exist. The more general series \(\sum^{∞}_{k=0} k^{n} a^{k}\) follows similar principles, although it lacks a designated name as well.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of series convergence and divergence
  • Familiarity with geometric series and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of calculus, particularly differentiation
  • Concept of power series and their applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of power series and their convergence criteria
  • Learn about the differentiation of series and its implications
  • Explore advanced series such as Taylor and Maclaurin series
  • Investigate the applications of series in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus, and anyone interested in series and their applications in mathematical analysis.

zeroseven
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi, a naive question here, but I was wondering if the series

\sum^{∞}_{k=0} k a^{k}

has a particular name? As in 'geometric series' for \sum^{∞}_{k=0} a^{k} ?

And what about the more general \sum^{∞}_{k=0} k^{n} a^{k} ?As a related question, you seem to be able to get the formula for the sum by differentiating the formula for the geometric series. Is this a correct and mathematically rigorous way to do it?

Cheers,
zeroseven
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi zeroseven! :smile:

no, no names so far as i know
zeroseven said:
As a related question, you seem to be able to get the formula for the sum by differentiating the formula for the geometric series. Is this a correct and mathematically rigorous way to do it?

yes, so long as both limits exist, d/dx ∑ fn(x) = ∑ d/dx fn(x) is rigorous

(can you prove it? :wink:)
 
Thanks tiny-tim!
I thought that might be the case. So many other series seem to have been named that I just thought it was odd!

No, I can't prove the identity you gave in your post... yet! But I will try.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K