Simplify a summation and its product

kleyton
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I have been working on representing the powers of numbers as a summation.

This is as far as I have gotten.

Power: 2
m^2 = \sum_{n=1}^m \left(2n -1\right)

Power: 3
m^3 = \sum_{n=1}^m \left(3n^2 -3n +1\right)

Power: 4
m^4 = \sum_{n=2}^m \left[6*(4n-6) * \left(\sum_{a=1}^{m-n+1} a\right)\right] + m^2

I wanted to know if it is possible to simplify the equation for the 4th and 3rd power of a number so that the highest power in the equation in 1.

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey kleyton and welcome to the forums.

What kind of form are you looking to do? In your post you say you want to get your expressions down to linear functions of n like you did with your m^2 so I'll assume that this is your goal for all powers of m.

One way that might help you is to view things in a geometric way. We know that m^2 is basically a square full of individual dots and that you can you visualize the sum by seeing how each term of your summation is actually two sides that expand.

I'll do an example with finding m^2 where m = 3.

So I've got the following representation of 9 dots (they are x's in this post):

x x x
x x x
x x x

Here is each application of the sum

x ...|...x|...x
...|..x..x|...x
...|...|..x..x..x

[EDIT: I put dots to separate them because the formatting got screwed up]

The above shows the delta of each sum represented geometrically.

What I am trying to do is to get you to use that geometric idea for all of the other powers so that you can extend it to higher powers (even beyond 4).

There are probably other deltas that you can use, but I think this is a good one to start off with if you don't have anything else to go with.
 
Last edited:
chiro said:
In your post you say you want to get your expressions down to linear functions of n like you did with your m^2 so I'll assume that this is your goal for all powers of m.
This is exactly what I was intending.

Your geometric method does seem interesting, but I do not quite seem to understand it.

attachment.php?attachmentid=43611&stc=1&d=1328611537.jpg


The above is what you had tried to show in your post for 3^2. Could you explain what you meant by "delta". The image seem to show 1+3+5=9. That is what the summation does, but the arrangement is what I stuck at.
 

Attachments

  • screenshot.1.jpg
    screenshot.1.jpg
    5.7 KB · Views: 431
Hey kleyton.

What I meant by delta is the change with every summation term. So basically the first one has one 'x' corresponding to the term n=1, and then we have 3 'x's for n=2 and 5 'x's for n = 3 for m = 3.

Basically where I was going with this was to get to you to see how you can do this for say when you have cubic where you have a cube and so instead of having two lines you have three 'edges' as your n term increases. For a quartic (4th power) then you will have four 'cubes'.

The geometry is meant to help you think about it visually and then use this hint to go to higher powers in terms of algebra (i.e. the formula vs the geometric visual approach).
 
kleyton,

Are you familiar with the mathematics called "The Calculus Of Finite Differences"?
 
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...
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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top