MHB Summation Challenge: Evaluate $\sum_{k=1}^{2014}\frac{1}{1-x_k}$

anemone
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
115
Let $x_1,\,x_2,\,\cdots,\,x_{2014}$ be the roots of the equation $x^{2014}+x^{2013}+\cdots+x+1=0$. Evaluate $\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^{2014} \dfrac{1}{1-x_k}$.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Since the geometric series equals zero, alle the $2014$ roots, $x_k$, must obey the equation: $\frac{1-x_k^{2015}}{1-x_k} = 0 \;\;\;\;(1)$.

There is no real solution to the equation, so we are looking for complex solutions: $x_k = r_k \cdot e^{i \theta_k}$.

But, from the condition: $x_k^{2015} = 1$, we must require: $|x_k| = 1$ which implies: $r_k = 1$ for all $k$.

Thus all the roots have the form: $x_k = e^{i \theta_k}$, and the $\theta_k$-angles are readily found:

\[\left ( e^{i \theta_k } \right )^{2015} = 1 \Rightarrow \cos (2015 \; \theta_k)+i \sin (2015 \; \theta_k) = 1 \Rightarrow 2015 \; \theta_k = k\; 2\pi \Rightarrow \theta_k = \frac{2\pi}{2015}k,\;\;\; k = 1,2, ... , 2014.\]

Note, that the cases $k = 0$ and $k = 2015$ are not allowed, because of the singularity in $(1)$.

Rewriting the $k$th term in the sum:

\[\frac{1}{1-x_k}= \frac{1}{1-e^{i\theta_k}} = \frac{1-e^{i\theta_k}}{2-(e^{i\theta_k}+e^{-i\theta_k})}= \frac{1-\cos \theta_k - i \sin \theta_k}{2(1-\cos \theta_k)} = \frac{1}{2}\left ( 1- i\frac{\sin \theta_k}{1-\cos \theta_k} \right ) = \frac{1}{2}\left ( 1-i \cot\left ( \frac{\theta_k}{2} \right ) \right )\]

Finally, the sum can be evaluated:

\[\sum_{k=1}^{2014} \frac{1}{2}\left ( 1-i \cot\left ( \frac{\theta_k}{2} \right ) \right ) = 1007 - \frac{i}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{2014}\cot\left ( \frac{\pi}{2015}k \right )\]

The imaginary part is a telescoping sum:

\[\sum_{k=1}^{2014}\cot\left ( \frac{\pi}{2015}k \right ) = \sum_{k=1}^{1007}\left ( \cot\left ( \frac{\pi}{2015}k \right ) + \cot\left ( \frac{\pi}{2015} (2015-k) \right ) \right ) = \sum_{k=1}^{1007}\left ( \cot\left ( \frac{\pi}{2015}k \right ) + \cot\left (- \frac{\pi}{2015}k \right ) \right ) = 0\]

Thus we end up with the answer: \[\sum_{k=1}^{2014}\frac{1}{1-x_k} = 1007.\]
 
The numbers $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{2014}$, together with $1$, are the solutions of $x^{2015}-1=0$.

Replacing $x$ by $1-x$, the numbers $1-x_1,1-x_2\ldots,1-x_{2014}$, together with $0$, are the solutions of $(1-x)^{2015}-1=0$.

Replacing $x$ in that equation by $\dfrac1x$, the numbers $\dfrac1{1-x_1},\dfrac1{1-x_2}\ldots,\dfrac1{1-x_{2014}}$, are the solutions of $\left(1-\dfrac1x\right)^{2015}-1=0$, or $(x-1)^{2015} - x^{2015} = 0$. (The extra solution from the previous equations has now disappeared because the coefficient of $x^{2015}$ in that last equation is zero, so in fact there are only 2014 solutions.)

Using the binomial expansion of $(x-1)^{2015}$, that last equation becomes $$-{2015\choose1}x^{2014} + {2015\choose2}x^{2013} - \ldots = 0.$$ The sum of the roots is given by Vieta's formula as $\dfrac{2015\choose2}{2015\choose1} = \frac12(2014) = 1007.$
 
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