How is this Statistics Summation Simplified?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on simplifying a mathematical equation derived from the canonical partition function. The original summation involves terms with factorials and an exponential function, which is transformed into a more manageable form. Participants clarify that the simplification leads to the expression exp(Ma)(1+exp(-2a))^M, using properties of exponential functions and binomial coefficients. Further, the transformation to (2cosh(a))^M is explained through the definition of hyperbolic functions. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the mathematical techniques needed to navigate these simplifications effectively.
olechka722
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
This equation comes out of deriving the canonical partition function for some system. However, the question is more math based. I am having trouble understanding the simplification that was performed in the text:

∑ from N=0 to M of: (M!exp((M-2N)a))/(N!(M-N)!) supposedly becomes

exp(Ma)(1+exp(-2a))^M... I tried to look at the first few terms and see how I can simplify this, and no dice... Anyone have any ideas? a is just a constant.

Also, the next step is that the above becomes (2cosh(a))^M Which is great, except, huh? I'm more of a scientist than a math person, so I apologize if I am missing something elementary.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that

<br /> \sum_{n=0}^m \frac{m!}{n!(m-n)!} 1^{(m-n)} b^n = (1 + b)^m<br />

In your sum
<br /> \exp\left((M-2N)a\right) = \exp\left(Ma\right) \cdot \left(\exp(-2a)\right)^N<br />

so your sum is

<br /> \sum_{N=0}^M {\frac{M!}{N!(M-N)!} \exp\left((M-2N)a\right)} <br /> = e^{Ma} \sum_{N=0}^M {\frac{M!}{N!(M-N)!} \left(e^{-2a}\right)^N <br /> = e^{Ma} \left(1 + e^{-2a}\right)^M<br />

For the second one - look at the definition of the hyperbolic function as exponentials, and rearrange terms.
 
Thanks so much! That really clears things up.
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
33
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top