- #1

- 3,106

- 4

1

^{3}+2

^{3}+3

^{3}+...+n

^{3}=(1+2+...n)

^{2}

I figured this out numerically, but lack the skills to solve it analytically (no doubt by induction) and could not find it in my table of summations. I'm too old for this to be homework.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Loren Booda
- Start date

- #1

- 3,106

- 4

1

I figured this out numerically, but lack the skills to solve it analytically (no doubt by induction) and could not find it in my table of summations. I'm too old for this to be homework.

- #2

- 1,710

- 5

1^{3}+2^{3}+3^{3}+...+n^{3}=(1+2+...n)^{2}

I figured this out numerically, but lack the skills to solve it analytically (no doubt by induction) and could not find it in my table of summations. I'm too old for this to be homework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulhaber's_formula

look at the case p=3

- #3

- #4

- 3,106

- 4

I still don't see a derivation of my finding, however. I thought in the case I presented that p=3 on one side of the equation, and p=2 on the other, as opposed to p=3 for both sides of Faulhaber's formula.

K.J.Healey seems to have what I seek, including a proof of Nicomachus's theorem.

- #5

- 1,710

- 5

i like that one better

what the hell? every n^3 is the sum of n consecutive odd numbers? wheatstone's proof seems to imply that

what the hell? every n^3 is the sum of n consecutive odd numbers? wheatstone's proof seems to imply that

Last edited:

- #6

Gib Z

Homework Helper

- 3,346

- 6

Set up a table into two columns, LHS and RHS of the following equation;

[tex](x+1)^{n+1} - x^{n+1} = (^{n+1}C_1)x^n + (^{n+1}C_2)x^{n-1} ...+1 [/tex].

Sum this expression for k=1, 2,3,4....m. The LHS is a telescoping series. The RHS is the sum of cases p=0, 1, 2, 3... n. Replace every series with its known closed form. Then isolate the p=n case onto one side of the equation, and simplify.

Since we only need this for up to p=3, it shouldn't be very hard.

Share: