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.
 
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...
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 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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