Can you prove the summation 13+23+33+...+n3=(1+2+...n)2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Summation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the summation formula 1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3 + ... + n^3 = (1 + 2 + ... + n)^2 for nonzero whole numbers n. Participants express a desire for an analytical proof, likely through mathematical induction, as they have only derived it numerically. References to Faulhaber's formula and Nicomachus's theorem are made, indicating interest in established mathematical principles related to the problem. One contributor suggests a method involving telescoping series and known closed forms for lower powers to derive the case for p=3. The conversation highlights the challenge of finding a clear derivation while acknowledging existing mathematical theories.
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
Given nonzero whole numbers n, prove

13+23+33+...+n3=(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.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Loren Booda said:
Given nonzero whole numbers n, prove

13+23+33+...+n3=(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
 
Thanks, ice109. I'm surprised that I've never heard of Faulhaber before. I guess Bernoulli got all the acclaim.

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
If one knows the closed forms for all cases p< n, then the closed form for p=n can be derived as such:

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

(x+1)^{n+1} - x^{n+1} = (^{n+1}C_1)x^n + (^{n+1}C_2)x^{n-1} ...+1.

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.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top