Sequences-changing differences

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Taylor_1989
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the formula for the nth term of a sequence with changing differences, specifically in the context of quadratic sequences. Participants explore the derivation of the formula, its relation to arithmetic and geometric progressions, and the concept of finite differences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks the derivation of the formula for changing differences, expressing confusion about its components and suggesting a connection to calculus.
  • Another participant questions the term "changing difference" and explains the first and second difference operators, introducing the concept of the calculus of finite differences.
  • A participant shares a link to a GCSE site that provides the formula but lacks detailed explanations.
  • Another participant suggests that the formula represents the general term for a quadratic sequence and proposes solving a quadratic sequence algebraically to fit this form.
  • One participant illustrates how to represent a specific sequence as a second-degree polynomial using finite differences, providing a worked example with equations.
  • A later reply mentions that using forward differences can lead to the original formula and suggests creating a table for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the formula and its derivation. There is no consensus on the exact nature of the formula or its derivation process, with multiple viewpoints and methods discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that understanding the formula may require knowledge of calculus, while others argue that the calculus of finite differences can be understood without it. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions and applications of the terms used in the discussion.

Taylor_1989
Messages
400
Reaction score
14
recently, I have been learning, arthimitic progression and series and also geometric progression and series. When searching the internet for extra study material I came across a formula for changing difference: nth term: [itex]a + (n - 1)d + ½(n - 1)(n - 2)c[/itex]. I would really like to know how this formula was derived can't find the proof on the internet, just the formula. I have even tried myself have no luck. I can see the first part [itex]a+(n-1)d[/itex] as AP but after that a bit of confusion I have a felling it has to do with a quadratic only because, the example the formula has been applied to is a quadratic sequence.

I did read on purple maths, that to understand the real method on solving a quadratic sequence, you have to understand calculus to a certain extent, unfortunally I have only just started reading calculus so I lack allot of knowledge in that specific area, which makes me think the formula was derived from a calculus equation; correct or not ?

I would really appreciate any insight into this formula, for example shown how it was derived, what the formula is called and if there is any text or web sites that I can be pointed to understand this more.

Thanks in advanced for any input; much appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Taylor_1989 said:
recently, I have been learning, arthimitic progression and series and also geometric progression and series. When searching the internet for extra study material I came across a formula for changing difference: nth term: [itex]a + (n - 1)d + ½(n - 1)(n - 2)c[/itex].

Give a link or explain what the formula represents. (It is anywhere in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_progression ?) The phrase "changing difference" isn't familiar.

if [itex]x[n][/itex] is a sequence, the "first difference" operator is usually defined as
[itex]\triangle x[n] = x[n+1] - x[n][/itex]
The "second difference" is
[itex]\triangle^2 x[n] = \triangle (\triangle x[n]) = \triangle ( x[n+1] - x[n] ) = x[n+2] - x[n+1] - (x[n+1] - x[n]) = x[n+2] - 2 x[n+1] + x[n][/itex]

In a similar manner, one may define the "nth difference" operator.

The mathematics of difference operators and finite summations is called "the calculus of finite differences" and you can understand most of it without knowing calculus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference
 
Thanks for coming back to me, I found it on an old gcse site I used, unfortunately they only give the formula, I will link the website below, to see if anyone can get the head around the formula.



http://www.gcsemathstutor.com/sequences.php
 
I might have just found something, it tells me the formula I have given is the general term for a quadratic, so I assume if I write a quadratic sequence out a, try solve algerbraiclly; I should be able to put into this form?

Here is the link to the website were I found the info:http://lgfl.skoool.co.uk/examcentre.aspx?id=636
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can represent any AP of the nth order as a nth degree polynomial, which is what Mr. Tashi is telling you more or less, you can see this via the method of finite difference.

Let's take some sequence. Let's use one that website use.

3, 8, 15, 24, 35

Given that this can be written as a quadratic polynomial, we say that this sequence is equal to some 2nd degree polynomial.* Thus f_n = an^2 + bn + c.

f(1) = a + b + c = 3
f(2) = 4a+2b + c = 8
f(3) = 9a + 3b + c = 15

We can solve these system of equations. We find that a = 1 , b = 2 and c = 0.

f_n = n^2 + 2n. So let's see if this works. f(4) = 24, which is indeed our 4th term in the sequence. You can use this method to solve for different arthimetic progressions of different order. Hope this provides some insight.

*In case you're wondering how I know it's a 2nd degree polynomial. It's simple. It takes two difference for the change to be constant. However many times it takes for the difference to be constant, that is the degree of polynomial you'll need to represent a certain sequence.
 
Also, I'm not ignoring your formula, if you were to perform this in general terms using 'foward difference' you'll actually end up with your formula. It helps to make a table if you decide to do it.
 
Thanks for the response, it dose give me a better insight now. Once again thanks for the responses.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K