MHB Prove 1989/2-1988/3+1987/4-...-2/1989+1/1990=1/996+3/997+5/998+...+1989/1990

  • Thread starter Thread starter anemone
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the equation $$\frac{1989}{2}-\frac{1988}{3}+\frac{1987}{4}-\cdots-\frac{2}{1989}+\frac{1}{1990}=\frac{1}{996}+\frac{3}{997}+\frac{5}{998}+\cdots+\frac{1989}{1990}$$. A suggested approach involves converting the expression to algebraic form by substituting $n=995$, simplifying the equation, and testing it for smaller values of $n$. The method includes moving terms from the right side to the left and combining them with corresponding terms to facilitate proof. Verifying the formula for smaller values of $n$ is recommended to build confidence in its validity. This approach aims to clarify the proof process and reduce complexity.
anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Hi members of the forum,

I have been trying so hard to prove the following:

$$\frac{1989}{2}-\frac{1988}{3}+\frac{1987}{4}-\cdots-\frac{2}{1989}+\frac{1}{1990}=\frac{1}{996}+\frac{3}{997}+\frac{5}{998}+\cdots++\frac{1989}{1990}$$

but to no avail and what I couldn't bear was that my approach gave me a tremendously messy bundle of terms everywhere on the paper...

Could you please at least give me some idea on how to prove it?

Thanks in advance.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
anemone said:
Hi members of the forum,

I have been trying so hard to prove the following:

$$\frac{1989}{2}-\frac{1988}{3}+\frac{1987}{4}-\cdots-\frac{2}{1989}+\frac{1}{1990}=\frac{1}{996}+\frac{3}{997}+\frac{5}{998}+\cdots+\frac{1989}{1990}$$

but to no avail and what I couldn't bear was that my approach gave me a tremendously messy bundle of terms everywhere on the paper...

Could you please at least give me some idea on how to prove it?

Thanks in advance.
I would start by converting this expression from arithmetic to algebra. If you put $n=995$ then the equation becomes $$\frac{2n-1}2 - \frac{2n-2}3 +\frac{2n-3}4 -\ldots - \frac2{2n-1} + \frac1{2n} = \frac1{n+1} + \frac3{n+2} + \frac5{n+3} + \ldots + \frac{2n-1}{2n}.$$ The next thing is to ask whether that formula holds for other values of $n$. I checked that it works for $n=2$ and $n=3$, which makes it seem likely to hold in general.

So, how to prove it? Now that you have got rid of all those numbers, it ought to be easier to see what to do next. Take each term on the right side of the formula over to the left (changing the sign, of course) and combine it with the term having the same denominator on the left side. There is still some way to go, but I think you should be able to verify the formula that way. If in doubt, go back to smaller values of $n$, such as $n=4$, and check what happens there.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top