Moneer81
- 158
- 2
Hello,
I was trying to take the derivative of the following summation function:
f(\varepsilon)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty e^ \frac {-n\varepsilon} {kT}
so since the derivative of an exponential function that is raised to a power and that power is function will just be the function itself times the derivative of the power, I figured that the answer would be"
\frac {df}{d\varepsilon} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty (\frac{-n}{kT}) . e^ \frac {-n\varepsilon}{kT}
and then of course we can take the constants outside the summation
but to my surprise, the book did it this way:
\frac {df}{d\varepsilon} = \sum_{n=1}^\infty (\frac{n}{kT}) . e^ \frac {-n\varepsilon}{kT}
so my question is how did the lower limit change from n=0 to n=1 and where did the minus sign (-n/kT) go? do these two have something to do with each other?
thanks a lot
I was trying to take the derivative of the following summation function:
f(\varepsilon)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty e^ \frac {-n\varepsilon} {kT}
so since the derivative of an exponential function that is raised to a power and that power is function will just be the function itself times the derivative of the power, I figured that the answer would be"
\frac {df}{d\varepsilon} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty (\frac{-n}{kT}) . e^ \frac {-n\varepsilon}{kT}
and then of course we can take the constants outside the summation
but to my surprise, the book did it this way:
\frac {df}{d\varepsilon} = \sum_{n=1}^\infty (\frac{n}{kT}) . e^ \frac {-n\varepsilon}{kT}
so my question is how did the lower limit change from n=0 to n=1 and where did the minus sign (-n/kT) go? do these two have something to do with each other?
thanks a lot
Last edited: