B How Do Discrete Derivatives and Integrals Work in Calculus?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter ForceBoy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Discrete
ForceBoy
Messages
47
Reaction score
6
Hello all. I've come across some math which consists of just applying the basic ideas of calculus (derivatives and integrals) onto discrete functions. (The link: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/DCalc.pdf )

The discrete derivative with respect to n is defined as ## \Delta_n f(n) = f(n+1) - f(n) ## in the document. The discrete integral is defined as ##\sum_{n: a \rightarrow b} f(n) = f(a)+f(a+1)+ ...+f(b-1) ##.

It had been a few months since I had read this article so when I started exploring this math, I defined the discrete integral as the regular sum, from a to b ( ##\sum_{n= a}^{b} f(n) = f(a)+f(a+1)+ ...+f(b) ## ). For this reason, I found it best to define the discrete integral as ## \Delta_n f(n) = f(n) - f(n-1) ##
The Fundamental Theorem:

## \Delta_n F(n) = f(n) \leftrightarrow \sum_{n=a}^{b} f(n) = F(b)-F(a-1) ##
I did a few problems and everything worked out well when I didn't make any errors. However, just now I was trying to prove

##\sum_{n} a^{n} = \frac{a^{n+1}-1}{a-1}##

but couldn't seem to. My work was as follows:

##\sum_{n} a^{n} ##

## u = a^{n} ##

##\Delta_u = (a^{n}-a^{n-1})*\Delta_n##

## \Delta_u = a^{n-1}(a-1) * \Delta_n ##

## \frac{\Delta_u*a^{1-n}}{a-1} = \Delta_n ##

## \frac{a}{a^{n}(a-1)}*\Delta_u = \Delta_n ##

So I then make the substitutions

##\sum_{u} u*\frac{a}{a^{n}(a-1)} ##

##\sum_{u} u*\frac{a}{u(a-1)} ##

##\sum_{u} \frac{a}{(a-1)} ##

I can then bring out that fraction

##\frac{a}{(a-1)} \sum_{u} 1 ##

##***## ##\sum_{k} 1 = k ## ## ***##

##\frac{a}{(a-1)} u ##

##\frac{a}{(a-1)} a^{n} ##

And in the end:

##\frac{a^{k+1}}{a-1} ##

so

##\sum_{n} a^{n} = \frac{a^{k+1}}{a-1} ##

but

##\frac{a^{k+1}}{a-1} \not= \frac{a^{n+1}-1}{a-1}##

Somewhere I've made a mistake. If someone could either point it out for me or guide me to it, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, if my reasoning in someplace isn't clear, please tell me and I'll explain.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your sum index seems to run from 0 to n, or at least that would result in ##\sum_{n} a^{n} = \frac{a^{k+1}}{a-1}##. The problem could be in one of two places, 1) your new definition of the discrete integral, or 2) the fact that you have not explicitly defined the limits of your sum.
 
The equation I was solving was meant to be analogous to solving an indeterminate integral. For this reason I never really established my limits. Since you brought this to my attention I decided to evaluate the sum from 0 to n. I then used the equation I had gotten and the fundamental theorem:

## \sum_{k=0}^{n} a^{k} = \frac{a^{n+1}}{a-1} - \frac{a^{(0-1)+1}}{a-1} = \frac{a^{n+1} -1}{a-1} ##

So I got what I wanted. Thank you for your time. I now see where the error was. Have a good day!
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top